>>42058683
reminder that nearly all trannies were called transvestites until recently and they hated gay people (and still do)

>>42058694
> and they hated gay people (and still do)
I see we going back to historical revisionism, poisoning the well and divide and conquer tactics.

>>42058683
>Anyone who says this flag excludes T is also engaging in historical revisionism as well.
this is one reason why I hate the progress pride flag (among many reasons), the way it has the trans chevron on the side implies the rainbow doesn't include us, even though it always has
we need to retvrn to the classic rainbow flag

>>42058701
retard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaumont_Society

By 1973 the society had 233 members.[5] Later in the 1970s it had 700 members.[7] By the late 1970s over 2,000 people had passed through its membership.[8] During this time Stephen Whittle joined the society.[7] In its early years the society was explicit that it was for 'heterosexual transvestites' and that 'overt gayness' was not included.[5][9] Campaigning to alter this started in the 1980s,[9] By the 1990s transgender people, across a range of sexualities, were explicitly included.[7]

>>42058713
my god, one tiny group of 2,000 people who quickly changed an informal policy in a decade is apparently an entire movement now.

Wasn't the lesbian flag back then the one with the axe

>>42058711
>this is one reason why I hate the progress pride flag (among many reasons), the way it has the trans chevron on the side implies the rainbow doesn't include us, even though it always has
>we need to retvrn to the classic rainbow flag
There is a gay bar in my area that only has and flies classic rainbow flag. None of this new shit.

>>42058734
that wasn't tiny, that was the largest TV group in britain
the same thing was true everywhere
transvestites, who became transgenders, despised gays, they were never part of the gay movement at all
they hijacked it when it was convenient

>>42058749
okay now let's talk how NAMBLA still exists to this day

bamp

>>42058683
what even is queer type shit like can you be queer and NOT a tranny/lesbo/fag/bi?

>>42058683
>the first dinglefucker rights group was in 1789 after David Monroe was caught fucking a dingle

Where's our recognition?

>>42059140
My grandmother, born 1918, was using "queer" as a term to mean "curiously strange", "those are some queer ducks" in 2015. I don't know how shit shit happens.

bampo

bump

>>42058931
nambla was never real
it was always christian fundamentalists trying to make gays look bad from day 1 of its existence

>>42059302
nope, it was very real
i dont understand retards who think any heinous thing done by fags or trannies has to be fake
do you think there aren't bad people on your "side"?
pedophilia wasn't even condemned that much until the late 1990s, when i grew up people made jokes about priests fucking choirboys

>>42059360
>it was very real
according to what, you wanting it to be real to prove the conservative trope that gays rape kids?
wah wah another gay hating tranny you aren't original

>do you think there aren't bad people on your "side"?
I don't think gays are more into kids than straight people are. I think accusing gays of being into kids has been used as a justification for broader violence and discrimination for a long time.

>>42059377
>gay hating tranny
impossible to be gay hating and a tranny.

>>42059377
>according to what,
look it up
harry hay and alan ginsberg were founders of the gay rights movement and of NAMBLA

> the conservative trope that gays rape kids?
actually that wasn't even the trope

the conservative fear was that gays would turn kids gay, not specifically that they'd rape them

the notion that having sex with kids is the worst crime imaginable only came about in the last 30 years

>wah wah another gay hating tranny you aren't original

i'm gay, not that it matters

i like being accurate

>I don't think gays are more into kids than straight people are. I think accusing gays of being into kids has been used as a justification for broader violence and discrimination for a long time.

even if gays were a higher proven risk, it wouldn't justify discrimination

men are obviously a higher risk to children than women, but we still allow men to be school teachers and daycare workers

and blacks are obviously more criminal than whites, but we don't pre-arrest black people for crimes

>>42059377
Netherlands had a PDF party in mid 2000s. The leader was arrested in Mexico on human trafficking charges.

France had the PDF Liberation Front (started by Sartre) in the 1950s.

Oh, and let's not get into the PDF alliance in the 1980s in Germany - https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/gay-activists-in-germany-silent-on-alliance-with-pedophiles-in-1980s-a-919119.html

You wanting these things not to be real is cute, but ultimately futile.

Yes, there are unjustified and trumped-up conspiracy theories on pdf networks used to demonize gay people.

Two things can be true at once.

>>42059440
>men are obviously a higher risk to children than women

Not exactly true anymore (if it ever truly was).
It's just that women's SA on children wasn't taken seriously until very very recently.
And women's grooming (especially of boys) is still not taken seriously at all.

>>42059458
the UK has had 3 recent cases of daycare workers raping little kids

how many of them were gay i don't know, but all men, even though there are hardly any men working in daycares

>>42059474
I'm sure that happened, but somehow one by one almost every country is finding that women's crimes against children are "on the rise" and then later on realize they were just not looking for it.

https://www.unisc.edu.au/about/unisc-news/news-archive/2024/december/child-sexual-abuse-by-women-is-on-the-rise

Look, i support putting pdfs through the woodchipper, but i'm sick and tired of this intentional and systemic denial of the danger women pose to children (and boys in particular)

>>42059444
you are assuming any of these groups are organic and truly promoted by gays in good faith
do these groups rule anything? or they only exist so you can claim gays are a threat to the safety of children so in fact conversion therapy and social segregation are needed?

>>42059495
there's no discrimination against men or towards women in digital crimes - police just go on IP addresses or website reports

virtually everyone arrested and convicted of indecent image offences is a man

nearly all sex offenders are men, too, so denying that men are a higher risk is delulu

oh, finally, guess which women are the exceptions. lesbians and ftms are a much higher risk of crime than other women, overall.

it's the testosterone.

>>42059526
>it's the testosterone.
do ftms have criminal offense rates similar to cis males?

>>42059520
>you are assuming any of these groups are organic and truly promoted by gays in good faith

The one in Germany was organic.

>do these groups rule anything?

The one in Germany ruled kindergartens in Berlin for decades.
https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-authorities-placed-children-with-pedophiles-for-30-years/a-53814208

You're basically into conspiracy theory territory at this point.

>or they only exist so you can claim gays are a threat to the safety of children so in fact conversion therapy and social segregation are needed?

Yes, yes, anon you're "just asking questions" because heaven forbid there'd be real gays who really did terrible things under the banner of gay rights.

Btw, Germany is the host of the oldest lgbt org in the world and France never had conversion therapy.
Zoom out a little bit. The world is not one giant USA and most of everyone else in the world does not share your tiny anxieties from being brought up in Fuckknowswhereville, Arkansas

>>42059560
yeah, according to the swedish study

>>42059561
>The one in Germany was organic.
how do you know that?
anon you are just a HOMOPHOBE
it is so tiring to interact with you people
you don't argue in good faith, you don't really care about saving the children or whatever you just want to demonize men and gays however possible to promote your castration cult

>>42059526
>so denying that men are a higher risk is delulu

I am not denying that overall. I am however questioning the schools part. And the more recent data bears my concerns out.

>nearly all sex offenders are men, too

Yes. But even that is at least in part due to how the law ends up working in practice.
You can end up on the sex offenders registry for peeing behind a dumpster and be seen by a foid who "got scared".
Meanwhile, foids can rape boys and not be on the registry because of "made to penetrate" definition (look it up, don't trust me).

Ceteris paribus, would more men than women be on the registry? Yes, of course. But I sincerely question the ratio. The overwhelming majority of female sex offenders are never caught and when caught they get lesser sentences (see the sentencing gap).

>digital crimes

There is a discrimination there too, mostly due to practicality.
The police goes harder and more often against a specific crime (live action csam) and a lot less or never against all the other crimes of the Protect Act.
Animated csam is also illegal. But there's far less enforcement against it.

>>42059585
>how do you know that?

Because I live in Berlin. I know the scene. And I'm not 12 years old.

>however possible to promote your castration cult

kek
i'm not a tranny. But do go on. Keep denying recorded history because that's very good.
At some point you will realize how silly you are.

>>42059644
>i'm not a tranny.
sureeeeeeeeeee

Both the tranny hater and the straight chud trying to pay gays as pedos are both retarded.

>>42059520
you are a genuine mouthbreather

gays, trannies, women, and straight men are pedos, sometimes, and that is a good thing, actually. pedophobia needs to stop now.

>>42059650
I clocked you right with the tiny anxieties from being brought up in Fuckknowswhereville, Arkansas, didn't I?