Posts made by PedrocaWest

Alright, let’s flip it to make things clearer for you. Just imagine for a second:

Your country elects a president through a democratic process. People vote, things are messy like any country, but it’s your mess to deal with. Then suddenly, a much richer foreign country starts saying, “Hmm, we don’t like this leader. He’s too close to our rivals.” So they secretly fund media outlets and political groups inside your country to destabilize things. They support strikes, create panic about trumpism, even encourage the military to step in.

And guess what? A coup happens. Your president is removed, and a military regime takes over, backed and praised by that foreign country. For the next couple of decades, people in your country are jailed, tortured, or disappear just for disagreeing. The rich get richer, especially companies tied to that foreign country, which now has access to your land, your resources, your industries.

Years later, documents come out confirming that the whole thing was orchestrated. “Yes, we did it,” they say. “It was necessary.”

Now imagine someone from that country tells you: “Well, we pay into the WHO and the UN, so technically we’re helping you. You should be grateful.”

Wouldn’t that sound a little twisted?

Because that's the dynamic you’re defending. And it’s not ancient history. That kind of interference leaves scars for generations. And we’re not talking about hypotheticals, this is lived reality for many of the countries with US backed coups.

Looks unfair? Ok, let me push the thought experiment a little further.

Let’s say a powerful country from the Global South, maybe one led by someone like Nicolás Maduro, or maybe Iran, or even China, decides to intervene in North America.

They find a rising dictator in Canada, someone brutal, but useful. So they back him to the teeth, give him weapons, intelligence, and financial support to take over the country. The guy ends up committing atrocities, but they keep calling him a "stabilizing force" because he's good for business.

Now imagine that, under his regime, Canadian-backed militia groups start crossing the border into the US, burning towns, raping, murdering, and, here’s the key, taking over mineral-rich territories. Over the years, more than 100 armed groups emerge, all fighting for resources, many of them supported directly or indirectly by that same foreign power.

American citizens are displaced, enslaved in mines, or live under constant terror. But the outside world barely notices, because minerals keep flowing.

Then one day, after decades of chaos, the foreign power steps in and says, “Let’s make peace.” They broker a treaty, pat themselves on the back, and as part of the agreement, they now get to legally own one-third of America’s mineral wealth.

And they’re hailed globally for their diplomacy.

You’d lose your mind, right?

You’d be furious, and rightfully so.

Now imagine the country that backed all of this saying you should be grateful because they pay something to a international organization. And that "all countries had some skeletons in their closets, even yours, so you should not be so angry".

But replace “USA” with “Congo,” “Canada” with “Rwanda,” and that’s essentially what’s happened.

And you can always change Canada for Mexico if you prefer, I believe you two hate each other more as countries, don't you? Maybe it can make this experiment a little more real in your mind.

This isn’t anti-American sentiment. This is just calling out a pattern that would be obvious to anyone if the roles were reversed.

You’d be furious if this had happened in your own country, but I get why some of this might not hit you the same, you’ve lived in the US and the UK, so most of the history you know comes from the “winning side” when it comes to shaping world narratives, and those are two of the nations most involved in global atrocities. So honestly, it might be unfair of me to expect you to see it from the perspective of those who’ve always been on the receiving end, this is not in your history books, it's in ours.

@raphjd Man, I’ll say it again: you’re not really talking to me. You’re still arguing with some imaginary liberal that lives rent-free in your head.

I already said I’m not American. And I’ve made it crystal clear I don’t support the Democratic Party either. I think their leaders are garbage. Clinton? Hated him. Obama? Overrated. Biden? Please. So when you say stuff like “you think they’re saints,” you’re not describing me. You’re describing some character you’ve invented out of nothing.

Also, you keep dropping all these American scandals like they’re global events. Hunter Biden, Blinken, Russiagate, your local media wars, I barely know who half these people are. Honestly, the only thing I do know about Hunter is that he had drug issues, leaked nudes, and apparently, he’s got a huge and surprisingly photogenic dick. That’s it. That’s the entire file.

