Gender Identity Is Total Nonsense

[Elliott]

5 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@ElliottNo shit its a 30 min tv show. Its cherry picking action, still really what happened to the cops. the criminal are not actors. Youre basically saying its not real cause I didnt see the cops use the shitter. Its not real cause I didnt see the cop go home and jerk off before bed.

No, the article goes into how they disproportionately showed black people clips, and no boring ones, no peaceful interactions.

Is CNN news reality?

Edited Thursday at 06:17 PM by Elliott

[Hojo]

@Elliott Were the crimes they were commiting real? Or was it staged?

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Hojo said:

@Elliott Were the crimes they were commiting real? Or was it staged?

We were talking about scripted shows, "we need less gay people", by the way.

Do you not change behavior at all in front of a news camera crew?

Are the crimes on CNN news real, or staged? How many times have you been robbed by a black person? That's reality.

What if there's a show in which they only show white people being racist, no white hosts, every single white person that's on video surveillance is being racist. We air this show for 5 years on prime time, not one video of a white person not being racist. REAL live surveillance videos, no actors.

Why was it called Cops? Because it followed cops? It should have been called Criminals, do you disagree? Why didn't it show a normal day? Aired for 25 years, lots of 30 minutes to squeeze in normal days.

Is CNN news reality/realistic?

 

I'm done talking to you

Edited Thursday at 07:43 PM by Elliott

[Hojo]

@ElliottGood lets keep it that way.

[Hatfort]

4 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

I brought that statistic up. I said it was LGBTQ narratives. 

https://www.christianpost.com/news/netflixs-promotion-of-lgbt-themes-to-kids-pervasive-report.html

If you turn on Netflix you will see the most wild things. A small woman effortlessly beating up 20 bodybuilders, gay people injected into the storyline for obviously no reason at all other than to push it, "them" pronouns. Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that if you scroll Netflix for a few days half the stuff is going to be this. You can't avoid it.

You brought it up, but the comment I was responding was saying that 40% of the media was trans, so I responded to her about it. Here is the context.

Quote

What issue do you have with "trans"?

Quote

My issue is thats its a 1 percent population thing thats in 40 percent of media. Here are somethings that gemini says effect 1 percent of population.

This been clarified, here the problems I see with what you say.

About your problem of seeing women defeating men, which is not LGTBQ, by the way. Fiction is often not realistic, so we can see movies like 300, where 300 men defeat an army of thousands, or the John Wick movie series, where one man beats an incredible amount of well-trained men without ever a bullet getting him. They are not realistic, we all know it, and we don't care. Your only problem is when women do these incredible feats, but that's a you problem, the writers of these stories are not targeting them exclusively for you as a viewer. The audience is varied, just get over it.

Then the supposed 40% of Netflix being LGTBQ is not really like that either. Like the example I gave before, if only 5% of Squid Game series is about a trans person, who is not the main character, and the other 95% are cisgender, but you still place the whole thing in the LGTBQ 40% bucket, this number is a manipulation of the real representation that's happening. Let's make a comparison, the 40% of the plates I eat contain carrots, but the total quantity of carrots in them is 5%, I won't say or imply that 40% I eat are carrots, that would be misleading. So when you measure fairly, there's no such overrepresentation, that's where I'm getting into.

Man, be honest, I don't recall even one example of characters using the them pronouns, it's not really something you see often. It's more of a complaint among mostly right-wing conservative commentators when you hear about it. 

Edited Thursday at 08:19 PM by Hatfort

[Twentyfirst]

4 hours ago, Elliott said:

What percent of actors do you think are gay? You're literally watching a gay industry. You're probably actually gay yourself because straight people like me don't watch tv(a highly gay industry. Were straight boys in drama club at your school?)

Your 'logic' is like complaining that there are too many handicap people in the handicap olympics.

I don't remember TV and movie ever being gay. I think it used to be frowned upon or made fun of on TV. I just brought up this statistic because I saw a study about it randomly a week ago.

So you don't think it's strange for one percent of the population to own half of the screen real estate?

[Twentyfirst]

18 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

About your problem of seeing women defeating men, which is not LGTBQ, by the way. Fiction is often not realistic, so we can see movies like 300, where 300 men defeat an army of thousands, or the John Wick movie series, where one man beats an incredible amount of well-trained men without ever a bullet getting him. They are not realistic, we all know it, and we don't care. Your only problem is when women do these incredible feats, but that's a you problem, the writers of these stories are not targeting them exclusively for you as a viewer. The audience is varied, just get over it.

It's new though. When I was growing up female heroes weren't portrayed so unrealistically as they are now. So it has definitely changed recently. 

18 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Then the supposed 40% of Netflix being LGTBQ is not really like that either. Like the example I gave before, if only 5% of Squid Game series is about a trans person, who is not the main character, and the other 95% are cisgender, but you still place the whole thing in the LGTBQ 40% bucket, this number is a manipulation of the real representation that's happening. Let's make a comparison, the 40% of the plates I eat contain carrots, but the total quantity of carrots in them is 5%, I won't say or imply that 40% I eat are carrots, that would be misleading. So when you measure fairly, there's no such overrepresentation, that's where I'm getting into.

 

Bro nobody knows what cisgender is. You are in a bubble.

[Elliott]

57 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

I don't remember TV and movie ever being gay. I think it used to be frowned upon or made fun of on TV. I just brought up this statistic because I saw a study about it randomly a week ago.

So you don't think it's strange for one percent of the population to own half of the screen real estate?

You think acting and producing plays is more a straight guy thing? You were in drama club in high school? The arts ARE 'gay', you disagree?

Edited Thursday at 09:25 PM by Elliott

[Hatfort]

1 minute ago, Twentyfirst said:

It's new though. When I was growing up female heroes weren't portrayed so unrealistically as they are now. So it has definitely changed recently. 

Bro nobody knows what cisgender is. You are in a bubble.

Yeah, it's true that now more females get the unrealistic portrait that was exclusive for men before. So what? It's unrealistic in both cases. You only have a problem when females are portrayed like that, but as said, these fictional stories are not targeted exclusively at you, so get over it. 

Don't lie, anyone who's online enough these days in the US politics field knows what cisgender means. 

[Twentyfirst]

50 minutes ago, Elliott said:

You think acting is more a straight guy thing? You were in drama club in high school? The arts ARE 'gay', you disagree?

Why would straight people want to pay for entertainment to watch gay relationships?

Netflix has genres for everything. Horror, comedy, drama, crime. Why do they have to insert LGBTQ into every genre rather than just create an LGBTQ genre on its own?

[Elliott]

52 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Why would straight people want to pay for entertainment to watch gay relationships?

Then..... don't 🤷‍♂️

Actual straight people like me don't watch shows, shows are categorically gay even with no gay character, they're theater, cheap theater. It's gay to make a play or show. You might actually be gay yourselves. They say homophobes are usually just repressing gay feelings.

New things are interesting, which sells and entertains.

Edited Thursday at 10:16 PM by Elliott

[Twentyfirst]

47 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Yeah, it's true that now more females get the unrealistic portrait that was exclusive for men before. So what? It's unrealistic in both cases. You only have a problem when females are portrayed like that, but as said, these fictional stories are not targeted exclusively at you, so get over it. 

Don't lie, anyone who's online enough these days in the US politics field knows what cisgender means. 

Not true. There are realistic and unrealistic male portrayals and people appreciate the realistic ones more.

The world is big beyond this US politics lunacy. Out of 8 billion people only 100 million have heard of "cisgender".

[Twentyfirst]

Just now, Elliott said:

Then..... don't 🤷‍♂️

I know I don't have to pay. I was asking you why would someone want to pay? For what reason?

[Elliott]

15 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

I know I don't have to pay. I was asking you why would someone want to pay? For what reason?

Non homophobes find gay and trans to be a new thing, so, entertaining, interesting. It's new. A fad.

