Things About Transgender Intersex People People Who Hate Me Need To Know

  • There is a bug with the post editor. Images pasted from other websites from your clipboard will automatically use the [img] tag instead of uploading a copy as an attachment. Please manually save the image, upload it to the site, and then insert it as a thumbnail instead if you experience this.

AnOminous

See you in the funny papers.
Retired Staff
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 28, 2014
for the umpteenth time, you toxic transphobic talking turd, i am not a TRANSSEXUAL FEMALE , but I am a non-binary transgender woman. no surgery, fucktard.
Shut the fuck up, fatass, you're a man. A male fatass. A fucking child molesting man, commit suicide.
 

$hakerattle

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
i'm sorry you feel the way you do, but dispense with the paranoid assumptions, please. I never said anything about race. I said you were probably in denial of the fear conditioning of the industrialized society you live in. that is all and you reacted with all the hyperbolic histrionics out of nothing but the cognitive dissonance. Most of the people here are obsessed with hatred and fixated on nonsense. i hurled no slurs and i was not abusive.

My overriding contention is that predator capitalism, patriarchal authoritarianism, religious nationalism and the so called "protestant work ethic" has resulted in congenital stupidity in the most complacent slaves in the history of Empire. Not one of you can refute anything i say, so you make up all this outlandish shit to destroy my credibility.


why do you ask? are you hoping these sick fucks have me suicidal?

Tommie, I'm not being histrionic, nor am I being paranoid. I'm unbothered by any of this, because you're an online rando who doesn't know me at all (as proven every time you make bizarre assumptions about me). I'm literally just pointing out your hypocrisy. You make comments here indicating that you want to have discussions and that you'll treat people differently based on whether or not they treat you with respect. In my experience with you, that hasn't been true.

Yes, you've insulted me and made a lot of assumptions, even in your recent responses. Scroll back and read them. You've called me a Nazi, made comments assuming I'm a white/cis male, and made comments assuming my sexual orientation/view of trans issues, which is really odd considering I've mentioned trans friends in a positive light. Throughout all of this, I continued to address you as Tommie. I didn't engage in any name-calling, while almost everyone else here has lobbed a few "pedo dogfucker" remarks your way.

You expressed a desire to engage. I took you up on it. What I've found is that treating you "respectfully" (based on your rules for engagement) doesn't seem to produce different results. You're still aggressive and petulant in your own replies, even when I remain calm and polite.

Yes, Tommie, I can - and have - refuted some of your points. I've also agreed with a few. For example, I agree that Shaun King is a grifter wannabe. I agree that the concept of morality can be subjective. However, you make it impossible to refute a lot of your points because you don't seem open to new and differing ideas. If I were to post some trans stuff that went against your set-in-stone views, you would dismiss it (if you acknowledged it at all). You're constantly moving the goalposts. Given that opinions vary so wildly within the trans community itself, and given that peer-reviewed studies are still being performed, isn't it possible that grains of truth may be present in a lot of different ideas - even the ones you disagree with? Hell, some of my trans friends disagree with things you've expressed, and they can certainly back up their arguments with peer-reviewed literature.

The TLDR version is that you've been very hypocritical in your interactions here, because even when some of us decide to engage with you in a "respectful" manner we're met with aggressive insults in response. I think one of the only times you gave me an amicable response is when I told you which musical instruments I've played. Food for thought, Tommie.
 

Sexy Senior Citizen

What's the big deal? It's called a fetish!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
You can when those terms have no real solid definition, even within the framework of the junk science of gender as understood by persons such as Thomas J. Wassersperg.

Obviously, Wikipedia is no legitimate authority on anything, but it's the sort of "reference" pointed to by falsely-called intellectuals, mental defectives and substance-addicted subhumaniods such as our hygienically challenged friend in AZ, and you need only read into the second sentence of their article on "non-binary" identity, the first of which states that it means, "neither male nor female", only to include people who identify as the gender opposite the one they were "assigned". Oh, and try to ignore the fact that "assigned" carries the connotation that someone made a decision as to what gender to "assign" a child at conception; biomechanics being the only "true" god, the process is entirely random. That's thrown in there to cast aspersions on men generally and fathers specifically as its the father who passes along the Y chromosone - not by choice, of course - and who "determines" the gender of the child.

