Alyssa

Well, y'all got me. I'm done. Just can't keep justifying the stress simply trying to exist on this website brings me. Just not worth the fight when there's zero hope anything will improve.

Deuces

 I do get that there are people in religions that do not take every word in the texts for truth per se, however there are still many who do and will still remain respectful despite not being supportive of it.

That's problematic for its own reasons. I don't defend inaction is complicity in everything, but when it comes to things like this it absolutely is. If you have the chance to uplift others, you absolutely should. If you witness someone putting other people down or spreading hateful ideas, then you should absolutely say something.

In this case, it creates false allyship. It gives off the feeling that people who are marginalized can feel safe around someone and, when they want to open up and confide in that person, will realize that the person who they thought they knew and trusted was never actually that person.

Bigots who are openly bigots are easy, in comparison, to deal with - you just ignore/avoid them if you're not feeling up for that kind of confrontation. The people who hold bigoted views and keep them secret are harder. It's a reminder that in the modern world, there are very few spaces that are truly safe for marginalized people to exist without judgment or reprisal.

Moreover, this kinda flies in the face of your whole point of "just talk to these people and change their minds with evidence", doesn't it? If they're not going to actually express their views, how do I change them? When does this conversation occur?

But sometimes the intention isn’t intended to cause harm. It’s to make a claim they believe is true, no matter how controversial it may seem.

There's definitely a point where these claims cease to be "just claims" though. We've had the debates over gay rights, racial and gender discrimination, trans rights, etc. ad nauseum over a variety of different forums. The research and evidence is not hard to find. Yet they still make these claims. Even when directly presented with the evidence they don't stop. It stopped being a matter of "differing opinions" years ago for trans rights. Decades ago for gay rights. Even longer for things like sexism and racism. It's just part of the culture for people who believe these things. No piles of empirical evidence and analytical review will change that - they just don't give a damn.

It's real easy to tell who actually intends to cause harm - just look to see who doubles down after presented with reality.

even if a claim may be controversial or offensive to a certain group of people, silencing that individual because of it is taking away their first amendment rights.

That's...not what the First Amendment says in really any way, nor does the First Amendment apply to privately owned spaces like this very website.

The First Amendment says that they can't punish you for speaking out against them. You're allowed to make all the inflammatory claims about the government and, so long as you're not actively planning to commit violence, they just have to sit there and take it with a smile. Nothing about the First Amendment speaks to anything regarding discourse between private parties or about discourse in privately owned spaces. It's why Terms of Use agreements exist and why places like Youtube is free to flag and take down whatever videos they like - they own the space completely, and they decide what kind of discourse is acceptable or not on it. Citing the First Amendment isn't going to save you from getting banned on, really, any website when you inevitably get banned for dropping slurs or doing things that violate their conduct policies. Not to mention that websites are accessible globally, generally speaking, so trying to apply protections enforced by the US Constitution for a website that's hosted in, say, Spain is laughable.

This website is still in the developmental stages, so it has the choice as to which direction it wants to go in with regard to what kind of discourse is permissible here. I'm losing optimism that it will pick a good direction as time goes on.

Just because it is not commonly done anymore in 2026, that does not mean it doesn’t work.

It's not commonly done anymore because history has shown very clearly that it doesn't work. It took a war to enforce the point that institutionalized slavery was not okay, and that just shifted things to less flagrant forms of oppression, relatively speaking. How many spouses were stuck in abusive households or died at the hands of their "loving partners" before Women's Suffrage was accepted, and even to this days facets of sexism still exist. We're still in the fighting stages for things like gay rights and trans rights, and people are still being marginalized because of who they are. No study changes that, regardless of how persuasive the speaker is. Hell, just look at how polarized politics is in the modern day. I can throw all the sources in the world at the average MAGA fan. All I'd get back is "fake news".

It's a nice ideal, I'll give it that. Hell, I used to think it was true. After the tenth or so time that it failed to actually do anything I realized that y'know, some people just don't want to change.

If that’s how you’d like to describe it.

How else am I supposed to describe it? What you're effectively asking people to do is for a black person to sit down at a debate with a white supremacist that's moderated by Trump and expecting there to be some semblance of a civil conversation. Nothing productive is going to happen there.

As for your personal concerns with things I've said, I apologize. I don't mean to attack you as a person. If some things I've said seem overtly confrontational, just understand that I'm tired from working pay check to pay check and my patience for things like this, given other people's antics on this site, is virtually gone. I don't mean to take that out on you.

Simply making a claim is not hate speech.

A lot of the claims we've been talking about do these things that you categorize as qualities of hate speech, though. Saying things like homosexuality is a mental illness implies that there's something wrong with people who are homosexual, that they're damaged or "not right", and that if they were "fixed" then they wouldn't be homosexual. If that's not demeaning or dehumanizing or implying inferiority, then I'm really curious as to what you think qualifies.

Yes, I do feel it is equivalent to gender reassignment surgery.

I somehow missed this when I was originally skimming your post. That's...wow.

Gender dysphoria is not just some generic "dissatisfaction" or wanting to be more attractive in their eyes. Imagine you wake up in someone else's body (since your profile says you identify as a girl, for this example imagine you wake up in a guy's body). The feel is wrong. Your body shape is wrong, moves wrong, acts wrong. You get up and look in the mirror and the reflection looking back at you is completely alien to you. There's the part of your mind that reminds you that this is you according to everyone around you. There's the other part of your mind that screams that something is wrong, that nothing makes sense. The stubble of facial hair on your face grows out like a sore or a tumor and it's lauded as a sign of good growth, something that's 'normal' that feels anything but. You go to put on clothes but nothing fits right or feels right. Even that stuff that by all measurements fits your body perfectly feels like a badly measured costume, an act for a play that you never signed up for but keep getting pushed on stage for day in and day out.

That's the closest I can get to describing gender dysphoria for people who are still in the closet, and that still barely scratches the surface. The rest I literally don't have words to describe. And it gets worse once you understand the gender dysphoria behind it.

Gender reassignment surgery isn't just some bland cosmetic procedure, a simple swapping of parts to make someone look different. It's about claiming your identity, asserting yourself on a stage that is actively trying to push you down, rectifying some kind of genetic or cosmic mistake so that for the first time, you can live authentically without having to look down at ever present reminders that re-open old traumas.

So if you think that the soccer moms who go to get lip filler to follow the latest fashion trend are on the same level of need as trans people looking for treatment, I don't think we have anything more to discuss.

I’m not saying that two women or two men cannot successfully raise a child, however, a good influence that is the opposite sex should be introduced.

Why do good influences need to be of opposite sexes? Traits like kindness and empathy aren't gender coded.

are only introduced to these things through their two moms/two dads

Why do good influences need to be part of the familial structure? Hell, I took more example of how to be a good person (and a good father figure) from my soccer coach growing up than I did my own dad.

may experience bad influences of the opposite sex through public school.

They're going to experience bad influences in the public space regardless of what their familial support structure looks like. That's just how the world is. Why is that relevant to their child rearing capabilities?

Hell, why do positive influences even have to be real fucking people? I took more queues on how to be a good person from Sora and Kairi from Kingdom Hearts (a video game) than I did from most of the members of my family.

There’s also the fact that most kids do not grow up with two dads or two moms, so once the child begins to realize that other kids have both a mom and a dad, they may feel curious or envious about what that experience of having a father/mother figure may feel like.

Why does that affect whether or not someone grows up to be a good or bad person?

Literally anyone could do

Yes, but you need to actually internalize and process this. LITERALLY ANYONE can be a good role model for someone. Doesn't matter how old they are, what gender they identify as, what race they belong to, or any other "key defining" factor you want to bring up. People pick and choose who they model their beliefs after and what examples they follow. So trying to enforce some arbitrary gender requirement on familial upbringing is nonsense that's just rooted in queerphobic rhetoric.

But the only way that could most likely be possible is basically taking the sperm of another species and using that to fertilize the egg (im only addressing the rat example you gave because I do not know what the Dolly experiment is),

We'll start with the Dolly example because that's easier to Google.

Dolly was a sheep that was created by removing the nucleus from an unfertilized egg and replacing it with the nucleus from an adult sheep's mammary cell, then medically stimulated into developing an embryo, then implanted in a surrogate mother and carried to term and birth. This effectively 'cloned' the sheep, but the key point for this discussion is that at no point in this process were sperm cells introduced.

Extremely ethically problematic in humans, but again, ethically bankrupt mad scientist.

The lab mice example, which has had a few different iterations in it's methodology, took cells from male mice, changed them into stem cells, then converted those stem cells into egg cells, which were fertilized and carried to term. Technically uses both sperm and egg cells, but no female mice were used. The egg cells originated from stem cells that were created from male mice which, again, not human, but a more more ethically cooperative concept.

Both illustrate the concept that the traditional concept of male + female = baby isn't necessarily the only way to get there, and that it's possible other avenues exist that would allow queer couples that don't follow the traditional family dynamic to naturally have kids.

It may dictate how they perceive or like a person as an individual, but that does not mean that they do not have the capability of being respectful to people despite their beliefs.

Having the capacity to be respectful =/= actually being respectful. Everyone has the capacity for respect and empathy. Not everyone exercises it.

But many religions like Muslims do see it as a sin and believe it is a sin and a choice, so while they may not say a statement such as that specifically, they still have beliefs that are often disagreed upon by the LGB community.

Let me provide an example then:

Back when I coached high school speech and debate ~8-10 years ago, I had a student who was a real bright kid. Played football, studied hard, genuinely a good person. Deeply, deeply Christian beliefs, put Christ first in all aspects of his life. Never made anyone feel lesser than for who they were or what they believed, genuinely loved everyone.

During one topic (well it was really a couple topics, but regardless), he had gotten it into his head that he wanted to run cases that utilized the Divine Command Theory as part of his framework. I was skeptical of it but I said sure, helped him write the cases and research the arguments. He was in a quarterfinals round where, and I forget the context of the statement because it's been a hot minute, but he made the claim that went something along the lines of "trans people are immoral". I was in the round with him as an observer and it took him a second for the reality of the words that just came out of his mouth to actually register with his brain, but the shock and dread on his face when he made that claim was clear as fucking day. Granted he recovered quickly and kept going with the round, but there's no doubt in my mind that, after recognizing what he just said, that he regretted what he said.

Tea doesn't end there because one of the judges in the round happened to be a trans person. Round ends, judges vote, my kid lost 3-0. Granted he lost the debate for more reasons than just the outlandish comment, but every single judge mentioned it to him as a "You really shouldn't have said that" kind of thing.

After the round, I pulled him aside to talk to him about it to try and figure out what happened that lead to that moment. My expectation going into it was going to be some level of judge bashing and "Oh I got judge screwed because of one comment" kinda talk (most kids I coach who develop this trait get it from me, I was an absolute menace as a high school debater and owe multiple apologies to past judges for things I've said behind their backs).

His reaction? He asked me if Dakota (the name of the trans judge in the debate) was okay and if I could talk to them to see if they'd be willing to hear an apology from him. He clarified that the words he chose in the moment weren't actually the argument he was trying to make (granted the argument he wanted to make wasn't much better from a strategic view, but was infinitely less inflamatory), and he wanted the judge to know that what he said in the round wasn't actually something he believed or defended.

Moral of the story, religious texts can say one thing, but individual religious followers don't always defend or believe every line of text in the books, nor every interpretation of those texts. Listen to what they say and watch what they do. That tells you what they really believe.

Someone saying ‘homosexuality is a mental disorder/illness’ could be considered hateful or offensive if you think having a mental disorder is bad.

My belief is irrelevant to their statement. Their intention with the statement is. If they wanted to say that "transgender issues are rooted in gender dysphoria, which is a mental health issue", that's an altogether different statement than "transgender people are a mental health problem", even though they look similar.

simply address their arguments with other pieces of evidence and information that challenges their worldview.

Wild that people still thinks that this works in the year of our lord 2026. Hell, I can point you to multiple threads on this site alone that serve as examples of this not actually doing anything.

Simply spewing insults go nowhere,

So marginalized groups are supposed to sit down at a table where insults are being thrown at them or are everpresent around them and remain open minded, but aren't allowed to call out those insults for what they are for risk of "closing off the minds" of people promoting hate speech? Make it make sense, please.

What you define as hate speech isn’t hate speech though. They are claims you don’t agree with.

Por que no los dos.

