/sp/ - Football

>>22619
And yet, my meaning was clear, while yours was what now?

>>22596
>I COULD be doxed if I posted the full screenshot
You could crop the screenshot. It wouldn't be hard.

>>22621
"bot"
What is your point?

>>22623
I cropped the image last time, and a faggot from here uncropped it and made a bunch of fake gay porn because Inpet a deer. No, go fuck yourself

>>22624
The bot disagreed that its acceptable to disregard the subjective self-identification of troons who identify as the wrong gender, comparably to horsefuckers who identify as not being furry. Come on Lotus, your reading comprehension isnt THAT bad,....

>>22625
>he left the image data in the file
Lmao, how does anyone fuck up this badly?

>>22629
Right on time ^_~

There, you have the prompt data

Now that hearts have been played, have fun with it. They arent in order, but they paint a pretty clear picture

>>22627
>Lotus.
I am not Lotus.

The not regurgitates whatever it thinks is an appropriate based on freely available public sources and options of random people. Currently, the semi-dominant cultural zeitgeist on the internet is to be sensitive to the feeling of troons, and the bot, wanting to give you an answer you'd like, told you so.

However, it is (You) who asserted that pony fans must go along with the generally accepted colloquial definition of the term "furry," however, as it has been revealed, most of those sources seem to agree that "furry" is a question of self-identification.

>>22634
Just as troons can self identify as wtfe

>>22635
You've completely missed the point.
Did you even read the post?

>>22637
Did you miss where the bot was being sensitive to horsefuckers feelings?

(not just the bot either, furscience - for all their aggregation of useful data, they too cater to feelings and inclusion)

>>22611
Nobody identifies as "Abrahamic". Abrahamic is neither identity, religion or fandom. "Abrahamic" only means "things that reference Abraham".
Furry, however, is in fact a fandom. It is separate from the mere concept of anthropomorphism.

>>22638
And what are we supposed to take from that? It's a bot.

>>22640
So if all the sources refer to the message of self-identification, then would that mean the consensus is that furry is self-identified?
If so, wouldn't that make us compliant with the generally-accepted definition of not-furry?

>>22644
As long as youre willing to agree that men can be women, sure!

>>22645
You never addressed how the biological science is congruent with the social non-definition.

>>22587
^ Reiterating

>>22647
Because it boils down to self identity

Leave it to a christian to spam nonsense when he has no argument,....

For those not staff, this is how staff (Stix, at least) 'argues'

>>22645
I do.
I don't care either way about trannies or what they call themselves. I just know a male is male and a female is female when it comes to sex. If troons want to get schizo with John Money's definition of "gender", then so be it; just leave me out of it.
So, do you agree?

>>22656
Do I agree that men identifying as women is legitimate?
Absolutely not

>>22587
One last time, cuz this constant YT spam is,... well par for the course

>>22645
No, I don't, because that's a question of biology.
You've yet to give a single scientific definition of "furry".
>>22650
Are (You) saying that men and women is a question of self-identification? Last I checked, being a woman wasn't a fandom.

>>22650
Since when is biology self-identity?

>>22661
We can continue when you check your boy

>>22663
>check your boy
What does that even mean?

>>22665
Check the staff with the YT spam

>>22666
checking my digis