And on this idea that “the US pays for everyone else”, listen, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but people outside Us pay taxes too. Our countries contribute to international orgs, we send troops to UN missions, we donate aid, we welcome refugees, and my country actually don't have it's hand in US pockets. In fact, we’ve recently cleared all our dues, millions of dollars in 2023 and 2024. So that whole idea that U.S. taxpayers are covering my taxes? Not really true in our case. What we don’t do is orchestrate coups, run black ops, or install puppet regimes. We and most of the world haven’t overthrown a single foreign government in over a century. Can the US say the same?

You say the US helps us by covering a share of the UN or WHO bills? Maybe. But that help doesn’t come free. It comes with strings, contracts, influence, leverage. That’s not charity, that’s investment. Essentially, you're saying it’s “okay” for a powerful country to meddle violently as long as it pays a bit, in kind of an abusive relationship. And you think that makes it acceptable for the US to stage coups in other nations—including mine, then lecture us about responsibility. That’s messed up logic. And when people criticize US foreign policy, they’re not whining about the check; they’re reacting to the control that comes with it. It’s like saying we should be grateful to the mafia because they paved the street after burning the bakery.

Look, I get it, you’re angry that American money gets spent abroad while people at home struggle. That’s valid, you should stop wasting so much messing with foreign policy and help your people. But don’t act like the rest of us are freeloading. Most of us would love if the US stopped meddling everywhere and let the rest of the world sort out its own problems without the strings attached or undercover manipulation. Honestly, we’d thank you.

And about the “libs vs cons” thing, outside the US, it just looks like two sides of the same empire. The left tries to look nice, the right tries to look strong. But both are still pushing the same military budgets, the same trade agendas, the same control mechanisms. If anything, the only real difference is that some people on the left occasionally show concern for marginalized groups, the small one, not the big ones as I said. That’s it. Meanwhile, conservatives only talk about injustice when it makes “the left” look hypocritical. That’s not principle. That’s a tactic.

So no, I’m not “anti-American.” I’m just not buying the hero complex. When a country starts the fire, sells the extinguisher, and walks away with the safe, pointing that out is not hatred, it’s awareness.

If what you actually want is to stop wasting money and stop intervening everywhere, great, we agree. Just don’t pretend the US did it all out of kindness. We’ve seen what kindness backed by drones and coups really looks like for decades now.

@raphjd You know, I’ve been thinking, the way you argue reminds me a lot of someone who’s been let down too many times by the same kind of people. And I get the impression that, deep down, you really do want the world to be fair, ordered, and honest. That you’re tired of hypocrisy, tired of manipulation, tired of people using identity as a shield for bad behavior. That’s actually pretty reasonable.

But here’s the thing, I think you’ve let a few very specific, bad stories convince you that the whole world is rigged against you, or that a huge group of people (like queer folks, trans people, Muslims, liberals, whoever) is fundamentally dishonest. And that’s just not true.

The way you talk about trans people now is really similar to how religious conservatives used to talk about us, gay men, a couple decades ago. Remember how they'd say, "I don’t hate gays, just the ones who push it in people’s faces or corrupt the youth"? Or "Sure, love who you love, but I don’t want it in schools or bathrooms"? It always sounded like they were drawing lines, but when it came time to make laws, those lines disappeared, and we were all treated like predators.

Now you’re doing the same thing to trans people. Saying you respect “real” trans folks, but then spending 99% of your energy attacking the very idea that they exist, or treating every legal loophole or outlier as a reason to suspect them all. That’s not protecting society, that’s painting targets.

You say you're just raising questions, and okay, sure, questions are valid. But it’s hard to ignore that they only ever seem to point in one direction. You rarely raise questions about the gay rapists or serial killers out there. Why not? We’ve got our share of fucked-up people too. Every group does. But we don’t let those few define the whole. That’s the whole point of justice, individual accountability. Not punishment by category.

