I was born in 80 and didn’t hear about sex changes or anything til early 90s. Even then it was understood that cutting off your penis didn’t make you a woman. I’ll never get this obsession with affirmation. Not enough for them to believe it, the whole world has to. You see this as well in some gay activists who go ballistic at the idea that a religious person may not approve of their lifestyle and even if they don’t bother the gay person it’s still not enough.
I was born in 80 and didn’t hear about sex changes or anything til early 90s. Even then it was understood that cutting off your penis didn’t make you a woman.
It is what it was always understood as: a literal last ditch effort to save the life of someone who was so mentally damaged they were going to cut off their own dick with a cleaver in their bathroom and bleed to death. The hope was that this would reduce the likelihood of self-harm long enough for them to go through enough massive psychological and psychiatric intervention to save the patients life and put them on the long road to recovery for a horribly damaging mental illness.
They, correctly, treated the most extreme forms of gender dysphoria like the most extreme forms of body dysphoria. Someone who conditions themselves psychologically to hate their arm to the point they try to chop it off multiple times and keep ending up in the hospital is someone who requires immediate and dramatic intervention.
Optimally, people with gender dysphoria don't even take hormones at all. They just cross-dress and have therapy because they are mentally ill, but it won't destroy their lives. The whole sex change surgery is an absolute last resort. Much like removing your hand to keep you from literally sawing it off with a wood saw.
This is why saying it's "reversible" or even talking about puberty blockers is purely evil. It's not "reversible". It's literally medicine saying "if this doesn't work, the patient will die". There are no reversible last ditch efforts.
I’ll never get this obsession with affirmation.
It's not affirmation. It's enabling.
The obsession with enabling is to keep the victims permanently wounded and emotionally unstable so they are slaves dependent on the emotional enabling of their masters.
It is what it was always understood as: a literal last ditch effort to save the life of someone who was so mentally damaged they were going to cut off their own dick with a cleaver in their bathroom and bleed to death. The hope was that this would reduce the likelihood of self-harm long enough for them to go through enough massive psychological and psychiatric intervention to save the patients life and put them on the long road to recovery for a horribly damaging mental illness.
They, correctly, treated the most extreme forms of gender dysphoria like the most extreme forms of body dysphoria. Someone who conditions themselves psychologically to hate their arm to the point they try to chop it off multiple times and keep ending up in the hospital is someone who requires immediate and dramatic intervention.
Optimally, people with gender dysphoria don't even take hormones at all. They just cross-dress and have therapy because they are mentally ill, but it won't destroy their lives. The whole sex change surgery is an absolute last resort. Much like removing your hand to keep you from literally sawing it off with a wood saw.
And that's literally what real trans people are, as opposed to transtrenders (retards who call themselves trans just because of peer pressure). It IS a last resort, because if they actually have gender dysphoria, it's literally the only solution that will reduce their suicidality.
Perhaps, but if this is the case 'real' trans people are 0.00001% of the population.
The vast. vast majority of cross dressers were not going to kill themselves if they didn't get to cut off their dick. This phenomenon is a meme that has been planted in the mind of people through ideologues/psychologists and then spread in the population, like hysteria in the late 19th century, or multiple personality disorder in the 70s/80s.
Do you think people were just killing themselves left and right when no viable surgery to look like the opposite sex was available? Were third genders (in cultures that had them) killing themselves because they didn't mutilate their body? If the answer to these question is no, then 'trans' people that seemingly have the need to mutilate their body today should be seen as a societal construction.
Perhaps, but if this is the case 'real' trans people are 0.00001% of the population.
I disagree with the exact %, but yes, it's an extremely low percentage, absolutely.
The vast. vast majority of cross dressers were not going to kill themselves if they didn't get to cut off their dick. This phenomenon is a meme that has been planted in the mind of people through ideologues/psychologists and then spread in the population, like hysteria in the late 19th century, or multiple personality disorder in the 70s/80s.
Crossdressing has nothing to do with trans people, but yeah, of course they shouldn't be treated like trans people? They're both related to sex, but one is a mental issue, the other one is just a hobby/interest or whatever it is.