Consider how low quality shows are, they're all the same recycled shows for the last 100 years. Here's a new variable, something new to watch. Like AI will be in shows now, same show essentially ➕️ AI. The simpletons eat the shit up, literal shit. It's 'new' shit though! 🌈 shit! 🤖 shit!

👴"don't put rainbows on my shit!!!"😡😤

Edited Thursday at 09:44 PM by Elliott

[Basman]

Trans is a low stakes social issue for corporations as opposed for example curbing tax avoidance and tax havens. Trans issues are a convenient progressive social signal that's not bad for business despite economic exclusion being a primary social issue. Part of why you see it pushed so much.

Amazon makes their workers piss in bottles but their pro trans ✌

[Hatfort]

42 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Not true. There are realistic and unrealistic male portrayals and people appreciate the realistic ones more.

The world is big beyond this US politics lunacy. Out of 8 billion people only 100 million have heard of "cisgender".

What's not true? There are unrealistic portrayals of men, like John Wick, where the guy defeats hundreds of well-trained armed men on his own without ever getting fatally shot, and nobody cares that this is unrealistic. But when the story is about a woman, suddenly the realism is important for you guys.

I'm not writing for the whole world, I'm writing in this context where the word cisgender is understood. Not to trigger you either, I use this word because it's useful in this specific discussion, instead of saying not trans, I can say cis. 

[Shermaningeorgia]

On 14/01/2026 at 7:11 PM, carterfelder said:

Transgenderism is meaningless and valueless, and gender identity as a whole is total garbage.

Sex is biological. Gender is constructed socially. 

[Twentyfirst]

17 hours ago, Hatfort said:

What's not true? There are unrealistic portrayals of men, like John Wick, where the guy defeats hundreds of well-trained armed men on his own without ever getting fatally shot, and nobody cares that this is unrealistic. But when the story is about a woman, suddenly the realism is important for you guys.

I'm not writing for the whole world, I'm writing in this context where the word cisgender is understood. Not to trigger you either, I use this word because it's useful in this specific discussion, instead of saying not trans, I can say cis. 

It's about the vibes. People can feel when narratives and agendas are being shoved down their throats. People aren't that dumb to where they can't feel the ulterior motives. You can tell the difference between a creative who really is honoring women by making them badass vs a creative who is just using women for their bullshit politics.

[Hatfort]

3 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

It's about the vibes. People can feel when narratives and agendas are being shoved down their throats. People aren't that dumb to where they can't feel the ulterior motives. You can tell the difference between a creative who really is honoring women by making them badass vs a creative who is just using women for their bullshit politics.

Sure, a few comments ago it was about how annoying it is to see them shove the them pronoun down our throats, which is practically never. Also about how many gay or trans people, very few compared to straight and cis, and in secondary roles mostly, trans characters being extremely rare in mainstream fiction media. There's no overrepresentation by any means, which is fine, but don't pretend it's the opposite.

If anything, there has been an explicit and practical censorship historically, writers have more freedom to include these themes without them being excluded now. And with women portrayed unrealistically as badasses, it can be honoring them or making politics for you, but with men, you don't put them in that scrutiny position. You have a clear double standard.

[Twentyfirst]

3 hours ago, Hatfort said:

Sure, a few comments ago it was about how annoying it is to see them shove the them pronoun down our throats, which is practically never. Also about how many gay or trans people, very few compared to straight and cis, and in secondary roles mostly, trans characters being extremely rare in mainstream fiction media. There's no overrepresentation by any means, which is fine, but don't pretend it's the opposite.

If anything, there has been an explicit and practical censorship historically, writers have more freedom to include these themes without them being excluded now. And with women portrayed unrealistically as badasses, it can be honoring them or making politics for you, but with men, you don't put them in that scrutiny position. You have a clear double standard.

If you watch a video of someone giving money to charity you can clearly tell if it was out of goodness or for the views. I just think if those minorities were really loved they wouldn't be used for an ulterior motive. The frustration comes when they think that me as a viewer can't tell if it was done out of goodness or done for views.