So, when words/terms can mean whatever you want them to mean - even the exact opposite of what they truly mean - depending on the circumstances, reality can be whatever you want it to be whenever you want - and anyone who disagrees with you will always be "wrong" and, in the mind of the most extreme mental defectives, always be an "enemy" to be destroyed [or exiled to Mars or whatever]. It's how Thomas can say, "I don't drink", and yet you see numerous instances on his livestreams of him consuming various forms of liquor and speaking of "always" having liquor on hand.

The degenerate freak left in these United States and the larger western world has, over the past five-ten years gotten very good at so diluting the definitions of so many words such that they have no meaning whatsoever.

That cuts to the heart of their delusional cultic ideology: if there is no structure or meaning to anything, then truly "anything goes", and how dare anyone express any disapproval whatsoever. It's a direct strike at the idea of their being any sort of order in "civilized" society, seemingly with the goal of reducing us to a form of "anarcho-communism" [a contradiction in terms if there ever was one] where society is basically the animal kingdom in most facets, but with some over-arching central "order" that steps in - but only when you use "hate" words.

Think the wild landscape of the inner portions of Africa or Australia, where very few people live and which are rife with some of the most dangerous wildlife there is. Imagine the hierarchy of the animal kingdom, where survival of the fittest rules, where the strong literally eat the weak and were defective offspring are either feasted on by the pack or by some other predator species, but where some stronger authority steps and says, "Oh no, mother lion, that's a "special" cub you have there, believing it's 'real' gender is not what you assigned it; you go to time-out!"

A version of the above is what the POZ want for humanity - at least in what we have traditionally referred to as "the West". What's truly......ironic, maybe[?], I'm not sure... well, for lack of a better word, it's ironic that they believe such a thing can actually exist with them somehow not ceasing to exist; as was aptly pointed out in one recent comment, Thomas is utterly dependent on a system he claims outwardly to despise and hopes falls down around him; of course, he believes he'll be spared the ill-effects of this - because "space jews" - where in a true ELE/breakdown of society scenario, persons like him would be among the first to be wiped out.

On a marginally related note, the preceding also enables Thomas, who in all actuality is not a "female" of any [imaginary] sort, be it "transsexual", "transgendered", "intersexed", "two-spirited" etc., but an ugly, uncouth, uncultured, foul-mouthed, foul-minded, sissified, cross-dressing, but not at all "feminine", and not even particularly "effeminate" homosexual, to express "bigotry" of all manner towards homosexuals [et al], as aptly pointed out above by @AntiSchwuletteAktion.



You are pretty fly.
Your explanation is pretty good, but you're wasting your time on Thomas. He refuses to pay attention to anything that isn't an underage girl or a female dog in heat.
Tommie, I'm not being histrionic, nor am I being paranoid. I'm unbothered by any of this, because you're an online rando who doesn't know me at all (as proven every time you make bizarre assumptions about me). I'm literally just pointing out your hypocrisy. You make comments here indicating that you want to have discussions and that you'll treat people differently based on whether or not they treat you with respect. In my experience with you, that hasn't been true.

Yes, you've insulted me and made a lot of assumptions, even in your recent responses. Scroll back and read them. You've called me a Nazi, made comments assuming I'm a white/cis male, and made comments assuming my sexual orientation/view of trans issues, which is really odd considering I've mentioned trans friends in a positive light. Throughout all of this, I continued to address you as Tommie. I didn't engage in any name-calling, while almost everyone else here has lobbed a few "pedo dogfucker" remarks your way.

You expressed a desire to engage. I took you up on it. What I've found is that treating you "respectfully" (based on your rules for engagement) doesn't seem to produce different results. You're still aggressive and petulant in your own replies, even when I remain calm and polite.

Yes, Tommie, I can - and have - refuted some of your points. I've also agreed with a few. For example, I agree that Shaun King is a grifter wannabe. I agree that the concept of morality can be subjective. However, you make it impossible to refute a lot of your points because you don't seem open to new and differing ideas. If I were to post some trans stuff that went against your set-in-stone views, you would dismiss it (if you acknowledged it at all). You're constantly moving the goalposts. Given that opinions vary so wildly within the trans community itself, and given that peer-reviewed studies are still being performed, isn't it possible that grains of truth may be present in a lot of different ideas - even the ones you disagree with? Hell, some of my trans friends disagree with things you've expressed, and they can certainly back up their arguments with peer-reviewed literature.

The TLDR version is that you've been very hypocritical in your interactions here, because even when some of us decide to engage with you in a "respectful" manner we're met with aggressive insults in response. I think one of the only times you gave me an amicable response is when I told you which musical instruments I've played. Food for thought, Tommie.
Your post is rational, well thought out, reasonable, and brings up multiple good points. However, this is Thomas Wasserberg we're talking about. He's not going to read anything less than a total asskiss, much less think about it. You're wasting your eloquence on someone like him.
 