Do you think people were just killing themselves left and right when no viable surgery to look like the opposite sex was available?
Literally yes, why wouldn't they?
Were third genders (in cultures that had them)
There weren't any real third genders, most "third genders" are just a subservient eunuch class, this is leftie bullshit.
It was alive and well in the '80s, just in specific parts. I asked a guy if he was a man or a woman, and it ran off crying. This was San Francisco in '85.
true story, spellcheck says I should change it to he.
I guess I should’ve added I grew up in Oklahoma and now live in Texas so I guess that’s part of the reason why I wasn’t aware much. Those are pretty heavy conservative/Christian areas I grew up in. I assumed everyone was Christian til I was 8
But I think that's the point of these announcements. They did this same trick with "birthing person" around the time that Sleepy Joe's women only business bailouts were criticized.
I honestly don’t think they actually want affirmation. I think they just want people to be humiliated by being forced to claim something as true that everyone knows clearly is not.
They don't actually know what they really want. They are emotional children. Maybe part of their conscious brains want men eliminated because of toxic masculinity, or whatever other reason their addled brains latch onto, but the deep lizard core of their brains is just flailing around desperate for a powerful assertive man to dominate and cherish them. They are like neurotic dogs without a strong pack leader.
I use jdownloader 2 for those sorts of sites. It automates downloading multi-part split archives from multiple sources, automates the download wait most of those sites have, and either automates the captchas or presents them alone in a little window for you to solve, so you don't ever have to even go to the filehosting websites at all. Just ctrl-C the download links from gog-games and it pretty much handles the rest.
You don't even need to wear a dress. Any company who implements such a ridiculous policy is no doubt terrified of making a wrong move in relation to trans people.
Look, I'm ok with some days off for women but not paid. So the guy and the girl will have the same income but the girl will work 5 days less per month than teh guy. It's not fair. I would change job.
Why be OK with even that? The explicit assumption underlying women entering the workplace was "we can do the job just as well as men".
Either hold them to that, or acknowledge that the premise was false and that any conclusions drawn from that faulty premise should be called into question.
If you can do the job just as well while you're on the clock, but are on the clock 20% less, you do the job 20% less. If you're doing the job 20% less, you should receive 20% less pay, give or take a small amount for fixed cost fluctuations. Neither sex mentioned in this paragraph, just general case.
To me that's basic math and logic, but as we know, basic math and logic are both white and male supremacy, at least according to the Smithsonian and most intersectional scholars.
Just because you aren't being paid doesn't mean the work doesn't still need to be done. Maybe I don't want someone who only works at 80% capacity working for me even if I'm only paying them 80%.
Maybe they sold themselves as being 100% capacity workers, so that is my expectation; and if they fail to meet that expectation then it is reasonable for me to reconsider my end of the deal.
Of course. A hiring contract should clearly lay out all work expectations reasonably expected to be encountered, and if it is not adhered to by either EE or ER, it should be considered breach.
I interviewed a woman with classic 'problem glasses' about 4 months ago for a single technical job in a operations labor group of 26, typically made up 100% men. I always let the candidate know in the interview, when female, that it is pretty much all males so they are informed, as some females might be uncomfortable with that. No other motivation than I always try and let any candidate know the playing field so they are best informed and I don't shine them on.
So in the middle of my standard carefully and politely phrased diatribe she pops in with a look and haughty tenor and says "will that be a problem?!?". And I quickly responded without even thinking "not if I hire well". You could see the buttcheeks clench and as far as I was concerned, the interview was over.
Yeah, that was the point of "not if I hire well". I was just surprised I responded so quickly with that. Probably because I'm well aware of subtle warning signs and I felt the interview was leading toward something like that.
And in hindsight, though it was a reflexive response at the time and I didn't map it out to be HR proof, it still is. Although I meant it specifically for her position at the moment I would easily explain to HR that I was implying not as long as I continue to hire well as I have done with all employees. Those darned white males can be problematic, amirite, Director of HR Karen?
Problem Glasses are not a medical condition, they're a choice. There's like 20 major style categories of glasses, you need to go out of your way to find Problem Glasses.
