Culture Tranny News Megathread - Hot tranny newds

Death penalty for these two?


  • Total voters
    280

Nykysnottrans

Repeat after me: I am beautiful.
kiwifarms.net
I sure as fuck am not taking elderly relatives to a funeral home where an old man in drag is the funeral director.
I've been thinking about this idea a lot and I'm convinced that at the end of the day it's no different than someone at a funeral parlour dressed in their fur suit or full latex bondage gear trying to act professionally
But what if the opposition then says: "When you say that a man who wears women's clothes in public is being sexually provocative (ie the same as wearing full latex bondage gear at someone's funeral just to disrespect them), you are sexualizing women's clothes and that's inherently sexist and discriminatory"?

Here's what the lower court judge said in that case when he ruled in favour of the trannie:

The Funeral Home raises several arguments against this interpretation of Title VII, none of which we find persuasive.

First, the Funeral Home contends that the Congress enacting Title VII understood “sex” to refer only to a person’s “physiology and reproductive role,” and not a person’s “self-assigned ‘gender identity.’” Appellee Br. at 25–26. But the drafters’ failure to anticipate that Title VII would cover transgender status is of little interpretive value, because “statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed.” Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79 (1998); see also Zarda, slip op. at 24–29 (majority opinion) (rejecting the argument that Title VII was not originally intended to protect employees against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, in part because the same argument “could also be said of multiple forms of discrimination that are [now] indisputably prohibited by Title VII . . . [but] were initially believed to fall outside the scope of Title VII’s prohibition,” such as “sexual harassment and hostile work environment claims”).
In other words, originalism ("sex in Title VII means sex and nothing else", this is the argument that TERFs always bring up) is not considered a valid reason to fire a transperson, and the US courts have already said that in several Title 7 cases.

These judges always cite this specific statement from that 1998 precedent when they argue that the word sex should be expanded to include gender:

“statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils,
and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators
by which we are governed.”
I have never heard a good comeback from a TERF lawyer against this 1998 precedent. Basically, what do you say to this as a lawyer, to convince a judge that discrimination on the basis of sex is not the same thing as discrimination on the basis of gender? Do you tell the judge that gender is just about someone's public presentation (ie gender is what you choose to wear to work), and since someone can choose how to present themselves in public it's not the same as sex which people cannot choose or change? I have seen all the feminist arguments for why sex discrimination is not the same as gender discrimination, but judges are not feminists so they are not going to be open to such arguments. How do you legally explain to a judge that two evils that might appear the same upon first glance are not in fact "comparable evils"? I basically wanna hear a good legal argument disputing that 1998 quote.
 

trannyfucker

fucker of trannies
kiwifarms.net
Muh one legged transgender lesbian:

1570649842409.png

Changing Faces activist Mikaela Moody shares her experiences of being disabled, gay and transgender, and the challenges of ‘passing’ as a woman when you have a visible difference.

Proud transgender, queer, disfigured woman Mikaela Moody was born with Crouzon syndrome, which affects the shape of her head and face.

Growing up, her disfigurement increased her gender dysphoria as she didn’t believe she could be disabled and a trans woman.

Now, she is a campaigner for Changing Faces as a confident trans woman.


Being gay, transgender, disabled and disfigured.
For Mikaela Moody, 28, living in the intersection of queer, disabled and transgender can present a lot of social dysphoria.


Especially when thinking about having to ‘pass’ as a woman, Mikaela finds being perceived as a woman harder because of her visible difference.

Often leading her to believe that “there’s nothing that I can do, I’m still going to be read as a guy”.


Coming out as a woman took Mikaela longer because of her disability.

She suppressed her gender identity because she believed she “could only have one thing and that had to be my disfigurement and disability”.

After graduating from university, Mikaela came out to her family as a transgender woman describing it as a “privilege for them as well as me”.

Discrimination in differences.
Mikaela Moody is proud to be a disfigured, trans, gay women but says the world isn’t accepting of people like her yet.


Saying that “as a disabled trans woman I never had anybody like me, to look up to, to see as a role model”.


Mikaela is trying to change people’s perceptions and views around people with disfigurations and campaigns with Changing Faces, the UK’s leading charity for visible differences.

