AnsFenrisulfr

Let me be the one to burst your bubble by pointing out Obsidian hasn't removed it, at least not yet. Also, please show me the evidence the memorial WAS transphobic. I can quote it to you, if need be. The absence of evidence is not evidence that this thread is going to end any time soon. But I can continue to try to get people to look at this critically. Should I wish you luck or offer my apologies to the wall on behalf of your head? I debate creationists and evangelicals. This is a picnic compared.

I really, really hope he remains anonymous. No one deserves the death threats, harassment, and attacks he will receive from the SJW crowd.

Let me be the one to burst your bubble by pointing out Obsidian hasn't removed it, at least not yet. Also, please show me the evidence the memorial WAS transphobic. I can quote it to you, if need be. The absence of evidence is not evidence that this thread is going to end any time soon. But I can continue to try to get people to look at this critically.

Let me be the one to burst your bubble by pointing out Obsidian hasn't removed it, at least not yet. Also, please show me the evidence the memorial WAS transphobic. I can quote it to you, if need be.

Preaching to the choir. The majority of people on this thread are saying to keep it.

Source on them removing it? I don't see anything on the forums.

I would be fine with just a toggle option. I'm pretty sure everyone would be fine with a toggle option, except for the hardcore agenda pushers on each side. HOnestly, only on one side... for once. I have yet to see anyone, even the most rapidly anti-removal on here, have issue with the toggle. So this is a rare case of actually one sided extremism.

Because double standards are hallmarks of those with hard ideological positions.

Right, pretty sure you are a troll, but please provide any evidence that the person in the limmerick is trans.

"Transmisogyny" When making up words reaches new levels of idiocy. Normally I am all for productive exchange, but that word doesn't even sound right.

Wait, that makes a lot of sense. The man could have been dead drunk. It's a possible possibility. But that would really make these 23 pages of discussion useless. This is why this seems absurd to me. And this was the interpretation of everyone I have asked so far. Heck, I signed onto these forums expecting maybe I missed the backer themselves saying something about it. Nope.

Mate, it does relate to trans people, it says so in the text, the problem is that some people seem to think that the text makes fun of trans people instead of the man who killed himself. Incidentally, those people are the ones who are offended by practically anything that moves. It's nothing. Nothing at all. 22 pages of nothing at all. 22 pages that discuss a problem that is not a problem in the first place. Where in the text? The text says that a man had sex with someone they THOUGHT was a woman. At no point is that person explicitly stated to be trans, or anything else. I used the example of the guy being sloshed as a case of "I was drunk and had sex with a guy, thinking they were a woman". So, as far as I can tell, there is no actual link to trans people beyond interpretation.

The only one who can do that is the gold backer who submitted it, and he hasn't revealed himself yet. Oh God, I hope they do not. No one deserves the wolves at their heels that would cause.

This is getting a bit derailed. Back on topic: Can anyone provide me evidence that this in any way does relate to trans people,a nd not (In example) just someone getting utterly sloshed?

I formaly retract my statement that none had a part in FemFreq.