And look, when you expand the conversation to other groups, immigrants, Muslims, liberals, it starts to feel like you're not just upset about one issue. It’s like you're trying to stack grievances until it justifies writing off half the world. That’s what a lot of people in the US are doing right now. Everything becomes part of a culture war, and there’s no room left for just fixing problems like adults.

Because yeah, some of those UK laws you mentioned? They were messy. And in some cases, they were actually corrected. Some loopholes were closed. The prison system is changing its gender policies. Parents were right to raise questions about letting kids make medical decisions too early. That’s all part of how a healthy society works, people push, others push back, and the system adjusts. It’s slow and imperfect, but it's not a plot to destroy civilization.

But when you frame everything as “liberals protecting rapists” or “trans people invading women’s spaces” or “Muslims ruining the UK,” then no correction will ever be good enough. Because you're not aiming for solutions, you're aiming for enemies.

I think you’ve been radicalized a bit, honestly. Not in the dangerous way, but in the “always on edge, always ready to prove something, always suspicious” kind of way. And maybe, just maybe, some of that anger you have toward liberals or queer activists is really just disappointment at the way the world has handled you. That would make a lot of sense. You’re gay, you’ve lived in two countries, and you’ve probably had to deal with a lot of bullshit from all directions. I don’t blame you for being guarded.

But I do think you’re shooting in the wrong direction.

And if you’ve read this far, that’s already more than most people would do. So thanks for that.

Say to me how much of this is right if you feel like it.

@raphjd You're kind of proving my point here - again.

We started off talking about how generalizing the worst cases from a group leads to dangerous, unfair treatment of the whole group. And now you’re listing every exaggerated or exceptional case you can find, often out of context, to justify your mistrust of trans people or liberal systems.

Let’s unpack this a bit.

Yes, "heat of the moment" can sometimes be used as a legal defense in extreme cases, but it's not a free pass for violence, especially not murder. That’s why we have courts, judges, and due process. Comparing finding your partner cheating to discovering someone is trans without your prior knowledge is a false equivalence. One is betrayal within an existing relationship, the other is often a reflection of a cultural stigma where trans people are still afraid for their lives just for being honest.

You brought up Boys Don’t Cry. Do you really want to use a brutal, real-world case of torture and murder to argue against the victim, a trans man? Even if you question his choices, you know that nothing in that story justifies the violence he suffered. That wasn’t about “sexual fraud”, that was about deep-seated hatred, and you're dangerously close to excusing it.

You also keep bringing up legal flaws, yes, some of them are real. The idea that rapists declare themselves trans to abuse the system is concerning, and it should be investigated. But again: fix the law, don’t demonize trans people as a group. That’s the whole point. In a functioning society, left and right should come together to say “How do we protect people without trampling others?”, not “Let’s punish an entire minority because someone took advantage of a loophole.”

Same goes for religious exemptions. I agree that no religion should be above criticism, and no one should be allowed to justify hate or abuse based on “faith.” But instead of that being a reason to target a specific religion or minority, it should be used as a reason to ensure equality under the law, no double standards, no matter who you are.

You say people get more time for tweets than for rape. If that’s true, then the problem is with the sentencing system, not with trans people, or queer people, or Muslims, or liberals in general. Reform should be based on fairness, not fear or resentment.

And let’s be honest: many of these stories you bring up sound cherry-picked, and the way you frame them makes it hard to tell what’s fact, what’s tabloid distortion, and what’s personal bias. The idea that "liberals" created a system where "scum" gets protected and law-abiding people are oppressed? That’s a convenient but simplistic narrative. In reality, every political side has flaws, but when your answer to every social challenge is “blame the left,” it stops being analysis and starts sounding like ideology.

I’m not saying you don’t raise real issues. I’m saying you use those issues to build a wall of distrust, and then you pretend that anyone who disagrees must be naive, blind, or corrupt.

We can talk about reform. We can talk about fixing flaws in the law. But if you keep using those flaws as weapons to paint entire groups, especially already vulnerable ones, as villains, then you’re not fighting injustice, you’re repeating the exact same logic people once used to justify criminalizing gay men like you and me.

