Captain Winky and Oralius Problematic Transphobic Jokes

Community General Discussion
325

No, is not. My body, my rules. Every person is the only one who has the right to choose who they are attracted to and feel disgusted at the idea of kissing which they are not.

Ace was happy with it because he believe he was kissing a woman. He was deceived and that nullify any consent he showed. A deceived consent is not valid consent. Is still sexual assault and if weren’t just kissing it could even be rape.

And what the director said I do not know what he said nor do I care. I have watched the movie, not the director interviews. I can only talk about what I saw in the movie and in the movie what I saw is a straight man doing what he needs for revenge. If the director’s intention was to show a transgender character, even if that is true and not something that he came out years later to avoid critic, he did a bad job with that because that is not what we can see watching the movie.

So, you are saying that not being transphobic means I should feel attracted to kissing you only because you the unilateral decision to want it, where is my consent? Where is “no is no”? Is funny, I always tought any sexual act, including kissing, was disgusting if one of the persons involved does no want it.

3 Likes
326

Their body, their rules. You state you’re attracted to a woman, the person we’re talking to said they’re a woman and definitely was a woman. Them finding out ‘they used to be seen as masculine’ doesn’t change that at all.

Which, he was yes.

Feel free to actually show any documented court case of someone kissing one another, despite never actually stating any such thing, and getting upset afterwards. I’ll wait.

Well, director said the character is trans… so, there you go. :3

Just stating that just because you supposedly ‘think’ someone isn’t a woman, despite them actually being one even on their ID and you stating ‘no they aren’t’ is indeed just that.

Trans women are women, thanks. If you say you’re straight, then that’s on the menu.

327

No, not their rules, because with me kissing does not only involving their body. It also involves my body. If I say No is No, no matter their rules. If she said no is also no. The no decission is uniteral, if one of the parts said No is no, no matter the other part rules said.

Yes is yes only if both said yes. Both consent fully knowing all facts or is sexual assault and/or rape.

Is like in math when multiply negative with positive
No and No is No
No and Yes is No
Yes and No is No
Only Yes and Yes is Yes

That those not change the fact that he believes is not, and knowing that would be enough to change his consent. Hiding information that proportionate false consent is sexual assault and/or rape.

As I said, the director’s opinion is irrelevant, even if he is the author. That is the concept of “The word of God” and I don’t believe on it. The author’s opinion only reflects his intention, if the author’s intention can’t be appreciated in the movie that means the director did a bad job. If an author wants to reflect his intention in his work he should do it in his own work, not with afterward interviews to explain what he wanted in the work but is not in the work.

People can only give true consent if they are aware of any fact that could affect that consent. Hiding any information that could affect that consent is sexual assault and/or rape.

If I think someone is a woman maybe I give consent maybe not, if she tells me that she is transgender I do not know if I would give consent or no, never happen, but what I am sure if she didn’t tell me I would feel deceived and feel any consent I previously give was given with deception and I will run away, I couldn’t be with someone who is willing to hide information to have sexual intercourses, that is by definition someone who has committed sexual assault and I can’t be with such person.

No, in my menu is only those who I want on it. And in any woman’s menu is the same, there is only those who that woman choose. Only if the woman is in my menu and I am in her menu could be a consenting sexual relationship. My body, my rules and her body, her rules. Yes is yes only if both my rules and her rules converge.

4 Likes
328

What’s sad is the way in which you all are trying to justify transphobia. Take away the ability for cis people to treat trans people like freaks and they’ll go berserk.

329

put that thing on ignore list not point dicussion same with clown who made this thread.

1 Like
330

What? You still trying to justify your point of view? A point of view that only exists in your own sad deluded world?

I’m still waiting for you to explain to me why you are personally offended? I am leaning towards you actually being in denial, and are protesting too much!

So come on, explain why you personally are offended, or is it just you being wanting of attention?

I’ll wait for the answer.

331

I did not. Got proof of your claim?
And no; you assuming is not proof.

Perhaps your idea of equality is the thing that’s wrong here. Did that ever cross your mind? I’m guessing the answer is ‘no’. Equality is NOT being treated special. Not now, not ever. Equality is being treated THE SAME.

And to be clear: I’m very aware that that is currently not the case. Sadly there is a lot of work to be done in that regard, but things like this are not helping. Why shouldn’t you be allowed to make jokes about someone being gay? Or trans? Or fat? Or small? Or dumb? Or smart? Or thin? Etc.

What you’re basically trying to enforce is a ban on making jokes, period. Well I’m not agreeing with that. I never will. Because I think that’s fundamentally wrong.
People are allowed to say stuff you don’t like. You are allowed to say stuff others don’t like. That’s all fine. But you don’t get to shut them up just because you don’t like something.

I told you: I DON’T KNOW YOU.
I know a vulpera called Pickpawkit. That’s what I base my conversations on.
Not because I think you’re a little fox person irl; because of course that’s nonsense. But because I don’t know the real you and I don’t assume to know. So I go on what I know.

How difficult is that to understand?

2 Likes
332

That’s not how it works.

333

another one alt looool.

334

Ye mate read the entire thread. Already covered. And yes it does.

335

Being legally a “female” on an ID (if the country’s laws support it) does not change that a Trans woman is still biologically male.

That’s not how it works.

A heterosexual male is someone attracted to the opposite sex (in this case a biological female), regardless of how a Trans woman chooses to label themselves they’re never going to be the same as a biological female.

6 Likes
336

Wouldnt use the term never actually. Who knows how far we are in another 50 years for instance. For example I think i remember reading something regarding uterus being transplanted into trans woman being a thing in the not so far future (whether that were artificially created ones through stem cells or what (no idea tbh) or donated ones i cant recall). And technically we all start as females in the womb anyway.

337

Transplanting body parts into a male that naturally develop in a female is not the same thing.

1 Like
338

As i said i would have to find the article again. Might very well be that its created from your cells in fact given our dna and how alike Males and Females are to begin with. And you said the same as a biological female which would be possible through means. You wouldnt have become one through natural causes but you would still be identical to one.

We made leaps just in the last century that were absolutely ridiculous in regards of science so it would be unwise to claim “never” especially since we still learn and advance so much on a daily basis.

339

If you have to use science to alter genes in order to emulate female reproductive parts in a male then it is still not the same.

It is not naturally occurring.

1 Like
340

Yes. The point was “being the same biologically” however. And that would be the case. Lets say we clone you 1 to 1. That clone would be biologically identical to you despite being artificially created.

It being natural or not would be another topic.

341

Many things aren’t naturally occurring. Do you reject medicine to treat your illnesses? It’s not natural.

None of this is an excuse to paint trans people like freaks.

342

He didnt paint trans as freaks in his responses. Its people like you that make it harder for us because you are unnecessarily jumping on these people and force them into an aggressive defensive stance as a result. This sort of behavior is a major reason why the AFD got so many votes btw.

3 Likes
343

That clone wasn’t happening through an entirely natural process though, just like transitioning or adding one set of reproductive organs to the opposite sex isn’t a physically natural process for the body (at least for humans).

Medication to treat an illness is vastly different from taking measures to appear as closely to the opposite sex as possible.

Are you now saying Trans people are all ill? I thought that went against trans ideology.

Being honest and stating there are differences between trans people and those who aren’t trans is painting them as freaks?

One last thing, is this not you?

3 Likes
344

Again: The clone would be biologically the same. It wouldnt be natural as that is another topic but the clone would be the same from a biological point of view. As i said i make a clear difference between being natural and being biologically the same.