Being discriminated against and undermined because of her physical appearance, Mikaela says that “it hurts to feel like your not apart of something”.

Believing that “everyone has worth no matter and we must stand together”.

Mikaela finds camaraderie with LGBT+ people who are intersectionally discriminated against because she doesn’t feel completely accepted by the abled LGBT+ community yet.

Saying that “there are still plenty of disabled people who don’t feel as if they can be in LGBTQ spaces without being seen as inspirations or burdens or barriers”.

She asks abled LGBT+ people to become inclusive of people like her and to “keep an eye on what you’re joking about and what words you use because sometimes they will hurt people that you love”.
45184342_10216443895385222_3259356191653888000_n.jpg
 
Last edited:

Elwood P. Dowd

President of the Maxliam Fan Club.
kiwifarms.net
Muh one legged transgender lesbian:

This being October and all I've been re-reading Lovecraft. Immediately reminded me of this.


Innsmouth look

EDIT

SHARE

Innsmouth
The Innsmouth Look
Lovecraft circle Seal The "Innsmouth look" appears in the Cthulhu Mythos story, "The Shadow Over Innsmouth", and refers to a set of physical features that result from the hybridization of Humans with Deep Ones. The "look" is shared by all inhabitants of Innsmouth and its origins are a zealously kept secret.
The characteristic features of Innsmouth's townspeople are:
  • great affinity for water and swimming;
  • bulging, unblinking, watery eyes;
  • acute alopecia;
  • resonating, gurgling voices;
  • shrivelled necks with strange lines (becoming gills in the end);
  • wide mouths with thick lips;
  • flat noses;
  • tiny ears and;
  • squeamous grayish skin
Most people might think these traits are some sort of congenital hereditary trait, but they are actually the symptoms of a very slow metamorphosis. As descendants of both Humans and Deep Ones, the people of Innsmouth undergo a very slow transfomation that might take most of a human lifespan to complete. They are slowly changing into Deep Ones, and with the passage of time, the signs of the transformation are more acute and visible to the naked eye. Children look like regular humans, but as they grow, they will start displaying the unsettling and somewhat repulsive traits that define their inhuman lineage. Other humans may tolerate their standoffish presence, but animals hate them and will not go near them willingly.
IMO, nails every trait except the NFL Defensive Guard neck. 🤔

I'm only mildly terrified, since I don't live near the coast.
 

LateNightMuffin

kiwifarms.net
What is it with troons and taking selfies posing with baseball bats. Is this becoming a thing with them?
it's not a huge mystery. they hate women and want to terrorize any woman who disagrees with them into submission. same old shit. they don't hide this. even the examples you gave state clearly they want to hit women who say no to men with baseball bats. the trans movement is based on threats and intimidation: say yes to our fetish or we will kill you.
 

brainlent

kiwifarms.net
But what if the opposition then says: "When you say that a man who wears women's clothes in public is being sexually provocative (ie the same as wearing full latex bondage gear at someone's funeral just to disrespect them), you are sexualizing women's clothes and that's inherently sexist and discriminatory"?

Here's what the lower court judge said in that case when he ruled in favour of the trannie:



In other words, originalism ("sex in Title VII means sex and nothing else", this is the argument that TERFs always bring up) is not considered a valid reason to fire a transperson, and the US courts have already said that in several Title 7 cases.

These judges always cite this specific statement from that 1998 precedent when they argue that the word sex should be expanded to include gender:



I have never heard a good comeback from a TERF lawyer against this 1998 precedent. Basically, what do you say to this as a lawyer, to convince a judge that discrimination on the basis of sex is not the same thing as discrimination on the basis of gender? Do you tell the judge that gender is just about someone's public presentation (ie gender is what you choose to wear to work), and since someone can choose how to present themselves in public it's not the same as sex which people cannot choose or change? I have seen all the feminist arguments for why sex discrimination is not the same as gender discrimination, but judges are not feminists so they are not going to be open to such arguments. How do you legally explain to a judge that two evils that might appear the same upon first glance are not in fact "comparable evils"? I basically wanna hear a good legal argument disputing that 1998 quote.
You've got it kind of tangled up, or at least you're racing ahead of where case law is currently at in terms of handling gender.
The convincing TRA argument I heard cites Price Waterhouse, which is that, but for Stephen's sex, he would not be discriminated against for wearing a dress. Gender stereotypes are the means by which he is discriminated against for his sex. The court doesn't sanctify his desire to wear a dress as his gender, like it would a religion and protect the means by which you practice that religion, as much as it tears down the idea that men must not wear dresses at all.
Price Waterhouse established the "but for" argument for gender stereotyping. So in Aimee's case, "But for his sex, he would not be fired for wearing a dress." Simple and pretty unassailable. It's the reason I think, if there were only one judge and not a whole partisan game happening, Stephens would probably win.
But the judges are afraid of some of the stupid, valid contentions people hold with the "but-for" argument. E.g., but for a man's sex, he would not be reprimanded for asking a coworker about menstruation. Or, but for a man's sex, he would not be turned away from performing bikini waxes on female clients. But for a man's sex, he would not be turned away from women's professional sports. They called the fallout of but-for under Title VII a "parade of horribles" and made light of it during oral arguments which I don't think was particularly wise. A good third of the time was spent worrying about how much they can affirm "but for" because the more they nail it down the more Price Waterhouse starts to override common sense and begins to consume Title VII.
The law only sanctifies genders in certain jurisdictions. Stephens is still being considered almost entirely on the basis of sex because it's to neither party's advantage to try and stretch Title VII to protect the practice of gender when simply protecting sexes against gender will suffice.
edit: I should say, the main distiction to me between protecting from gender and protecting the practice of gender is a lot of the obnoxious genderspecial behavior we see in this thread. Purple hair, mixed-gender and ill-fitting clothes, refusal to go by ordinary or non-changing pronouns are not protected for either sex and therefore neither sex is discriminated against for being prohibited from doing them.
 
Last edited:

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
You've got it kind of tangled up, or at least you're racing ahead of where case law is currently at in terms of handling gender.
The convincing TRA argument I heard cites Price Waterhouse, which is that, but for Stephen's sex, he would not be discriminated against for wearing a dress. Gender stereotypes are the means by which he is discriminated against for his sex. The court doesn't sanctify his desire to wear a dress as his gender, like it would a religion and protect the means by which you practice that religion, as much as it tears down the idea that men must not wear dresses at all.
Price Waterhouse established the "but for" argument for gender stereotyping. So in Aimee's case, "But for his sex, he would not be fired for wearing a dress." Simple and pretty unassailable. It's the reason I think, if there were only one judge and not a whole partisan game happening, Stephens would probably win.
It's not an entirely outrageous argument and in fact has resonated with enough courts there are some precedents saying that, but the counterargument is there isn't some discriminatory, invidious rule. Both males and females are subject to a reasonable dress code that doesn't disadvantage either of them and it can be assumed that when Congress passed a law prohibiting sex discrimination, they were talking about sex discrimination as it was viewed at the time they drafted the law, not according to some concept of gender invented on tumblr last Thursday.

According to that counter argument, there is no discrimination in saying a male at a formal establishment should wear what is expected in a formal situation, such as a funeral, and that this is a suit and tie, not some outlandish outfit that the people there for a funeral will find disturbing and insulting at what is already one of the toughest times in their life. And regardless of what a male does, he is still a male, even if it becomes the prevailing etiquette to pretend he isn't, much as one pretends that one's co-worker's children are smart and good looking and don't look like mongoloids and act like monkeys, which they do.
 

keyboredsm4shthe2nd

CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES! GRIND THEIR BONES INTO DIRT!
kiwifarms.net
I love this video by Zoey, LMAO. Check out this part (context, Zoey is dating an Italian cop, and it's time for the big gender reveal party):


Spoilers: later in the video there's a date with a happy ending.
If he doesn't clock you right away, the time to tell him is the first date, you sped. It's comparable to cheating, looking him in the eyes and saying "yes I have a vagina". Just like how some people can look into their husband's eyes "no I'm not taking another man's dick on the side" If you can't admit to it, you're not trustworthy.
 

TaimuRadiu

Kaiserin
kiwifarms.net
From my local poz factory



Michigan Resident Aimee Stephens’ Case Could Shape Transgender Rights in America


ad9b3aadd15b14ba4c07 (1).jpeg

“It became a fight and a journey for not only myself but also thousands of others,” says Stephens on Detroit Today.

This week, Aimee Stephens became the first person ever to have the U.S. Supreme Court hear a discrimination complaint on the basis of gender identity.

Stephens is a transgender woman from Metro Detroit. She was fired from the Harris Funeral Home in Livonia, after she transitioned from being a man and began showing up at work as a woman.

Her case could help decide whether federal law banning sex discrimination applies to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Stephens says she was living her personal life as a woman, but her professional life as a man. She was suicidal in the time leading up to coming out as transgender at work.

“I considered taking my own life. But I decided I wanted to live because I liked me too much,” says Stephens on Detroit Today with Stephen Henderson.

She was fired shortly after coming out to her employer, explicitly because she’s trans.

“It hurt. I felt like I’d been done wrong. And I got mad,” she says. “Mad enough to stand up for myself and do something about it…It became a fight and a journey for not only myself but also thousands of others.”

The ACLU is representing Stephens in her case.

“If the Supreme Court decided against Aimee, they would be taking away rights that have been recognized for years in the United States,” says ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Dan Korobkin. “If the court decides the other way, we’d be taking a big step back when it comes to civil rights in this country.”

“When you look at the text of the law, there’s no question that firing someone based on their gender identity or sexual orientation is discrimination under the law,” Korobkin continues.

New York University law professor Melissa Murray agrees. She’s the co-host of Strict Scrutiny, a podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it.

“I think Ms. Stephens and the other plaintiffs — there are three consolidated cases — have a really strong case,” says Murray. “The whole idea behind Title VII is that it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race and the basis of sex. And the question whether sexual orientation is included in that prohibition of discrimination on the bases of sex seems pretty straight forward.”

She says these cases could be a test of whether the conservative majority on the court will live up to their supposed adherence to textualism in interpreting the law, or if they will let ideology win the day.

“I think this presents a real quandary for the conservative members of the court because it would require a decision that may be out of sync with their ideological priors, but it would require doing something that would be consistent with what they’re done elsewhere methodologically,” says Murray.

Murray will speak at Wayne State University on Thursday October 10th at 4 pm at the Community Arts Auditorium as part of the WSU Alumni Association’s Arthur L. Johnson Urban Perspectives Lecture Series. The talk, Political Realignment, Reproductive Rights, and Justice, “will explore the political, legal, economic and social factors that influence reproduction and parenting, touching on race, ethnicity, socioeconomics and sexual orientation — as well as how the changing composition of the Supreme Court could affect reproductive rights in America,” according to lecture series organizers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zeebie

Mitt Doggy Dogg

kiwifarms.net
That’s eerily similar to an article I read out of Canuckland.

Is there a man in there?

I heard the manager of the beauty salon yell as I froze up in terror. I hid in my stall praying that the door latch worked as I yelled back “No ma’am, nobody here but us women.”

I heard her footsteps echo over the damp tile as she made her way over to my stall. I saw her eye through the crack in the door looking me up and down. Then she asked me something that almost made my heart stop.

We’ve had complaints about someone taking pictures of kids in here. You wouldn’t know anything about that, would you?

I answered “No!” in a panic and fumbled through the sanitary disposal bin. “I’m just changing my tampon.”

But the manager didn’t care that I was in fear for my life and what she said next rocked me to my core.

“If you don’t get out of there right now, I’m calling the police.”

I knew as a trans woman that the only thing the police liked more than shooting unarmed black people was beating people like me. So I called my mother, who is the most supportive person I know, and had her get me out. She burst through the door on a mobility scooter and we rode out of there before the police arrived.

But that wasn’t the end of my ordeal. I took that manager to one of Canada’s many human rights tribunal courts in order to get some badly needed justice. But all I got were glares from everybody in that court. You’d think diversity would be a good thing. But the fact that every color of the ethnic rainbow seemed united against me made my ordeal hurt even more.

But the worst part was dealing with the judge. He took one look at me and said the words I dreaded hearing from him.

“Oh, it’s you again.”

All I could do was shrug and say “Yes your honor, me again.”