Moralfag Supreme

All Hail Cthurkey!
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Take it from someone who's confirmed XXY male, you're not intersex. You're just insane and ultimately stupid. You have minor otherkin qualities and adopt any potential scientific argument you can find to fit your canon, not unlike Chris. Would explain why you're using tired, disproven, yet twistedly logical arguments that seem to appeal to only one type of person to justify what happened with Sabrina.
 

RadioactiveMonkeyMan

I am the passenger, and I ride 'n I ride 'n I ride
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Aug 5, 2021
Sorry for the double post - I'm surprised you haven't seeped into using the "Pedophilia is a sexual orientation" nonsense people try to cop nowadays. It's not. At best if it's not a cyclical circumstance of abuse from one generation to another and so forth, it's a birth defect.
He'd be all over that MAP bullshit if he used Twitter. Luckily, facebook nabbed his attention instead.
 

Tragi-Chan

A thousand years old
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 15, 2014
Sorry for the double post - I'm surprised you haven't seeped into using the "Pedophilia is a sexual orientation" nonsense people try to cop nowadays. It's not. At best if it's not a cyclical circumstance of abuse from one generation to another and so forth, it's a birth defect.
He has trouble with altering his narrative - he can’t keep things straight when he changes his story. He’s wasted years arguing that Sabrina wasn’t a child and it wasn’t pedo and there were totally normal reasons for all the other pedo stuff he does and it’s all the fault of those sexy little underage bitches seducing helpless, innocent men. Having to switch from that to “I did it but I can’t help it” would just make him so confused that he shits his pants twice over.
 

Solid Snek

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
@Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg You are not intersex. You are just an exceptional individual.
He's either not intersex, not transgender, or both.

As I have pointed out before, it's logically impossible for Tommy to be "transgender intersex", given his story, as he relates it.

According to Tommy, he was born intersex. But his parents and doctors didn't want Tommy to grow up intersex, so they surgically butchered him, and forced him to grow up as a male gendered individual. He lived as a male until the age of about 90, at which point he realized that he was born intersex, and decided to embrace intersex as his gender identity.

If this story is true, it means that Tommy cannot be trans. Tommy would have been trans, for most of his life - when he was still living as a "male", or, more accurately, as an Intersex-to-Male (ItM) transgendered individual. Now, however, Tommy's gender matches his birth sex; i.e. he is currently cisgendered (a cisgender intersex, but a cissie all the same).

In fact, technically speaking, Tommy is a post-op, detransitioned, cis individual, who - with his parent's blessing - received damaging sexual reassignment treatment when he was still a minor, treatment that he now regrets. Treatment that he now considers to be abuse. Not only that, but Tommy is incredibly bitter about the years he spent living as a transmale; so bitter, in fact, that one might even call him transphobic.


This is all according to Tommy's own story, given the most generous reading, and accepting all of what he said about his history as true.
 

Miss Tommie Jayne Wasserberg

Person of Interest
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 9, 2016
Tommie, I'm not being histrionic, nor am I being paranoid. I'm unbothered by any of this, because you're an online rando who doesn't know me at all (as proven every time you make bizarre assumptions about me). I'm literally just pointing out your hypocrisy. You make comments here indicating that you want to have discussions and that you'll treat people differently based on whether or not they treat you with respect. In my experience with you, that hasn't been true.

Yes, you've insulted me and made a lot of assumptions, even in your recent responses. Scroll back and read them. You've called me a Nazi, made comments assuming I'm a white/cis male, and made comments assuming my sexual orientation/view of trans issues, which is really odd considering I've mentioned trans friends in a positive light. Throughout all of this, I continued to address you as Tommie. I didn't engage in any name-calling, while almost everyone else here has lobbed a few "pedo dogfucker" remarks your way.

You expressed a desire to engage. I took you up on it. What I've found is that treating you "respectfully" (based on your rules for engagement) doesn't seem to produce different results. You're still aggressive and petulant in your own replies, even when I remain calm and polite.