If someone shows up with a tattoo of a banner saying "I hate [company name]" on their forehead, that is in fact LESS choice than wearing problem glasses, since tattoos are semi-permanent and can't just be removed even if your lifestyle or outlook changes. If you'd judge the second one, to be honest and fair you'd need to judge the first even more harshly.
Depends if the women that work asked for this. I'm guessing is just upper management being infiltrated by feminists on the bases of being women and no other skills.
Think if you go to an interview and you are a db admin and they test you on db admin skills you expect to add value to the team with this skills. Now replace db admin with being a woman. They do not even have to be activists, simply on the bases of the reason they were hired they are not going to add value to the games or platform but they will add a "female perspective", menstruation being one of them.
TLDR: when you hire women because they are women they will behave like activists even if they are not
I can't find any reason to give CDPR money at this point. They've destroyed any good faith I had in them with their mutant propaganda, the disastrous development and release of Cyberpunk 2077, their rambling about the situation in Eastern Europe, and now this.
There is no law that prevents an employee to give more free days then the legal requirement for the country.
And referring to "menstruating employees" instead of women makes it harder to sue for discrimination. They are not discriminating against men or women since now both men and women can menstruate, somehow.
I wonder if you need proof that you menstruate, will they ask women in their 50s if they hit menopause yet?
Why would anyone ever hire a woman?
Because if you don't, they sue you.
And if you don't promote them, they sue you.
And if you fire them, they sue you.
And if you make them work with men, they sue you.
Can someone tell me the legal definition of racketeering?
When do we make lawyers illegal?
This is all enforced by the government and allowed by government regulations. We need a new government.
Lawyers are pieces of shit, but they're a symptom, not a problem.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Approved: Lawyers aren't an identity group...
Because they're retarded.
I was born in 80 and didn’t hear about sex changes or anything til early 90s. Even then it was understood that cutting off your penis didn’t make you a woman. I’ll never get this obsession with affirmation. Not enough for them to believe it, the whole world has to. You see this as well in some gay activists who go ballistic at the idea that a religious person may not approve of their lifestyle and even if they don’t bother the gay person it’s still not enough.
It is what it was always understood as: a literal last ditch effort to save the life of someone who was so mentally damaged they were going to cut off their own dick with a cleaver in their bathroom and bleed to death. The hope was that this would reduce the likelihood of self-harm long enough for them to go through enough massive psychological and psychiatric intervention to save the patients life and put them on the long road to recovery for a horribly damaging mental illness.
They, correctly, treated the most extreme forms of gender dysphoria like the most extreme forms of body dysphoria. Someone who conditions themselves psychologically to hate their arm to the point they try to chop it off multiple times and keep ending up in the hospital is someone who requires immediate and dramatic intervention.
Optimally, people with gender dysphoria don't even take hormones at all. They just cross-dress and have therapy because they are mentally ill, but it won't destroy their lives. The whole sex change surgery is an absolute last resort. Much like removing your hand to keep you from literally sawing it off with a wood saw.
This is why saying it's "reversible" or even talking about puberty blockers is purely evil. It's not "reversible". It's literally medicine saying "if this doesn't work, the patient will die". There are no reversible last ditch efforts.
It's not affirmation. It's enabling.
The obsession with enabling is to keep the victims permanently wounded and emotionally unstable so they are slaves dependent on the emotional enabling of their masters.
It's a weapon.
Great comment, im saving it for redpilling
And that's literally what real trans people are, as opposed to transtrenders (retards who call themselves trans just because of peer pressure). It IS a last resort, because if they actually have gender dysphoria, it's literally the only solution that will reduce their suicidality.
Except it doesn't. They're still miserable, mentally ill, and 40% end up on the rope afterwards
Perhaps, but if this is the case 'real' trans people are 0.00001% of the population.
The vast. vast majority of cross dressers were not going to kill themselves if they didn't get to cut off their dick. This phenomenon is a meme that has been planted in the mind of people through ideologues/psychologists and then spread in the population, like hysteria in the late 19th century, or multiple personality disorder in the 70s/80s.
Do you think people were just killing themselves left and right when no viable surgery to look like the opposite sex was available? Were third genders (in cultures that had them) killing themselves because they didn't mutilate their body? If the answer to these question is no, then 'trans' people that seemingly have the need to mutilate their body today should be seen as a societal construction.
I disagree with the exact %, but yes, it's an extremely low percentage, absolutely.
Crossdressing has nothing to do with trans people, but yeah, of course they shouldn't be treated like trans people? They're both related to sex, but one is a mental issue, the other one is just a hobby/interest or whatever it is.
Literally yes, why wouldn't they?
There weren't any real third genders, most "third genders" are just a subservient eunuch class, this is leftie bullshit.
It was alive and well in the '80s, just in specific parts. I asked a guy if he was a man or a woman, and it ran off crying. This was San Francisco in '85.
true story, spellcheck says I should change it to he.
I guess I should’ve added I grew up in Oklahoma and now live in Texas so I guess that’s part of the reason why I wasn’t aware much. Those are pretty heavy conservative/Christian areas I grew up in. I assumed everyone was Christian til I was 8
My wife has similar feelings. She can't figure out where all of these ideas came from, and I have to explain they were common in highschool for me.
You're missing the forest for the trees here.
But I think that's the point of these announcements. They did this same trick with "birthing person" around the time that Sleepy Joe's women only business bailouts were criticized.
Ohhhh. Gotcha. Such a dumb term though
I honestly don’t think they actually want affirmation. I think they just want people to be humiliated by being forced to claim something as true that everyone knows clearly is not.
It gives them power
Feminists are going to continually escalate the crazy until they get what they truly want: masculine men taking over and restoring order.
I'm pretty sure what they want is all of us murdered.
They don't actually know what they really want. They are emotional children. Maybe part of their conscious brains want men eliminated because of toxic masculinity, or whatever other reason their addled brains latch onto, but the deep lizard core of their brains is just flailing around desperate for a powerful assertive man to dominate and cherish them. They are like neurotic dogs without a strong pack leader.
Pfizer?
I wouldn't call Fraudci masculine.
Not really, nobody's threatening the unvaxxed with death.
The way the vax is pushed is textbook abusive woman tactics.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks (x2)
Comment Approved: He was referring to Feminists.
I kind of hate gog now. And how exactly is it inclusive to give women special treatment?
Someone here recently posted this neat little site: https://gog-games.com/
Good site. I'll need to start using it
I use jdownloader 2 for those sorts of sites. It automates downloading multi-part split archives from multiple sources, automates the download wait most of those sites have, and either automates the captchas or presents them alone in a little window for you to solve, so you don't ever have to even go to the filehosting websites at all. Just ctrl-C the download links from gog-games and it pretty much handles the rest.
Don't give money to people who hate you.
Yaaaay, let's pay women to take a quarter of the year off!
Wear dress.
Don't shave beard.
Tell the boss you menstruate.
Refuse to elaborate.
YES! 👏 I! 👏 MENSTRUATE! 👏
Tell them your a man who's straight and skip the humiliation part.
You don't even need to wear a dress. Any company who implements such a ridiculous policy is no doubt terrified of making a wrong move in relation to trans people.
man-struating
Look, I'm ok with some days off for women but not paid. So the guy and the girl will have the same income but the girl will work 5 days less per month than teh guy. It's not fair. I would change job.
Why be OK with even that? The explicit assumption underlying women entering the workplace was "we can do the job just as well as men".
Either hold them to that, or acknowledge that the premise was false and that any conclusions drawn from that faulty premise should be called into question.
If you can do the job just as well while you're on the clock, but are on the clock 20% less, you do the job 20% less. If you're doing the job 20% less, you should receive 20% less pay, give or take a small amount for fixed cost fluctuations. Neither sex mentioned in this paragraph, just general case.
To me that's basic math and logic, but as we know, basic math and logic are both white and male supremacy, at least according to the Smithsonian and most intersectional scholars.
Just because you aren't being paid doesn't mean the work doesn't still need to be done. Maybe I don't want someone who only works at 80% capacity working for me even if I'm only paying them 80%.
Maybe they sold themselves as being 100% capacity workers, so that is my expectation; and if they fail to meet that expectation then it is reasonable for me to reconsider my end of the deal.
