… I’ll be real with you, dude… I think you should talk to a therapist. Just let them know about everything you’ve said here, and they’ll be a much better help than I will.

Then don’t use the label? The point of a diagnostic tool is to help the diagnosed adjust. If you don’t want to use the label, the who is stopping you from not using it? I don’t get the issue.

Everyone sees that stupid a-word as Person Who Can’t Age Past Three and raises everyone with that horrible label like they couldn’t age past three. And then they don’t age past three until much later in life if they’re given the chance.

I mean, that’s verifiably and objectively wrong, since I don’t believe that. But you seem to believe that there are a portion of the people that deserve the treatment of that. You think they are not like you, and that you shouldn’t share that designation. You’re the only one beating yourself up about it.

Regardless, autism is a spectrum. Deal with it.

Sure. We don’t necessarily have concrete evidence one way or the other on advantages due to numbers, but of the trans athletes that currently exist, the dis/advantage is unlikely to matter beyond a couple percentage points. With more trans athletes, we can get more determination into what effects transitioning has on athletic ability, but for the most part, it’s not a real issue.

The issue is that the average person thinks there are cismasc athletes registering as transfem, which isn’t a thing.

What you seem to want is to not be grouped with the “others”. The ones that you look down on. The “dependents” as you call them. That is rather reductive to me. Just like people with blindness or deafness or the inability to walk can range in how well they can integrate into society or how much these disabilities affect them, the same is true for people with autism. You can have autism and look and act like, for all intents and purposes, a neurotypical person.

For me, grouping these experiences humanizes the people that are less able to integrate into society. I can understand them far more easily when someone explains how sensory issues affects someone to a lesser degree.

Like, we already group all experiences into one word, it’s called being human, buddy.

I imagine it is hard to type with whatever condition you have because you accidentally typed out really stupid shit.

I agree with him that physical men must not be allowed to compete in women sports against other physical womans. Its completely unfair to woman who have no chance to reach the physical level a man can reach in strength-based sports. And it kills all motivation for a woman to be an athlete when they cant reach that level.

That doesn’t happen. Men play in men’s sports and women play in women’s sports. If you mean trans people, trans athletes follow some pretty strict guidelines to play in most leagues that don’t give them an unfair advantage (though, to be fair, there may be some physical differences between trans and cis athletes that might affect performance, but studies have shown that these differences do not make for more than a very slight advantage at best (and potentially a large disadvantage at worst!), and I’d argue that most cis athletes would be way better off just doing steroids than spending literal years transitioning to get this fabled advantage that doesn’t exist.)

But trans women do play in women’s sports and trans men do play in men’s sports. Your argument is that trans women should play in men’s sports, yes? Should trans men play in women’s sports? If you don’t believe they should, then you don’t believe they are women (which is valid, because they are, you know, men). But what is different about trans women? It is entirely feelings based, because the evidence doesn’t show that trans athletes crush their competition. It doesn’t even show that they win more often. Because they don’t! They win just as often as you would expect a cis athlete does.

Okay, enjoy your zero friends.

It isn’t wrong to police certain speech, unless you think it’s okay to threaten harm to people. We put limits on what is allowable, regardless of what you think. We judge people for what they say. All you’re arguing is that the person calling people Dipshit should be allowed to call people Dipshit… And they are? There are no laws about calling people Dipshit or anything. Hell, you can yell slurs at people in most places. That doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t make them not a horrible person.

You keep looking worse for wanting to call people anything you want without being judged. Do you get that yet?

It feels like your looking for a way to be offended. If someone told me they don’t want me to walk next to them, I wouldn’t walk next to them because we should be allowed to control a space around ourselves. If someone said they don’t like looking at me, that’s solved by them not looking at me.

Reasonably remove yourself from a situation if you can. Don’t harass people. Treat people how they want to be treated. Work together to solve problems. This is stuff children learn, it’s not hard. Because the problem with your logic is that you can say “I’m allowed to invade your personal space. It’s on you to leave.”

But, because you want to feel offended, you will likely say “Oh, what if my personal space is five miles around me what then?!?” to which I would roll my eyes, say ok, and let you enjoy your zero friends.

… Are you suggesting Republicans can’t coordinate or that they’re too stupid or unaware to fix any problems?

You are moving away from the main point, though, which is that all of this is the Republicans’ fault. They can stop this at any point, and if they don’t, then how are there any good ones?

Not wanting people to do things to you is not wrong. I don’t want people to defecate on me, even in an affectionate or accidental way, even though it’s not harmful. Is that wrong?

At any point, Republicans could step up and stop any or all of this. It would take very few of them, and if there are good Republicans, as you say, then how many of them are there?

You’re not asking questions. You are pushing a conclusion with a question mark without information, and it makes you look like a clueless person because your information is easily identifiable as wrong, lmao.

The saying “you can’t butter a fly” is an idiom expressing that someone or something is too difficult to influence or manipulate. It’s rooted in the idea that butterflies, with their delicate nature, are virtually impossible to convince to do anything against their will, let alone “butter” them in a literal sense.

By your logic, when they freed the slaves, they really should’ve done it slowly instead of all at once, because look how many racists it made!

Or was civil rights too fast as well?

Same argument that was made for gay people sharing locker rooms, bigots never get new material. If you’re not comfortable sharing a bathroom with someone, then, ya know, you don’t have to use it.

Why is it queer people have to suffer for bigotry? Why not just be less of a bigot?

Not sure what you’re arguing about, but you do you, man.

Okay, buddy

I rather think that would answer the question for most people. Were you confused on how he doesn’t want to look like a weirdo so that his fascist beliefs are normalized?