Some people get plastic surgery because it allows them to express their wanted physical characteristics which could be internalized and has been proven to be internalized considering it is the same thing as a transgender person getting surgery to change their secondary sex characteristics.

Are...are you actually defending that someone getting lip filler is the equivalent of a trans person have gender reassignment surgery? Legit question.

If you don’t mind me asking, what part of my conclusion was confusing?

The problem with your conclusions, at least in this specific quote chain, is that you seem to be looking at statement in a vacuum without considering the context of the intentions of the speaker. I've worded above ways to differentiate statements in a vacuum that make it clearer to tell intent, but the bottom line is people choose their words intentionally, whether that decision is conscious or not. Hate speech is speech that is intentionally derogatory or marginalizing, and there are lots of ways for that to present itself if we're only considering a single marginalized group, much less every group that is or has been marginalized. Especially over the internet, where we don't have body language queues to help us gauge intentions, our words carry meaning, so the only avenue for productive discourse and opening the avenue for changing people's ideas is if everyone feels comfortable being present in the first place. Hate speech creates an ecosystem where marginalized groups don't feel comfortable, so we're never going to get honest discourse to challenge harmful stereotypes or stygmas because the affected parties aren't going to be there to defend themselves. Ergo, if we care about free speech and the promotion of rigorous and intellectual discourse, hate speech can't be present.

Like, there's a reason I'm not suggesting something like parthenogenesis, where egg cells just start dividing on their own absent any kind of fertilization, or the experiments where doctors can introduce electrical shocks to prompt the egg to start dividing without any kind of fertilization. Those don't result in actual babies being born.

A mother figure and father figure is very important in raising a child. I say mother/father figure because I personally feel as long as the homosexual couple have maybe a friend or uncle or whatever of the opposite sex of whatever they are, that is fine,

LMAO. Oh, that's where this is going. I see now. Regardless, I'll bite. Why can two women or two men not successfully raise a child, without falling back on traditional familial standards?

This is irrelevant considering you completely ignored my point about how eggs cannot fertilize other eggs, and sperm cannot fertilize other sperm.

Because that's only how reproduction works if you're wearing blinders?

A human child comes from a fertilized egg that is carried to term. A fertilized egg that is carried to term is the end goal, then. Traditionally, that has been done by introducing sperm cells, sure. So if there are other ways to reach the end goal of a fertilized egg other than introducing sperm, then the classical view of man + woman = baby falls flat. And there's enough evidence out there to suggest something like that is possible. Not guaranteed, not likely, just possible. Granted, there's a ton of legal and ethical issues with doing human variants of the Dolly experiment, but the concept is there if some ethically bankrupt mad scientist wanted to take a crack at it.

No where did I make the claim that egg + egg = kid. Same with sperm. Save the strawmen for the farms.

Simply saying you do not agree with an idea, especially an idea as philosophical and psychological as Transgenderism, does not mean that the individual expressing their disagreement with the said idea is ‘reflective’ of how they treat people.

In what fucking world is this even remotely true? If someone tells me "I don't like brocoli", I'm not going to assume that means that they'll eat brocoli but they just object to the theoretical existence of it or whatever. Likewise, if they say something like "black people are typically criminals" or "muslims are typically terrorists", in what world am I to assume that that's not how they treat people in those groups?

Muslims are generally not allowed by their religion to support Homosexuality (and one is heavily criticized if they do say they support it and are muslim at the same time) but most will still respect those who do

Not being allowed to support something =/= expressing explicitly hateful or derogatory speech towards something. The same theoretical group of people you're referring to probably aren't going around saying "homosexuality is a mental disorder" either, so they wouldn't fall under the types of people I'm criticizing.

It is extremely radical and almost irrational to believe that someone simply disagreeing on something means they are ‘bigoted’, ‘nazi’, or ‘hateful’, and I’m honestly tired of seeing it because it stops us from actually having real conversations on why each of us think the way we do.

Where are these 'real conversations' you're referring to? Are they in the room with us right now? They all boil down to various flavors of "you, as a person, and your existence is immoral to my world view". Religious extremists justify it through whatever codex they defend. Political zealots usually disguise it as the former with more political jargon. Incel chuds are either extremely closeted and full of repressed self-loathing or are doing some variant of licking Andrew Tate's feet (that's one area that I refuse to read more of to spare myself the brain cells).

Moreover, none of these conversations can actually occur if hate speech is present and accepted in the first place because marginalized people just aren't going to show up and sit down for the conversation. The only way to actually have hope some kind of conversation can take place in the first place is if hate speech is restricted/prohibited.

For example, I disagree with people getting plastic surgery

Conflating plastic surgery with someone's identity or race is wild.

Someone simply saying ‘I believe that transgender identity is a product of mental disorder’ is not the same as ‘transgender people are purely delusional and should be shamed from society for thinking the way they do’.

Is the Winter Olympics up next in the rotation? The mental gymnastics you're doing here are impressive. You should try out.

However surrogacy is generally seen as bad all around since it’s using another woman’s body essentially as a human container.

I mean sure, but if consent is there and we protect that consent then let people do whatever they want.

But a lot of people who do not agree with homosexual individuals will not agree with them having children, especially using these methods

So, y'know, back to the original point of badly disguised hate. Got it.

There is no other way to fertilize an egg without sperm.

Any egg? Dolly says hello. Obviously not tried with humans (and for good reasons), but the line exists if people wanted to push it.'

There are also lab cases of using other cells to simulate sperm cells in lab rats. Again, not human, but enough to doubt the claim that only human sperm from a male will work.

To many who feel it is more logical to be heterosexual rather than homosexual, the mere thought of IVF and surrogacy is immoral,

Ah, so it's not about sexual reproduction, then because otherwise that complaint would fall through (if anything, it would be lauded as a moral success story because it allows couples who wouldn't have the ability to reproduce the opportunity to). It's just very badly disguised hate. Cool.

because it proves that only a man and a woman is capable of conceiving children.

Not really? A fertilized egg cell is required for conception. The list of ways to get there is expanding over time.

Yeah, but same issue exists in LGBTQP+-.

Ahh, so the standard "criticisms apply to thee but not to me" line of thinking. Nice.

The reason most anyone is straight is for the sexual reproduction of the human race.

Cool, IVF and surrogacy. Next excuse?

What I don't like about queerphobes is that it isn't logical.

When I say that it isn't logical, I am saying that there is no logical reason why person should be straight.

Why should I be straight?

If there is no reason for me to be straight, then there is no reason for anyone to be straight.

You simply cannot use logical deduction to deduce that you should be straight.

I don't think I should be straight. I don't feel straight. So I don't support queerphobes, because they don't support me as a perfectly queer girl, they didn't add "empathy" to their dictionary.

So not only that they can't logically deduce conclusion that they should be straight, but they are also racist against queer people.

All speech can lead to action, but doesn't mean it will

Speech is action. Saying "I believe X" is actively defending that X is true. You are making a claim to know something as fact, and that can influence people around you. It's a shitty argument because just you're just saying it's true, but reputation is an argument that people believe all the time.

Action doesn't have to be outwardly aggressive or violent to harm. Even something as small as the way you look at someone and the words you choose can hurt people. Your thoughts are your beliefs. Your beliefs guide your actions.

Also, just to be clear, this site isn't any safe space.

Interesting, when did airmax die and put you in charge?

On this site, users fight against each other's words for dopamine activation in their brain.

Or, y'know, just hang out and shoot the shit. Kill time. Maybe learn something. Play games. Talk about manga?

I also dont consider "hate speech" to be a problem as long as its just speech.'

The problem with hate speech is it's never just "speech", since it's reflective of your beliefs and actions. If you say something like "homosexuality/being transgender is a mental disorder", congratz that's what you believe. You just admitted to treating people differently. It is speech that's reflective of how you interact with others, which is action.

Hate speech also creates a silencing effect on the groups being hated on. People see queer bashing on a website from a bunch of people and it seems to either fly under the radar or be openly accepted by the site, then they will not want to interact on the site or spend their time here. Same thing with displays of racism or other forms of discrimination.

xD

My guy, you're applying absolute standards to human emotions. Just stop, for christ sake.

Merely saying that you liked old design more isn't enough, cuz we are not going back to 2008 design

"Feel free to make suggestions! Unless your suggestions aren't what I want, in which case shut the fuck up."

However, "new" is a condition for happiness.