Of course. A hiring contract should clearly lay out all work expectations reasonably expected to be encountered, and if it is not adhered to by either EE or ER, it should be considered breach.
Hold on. You aren't really thinking outside the tampon box on this one.
This is a way to get those fucking harridans out of their offices and get actual work done without the lawsuits.
I interviewed a woman with classic 'problem glasses' about 4 months ago for a single technical job in a operations labor group of 26, typically made up 100% men. I always let the candidate know in the interview, when female, that it is pretty much all males so they are informed, as some females might be uncomfortable with that. No other motivation than I always try and let any candidate know the playing field so they are best informed and I don't shine them on.
So in the middle of my standard carefully and politely phrased diatribe she pops in with a look and haughty tenor and says "will that be a problem?!?". And I quickly responded without even thinking "not if I hire well". You could see the buttcheeks clench and as far as I was concerned, the interview was over.
seems you avoided any future issues with this woman that seem to be the type to FIND issues that arent there.
Yeah, that was the point of "not if I hire well". I was just surprised I responded so quickly with that. Probably because I'm well aware of subtle warning signs and I felt the interview was leading toward something like that.
And in hindsight, though it was a reflexive response at the time and I didn't map it out to be HR proof, it still is. Although I meant it specifically for her position at the moment I would easily explain to HR that I was implying not as long as I continue to hire well as I have done with all employees. Those darned white males can be problematic, amirite, Director of HR Karen?
Problem Glasses are not a medical condition, they're a choice. There's like 20 major style categories of glasses, you need to go out of your way to find Problem Glasses.
If someone shows up with a tattoo of a banner saying "I hate [company name]" on their forehead, that is in fact LESS choice than wearing problem glasses, since tattoos are semi-permanent and can't just be removed even if your lifestyle or outlook changes. If you'd judge the second one, to be honest and fair you'd need to judge the first even more harshly.
FFS. Another reason why they should be paid less.
This is about lazy people who don’t want to work
Depends if the women that work asked for this. I'm guessing is just upper management being infiltrated by feminists on the bases of being women and no other skills.
Think if you go to an interview and you are a db admin and they test you on db admin skills you expect to add value to the team with this skills. Now replace db admin with being a woman. They do not even have to be activists, simply on the bases of the reason they were hired they are not going to add value to the games or platform but they will add a "female perspective", menstruation being one of them.
TLDR: when you hire women because they are women they will behave like activists even if they are not
Guess I need to make a point of backing up all my games from GoG, because it's clearly not going to be around much longer.
bye
I can't find any reason to give CDPR money at this point. They've destroyed any good faith I had in them with their mutant propaganda, the disastrous development and release of Cyberpunk 2077, their rambling about the situation in Eastern Europe, and now this.
There goes my idea of picking up 2077 out of boredom.
Muh "based Poland" just jumped over the entire woke Big Tech complex in pandering.
This must be illegal under employment law, surely. It means that women get paid full salary and work 3/4 of the time.
There is no law that prevents an employee to give more free days then the legal requirement for the country. And referring to "menstruating employees" instead of women makes it harder to sue for discrimination. They are not discriminating against men or women since now both men and women can menstruate, somehow. I wonder if you need proof that you menstruate, will they ask women in their 50s if they hit menopause yet?
If you make a small incision in your crotch area and squeeze out a drop of blood, do you qualify as menstruating? How big does the gash have to be?
Break out the ruler and measuring cup.
You could just poke your finger and dab it on something white. They aren’t going to verify because “transphobia”
Fuck that, take a massive dump in a bag, throw it on their desk and dare them to tell you that men can't menstruate.
The wokeists canlt have it both ways, if men can get pregnant, men also by design must menstruate.
But surely if it doesn't apply to half the workforce, it's discrimination based on biological sex?
Or does that not work because those rules only apply when women are the injured party?
I don't know; I'm not a biologist.
Kek.
"All bleeders can leave"
Are we sure this wasn't secretly based?
In other news, upper middle class white and asian/Indian women offered yet another handout to overcome the staggering gender pay gap.