Normally this is the part where the judge reads my complaint to the court. But instead, he threw a blue box at me and dismissed my case.

“Justice is served. Now get the hell out of my court.”

I looked down and immediately began to cry. It was my favorite brand of tampons... soaked in ketchup. I was shaking because I was so angry. There is only one thing that’s supposed to go in a tampon and it’s not ketchup! It was like watching someone boil their ramen noodles with Mountain Dew. And worst of all, that judge did it because he hates trans people.

So the next time someone makes a 41% joke or says that the LBGTQ+ community has it good, you tell them my story. You tell them just how hard it is for a trans woman in Canada.
what the fuck is this some kinda Jonathan now known as Jessica fan fiction?
 

trannyfucker

fucker of trannies
kiwifarms.net
Horrific transphobic stickers have been found in Oxford - police are appealing for witnesses.


The stickers said that trannies should all be killed. No wait, that's not what they said - it was

1570734748546.png


and

1570734789069.png


This is very serious hate crime and you should call the police if you have any information


A fight has broken out over transphobic stickers in Oxford city centre.

Thames Valley Police said a large number of the offensive stickers have been placed on lampposts and other street furnitiure.

They started appearing in March 2019 in High Street, Catte Street and Parks Road area.

But in a bid to fight back, supporters of transgender people have been removing the offensive labels and replacing them with supportive messages.

READ AGAIN: Police appeal for witnesses after transphobic stickers appear

One sticker seen on a lamppost near the entrance to the Covered Market today said: "Bisexuals with our trans siblings."

Zayna Ratty, chair of Oxford Pride, said: "Since Oxford Pride day and before that transphobic stickers have been going up around the city centre.

"There was one near the Pitt Rivers Museum with a graphic image of a penis in trans colours - blue white and pink - with a transphobic message alongside it.

"Supporters of the transgender community have been removing the offensive stickers or covering them up with their own supportive stickers.


"There are dedicated activists out there going round removing the transphobic stickers.

"The transgender community should not have to put up with these transphobic stickers - they get enough abuse as it is without having to see this walking through the city centre.


"It's inducing hate crime - I think there should be mandatory education around trans issues rather than fining people."

Ms Ratty shared images of the transphobic stickers with the Oxford Mail to show how offensive they could be.

Going Digital told oxfordmail.co.uk: "The whole thing is utterly ridiculous!

"The only time your genitals make a difference is when you intend to have a sexual relationship with someone, otherwise really it doesn't matter what someone identifies themselves as.

"We have been fighting for decades for equality of the sexes, instead of categorising someone by their gender, we should be looking at them as a person. It doesn't matter to me, what their age, race, gender, political affiliation is, they are just a person.

"I don't have to understand the most intimate parts of their life, just accept that these things are important to them and accept them for who they are.

It is nobody else's business to tell someone else how they should live their life as long as it is within the law. What gender someone identifies as is of no concern to me."

A Twitter feed called Stickers Against Hate has been documenting the row.

Thames Valley Police is investigating and appealing for witnesses following the offences.

Investigating officer PC Rebecca Nightingale based at St Aldates police station said: “Behaviour like this is not acceptable and we take incidents of this nature very seriously.

“I am appealing for anyone who may of witnesses these stickers being placed around the city or anyone who has information that may assist our investigation to call the non-emergency number 101, quoting reference 43190163238 or report online.
Of course, the head of Oxford Pride is called Zayna Ratty.

Zayna is a Hypno-Psychotherapist specialising in G.S.R.D (Gender, Sexuality, Relationship Diversity), LGBTQIA+, QTIPoC, BAME, Consensual Non Monogamy, Poly and Alt based in Oxford at www.zayna.net. Zayna is also an experienced trainer, speaker, panel chair and conference presenter on intersectionality and cultural identity, sexuality, gender and relationship diversity while delivering bespoke consultancy services to corporations and charities. Zayna is the first female PoC Chair of Oxford Pride, Chair and Executive Trustee of award winning charity OxFriend. As a Stonewall PoC and Schools Role Model, she goes into schools and talks about the acceptance of diversity and combatting HBT bullying.Columnist for OxMag and Fyne Times, Zayna is also a multimedia domain contributor on Mental Health and PoC issues. She is Founder of the Queer PoC Therapist Network, working to decolonise traditional therapy. Oxford University LGBTQIA+ Support Group lead and Turning Point LGBTQIA+ Substance Misuse group co-facilitator.