And I don’t think that’s who you really want to be.

@raphjd I’m gonna be honest: what you talk is going all over the place.

First of all, I don’t know who Benji Butterworth is, nor do I live in the UK or follow British media personalities. I don’t know those cases or names you’ve mentioned, and honestly, it doesn’t help your argument, it just sounds like you’re trying to stack isolated stories to support a broader narrative against trans people and "liberals."

But let’s bring this back: we were talking about trans people, right?
About how some bad individuals might exploit a system, and how that doesn’t justify treating the entire group with suspicion or hostility. That’s where we started.

Now you're stretching it to include immigrants, Muslims, free speech laws, child protection laws, and basically blaming everything on "liberals." That's a pattern I’ve seen a lot, and I don’t think it helps the conversation. When someone says, “Here’s a problem we could work together to fix,” the response should not be, “Yeah, and it’s all because your side is evil.”

Let’s talk about law loopholes.
If there are real gaps, like someone abusing gender identity laws to manipulate the prison system, those should be addressed. That's what democratic societies do. We adjust, improve, and create safeguards.

And actually, in Scotland and other places, reforms have already been made. In 2023, the UK government blocked the Scottish Gender Reform Bill over concerns about safeguards. It’s being debated, legally challenged, reviewed, exactly how a functioning system is supposed to deal with complex policies.

That’s how a healthy society works:
Left and right debate the best path forward, but ideally, they still agree on the goal: public safety, justice, fairness, and protecting minorities without compromising the rights of the majority.

But when we throw out that shared goal, and just treat the other side like they’re evil by default, nothing moves forward. Just more hate, fear, and division.

You also seem to be jumping between totally different types of issues, crime, religion, social media laws, sentencing policies, as if they’re all somehow proof that trans people, or “liberals,” are the root of all problems. That’s a logical fallacy called a hasty generalization. It’s not an argument, it’s just pattern-seeking dressed up as truth.

The fact is that people abuse laws in every society, that’s not exclusive to liberals, conservatives, immigrants, or any one group and that the right response is legal reform, not scapegoating.

Blaming all trans people for what a handful of manipulative criminals might do is like blaming all gay men for child abuse scandals, and as two gay men, we both know how often that false connection has been used to hurt our community. You and I would both call that out if a religious conservative tried to justify anti-gay laws based on those narratives.

So why recycle that same logic against trans people?

And if we really want to talk seriously about sentencing, social fairness, or immigration policy, let’s talk. But trying to link those big complex issues to justify hatred or distrust toward trans people? That’s not debate. That’s using fear to excuse prejudice.

You clearly have strong opinions and strong morals, and I’m not trying to dismiss everything you feel and I believe we would see how much we have in common if we actually talked to each other, not to a caricature of what we thing the other thinks. But if you're willing to stop painting every liberal, trans person, or immigrant as part of some grand conspiracy, maybe we could actually find real common ground, like fixing legal loopholes without persecuting entire communities.

Because honestly? That’s what most people actually want.

@raphjd
Man, honestly? It’s exhausting talking to you.

You’re not really responding to me, you’re arguing with some imaginary liberal that lives rent-free in your head. You’ve got a whole caricature set up of what I supposedly believe, and none of it came from what I actually said.

For starters, I’m not American, so saying the US “helps” me or my country just doesn’t land.
Because let me be blunt: the only big things the US has done for my country were two coups. That’s not help, that’s interference with long-lasting consequences. So no, the US hasn’t “given” me anything but instability.

Now, that doesn’t mean everything the US does is bad. The people? The culture? The innovations? Incredible.
But your foreign policy? A nightmare.

That’s where I think we might agree a little. You’re frustrated with the US funding things that don’t benefit Americans. I get it. Nobody likes their money being misused. But maybe now you can understand how frustrating it is for the rest of us when that “foreign aid” is used as a cover for espionage, political influence, or economic control. You mentioned aid money, but many of us know that behind a lot of it, there’s a contract, a spy, or a military interest. That’s not generosity, that’s strategy.

Programs like USAID and even some NGOs have been openly linked to regime change efforts. If you don’t believe that, look into documents on Iran, Chile, Haiti, Brazil or, honestly, any country in the world.
So if Americans are tired of “paying the bill,” the world would honestly love for you to stop meddling too. No sarcasm, we’d all benefit.

As for your list of grievances:
Yes, the Democratic Party has a long and shady history. I’m not here to defend them. Most people outside the US see both major parties as part of the same machine. We’re not cheering for Democrats, we’re just saying Trump was a particularly reckless, erratic figure who made a bad situation worse for the rest of us and the rest of US.

If there's any difference is that at least some Democrats (the followers or low-level politicians, the major ones are shit) admit their party’s role in past oppression and work to shift things.
Republicans (and conservatives in general), on the other hand, often only bring up injustice when it’s useful to bash the left. That selective concern is the real problem. You are doing this here and in the other topic, pointing prejudices as relevant only when it's useful to show the hipocrisy of that imaginary liberal or on the discourse of actual political figures that the rest of the world hates too.

And no, criticizing US foreign policy or its presidents isn’t “hating America.”
It’s called being honest about power.
Again: when a country starts the fire, sells the extinguisher, and walks away with the safe, it’s fair to point that out, this is the most basic way to describe US foreign policy, and it's not a exxageration.

So if your point is “let’s stop wasting money and mind our own business,” I agree, it would be a pleasure. But don’t rewrite history to pretend that US dominance in international politics is just some kind-hearted accident. The world knows better, because we live with the aftermath daily.

@DVT Sucking cock.

Small and fat cock or big and thin cock?

@blablarg18 I need to say, I like it more when we actually talk instead of we fight based in pre made ideas of each other.

I believe sexual fraud is already a crime in most places, right?

Like you said, proportionality matters.

If a guy goes to Thailand and finds out a lady is a ladyboy, most of the time he’ll just say, “Oh, I thought you were cis, sorry, I’m not into this,” and leave. That’s sexual preference. Plenty of gay and straight men respect trans people but just aren’t into certain bodies, and that’s totally fine. No one should be forced into anything.

Now, if someone is actually raped, and I mean real rape, not “I changed my mind after”, self-defense is justified, even if it ends in death.

But in cases of sexual fraud, that’s something courts can deal with. The person who lied could end up with a criminal record and be forced to pay damages, and the victim gets justice without committing a violent crime.

In cases of deceit or fraud, we’re talking about something very different. It might be hurtful, unethical, even criminal depending on the situation, but it’s not a direct physical threat that justifies a violent response. That’s why we have the legal system. You sue. You file charges. You don’t stab someone.

(and we have some laws about HIV status, people are allowed to hide it, but they are not allowed to pass the IST).

And you're right, it can be tricky. There are gray areas. People lie on dating apps all the time, about age, status, income, even intentions. And yeah, some of that crosses ethical lines, especially if it affects consent. But we don’t condone violence in response to those either. We deal with it through law, not fists. That "something panic" logic has been used to justify beatings and worse. So we need to be really careful not to start recycling it with a new target.

About sex and gender, I get your preferences, and you’re totally entitled to them, I have mine too and I think most of gay have their own even with cis dude, some are into hunks, or into twinks, or into daddies, os tops only, or bottom-only, or have a kink for something ythat is not a general kink.

Also, we need to remember that some cis men with testicles and dicks don’t have a Y chromossome, nature is weird and nobody asks a chromossome testing to anyone except in very specific cases.

And I think you are the first person with a previous transphobic pov who already knew the difference between gender and sex, most of them claim both are the same, that's exausting to keep correcting, thank you for not making me repeat it.

We all agree: no one should ever be pressured to have sex with someone they’re not into. Period.

But that’s not what most of these "trans panic" defenses are about. They’re not about preference, they’re about using someone’s identity as an excuse for dehumanization and crime, and that’s where it turns ugly.

No one's saying lies can't be harmful. But not all harm justifies violence. And not all lies are big lies or harmful (switches that are bottoms are proof of this). The right place to deal actual with deceit, sexual or otherwise, is the justice system. Otherwise we’re justifying chaos.

@raphjd You’re actually pretty sure I’m American, right?
Because most of these names you keep throwing at me, I honestly wouldn’t know if you made them up because this is so american-centered that you don't even know, and to me this is not a great strategy because anyone can pick bad cases of any group to say the group is bad, they do it with gays and with MAGA all the time, but what really show if the accusation is right is the real ideology and actions of the group/movement as a whole. (and that's not right at all when you see the trans or gay movements).

You just have this pre-built idea of who I am, what I think, and what side I’m on and is fighting with this pre-built idea, not with me and what I am actually saying. I’m not American, I don't live in US. I’m just someone observing things globally, and trying to be honest about the patterns I see, specially when I see the pattern of attacking rights of LGBTs.

And I want to say this: Everything you’ve said about trans people? That exact same logic, almost literally word for word, has been used against us for decades by religious conservatives.

They’ve always said “I don’t hate all gays, just the ones who are too flamboyant, or the ones who push an agenda, or the ones who confuse kids, or the ones who blablabla.”
They would pick out some gay men who did something wrong, amplify the hell out of it, and say: “See? This is why we can’t trust any of them.”
They’d say things like “Real gay people just live quietly, it’s the queer ones we have a problem with.”

Sound familiar?

Now you’re doing the exact same thing with trans people. Splitting them into “real” and “queer attention-seekers.” Highlighting some edge-case behavior or bad actor and acting like that somehow makes the whole group suspicious. That’s not fairness. That’s recycled bigotry, just pointed in a new direction.

And look, people manipulating systems or doing shitty things exists in every group. Straight people, gay people, cis people, trans people, we’ve all seen examples. But if we let those few define the whole, we end up justifying exclusion, dehumanization, and discrimination for everyone.

That’s not justice. That’s fear politics.

If someone abuses a legal loophole, we fix the loophole. We don’t turn that into a reason to treat an entire marginalized community as suspect or dangerous. We both know how that story ends, we’ve lived it in our own skin or as a group.

You say you respect “real” trans people. But in everything you write, you’re building a picture of them that’s conditional and demeaning. And the people writing anti-trans laws? They don’t care about your categories. They don’t make exceptions for the “good ones.” They just ban healthcare, restrict rights, ban LGBT suicide helplines, and unleash violence on the entire group. And your rhetoric helps them do it, even if that’s not what you meant.

We, as gay men, should know better. We should be standing up against this logic, not repeating it.

@raphjd Hey, I get where you're coming from. And just to be clear, it’s not that I “hate” the US (but it's true I hate your poolitics). I’m not even American. I'm a foreigner looking at global politics from the outside, and I’m just not wearing rose-colored glasses.

I don’t think people “hate” the US because it’s rich or powerful or gives aid. It’s because so often that “aid” comes with strings attached, or follows a pattern of creating chaos and then stepping in to "save" the day in a way that mostly benefits US interests.

You mentioned things like NATO, the UN, WHO, and the US paying more than others. Sure, that’s partly true. But let’s be honest: none of that is charity. The US does it because it gives them leverage, global dominance, and influence over the outcomes. It’s a strategic investment, not a favor to the rest of the world.

Take the Congo, for example. The US gets access to a huge chunk of its mineral wealth after decades of conflict that involved armed groups backed, directly or indirectly, by US and it's allies. That’s not a coincidence. That’s exploiting instability for profit. It’s not unique to Trump, either. US foreign policy has followed this playbook for over a century, across Republican and Democrat administrations.

As for Trump “cutting waste” by defunding LGBT-related programs overseas, let’s be real. These aren’t all “superhero tranny comics.” the majority of it was often community-based projects that support visibility, safety, and inclusion in places where queer people face violence daily. Laughing about that while pretending all he cuted, even the suicide helpline, it’s about “saving money” just exposes the cruelty, not fiscal responsibility.

