Hostem Cogere. Principles over politics.
Here and There
Joined November 2016
- Tweets8.6K
- Following302
- Followers400
- Likes1.7K
Pinned Tweet
If a man and a woman get married, and the man claims he's a woman and a lesbian - is this now a lesbian relationship?
If yes - then his transition changed his wife's sexual orientation; her orientation is mutable, a choice.
If no - then he's a straight man.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Imagine being so consumed by gender ideology that you declare agreement between biological sex and personal identity a mental illness, while insisting subjective identity overrides biological reality.
Remember kids: gender dysphoria is in the DSM.
Objective reality is self-evident; if you have to tell me you are the thing it's only because you aren't. 🙄
Just because you want to Mr.Potatohead yourself doesn't mean I'm going to affirm it by following your DIY plans.
🙄
If your willingness to educate children is contingent upon displaying your personal social or political beliefs, you've confused education with advocacy.
Students are there to learn, not be your captive audience.
You wanted to be an influencer, not an educator.
This Post is from a suspended account. Learn more
Ah, the classic self-sealing argument.
Agree and you're a "good" man. Disagree and you've supposedly exposed yourself as a "bad" one.
Maybe someone objects to your reasoning rather than the behavior you're condemning?
Logic isn't your enemy.
Bro, let's start with the actual ruling.
No court ruled that. It ruled evidence of biological sex was wrongly excluded from a self-defense trial. If you have to embellish and manufacture reasons - it's gossip, not news.
law.justia.com/cases/tenness…
**4/5**
Anyone retweeting that headline as proof Tennessee justified killing trans people is amplifying bullshit. In truth, Erin sought to"point out" injustice by inventing it. Eli parrots it.
We teach children the Golden Rule, yet adults routinely argue that certain people deserve violence, suffering, or death, particularly over politics and ideology. Apparently, we're comfortable advocating some pretty fucked up consequences as long as someone else carries them out.
And if we tolerate people profiting from the rhetoric of violence while condemning the public display of punishment, I think we ought to be able to explain the distinction beyond simply saying one makes us uncomfortable.
@2chicksobsessed
This is the common argument when every other defense was cut down. Probably not your fault but it makes two assumptions in the premise:
1. The only motive is “control" and not "concern"
2. It concludes by projection, negating the opening request.
And law needs auditable categories. If “woman” is self-declaration, enforcement becomes non-falsifiable: anyone can claim in, and officials can’t verify without policing belief in every step. You strip your own agency in the end.