Again, for some people this is true. For others, not so much. Your own zoomer brain that must need new stimulus is not a monolithic standard for everyone, as is true for dusty unc brain that says "new is always bad".

There's a reason why literally any online platform and any live service game has time periods between patches before any new adjustments are made that range from a few weeks to months - they look to actually check the results of their work and see if the changes they implemented made things better or worse. We're a smaller site so we probably don't need months between patches, but at least give things a couple weeks for people to see what's different and get a feel for how the changes impact their use.

As an expert in all psychology,

Eyeroll

"New = good" is not a universal feeling, and the rate of changes being made makes it impossible to determine if any of these changes are doing anything.

Make a change - wait a few weeks (unless bugs need fixing) and see how people like it. Adjust. Wait a few weeks. Adjust. Rinse and repeat until things are just right.

Bruh it feels like there's a new UI every time I log in. I'll probably look on my lunch break and it'll be completely different again.

If I could choose, I would be a cute Japanese female born in tokyo.

SatanLucy, self-described "alpha male"

the mountain does not pay people to come to it.

Ooooh that's right, your AI Girlfriend apps are free. Makes sense, at least this way you'll have "someone" to visit your "mountain" gag

I will retreat now'

Make sure to remember the tissues! And throw them away when you're done, ya filthy animal.

My warrior spirit cannot be shaken by woman's persistent disapproval.

Oh really? Does disapproval get your warrior spirit going? That's probably why you wanna take a break in responding. Got something you need to take care of now.

I dont need to go outside. the mountain doesnt need to move. Everyone admires the unmovable mountain.

LMFAO. I mean there are some people who are into inflation, so I'm sure there's someone out there you can pay to admire your 'unmovable mountain'.

Actually, nah you probably don't like being taken on walks because, y'know, going outside. Probably like the idea of it, though.

I am holding back because you are a woman. I could use my manly powers to seduce you or display my warrior aura, but I am saving energy for greater battles.

Bro you couldn't seduce a fifty year old hooker if you had ten grand in your hand. And I think displaying your "warrior aura" counts as indecent exposure in most states here in the US (and probably violates DebateCraft's ToU), so might wanna keep a leash on that one. I'm sure you have one handy, you sound like the kinda person who likes being taken on walks.

My dad made me. I came out of his balls. Maybe he doesnt like me, and that is okay. I accept my fate as an unwanted offspring of alpha dominant male and I still have his characteristics.

That's so sad. Here, let me pull out the world's smallest violin and I'll play "My Heart Bleeds For you".

But I am a winner in all fields of life I apply my manliness to.

Uh huh. Sure you are.

I could literally have my own harem if I wanted to. But I dont want to.

Yeah, that would require going outside and talking to physical people and that's scary. Much better to stay in the man-cave.

We could make fun of you too. We are just holding back because you are a woman.

"Oh yeah! Well I could totally make fun of you too! I could make so much fun of you! You just couldn't handle it! You're weak and puny and I don't want to hurt your feelings because I'm such an alpha male."

1. SatanLucy, probably somewhere

My father is an alpha male, so I am like him.

LMAO. You said earlier your own dad doesn't even like you, and you say you're like him? That's some next level self-loathing.

I am just not looking for relationships right now because I am pursuing a spiritual path of a warrior.

I'M DYING I CAN'T LMFAO

IS THIS YOU?!

I dont spend money on AI girls. the apps are pretty much free.

Well ain't that peachy.

I am an alpha male. I am just hiding my powers for now.

Sure you are, Goku, now sit down and eat some Doritos before you sugar levels crash.

Ad hommin.

Not really. I'm not making any kind of argument with that statement. I'm just making fun of you.

Well, Nirvana literally did that with a music album

Dude, if you honestly can't tell the difference between a band that lost mainstream relevance two decades ago and the current President of the United States of America, then there is no amount of logic that will get through your cranium.

Also, pick a better distraction target next time if you want to get attention off Trump. Not even Nirvana supports him.

LMAO.

God that makes so much sense now. It's fucking perfect. The little andrew tate wanna-be with daddy issues who can't seem to figure out why girls don't listen to him or talk to him so he spends all his time and money on AI girlfriends who are programmed to have to put up with him.

This has comedy blockbuster written all over it.