Thought that was what you meant.....

did you mean "does" or "does not"?

(Sorry for the split, I got hit by the length limit.)

Anyway, I get the feeling that that other thread was basically a big mess, and that what INTroJect was commenting on was really a small portion of that mess. (Specifically, this is actually what his denotation implies, ironically enough, but then he could very well be dodging some additional context that I haven't seen from the other thread.) If my feeling is correct, then your original premise that INTroJect was condoning all the trans-hate that you perceived in that thread wasn't actually valid, and he was instead just commenting on the grammar nitpicks. If that's the case, then you're pretty much the origin of all the nastiness in that thread, since your post is the first one that is angry-hostile, though post 3 is snarky-hostile (but not towards transgender people).

Incidentally, I can't actually find the post by Autumnleaf that was being discussed. I searched for all his posts in G&A and I only found two this year, neither of which have anything to do with being transgender.

I haven't read the other thread. I was assuming, since INTroJect's post didn't directly reference the other thread, that your response pertained to the topic that INTroJect was explicitly talking about, which was grammar nitpicks in regards to transgender individuals.

But again, that is what you *said*, at least in the first post, and the way you were interpreted *was* as being hurtful. Your response to being accused of being hurtful was to be defensive rather than to be conciliatory, including the statement "That's not what I said". That's pretty much what I was commenting on.

Posts 4 and 10. I've quoted the relevant portions several times now. Technically your actual response to INTroJect conveying that he was hurt was not hostile, but it was defensive rather than conciliatory and the remainder of that post (post 10) was even more hostile than post 4, so it came off that way.

No, because this is in fact in subtext. Notice that my description in that post is about linguistic choices which influence everyone's interpretation. The interpretations which I am describing are nowhere near as subjective as you are making them out to be, though they are of course slightly subjective.

At any rate, what you read was interpreted as being hurtful in the first place despite that not being your intent. When you were called out on it, you responded with even more hostility, which only solidified the interpretation that your original intent was hurtful. You then never apologized for your failure of communication, only claimed that that wasn't what you *said* instead of not being what you meant, the implication being that it doesn't matter that INTroJect's interpretation was a hurtful one.

Brilliant line in this thread. This post has a typo: 5th word from the end should be "throw". Pardon me while I go applaud in the audience now.

great post

Yeah seriously. I'm in at least 2 minority groups myself. I don't make a habit of keeping count. But I find it highly insulting that Christians love to play the "woe is us" card at every single turn. Oppressed my ass. Thanks for catching that.

LOL! and a storm eyes vision will never recover.

The doubt was always there, but I would be lying if the discussions here didn't get me thinking about it.

Interesting imponderables...

Cupcake below me looks so *****ing good....Did you make that or did you go on google?

Happy Valentine's Day!

Thanks for that in the report thread. I've over-thinked myself into a circle and I just needed some reassurance.

great information

hahaha I have such a bad memory! It doesn't relate to the post at all. So what's up? Do you still go out there?

This might sounds super weird but to you know Dayanna Rodriguez? hahaha especially on this post