Ellen Page Announces: "I Am Insane!"

ok doser

Well-known member
Temp Banned
Ok, I may have paraphrased a little.


Juno” Oscar nominee and “The Umbrella Academy” star Elliot Page, formerly known as Ellen Page, has come out as transgender and non-binary in a heartfelt post published to his social media pages. “Hi friends, I want to share with you that I am trans, my pronouns are he/they and my name is Elliot,” the actor writes in an open letter. “I feel lucky to be writing this. To be here. To have arrived at this place in my life.”

 

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
Temp Banned
With people like her, who are barely on the edge of stardom and need some sort of boost, you never know if this stuff is real or a publicity stunt.
 

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
Temp Banned
“I love that I am trans,” Page writes in his letter. “And I love that I am queer. "

What sort of sicko says that
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Ok, I may have paraphrased a little.
Hermaphrodites are literally non-binary. When non-hermaphrodites call themselves non-binary, I take offense for hermaphrodites. Non-hermaphrodites who call themselves non-binary, or feel that they should be the opposite sex, treat the real plight of real hermaphrodites, as a joke, and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing that.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Hermaphrodites are literally non-binary. When non-hermaphrodites call themselves non-binary, I take offense for hermaphrodites. Non-hermaphrodites who call themselves non-binary, or feel that they should be the opposite sex, treat the real plight of real hermaphrodites, as a joke, and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing that.

Ellen Page is most definitely not a hermaphrodite.

She should be ashamed of her rebellion against her Creator, as it has led to her becoming mentally ill, and unless she repents, on judgment day, she will stand before God and have to answer for her sin (and crime, for that matter).
 

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
Temp Banned
. . . . her rebellion against her Creator, as it has led to her becoming mentally ill . . . .

That is actually correct. I believe that a person's conscience if "formed", like a muscle getting exercised. We are not born knowing right from wrong. we must learn right from wrong and then practice doing right to properly form our conscience. And the opposite is true: If you constantly do wrong, then you will malform your conscience and eventually not even know right from wrong.

Just look at the Liberals in this forum. Some of the well known ones are now at a point that they literally do not know right from wrong. It is scary. You say something to them that is plain and clear and obviously true and it does not compute with them. It is scary.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
That is actually correct. I believe that a person's conscience if "formed", like a muscle getting exercised. We are not born knowing right from wrong. we must learn right from wrong and then practice doing right to properly form our conscience. And the opposite is true: If you constantly do wrong, then you will malform your conscience and eventually not even know right from wrong.

Just look at the Liberals in this forum. Some of the well known ones are now at a point that they literally do not know right from wrong. It is scary. You say something to them that is plain and clear and obviously true and it does not compute with them. It is scary.

Stupid doesn't make you sin. Sin makes you stupid.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
Ellen Page is most definitely not a hermaphrodite.
I know nothing about this. For all I know, he or she or neither he nor she is a real hermaphrodite. If so, Page has the right to choose which sex identity he or she or neither he nor she is most comfortable representing to the rest of the world. Human hermaphroditism is a gruesome disfigurement, and its victims are entitled to attempt to address their condition in a reasonable way, the best way they can.

I can't even say that "non-binary" is an unreasonable identification either, instead of choosing either male or female. Maybe that's perfectly reasonable, it doesn't make things easy for the rest of us of course (out of respect, we have to say things like "neither he nor she" because we don't have a neuter personal pronoun in English), but we're also not the poor people suffering from this disturbing affliction.

I don't have any interest in checking that people representing that they're hermaphrodites really are either. If Page or anyone else who's identifying as non-binary, is in fact perfectly intact in the reproductive area, then that's the risk I run with such a policy. They pulled one over on me. I'm just going to trust them.

I disagree that people not scourged with hermaphroditism should exercise the right that we only recognize as real, because of hermaphroditism. I don't think it should be outlawed, I just think it's unethical, to choose your gender, if you're not a hermaphrodite.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
I know nothing about this. For all I know, he or she or neither he nor she is a real hermaphrodite. If so, Page has the right to choose which sex identity he or she or neither he nor she is most comfortable representing to the rest of the world. Human hermaphroditism is a gruesome disfigurement, and its victims are entitled to attempt to address their condition in a reasonable way, the best way they can.

I can't even say that "non-binary" is an unreasonable identification either, instead of choosing either male or female. Maybe that's perfectly reasonable, it doesn't make things easy for the rest of us of course (out of respect, we have to say things like "neither he nor she" because we don't have a neuter personal pronoun in English), but we're also not the poor people suffering from this disturbing affliction.

I don't have any interest in checking that people representing that they're hermaphrodites really are either. If Page or anyone else who's identifying as non-binary, is in fact perfectly intact in the reproductive area, then that's the risk I run with such a policy. They pulled one over on me. I'm just going to trust them.

I disagree that people not scourged with hermaphroditism should exercise the right that we only recognize as real, because of hermaphroditism. I don't think it should be outlawed, I just think it's unethical, to choose your gender, if you're not a hermaphrodite.
I'd recommend that you go to a doctor and ask him to amputate one of your perfectly good legs because you identify as a one-legged person. See what happens when you do? Do you think he'll just go ahead and amputate your leg because you identify as a one-legged person? Or will he order a major psychological examination of you?

Asking to have working limbs/organs removed is seen as a mental illness. Except of course if you want your sexual organs removed. Think that has anything to do with politics and political agendas?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I know nothing about this.

Then why are you commenting?

For all I know, he or she or neither he nor she is a real hermaphrodite.

Hermaphroditism has nothing to do with this.

Ellen Page (she's not a man) is a woman who is mentally ill, disillusioned because of her commitment to leftist ideals.

(out of respect, we have to say things like "neither he nor she" because we don't have a neuter personal pronoun in English)

No, we do not have to, and should not, cater to insanity.

SHE (because Ellen Page is a woman, not a man) has become mentally ill to the point where she has convinced herself that she is not what she is.

Denying reality leads to insanity. Ellen page has become mentally insane.

Don't defend such.

If Page or anyone else who's identifying as non-binary, is in fact perfectly intact in the reproductive area, then that's the risk I run with such a policy. They pulled one over on me. I'm just going to trust them.

You're going to trust the mentally ill?

Are you stupid?

I don't think it should be outlawed, I just think it's unethical, to choose your gender, if you're not a hermaphrodite.

It's not unethical.

It's mentally insane to think that one can "choose" one's own gender.

Sex is determined at conception.

One is either a boy or a girl.

If someone is born hermaphroditic (46 XX, 46 XY, gonadal H.), that doesn't change the fact that they are either boy or girl, regardless of what genitalia their bodies develop. The resulting features of their bodies comes as a result of a genetic issue, where their bodies do not produce the correct hormones.

As for hermaphrodites with an extra X or Y chromosome, I'm not sure whether it's possible to tell which gender they truly are, and unfortunately, there is a possibility that they may be male, but live their entire lives as female, or the reverse, and I don't think God will be angry at someone living in such a way due to such a genetic error.

But, one thing SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT BE FORGOTTEN:

Hermaphroditism has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the homosexual movement. It is simply the result of genetic error.

Homosexuality, on the other hand, is evil, as per God's word, because God said He made them male and female at the beginning of creation. Perverts pervert that truth, and try to claim that one can choose their gender. Such is the topic of this thread. Not hermaphroditism.

Ellen Page, because that's her real name, not "Elliot," is a pervert, corrupted by the wicked into thinking that she can choose her gender, and deceived (either by her circumstances, or by her own mind) into "realizing" that she is actually a male, rather than a female.
 

Idolater

Well-known member
I'd recommend that you go to a doctor and ask him to amputate one of your perfectly good legs because you identify as a one-legged person. See what happens when you do? Do you think he'll just go ahead and amputate your leg because you identify as a one-legged person? Or will he order a major psychological examination of you?

Asking to have working limbs/organs removed is seen as a mental illness. Except of course if you want your sexual organs removed. Think that has anything to do with politics and political agendas?
It has something to do with politics if law enforcement is involved in most any way. If anybody in the above is being penalized by the police, then politics are involved. Otherwise, politics is not involved, except that even if l e is not involved, it's not because they couldn't be involved---they could be involved, if legislators or executive branch politicians got them involved, with either laws or regulations, respectively, or if judges got them involved with court orders. So if they're not involved, it's because our politicians, our elected officials, either directly themselves, or indirectly through their appointees, choose to not involve l e here.

So it has everything to do with politics. Politics is always relevant. It can always rear its ugly little head. It's legitimized (not equal to legitimate) force and coercion. You're usually threatened first, and then if you don't comply our government applies real force to you. Their authorization is either a law, a regulation, or a court order. The people in charge of those things are either elected, or they were appointed by those who are elected. This is how our republic works, the model for the modern world, every single wealthy country that adopts our basic model succeeds in never waging war against us, and neither against any of the other wealthy countries who have copied American republicanism small-r.

You can even just name it after America, since we are the first country to ever pull it off. England's Magna Carta was the same basic idea of Americanism, but the English monarchy never recognized Magna Carta as anything other than a disagreeable work of political theory. They never agreed to it. So Magna Carta wasn't a law.

But the idea of America, was in Magna Carta. Separation of powers. Preservation of rights. Rights override everything, including the king. The document its very self is an unratified constitution, another bit of American republicanism small-r. A constitution, the separation of powers, rights are absolute (not the monarchy); all bits of Americanism, the political situation first created in America, by all the American founders. We're so close to it historically, that we're awash in every single thing that every single one of them ever wrote, including letters written by husband and wife Abigail and John Adams, while the former worked the family farm for months on end while the latter visited France on behalf of us, to secure what they had first kindled, but needed to cultivate that flame into a roaring fire, and they needed France's assistance if they could get it, and he and Benjamin Franklin successfully lobbied France, and their success is part of the reason that we are still Americans even after so long. There wasn't any guarantee that America would survive, let alone Americanism. America wasn't copied by any other wealthy country for many decades, it wasn't until the 1900s that American republicanism truly toppled all the dominoes in western Europe and monarchies fell by the handfuls (which is a lot, for monarchies). That's over 100 years after our founding. That's multiple generations. And no American founder lived anywhere near long enough to see our political situation copied by most of the wealthy nations of Europe, after us being the first decidedly non-monarchy with any staying power to appear in the world for the first time in who knows how long. And much bigger than Venice.

And we all still speak the same English that they did back in 1776 and leading up to 1776 and thereafter. We're in an incredibly unique time if you just casually glance at the history of the world. We can still all easily understand and interpret what our founders thought, and this should all be used to promote the idea of America still further into the world, because countries like us who adopt our political model, do not wage war against us, or against any other country who copies our political situation. When England waged war against us in 1812 they had not yet copied our political situation, but now that they do, we will never go to war against England ever again. And so the more Americanism spreads, the quicker we can all get to the end of war. War will never happen again, at some point, and we've got an idea that's consistent with evidence that wars don't happen anymore, if we all become American. We're never going to war against Germany or Japan or South Korea again, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Spain, Italy, France, perhaps Denmark and the Scandinavian countries, we'll never wage war on them, they'll never wage war on us, this is how war can end, it's the first idea that looks like it could actually work.

Subjection of the military to the president. A civilian. The military makes an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the president, if ever the president instructs them to disobey the Constitution. This is rule of law, another bit of America's republicanism, small-r, it's how we run a republic. There have been republics, but ours is the best, it's so good it's copied by some very important wealthy countries, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Others, South Korea for instance. They have all these things too, in their political situations. They're all copies of America. They all function a little differently, but they all have rule of law, constitutionalism, separation of powers, military subjected to civilians, these are all American political innovations, we were the first ones to put them all together and see what happens. We are never in danger of going to war against any other wealthy country who has copied our political model, they all do it differently like they all have parliaments or at least many of them do, but that's just a different way to skin the cat, the point is they're skinning the cat and so are we skinning the cat, we just use different tools or different methods, but skinning the cat is rule of law, separation of powers, constitutionalism, recognition of rights as overriding laws, regulations and court orders, civilian control of the military, and military swearing allegiance to the constitution rather than to the president.

And I'd just assume annex our allies. It will greatly reduce redundancy in central government work. Start with Canada, more than double in land, and only increase population by 10%. Plus, if the climate alarmists are actually right, then a lot of Canadian property is going to become highly sought after as vacation destinations, where today it's rugged cold wilderness sometimes.

I would love to annex Canada. It'd be a good start, to go on an annexing campaign that doesn't stop until the 194th state has been annexed, or whatever the final country winds up being. But that doesn't have to happen to achieve what we appear to be able to achieve. If we can spread Americanism, which is the same as spreading democracy, then we can get to the end of war. If it takes war to get there, that is frequently beyond our control. Our enemies do not practice American republicanism small-r, they are missing something, either separation of powers, rule of law, civilian control of the military, rights override everything else---something. Sometimes they're all missing, such as North Korea, where their political situation is much like Nazi Germany's was.

We go to war with countries with the wrong political situations. It makes sense that this aspect of evangelism of Americanism mirrors the aggressive strategy we have i r l. We're accused of being immoral---evil---for invading Iraq. At the end of the day their political situation too was like that of Nazi Germany, or of Napoleon's France for that matter. The military's leader was the country's leader. General Eisenhower had to resign from the military before he could take office as president, same with General Grant before him.
 
Top