Don't your realize that the same logic you use to invalidate people with it/its or neopronouns is the same logic that transphobes use to invalidate trans people as a whole?
>>41494222i am an unapologetic it respecter
It's not natural to how language works and you can't force everyone to buy into that.You do you though.
>>41494296Exactly, it's the same.Again, they can do them.
>>41494222Imagine you're forced into a sack of meat and instinct, constantly at conflict with your own base nature and the force of entropy. People around you suffer without hope for reason. Now imagine you care about this fucking retarded shit.
>>41494222why do words affect you so badly that you have to punish others for it
>it/its this is a no pooner zone. do not pooner here
>>41494222Dude its just made up bullshit used to skinwalk us. I despise being compared to you. You make us look embarrassing and I’m ashamed to be associated with you because your interests are opposed to mine.
>>41494222Checked. Bold of you to assume anyone on here is capable of not being contradictory is favor of their self centered interests>>41494320Life is an agent of entropy not it’s antithesis
>>41494222Every single neopronouner is a woman or a sad, broken transwoman who can't transition fully
>>41494467*in favorTypo post of shame
>>41494467How is it contradictory? Wanting treatment for a physical birth defect has nothing to do with wanting to be called an object for some reason that you can't even explain
>>41494518Retard hands wrote this post
>>41494222my logic for not liking neopronouns is that they don't have any agreed upon meaning and don't refer to any actual gender. Like "he" refers to men, "she" refers to women, "they" is nonspecific. But "it" doesn't refer to any gender at all. It's used for objects, not genders. I get it if you're doing some kind of dehumanization play and I would probably also find that hot, but it's still not referring to a gender. Ones like "xim", or "fae" also don't actual refer to a gender, and aren't even real words in the first place. The problem with neopronouns is the same as the problem with xenogenders in general. They don't refer to any actual real-life social role or sex, they're just increasingly fractionated identities that don't actually refer to genders. Identities or feelings like this can be real, but they're not genders. "Cat" is not a gender, "cloud" is not a gender, etc. These might be ideas you identify with, but genders are social roles deriving from sex, and I think people who are into xenogenders and neopronouns don't actually know this. It has nothing to do with the complaints transphobes have. Transphobes come from religions positions (christian / muslim transphobes), from positions of sex-based bigotry (terfs), or from positions of lack of understanding (secular transphobes who don't understand the science behind trans people). But if I say "xenogenders aren't real", there's no equivalent transphobe criticism because no serious person would say "women aren't real".
>>41494320Need me a dark chocolate gd
>>41494222because xhey're fucking stupidpronouns hold no inherent value except as an indication of perceived sexyou viewing it as the same logic says a lot about how you view trannies
>>41494518Explain how being trans is a literal birth defect without citing tard pseudoscience about how brain genders are so totally real or talking about how you’re just completely disgusted by your birth gender
>>41494898>
>>41494874Eh, not even perceived sexMore like, performed sexGives transwomen and transmen separate gender buckets with pronouns we already have for what they emulate
>>41494222I think if there was no social stigma around it I'd use it/its. I barely feel like a person anyway so it feels nice for people not to expect that from me.
>>41494788fr
>>41494929Nigger how do either of those explanations serve to provide any reasoning besides the fact they validate your uwu feefees which are 100% more real and trve than those xe/xhey faggots
>>41494222explain what exactly makes someone an "it"
