Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't fully read that response before I posted this. I was typing up a response in other thread that basically boils down to this: The parts about choosing the family over his fetish and loving himself the way she loves him make sense from a safety perspective. I just don't think the same logic applies to her saying she supports anybody but him trooning out. It's as likely to enrage him as it is to appease him. It's pretty neutral from a safety standpoint, which is why I think she means it. There's also the part where she emphasizes that she's straight, which wouldn't be relevant if she didn't believe in gender ideology.

Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't fully read that response before I posted this. I was typing up a response in other thread that basically boils down to this: The parts about choosing the family over his fetish and loving himself the way she loves him make sense from a safety perspective. I just don't think the same logic applies to her saying she supports anybody but him trooning out. It's as likely to enrage him as it is to appease him. It's pretty neutral from a safety standpoint, which is why I think she means it. There's also the part where she emphasizes that she's straight, which is only relevant for someone who believes in gender ideology he's a man whether he mutilates himself or not.

Yeah, sorry about that. I didn't fully read that response before I posted this. I was typing up a response in other thread that basically boils down to this: The parts about choosing the family over his fetish and loving himself the way she loves him make sense from a safety perspective. I just don't think the same logic applies to her saying she supports anybody but him trooning out. It's as likely to enrage him as it is to appease him. It's pretty neutral from a safety standpoint, which is why I think she means it.