Ah yes, a Schools Role Model. 'Hey kids my name's Zayna and I hypnotise trannies for money'

Kink & Alt Knowledge Hypno-Psychotherapist

There are many ways for adults to express and enjoy intimacy, sexuality, and gender and should be free to away from the judgments of others.

  • kinky / BDSM / leather / fetish / bondage / chastity
  • non-monogamous / open relationship / polyamory / threesomes
  • Swinging / dogging / cuckholding
Holding this open, anti-oppressive liberal view means I differ from some mental health professionals.

This means I believe that these are normal variations of sexuality and gender, which for the most part are best accepted and integrated into a person’s core identity.



This is the best kind of Role Model for children - one who can teach girls that when they grow up they should be having anonymous sex with a black man in a car park with three fat truck drivers wanking onto their face, while their husband watches.

It is a good thing that these role models are helping the police catch the kink-shaming hate criminals who say that women don't have dicks!

1570735547070.png


Hate sticker monitoring account here


And image dump (basically just repetitions of the stickers above): https://imgur.com/a/VHU6bmG
 
Last edited:

Spastic Colon

kiwifarms.net
Horrific transphobic stickers have been found in Oxford - police are appealing for witnesses.


The stickers said that trannies should all be killed. No wait, that's not what they said - it was

View attachment 966592

and

View attachment 966593

This is very serious hate crime and you should call the police if you have any information




Of course, the head of Oxford Pride is called Zayna Ratty.

Zayna is a Hypno-Psychotherapist specialising in G.S.R.D (Gender, Sexuality, Relationship Diversity), LGBTQIA+, QTIPoC, BAME, Consensual Non Monogamy, Poly and Alt based in Oxford at www.zayna.net. Zayna is also an experienced trainer, speaker, panel chair and conference presenter on intersectionality and cultural identity, sexuality, gender and relationship diversity while delivering bespoke consultancy services to corporations and charities. Zayna is the first female PoC Chair of Oxford Pride, Chair and Executive Trustee of award winning charity OxFriend. As a Stonewall PoC and Schools Role Model, she goes into schools and talks about the acceptance of diversity and combatting HBT bullying.Columnist for OxMag and Fyne Times, Zayna is also a multimedia domain contributor on Mental Health and PoC issues. She is Founder of the Queer PoC Therapist Network, working to decolonise traditional therapy. Oxford University LGBTQIA+ Support Group lead and Turning Point LGBTQIA+ Substance Misuse group co-facilitator.

Ah yes, a Schools Role Model. 'Hey kids my name's Zayna and I hypnotise trannies for money'

Kink & Alt Knowledge Hypno-Psychotherapist

There are many ways for adults to express and enjoy intimacy, sexuality, and gender and should be free to away from the judgments of others.

  • kinky / BDSM / leather / fetish / bondage / chastity
  • non-monogamous / open relationship / polyamory / threesomes
  • Swinging / dogging / cuckholding
Holding this open, anti-oppressive liberal view means I differ from some mental health professionals.

This means I believe that these are normal variations of sexuality and gender, which for the most part are best accepted and integrated into a person’s core identity.



This is the best kind of Role Model for children - one who can teach girls that when they grow up they should be having anonymous sex with a black man in a car park with three fat truck drivers wanking onto their face, while their husband watches.

It is a good thing that these role models are helping the police catch the kink-shaming hate criminals who say that women don't have dicks!

View attachment 966604

Hate sticker monitoring account here


And image dump (basically just repetitions of the stickers above): https://imgur.com/a/VHU6bmG
I honestly never thought I'd see the day when saying that women don't have penises would be considered controversial and hateful, to boot. Or that posting the dictionary definition of a word would be seen as hate speech. What a time to be alive.
 

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
I honestly never thought I'd see the day when saying that women don't have penises would be considered controversial and hateful, to boot. Or that posting the dictionary definition of a word would be seen as hate speech. What a time to be alive.
Don't worry, we'll soon have all those hateful dictionaries burned and replaced with wokethink.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino