- Sep 21, 2004
- 46,426
- 52,582
- AFL Club
- GWS
Pronouns aren't enough. You now have to say your race and hairstyle too.
'Have to' is doing a lot of work in the sense it's a fabrication; you don't have to.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pronouns aren't enough. You now have to say your race and hairstyle too.
Someone wants attention.'Have to' is doing a lot of work in the sense it's a fabrication; you don't have to.
No, you're misrepresenting or outright ******* lying.Someone wants attention.
Are you outraged?No, you're misrepresenting or outright ******* lying.
I don't give a * how she identifies. If she wants to identify as a cat, it isn't any of my business.Gethelred check this out...
I identify as a cat, wear a tail and ears each day - my boyfriend puts me on a leash and thinks it’s cute
A WOMAN who identifies as a cat says that expressing her feline identity has brought her closer to her partner and has finally enabled her to become her true self. Model Kat, 31, has been into kitt…www.google.com
So in your mind, she's a cat? That's how she identifies and that's the bottom line?
Of course, but that's not the issue. Folks can identify however they like. I don't dispute that. If she wants to live as a cat, she should go for it. That's no one else's business. But that doesn't mean everyone else has to validate that fantasy. I'm not going to pretend that she is in fact a cat. And you apparently object to that?I don't give a fu** how she identifies. If she wants to identify as a cat, it isn't any of my business.
She's not a cat? Why not? She identifies as a cat. Isn't that the bottom line?She's not, and nobody is requiring you.
She can if she wants. Seems like you're engaging in some cancelling.She's not a cat? Why not? She identifies as a cat. Isn't that the bottom line?
I'm not cancelling anything.She can if she wants. Seems like you're engaging in some cancelling.
She's not a cat; but she can identify as one if she wants.I'm not cancelling anything.
I'm asking, do you regard her as a cat?
She identifies as a cat so who are you to deny that?
So she identifies as a cat but you reject that? On what basis?She's not cat a cat; but she can identify as one if she wants.
Sure, but you should do it anyway, right?Nobody is compelled to identify her as one.
Because she's not a cat.So she identifies as a cat but you reject that? On what basis?
Not legally. Do it if you like.Sure, but you should do it anyway, right?
But she identifies as a cat. So what is your basis for not regarding her as a cat?Because she's not a cat.
So why don't you do it?Not legally. Do it if you like.
You're the one refusing to validate someone's self ID.fu** me this right wing identity politics is dumb.
Just to be clear, it's a kink thing. She's doing it as a kink thing.Of course, but that's not the issue. Folks can identify however they like. I don't dispute that. If she wants to live as a cat, she should go for it. That's no one else's business. But that doesn't mean everyone else has to validate that fantasy. I'm not going to pretend that she is in fact a cat. And you apparently object to that?
So do you consider her to be a cat?
She identifies as a cat, so she's a cat? Right?
Or not?
Who are you to draw that conclusion?Just to be clear, it's a kink thing. She's doing it as a kink thing.
She identifies as a cat. Why don't you regard her as one?The article makes no expectation of general social expectation for humans other than her partner - who, generally speaking, is consenting to their relationship being the way it is, is willing to adhere to her fetish - to treat her as a cat, to behave as though she's a cat. She found a job where she gets to pretend to be a cat, and she found a boyfriend willing to stay with her, particpate in the things she likes.
I'm not doing that.Do you usually indulge in kink-shaming?
She identifies as a cat.She doesn't identify as a cat, quite clearly. She provides answers to questions; she talks, goes to work, wears clothes, and has sex with her human boyfriend. She is willing to talk to a tabloid about her experience; I'd be rather interested to know a bit more about how they approached her, what she was told about what their story would be about.
I rather think they might've taken a story about a fetishist and her partner and turned it into an identity politics thing.
Kat told Barcroft TV: “I have always been different. I just always had a fascination with cats and I felt myself, I'm a cat. I go through life being a cat – it's just who I am.”
You're the one refusing to validate someone's self ID.It's easy to laugh at stooges like this, but right wing populists appeal directly to them on the basis of this nonsense.
Yeah, I've seen this show before, SW. It's entertaining, but this is where I get off.Who are you to draw that conclusion?
She explicitly says she identifies as a cat.
Why don't you validate her self ID as a cat?
She identifies as a cat. Why don't you regard her as one?
I'm not doing that.
This woman identifies as a cat. Why don't you regard her as a cat?
You're the one taking her identity and reducing it to a sexual fetish. That's gross. Would you say the same about a trans woman? They're not really trans, it's just a kink?
She identifies as a cat.
Why don't you regard her as such? Who are you to police her identity?
If someone identified as a moon but had a job and wore clothes instead of floating in outer space, would you disregard that self ID too?
Suddenly you're not so eager to accommodate? How come?
So let's recap.Yeah, I've seen this show before, SW. It's entertaining, but this is where I get off.
I didn't take issue with this position at all. I asked you why you've taken it, and why you think I should.So let's recap.
I tell you that I won't accommodate neopronouns because they're ridiculous. Someone can identify as a cat but they're simply not. I won't participate in such absurdities.
You take issue with this position. You ask why I won't validate the way other people identify.
... because it's clearly a kink thing, and she is wearing clothes, answering questions, and going to work. The article makes clear references to BDSM and pet play, and discusses how she had to introduce her boyfriend to the culture and bring him around to the idea.I offer you an example of a women who identifies as a cat, and you refuse to validate that, because she's clearly not a cat.
See above.Is that a fair account?
It usually ends with you declaring you're right, and the other party being disgusted with themselves for bothering.We've all seen this show before. It runs on repeat. Spoiler alert: it ends with me being right.
I'm happy with my summary.I didn't take issue with this position at all. I asked you why you've taken it, and why you think I should.
Given how happy semantics make you, you'd have thought a small but necessary distinction wouldn't have slipped through the cracks.
... because it's clearly a kink thing, and she is wearing clothes, answering questions, and going to work.
This is a component of why this'll be the last post you're going to get out of me here: when you think you've found the wedge, you hone in on it and attempt to cram who you think you've wedged upon it, ignoring each and all factual evidence or argument which might contradict your position or allow them to evade the wedge.
It's why it works sometimes to extreme effect, but when it doesn't work you start to sound increasingly hysterical with each successive post.
I've no desire to be a component of such a performative little exercise, SJ. You're welcome to find someone else, though.
See above.
It usually ends with you declaring you're right, and the other party being disgusted with themselves for bothering.
I mean, sometimes you're absolutely right. But not always.
While you demand attention despite having absolutely nothing to say.This is a football forum, but there is a legion of people defining their political identity on refusing to do something nobody is requiring them to do.
By dominating you on BigFooty?This is how Jordan Peterson made his public persona.