Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

"Legally they are unable to consent (and I suppose there's a good reason for that), but not ‘completely’ unable." -F3nd0

Yea. They can't consent, but it's not like the capacity is completely non-existent. It's not sufficient, though.

Do I really need to explain how fucked up this is?

Come on. He literally just said that it varies— it can be somewhat damaging, horribly damaging, or anything in between. That's a given for anything, there's always variability no matter how horrific something is.

but they left the conversation and never came back to it to apologies and show that they have learn which lead me to believe they still think the same which make them transphobic.

They put mostly positive spins on sentences that technically could be interpreted as transphobic or trans-friendly, and then stubbornly defended them the whole thread. They're very stubborn, but that doesn't make them transphobic.

1

Freux wrote

What is so hard to understand that no matter what the kid says it's not consent. The capacity is non-existent. He said that paedophilia can be anywhere from black to white. That's saying that rape can be anywhere from black to white, because kids cannot give consent.

The problem weren't the sentences it was the meaning behind them and even though people told him it was wrong he still argued that it wasn't.

I'll stop there as all I'm doing is repeating myself.