What do you have to lose?

Published: 08/08/23 22.02 ET

If we divide people into two groups - "normals" and "deviants" - where "normals" are those that a) are not transgender and b) mate with people of opposite sex, and "deviants" are everyone else, libs are always telling normals to show tolerance to deviants. As nobody asks you to tolerate something that is a great danger to you, the word "tolerate" itself implies that deviants present only a minor inconvenience. According to libs, tolerating deviants causes only a small annoyance to normals while giving a great benefit to deviants, so normals *should* be tolerant. And anyone that can't tolerate is literally Hitler and deserves the worst fate.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysicist dude that explains science to dumb libs, echoed this sentiment when he defended transgender ideology recently. He wondered why it's anyone's business if a man feels like a woman one day and wears a dress. Isn't the deviant entitled to pursuit of happiness? Why are we messing with his happiness?

Some people responded to Tyson and explained it's our business because truth matters, and gender being a spectrum is anything but true. Tyson is a scientist, but he has fallen prey to the transgender idiocy, so truth is probably a relative thing for him now. But the big issue is this - aren't we normals entitled to pursuit of happiness too? Trans goons are anything but a minor annoyance. They make life impossible for women, and they try to groom kids. This is not a "tolerance" issue. It's more like a fight for survival. What makes trans goons happy makes normals miserable, and vice versa.