TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Qxzkjp Archive

View 1 post and 55 comments by Qxzkjp on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
150

Qxzkjp/r/MensRights03/09/12 10:28 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
17

I didn't say the OED controls English, I said it was the authority. Stephen Hawking is (to many people) the authority on black holes, that doesn't mean he can summon them to do his bidding.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 07:21 PM
23

Two reasons: 1) It is the authority on English language and its usage, both present and past, and 2) it's paid for by my university.
/r/MensRights27/06/14 07:07 PM
24

That's fucking weird, because the pay-to-access Oxford English Dictionary has a much more neutral definition: http://imgur.com/MC7nu4O
/r/MensRights27/06/14 03:15 PM
14

Knowing the uncertainty is just as important as knowing the mean value. It doesn't matter if the average is $.50, you can only honestly say that the difference is somewhere between 1 cent and 99 cents.
/r/MensRights18/03/14 11:49 PM
2

the general tone of, "That link is shit because it's conservative" Do you even have any idea what the Daily Mail is? People are not against it because it's conservative, links are posted from the Telegraph all the time without comments like this. It's because it's the Daily FUCKING Mail. They lie. They lie a lot. Just recently they called the leader of the Labour party's dead father "the man who hated Britain", based on one diary entry from when he was 17. And refused to apologise. It's an insip…
/r/MensRights23/10/13 07:54 AM
1

Are you on this list? If not, then more than 4,973.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 04:13 PM
1

Actually, everyone in Charles' line, and in the Duke of York's line, and the other guy's line as well. Absolute Primogeniture only applies to people born after the Perth Agreement, because re-arranging the line of succession was thought to be a bad thing to do. So all of Margaret's siblings would have to die first. I am some kind of trivia sponge. I would hate myself, but I win a lot of pub quizzes.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 03:59 PM
2

Not quite. If Charles dies first, it still goes to William. I hate myself for knowing the rules of primogeniture, but that's what they are.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 03:53 PM
3

So basically adopting almost exactly the same mindset as Henry VIII did, in the 1500s.
/r/MensRights23/07/13 03:43 PM
1

There's an explicit exception allowing for single gender clubs, but as the article I liked shows, they have to be equal in all other ways.
/r/MensRights19/07/13 09:29 AM
1

What about them?
/r/MensRights19/07/13 09:06 AM
31

No, it does not. Treating males differently from females is an explicit violation of the Equality Act 2010. Regardless of if it is "school dress code".
/r/MensRights18/07/13 11:17 PM
1

To address 1.a: Interpretation Act 1978, Section 6: In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,— (a)words importing the masculine gender include the feminine; (b)words importing the feminine gender include the masculine; (c)words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular. This applies to acts of the Scottish parliament, acts of the UK parliament, statutory instruments, acts of the general synod of the church of England, etc.
/r/MensRights04/07/13 08:47 PM
2

What you "think" (if I may use the term loosely) is always several rungs below what studies have actually observed. Whether you like the conclusions or not. (personally, this conclusion makes me uncomfortable, but I can't just flat out deny it).
/r/MensRights07/03/13 10:54 AM
2

Uh, no. That's a direct quote from the law. Rape requires that the penetration be "with his penis".
/r/MensRights26/08/12 08:39 PM
2

More bad things can happen to you than rape. But feminists always assume it's about rape when you say something like that. Well, the bad ones do.
/r/MensRights05/08/12 02:23 AM
1

Well, you choose to be a troop. You choose to be a student. You choose to be a return customer. So you can be given a discount on those bases, with no legal or even ethical problems.
/r/MensRights10/05/12 10:54 AM
3

Actually, abortion is illegal in Ireland (they hella catholic). But the rest of your point stands.
/r/MensRights24/02/12 09:43 AM
4

Intravenous MDMA would probably fit the bill. It's relatively fast acting when swallowed or insufflated, so putting it right into the bloodstream would probably cause effects very quickly. Or it could have been intravenous Viagra, I wouldn't say it's implausible that a man who was in that situation would mistake an involuntary and persistent erection with being made to feel sexual desire against his will. Disclaimer: Not a physician.
/r/MensRights28/11/11 11:49 AM
1

They're linked. Not totally locked together, but if you're male gendered, you want to have male sex organs.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 01:02 PM
-1

Yeah, they have the organs. And the drive. They purposefully deny themselves it, actively. So it is still very much part of the psyche. Whereas eunuchs, for example, tend to identify as a third gender.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 09:22 PM
1

Oh. OH. Yes, yes, quite right. Men and women both enjoy sex equally, regardless of the stupid games people may play. Neither are necessarily more interested. Totally agree.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 05:41 PM
2

Well, all I can say is well done on an excellent use of company time ;) We both have out experiences, and they contradict each other. I suppose I should probably concede that there are edge cases that even living in Brighton does not prepare one for, given the observations you make. So I will.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 05:25 PM
2

You're right that gender is more broad than sex. Male gender and female gender are two extremes, that are associated with being male-sexed and female-sexed. It's always been my experience that people who associate with those extremes, as opposed to intermediaries, want the associated body parts. Maybe I'm wrong, all I have to go on is personal interactions.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 05:23 PM
1

Enlighten me then. I have yet to meet a person who was living full time as the opposite gender but had no intention of having the operation. Is that what you mean? Because I've never heard of someone totally embracing a gender identity whilst being okay with the mismatched organs, personally or in any kind of study.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 05:03 PM
0

So my statement that it's about the organs you have, or want to have, was correct?
/r/MensRights15/08/11 05:01 PM
-5

Yes? I said organs you have or want to have.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 04:59 PM
-3

You just admitted that sex is linked to gender. Right there.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 04:53 PM
1

I've known a lot of transpeople, and a lot of crossdressers (I live in Brighton, UK). They've always considered themselves different groups when I've talked to them.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 04:52 PM
1

The ones that actually transition to another gender though. Because that's what the transition to another gender is, it's changing the sex organs. Gender reassignment surgery, is what they call it. You might get people who have some empathy with the other gender, maybe feel a bit in between, but wanting to actually be the other gender means wanting to change yourself physically.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 04:44 PM
-1

Then gender is a meaningless tautology? No, that doesn't sound right, people wouldn't have major surgery for the sake of a tautology.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 04:33 PM
2

Pissing up walls is totally an intrinsic part of manhood. But in seriousness, both genders piss. The difference in gender identity is based upon the role played sexually, this is why those who are gender dysphoric feel they must change their sexual organs. Dressing up as the other gender, or any other thing you might want to attribute gender to, is not sufficient, they feel they must have the appropriate sex organs. Because the sex organs and what they do is the primary difference between the ge…
/r/MensRights15/08/11 04:32 PM
2

What's it defined by then?
/r/MensRights15/08/11 04:28 PM
-4

I dunno, given that gender is defined by what sex organs you have, or want to have, it kinda is.
/r/MensRights15/08/11 02:44 PM
6

Sorry Stan -- uh, Loretta.
/r/MensRights12/06/11 03:49 PM
5

Intersex.
/r/MensRights05/06/11 11:27 AM
2

Recognised? If you mean "saw", then yeah. If you mean "could remember seeing them before", then evidence suggests that number is around 150 at any given time. In any case, that's not really relevant to social acceptance. The average person has to know someone who's transsexual, and know that they're transsexual, for society change. The fact that the average person may have seen a transsexual person in passing and never even considered that they might be transsexual is not really important to peo…
/r/MensRights11/05/11 12:59 AM
2

Yeah, point being? I did not "know of" 1300 people.
/r/MensRights11/05/11 12:24 AM
2

How do you figure? If the quoted number (1 in 500) is true, there would have only been 2 or 3 trans people in my entire senior school. I don't see why I would be likely to know them, even if I weren't a social recluse at that age.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 11:11 PM
2

You think that wearing shorts in summer is a fashion trend? And do you seriously think that being uncomfortably hot has no bearing on how well you're able to concentrate?
/r/MensRights10/05/11 05:08 PM
1

Yeah, it isn't. You'd think there'd be more treatment available, what with the insanely high incidence of depression in 18-25 year olds, meaning that most people have probably gone through it. I do know what you mean though, about "just depressed enough". Some days I will not get out of bed. Some days I will write prose or poetry due to my depression, and what of it I have shown to my friends, they have said is good. And I'm not even that sort of person, I'm on a BSc maths course! (and yeah, som…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 04:33 PM
1

No, no, I get that it's a serious thing, I really do. I just think the vagueness of the word makes it ripe for abuse in non-medical contexts. In fact, looking into it, depression is a disorder with dysphoria as its most prominent symptom. Which means I've been dealing with dysphoria for a fair few years now. So yeah, I understand. And it is worse when it occurs for long stretches of time.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 03:49 PM
3

Fair enough. Gender Dysphoria it is. I have to admit I've never heard of a "dysphoria" before, but apparently it means "an unpleasant or uncomfortable mood". Which is a brilliant thing to have a word for! Next time I'm not getting on at a party I'll just tell them I have "transient social dysphoria"! Boss getting annoyed at me for not performing well? Professional dysphoria! Not that I mean to belittle transgendered people, nor do I mean to imply that gender dysphoria is anything but a real prob…
/r/MensRights10/05/11 03:33 PM
1

Is it confirmed that it will change? Because if so I guess I should change now. My point is just that as a layman, I can't really make determinations like "is transgender really an identity disorder" for myself, so I'm relying on the doctors to decide it.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 02:54 PM
1

1 in 500 is 0.2%. I can't think of any 0.2% minority groups I have met a member of, never mind dated. Of course, I can't think of many minority groups that are that small, maybe I'm making an erroneous deduction. But, if that is sound, I'd say the odds that the average person would be able to safely assume everyone is cisgendered even once all cases of GID are treated is still fairly high.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 02:26 PM
-2

It's currently classed as in identity disorder. I will change when the DSM changes. Not that I disrespect trans-sexual people's right to self-determination, but as a lay person, I go with the medical consensus as represented by the DSM.
/r/MensRights10/05/11 02:14 PM
2

My point was just that the proportion of transgender people could plateau at a level low enough that still makes it perfectly viable to assume someone's birth gender based on appearance. So we may not reach the point when the average person has a transgender person in their extended family, school, or work. Another way to look at it is this: How many people today have had a "demystifying experience" with someone who has any kind of identity disorder? Not many, because identity disorders are not …
/r/MensRights09/05/11 09:27 PM
1

With the growing prevalence of gender reassignment surgeries, at what point will it become foolish to assume a person's original gender based on what they look like? Why do you assume it will continue to grow constantly? Logic would seem to dictate that seeing as it is a treatment for a disorder that only a small minority of the population have, it will plateau before it becomes prevalent. Unless you think that something about modern society is causing cases of GID to actually be more frequent?
/r/MensRights09/05/11 07:21 PM
1

Do you have evidence of this? The links I sent seemed to indicate this was not the case.
/r/MensRights01/05/11 12:50 PM
1

But that's begging the question: maybe you wouldn't realise it needed a label. Many languages don't differentiate between blue and green, and so far no-one has seen fit to make up a new word, or borrow a word from another language. In fact, when remembering events, they wouldn't be able to distinguish between green and blue items. Also, consider this: you're an English speaker. To you, "light blue" and "blue" seem like two shades of the same colour. But "red" and "pink" seem like different colou…
/r/MensRights30/04/11 09:43 AM
1

Sorry, what? "have to words for basic words"? And what's the difference between lacking a word and lacking a concept? I mean, this shows that people with no word for the concept lack the concept, so by all evidence so far it seems to be equivalent.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 12:27 AM
1

I've heard that some concepts are inexplicable in some language, but have yet to find them, so I don't really buy that. Well, they found that a group of deaf kids with no signs for "left" or "right" didn't actually understand the concept of left or right, or at least were unable to use it. Does that count? Source. Oh, and they found a similar thing occuring in the language of an aboriginal tribe. Source.
/r/MensRights30/04/11 12:13 AM
2

Note URL at the top: nusconnect.org.uk There may be a similar law on the English books, but trying to prosecute the NUS under USC18.1c13§241 may not be as successful as you'd supposed :P
/r/MensRights20/03/11 02:00 PM
1

"On the other hand, neither do I think it's fair that men can just say "I don't want kids" before sex, and be completely absolved." Why not? If the woman does not like it, she can just not have sex with him. A far easier choice than either adoption or abortion.
/r/MensRights02/09/10 08:22 PM
5

"after all she doesn't have the ability to do the same thing in reverse." Yes she absolutely does -- Abortion, adoption, etc. That's why it's so unfair.
/r/MensRights01/09/10 04:01 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter