.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
youreavinalaff
-
Posts
4,999 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Events
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Gallery
Blogs
Everything posted by youreavinalaff
-
I see you as the only person who doesn't agree. That speaks volumes.
-
I've told you. It's not my version. It's the correct version according to people that understand the differences. You are not one of those people. You just carry on misunderstanding and looking foolish. At least it gives people something to laugh at.
-
You've mixed the two groups together. There lies your fundamental error.
-
You can interpret, assume or suppose all you like. The point it you said transvestite, better know as cross dressing, and transgender are the same. Clearly they are not, hence the two different words and two different meanings. You'll be throwing in transexual as the same, next. "The circle"? And you accuse others of jibberish. 😅😅😅
-
If you mean those circles where people accept facts as apposed to one's own incorrect assumptions, you are correct.
-
They are not my fundamentals. You seem to think I'm the only one who knows transvestite, more commonly known as cross dresser, and transgender are different. Well, it's not just me. It's common knowledge.
-
No need to be an expert. That's why I said "fundamental knowledge: There is no "us". It's just you.
-
Not just me. Anyone with a fundamental knowledge of the subject knows the difference
-
If you need me to explain, you shouldn't be commenting on this thread.
-
No. The subject is transgender. The post I quoted is referring to transvestite. The two are very, very different.
-
Correct. However, that is not the subject of the thread.
-
This thread is not about transvestites.
-
Nope. As I've said. I edited one comment long before anyone quoted it gor typo reasons. Your assumptions are just that. As you might see from my other posts, I'm far removed from having views you assume I have. As I've explained.
-
No. The last post I edited was 49 minutes ago. That was because of a typo. You quoted my post, an unedited post, 36 minutes ago. I've never suggested you can't read.
-
That would be one solution. The other eould be unisex toilets. I went to the theatre recently. There was one door to the toilets. That led to two long rows of cubicles. Each for use by either gender.
-
Sure. Double standards and assumptions.
-
If your fundamental lack of understanding of English grammar suggests that to you, so be it. I have never, and never will, refer to transgenders as "perverts". You are quite welcome to check my posting history on such matters. If you read carefully and slowly, I'm sure you'll get the picture.
-
Not lying. Look at the comments trail. I was using the posters own words against his apparent acceptance. He's contradicted himself. That's the point. Had you quoted my whole comment, it would have been obvious.
-
I believe you've quoted the wrong poster. I have never suggested transgender are perverts. I was quoting another who did. You should be asking them the question.
-
If you would be OK with that, why suggest they are perverts? It's difficult to understand your acceptance of having perverts in the toilet with you.
-
It's intended to be a devolved benefit.
-
Neither.
-
Do your daughters not, or have never, attended school in Thailand?
-
You make a good point. Men like you, who consider transgender people as "perverts", would rather they did use the female toilets, wouldn't they? Would the same men who think transenders are "perverts", prefer a woman who has transitioned to a man use which toilets?
-
Are you suggesting a woman who, for medical reasons, cannot bear children is not a woman?