Yes, Tommie, I can - and have - refuted some of your points. I've also agreed with a few. For example, I agree that Shaun King is a grifter wannabe. I agree that the concept of morality can be subjective. However, you make it impossible to refute a lot of your points because you don't seem open to new and differing ideas. If I were to post some trans stuff that went against your set-in-stone views, you would dismiss it (if you acknowledged it at all). You're constantly moving the goalposts. Given that opinions vary so wildly within the trans community itself, and given that peer-reviewed studies are still being performed, isn't it possible that grains of truth may be present in a lot of different ideas - even the ones you disagree with? Hell, some of my trans friends disagree with things you've expressed, and they can certainly back up their arguments with peer-reviewed literature.

The TLDR version is that you've been very hypocritical in your interactions here, because even when some of us decide to engage with you in a "respectful" manner we're met with aggressive insults in response. I think one of the only times you gave me an amicable response is when I told you which musical instruments I've played. Food for thought, Tommie.
the only thing i see here is an extended whine repeating the whine you made the first time . Do you have a point or are you just wanting to feel superior to me for some reason?

He has trouble with altering his narrative - he can’t keep things straight when he changes his story. He’s wasted years arguing that Sabrina wasn’t a child and it wasn’t pedo and there were totally normal reasons for all the other pedo stuff he does and it’s all the fault of those sexy little underage bitches seducing helpless, innocent men. Having to switch from that to “I did it but I can’t help it” would just make him so confused that he shits his pants twice over.
How about it happened forty years ago and you have ZERO evidence that I am any sort of sexual predator today, you self consumed pseudo-intellectual twat?
 

Stilgar of Troon

Facial Fremen-isation Surgery
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 26, 2020
How about it happened forty years ago and you have ZERO evidence that I am any sort of sexual predator today, you self consumed pseudo-intellectual twat?
Interesting that you don't outright state that you're not currently a sexual predator, only that there's "ZERO evidence" of it.
Lying by omission is still lying, Mr. Wasserberg.
 

Solid Snek

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 11, 2020
How about it happened forty years ago and you have ZERO evidence that I am any sort of sexual predator today, you self consumed pseudo-intellectual twat?
Hey Tommy, happy day-after-birthday!

My present to you is the gift of wisdom: it doesn't really matter to people that it's been forty years since you raped a kid. What matters to people is that you raped a kid.

There's no statute of limitations on people being revolted by child rapists, no amount of time that can pass beyond which people will think "it doesn't matter anymore". Just like the hundred year-old Nazis hiding in Argentina, you can live as long as you like, Tommy; you'll still be guilty, and justice will still be waiting for you.
 

Uncle Buck

Swag like Forsythe.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Interesting that you don't outright state that you're not currently a sexual predator, only that there's "ZERO evidence" of it.
Lying by omission is still lying, Mr. Wasserberg.

He employs this diversionary tactic as a means of attempting to control the narrative; it's true that there is no evidence that he's engaged in a pattern of behaviors post-Sabrina necessary to meet the technical definition of "predator". Of course, we're not speaking in either a clinical or legal setting, and certain slang use of terms outside their technical clinical/legal definitions is to be expected. For example, people often employ the term "pedophile" when they actually mean "child molester". Pedophilia is a state of mind, not an act, under its clinical definition, where "molester" speaks of an act visited upon a party.

It's technically true that Thomas J. Wassersperg is neither a "pedophile", as Sabrina was not "prespubescent" when he, according to his own admissions, engaged in the sexual act with her, nor a "sexual predator" in either the clinical or legal sense.

That doesn't make what he has admitted to - engaging, as a nearly thirty-year-old man, in sexual acts with a fifteen-year-old minor child that seem to my mind to meet the specific definition of a CA Penal Code Section 288(c)(1) offense - any less severe, though in his delusional mind he believes just that.

And, he likes to couple that imprecise use of language to the fact that the even occurred forty years ago to mean that it's "no big deal", never-mind the fact that he's repeatedly spoken of the event with fondness, dubbing it a "really beautiful moment" between the two of them, or words to that effect. And look how much time he spends not only talking about the event, describing it and how he felt about it in great detail, but lambasting those people who criticize not just the act but the perverse lack of remorse over it - while making it out that people who object to an obviously unlawful and rather perverted act are somehow in the wrong - which is as bad, if not worse, than the act itself.

It's also interesting that under current CA law, the statute of limitations on the specific crime that best describes his specific admitted acts, is the victim's fortieth birthday - and that there has been a recent push to eliminate even that extended statute [at the time he claims the act occurred, the statute was the greater of ten years or the victim's twenty-sixth birthday] - and that conviction of that offense, while chargable as either as misdemeanor or a felony, requires the convicted party to register as a sex offender for some period of time [ten years at least].