You brought up COVID too. Operation Warp Speed had real funding, but so did international research efforts. And no one “hated” the vaccine because it was Trump’s, people were (rightfully) cautious because Trump constantly downplayed the virus, pushed bleach, and made everything political. That eroded trust. That’s not victimhood, that’s consequence.

At the end of the day, I’m not saying the U.S. is uniquely evil (while most of your politic history are). But when a country starts the fire, sells the extinguisher, and walks away with the safe, it’s fair to point that out. That’s not hate, that’s observation.

And trust me, a lot of people around the world are just tired of pretending that power always equals virtue. If you care about your country, it’s okay to hold it accountable, not just cheer for it like it’s a sports team.

@raphjd I didn't said it, but you understood it. So your way to read this is the problem, not what I said.
Someone who formerly already knew the person was trans and dated them to do a hate crime could just claim he didn't knew in bad faith, just to avoid a heavier sentence, it was already used in trials lots of times and that why it was banned in a lot of places, the same thing that occurred with "gay panic" defence acts.

Sometimes trans people don't have "whats was between their legs" anymore, so the agressor panicked based on a ghost in his head or because they thought it would make them less of a men if they fucked a pussy from someone that was not a woman since birth.

It's not rape to the law, except if the person actually rapes the other one, it can be judged at the most as a sexual fraud and it would be a loooong trial to prove the intention of fraud.

And this becomes way more fucked up if you remember that people says they can always spot who is trans and who's not. So it's a weak or shameless defence strategy.

People forget that even when they are with another person naked in a room they can always say 'I don't wanna do this anymore" and leave. If the other still want it the other person is a jerk and it would become a rape. And it is valid to all cases, not only trans related ones.

You saying it this way make you look like you agree they should beat or murder someone because they panicked. Is that what you think?

@blablarg18 and you agree with me that they should ban "trans panic defense" in all states?

@blablarg18 Oops, I worded that wrong. What I meant is that in a lot of U.S. states, people can still use what’s called the “trans panic” defense in court.

Basically, someone commits violence (often murder), and then says, “I freaked out when I found out they were trans” — and uses that emotional reaction to try to get a lighter sentence, like manslaughter instead of murder. It’s a legal loophole that can make violent acts seem more “understandable” to a jury.

That’s why some states have passed laws to ban that defense entirely. Because it’s been used in real cases. Successfully.

But in most states? It’s still allowed. You can literally argue in court that someone being trans “provoked” you into killing them.

So yeah, not fiction. Not imaginary. Just a messed-up part of the system that’s yet to get fixed.

@blablarg18 Oh, ok, I thought she passed away.
Who was the other person?

@blablarg18 As I said, to the rest of the world is not "is US wrong?" is "Us is wrong. period."

US has played a huge role in destabilizing the Congo for decades, mostly to get access to its resources.

Over 120 armed groups are active there, and many are backed directly or indirectly by U.S. allies like Rwanda and Uganda, both heavily funded by the US military. These groups have committed atrocities while helping extract valuable minerals like cobalt and coltan, which end up in our phones, batteries, and weapons.

At the same time, US backed the Congolese government itself, especially when leaders like Mobutu Sese Seko were seen as politically convenient. He was a brutal dictator who looted his country with our full support during the Cold War.

US was effectively funding both sides of the conflict. While publicly calling for “peace,” American money and political protection helped fuel the war. And now that a "peace deal" has been signed, U.S. companies are walking away with massive rights to Congo's resources, resources that were controlled and extracted through decades of bloodshed.

So when Trump (or any US official) signs a “peace deal” that gives America rights to 1/3 of Congo’s minerals, it’s not charity. It’s the endgame of a long strategy: fuel chaos, then make a profit off the recovery.

This isn’t about freedom or helping people. It’s about power, control, and money. And calling that “peace” is just branding.

