She was holding what?

[Caveira]

from the news article linked in the tweet.    

A child who was playing on the monkey bars in the park saw Mart holding her penis and wiggling it at her, and she immediately told her friends and father.

 

[red viking]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

from the news article linked in the tweet.    

A child who was playing on the monkey bars in the park saw Mart holding her penis and wiggling it at her, and she immediately told her friends and father.

 

Nice try but 99.999% of the people doing this are still cis men. 

[Caveira]

35 minutes ago, red viking said:

Nice try but 99.999% of the people doing this are still cis men. 

That’s a made up term for low T people.  
 

The reason for the post wasn’t that men do horrible things.  That they do from time to time.  It’s that the press had to write a woman showed her dik.   Which isn’t correct…. And is a bunch of nonsense.  

[red viking]

25 minutes ago, Caveira said:

That’s a made up term for low T people.  
 

The reason for the post wasn’t that men do horrible things.  That they do from time to time.  It’s that the press had to write a woman showed her dik.   Which isn’t correct…. And is a bunch of nonsense.  

Lol. 

Projecting your own t-related insecurities, like wingers often do. 

The article makes it clear she was transgender so this is pure semantics. Everybody knows what happened. Go cry about terminologies to your fellow insecure wingers. Real men don't really care what people want to call themselves because they aren't threatened by it. 

All that matters is that she (or he, whatever) exposed herself. 

Edited 6 hours ago by red viking

[mspart]

What woman has a penis?   The definition of a woman is one without a penis.  The fact that this woman had a penis means this woman was not a woman, but is a man.   Period. 

mspart

[red viking]

26 minutes ago, mspart said:

What woman has a penis?   The definition of a woman is one without a penis.  The fact that this woman had a penis means this woman was not a woman, but is a man.   Period. 

mspart

110% bs. It's way way way more important that a person exposed their genitalia than whether you call her a man or trans woman. Absolutely disgusting that u think the terminology is more important than the crime itself. Sick of wingers gaslighting sex crimes. Exposing a penis to a kid for gratification is absolutely disgusting. 

The right is 110% morally bankrupt and sexually depraved. 

Edited 3 hours ago by red viking

[mspart]

2 minutes ago, red viking said:

110% bs. It's way way way more important that a person exposed their genitalia than whether you call her a man or trans woman. Absolutely disgusting that u think the terminology is more important than the crime itself. Sick of wingers gaslighting sex crimes. Exposing a penis to a kid for gratification is absolutely disgusting. 

It is disgusting that the news would propagate falsehoods like this so brazenly.   

She wagged her penis in front of the kids.       There is a dissonance to this that is crazy.   Your last sentence is correct. 

How is it gaslighting sex crimes by saying it wasn't a woman waving her penis in front of kids when a woman doesn't have one?   A man has one.   It is like saying a male lion nursed a lion cub.   Everyone knows a male lion cannot nurse.   Everone knows that a woman does not have a penis.   The article is factually wrong in this regard.   Pretending otherwise is the gaslighting.  

mspart

[red viking]

Just now, mspart said:

It is disgusting that the news would propagate falsehoods like this so brazenly.   

She wagged her penis in front of the kids.       There is a dissonance to this that is crazy.   Your last sentence is correct. 

How is it gaslighting sex crimes by saying it wasn't a woman waving her penis in front of kids when a woman doesn't have one?   A man has one.   It is like saying a male lion nursed a lion cub.   Everyone knows a male lion cannot nurse.   Everone knows that a woman does not have a penis.   The article is factually wrong in this regard.   Pretending otherwise is the gaslighting.  

mspart

A person exposed themselves to a kid, a sex crime, and all you want to talk about is what whether we call it a man or trans woman. You dont seem to care one squirt about the crime itself. Morally bankrupt. 

[red viking]

5 minutes ago, mspart said:

It is disgusting that the news would propagate falsehoods like this so brazenly.   

She wagged her penis in front of the kids.       There is a dissonance to this that is crazy.   Your last sentence is correct. 

How is it gaslighting sex crimes by saying it wasn't a woman waving her penis in front of kids when a woman doesn't have one?   A man has one.   It is like saying a male lion nursed a lion cub.   Everyone knows a male lion cannot nurse.   Everone knows that a woman does not have a penis.   The article is factually wrong in this regard.   Pretending otherwise is the gaslighting.  

mspart

Also, everybody knows thar biological females don't have penises. Therefore the terminology here is 110% irrelevant compared to the true travesty here. 

[mspart]

8 minutes ago, red viking said:

Also, everybody knows thar biological females don't have penises. Therefore the terminology here is 110% irrelevant compared to the true travesty here. 

What?   The sex act is one thing.   Reporting it falsely is another thing.   Talk about gaslighting.   Language matters and truth matters.   A woman did not shake her willy at kids as it has been reported.   That is false. 

Not diminishing the gravity of the crime, but the reporting of it is trying to make it something it was not.   

mspart

[red viking]

29 minutes ago, mspart said:

What?   The sex act is one thing.   Reporting it falsely is another thing.   Talk about gaslighting.   Language matters and truth matters.   A woman did not shake her willy at kids as it has been reported.   That is false. 

Not diminishing the gravity of the crime, but the reporting of it is trying to make it something it was not.   

mspart

It said that she was "transgender." Pretty clear to 110% of people what that means. With that fact combined with fact that it involved a penis, how many complete idiots do you think really believe it was a biological female? Negative 10% I'd say. 

[mspart]

I think you said you got a masters in geology and you are still saying "110% of people"?   There is no way, no how, there can be 100% percent of people.   I assume you know what this means.   Obviously accuracy is not your main concern.     

I think you are fighting this one too much.   You are sounding like all the crazy Ds from before the election.  Only you haven't figured out that this language doesn't work anymore.   

mspart

[Offthemat]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

I think you said you got a masters in geology and you are still saying "110% of people"?   There is no way, no how, there can be 100% percent of people.   I assume you know what this means.   Obviously accuracy is not your main concern.     

I think you are fighting this one too much.   You are sounding like all the crazy Ds from before the election.  Only you haven't figured out that this language doesn't work anymore.   

mspart

It’s pretty obvious the only geology he ever managed was getting stoned.

Edited 2 hours ago by Offthemat

[red viking]

9 minutes ago, mspart said:

I think you said you got a masters in geology and you are still saying "110% of people"?   There is no way, no how, there can be 100% percent of people.   I assume you know what this means.   Obviously accuracy is not your main concern.     

I think you are fighting this one too much.   You are sounding like all the crazy Ds from before the election.  Only you haven't figured out that this language doesn't work anymore.   

mspart

Making a mountain out of a molehill and it's pure semantics. Show me one person that truly believes that was a biological woman. It's disgusting that you want to talk about that when the bigger issue clearly is that it was a sexual assault. 

Expose your wang to one of my daughters (or son) and I'm swinging the hammer on you either way. Don't care if u have makeup and hairspray vs a winger redneck (which is 1000x more likely btw). 

Edited 2 hours ago by red viking

[wrestlingguy]

Just now, red viking said:

Expose your wang to one of my daughters and I'm swinging the hammer on you either way. Don't care if u have makeup and hairspray vs a winger redneck (which is 1000x more likely btw). 

No you wouldn't. It would get classified as a hate crime. See the problem?

[red viking]

4 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

No you wouldn't. It would get classified as a hate crime. See the problem?

No it wouldn't because another reason would be clear. 

Otherwise, the person would more likely get off without any time served if they were white and rich. Lock them up though or deport then if a minority. 

Edited 2 hours ago by red viking

[Caveira]

8 minutes ago, red viking said:

No it wouldn't because another reason would be clear. 

Otherwise, the person would more likely get off without any time served if they were white and rich. Lock them up though or deport then if a minority. 

The article says she exposed her penis.    She’s and hers don’t have um….. penises or waangs

Edited 2 hours ago by Caveira

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

The article says she exposed her penis.    She’s and hers don’t have um….. penises or waangs

It also said she was "transgender." Who's stupid enough not to know what happened here? 

[wrestlingguy]

15 minutes ago, red viking said:

No it wouldn't because another reason would be clear. 

Otherwise, the person would more likely get off without any time served if they were white and rich. Lock them up though or deport then if a minority. 

Any violence against someone that is transgender is classified as a hate crime just like any violence against a minority is classified as a hate crime. Violence is violence, nobody cares about the reason.

[red viking]

8 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

Any violence against someone that is transgender is classified as a hate crime just like any violence against a minority is classified as a hate crime. Violence is violence, nobody cares about the reason.

That's a 110% lie. If there's a clear reason why such as this then it isn't a hate crime. 

[mspart]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

That's a 110% lie. If there's a clear reason why such as this then it isn't a hate crime. 

Incorrect.   The most it could be is a 100% lie.   As a scientist you should be well aware of this. 

mspart

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, red viking said:

That's a 110% lie. If there's a clear reason why such as this then it isn't a hate crime. 

Hope that dude gets put in some good good blue city style county jail.   He will get the crap kicked out of him for this.    That goes the same if he’s a regular dude or a pretend lady dude 

Edited 2 hours ago by Caveira

[mspart]

What you are arguing RV is that the reporting of it is fine but the act was wrong.   

You are incorrect on the first.   A  male wagged his willy in front of kids and that is a gross sex assault.   See I got them both right in one sentence.   As a scientist, you should be concerned about accuracy. 

mspart

[wrestlingguy]

8 minutes ago, red viking said:

That's a 110% lie. If there's a clear reason why such as this then it isn't a hate crime. 

Ok, go ahead and explain how violence against a transgender person doesn't get classified as a hate crime. 

How do you magically know someone's intent? It either is or it isn't.

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

Ok, go ahead and explain how violence against a transgender person doesn't get classified as a hate crime. 

How do you magically know someone's intent? It either is or it isn't.

If she exposed herself to my kids and I took action against them, the reason would be clear. There's no "hate crime" so that's yet another winger lie. 

I also didn't say I would physically assault them. Could be legal retribution.