@blablarg18 I've already said in the other topic, if you are talking about trans people:

Proihibiting genital surgeries in underage people, specially intersex infants, this is a big thing both trans and intersex movement advocate and no one never hears them. On the contrary, they accuse them of it

Giving psycological and psychiatric support for gender questioning kids/teens and their parents. Both for them understand everything better, as for them to not mistook feminine boys and tomboys for trans kids and for parent give actual support for their queer kids.

Allowing kids and teens to "live the phase" if this is a phase, allowing them to go through social transition (different clothers, hairstyles and pronous/names, just it) so they can have sure if they are really trans and if it feels right.

Stop criminalizing parents, teachers and doctor who support trans people.

Puberty blockers to gender-questioning pre-teens, so they can mature enough to know better at 16yo or 18yo. This avoids unnecessary or aggresive surgeries and cosmetic procedures. Layla Jane herself would not have undergone a mastectomy if she had been given puberty blockers, as this would have put her breast growth on hold until she was certain whether or not she was trans.

It would even end the "omg, there's a trans woman in women sports" panic, there would be no supposed advantage if the male puberty never occurred.

Also, stronger and neutral studies to proven the real advantages (or not) of trans women in sports, because when people debate they think trans women keep the strength that they had when they were cis men, and thats already something proven wrong in more than a centary of studies with hormonal treatment in cisgender and intersex people. Lia Thomas, that you created a topic just some hours ago, became a big thing when they said she was winning everything, but she losed way more times than she won and had a very unstable record after transition, so people would really be aeare if she had any real advantage in certain swim categories or if it was just a fuss led by prejudice or ignorance.

Aside from all of this, better ways to support adults that realize later that they are trans, Caitlyn Jenner is a anti-trans transgender woman and she realizes she only started transition after 65yo, a lot of people only realize or are free enough to do the transition after they passed their 30s and reached life stability.

Also, the possibility to keep their reproduction rights, because not all trans people have gender dysphoria with their genitals, and some places require them to be neutered to allow full legal transition.

And, of course, stoping the "trans panic laws" that allow people in some US states to kill trans people if they claim that they feel threatened by them.

People usually enter this debate pratically saying "trans people are the devil" or "pronouns will destroy the language" instead of hear them. It's way easier to support, pay attention and give care to avoid mistakes than fighting and criminalizing an entire group. It is only happening because it's not cool anymore hating gays, so they passed to the next letter of our alphabet mafia. And they will keep going to the next letters even if they ended with transness.

@blablarg18 said in Are yall gay men who support trump:

@PedrocaWest said in Are yall gay men who support trump:

The rest of the world only allow trans teens to have hormone replacement and any surgical body modification after 16 and 18, specifically

Means:

• USA policy is wrong

• To argue against USA policy is right

again, thank you !!!!!!! you just endorsed what I do

Usually the right answer is "US is wrong. Period."

Your elections can be resumed in Wrong vs. Wronger.

@blablarg18 As I said, if we actually talked instead of giving speeches we would see most of the rage you feel about politics is not a right wing thing, is more a general feeling.

And we hate Zelensky and the nazis too, he started it all, the nazis are nazis, we don't need to say more.

The only good thing I have to say about Zelensky is that he looks good shirtless.

@blablarg18 Actually we see NATO as just an extention of the US military and that Ukraine only started that useless war because of a coup funded by US itself.
Also most of the world hate Russia too, we don't think Putin and Trump are so different, if there is any difference is that Putin is just smarter.

@blablarg18 Can you confirm Layla Jane is dead?
I can't find any information about her passing.
Also, as I said in other topic: The rest of the world only allow trans teens to have hormone replacement and any surgical body modification after 16 and 18, specifically.

The whole case is wrong, the doctor should and could not perform mastectomy at someone that is 13yo and she is totally right for sueing them.

This is why puberty blockers exist, they give time for someone that is confused to mature enough to be really sure if they are trans or not.

And in the video the guy clearly don't know what the hell the recording guy is talking about, he just thinks is a random lgbtphobe saying shit. And is treating him accordingly.