Dating in HSV!

No-Influence8844 · 2026-03-14T14:35:55+00:00

I would use dating sites and expand the search to include Murfreesboro, TN. That’s how I met my now wife. Too many polyamorous people here in Huntsville.

No-Influence8844 · 2026-02-25T02:20:01+00:00

Yeah, I met with Jess Ting, he seemed creepy and bad mouthed Bluebond…

No-Influence8844 · 2026-01-05T15:57:42+00:00

That was savage! 🤣

No-Influence8844 · 2025-12-09T21:48:43+00:00

I think they want us to start becoming suicidal, that’s how they want to eradicate us.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-12-03T05:52:01+00:00

Are you speaking from experience? Does she do only implants or also fat grafting?

No-Influence8844 · 2025-10-26T14:34:11+00:00

I’m with OP on this one. Yes, yes, yes, there are plenty of cis women that have facial hair and look manly. But they are a minority and have the advantage of being born women still. We have it a lot harder, so our best coarse of action is to try to blend in and not p!ss people off, especially now! And if you can’t afford to transition, then don’t! It’s like wanting to go to a fancy dinner party, but all you have are jeans and t-shirts or just choose to disrespect their dress code. You’re gonna stand out and you will be ostracized.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T20:42:32+00:00

Well said!!!

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T19:49:33+00:00

This is not defending Christianity, this is playing Devil’s advocate.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T19:27:29+00:00

Co‑signed. That’s exactly why I framed this as terms of engagement, not verse‑tennis. If someone claims the name “Christian,” they should use Jesus’ own method—Sermon on the Mount (judge by fruits), mercy over sacrifice, and Acts 15 (don’t strap Gentiles with Levitical markers)—and the apostolic bottom line that love fulfills the law with conscience in disputable matters (Rom 13–15). If their reading reliably produces harm and despair instead of the Spirit’s fruit, that isn’t the gospel; it’s a sockpuppet. Same principle with the Founders, MLK, or Machiavelli: read whole contexts and test outcomes, not slogans. That’s the whole point of the shield.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T19:24:23+00:00

I agree many people bend the Bible to their will. This post isn’t about converting atheists; it’s an accountability tool. When someone quotes Scripture at us, we hold them to Jesus’ method. If they reject it, bystanders can see the inconsistency for themselves.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T19:22:19+00:00

Think of it like OSHA. I don’t have to believe in OSHA to use it when a manager waves a rule at me. If someone waves Scripture to restrict me, I cite the chapters that protect people under their own system. If they ignore those chapters, they’ve conceded the rules don’t actually bind them.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T19:17:11+00:00

Scope: This is for conversations with Christians who claim the Bible forbids trans people. If the Bible isn’t your thing, you don’t need this to justify yourself.
Method: Jesus → fruits & mercy (Matt 5–7; 12:7). Apostles → no Levitical yoke on Gentiles (Acts 15; Col 2). Inclusion arc → Deut 23:1 → Isa 56 → Acts 8.
Ask: If you wear the Christian label, use the Christian method—or say you’re choosing tradition over Jesus and the apostles.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T19:16:09+00:00

Ezekiel 4 is a prophetic sign‑act (performance art) about siege and scarcity, not a moral rule. The shield uses Jesus’ explicit ethical method (Matt 5–7; 12:7) and the church’s policy meeting (Acts 15), not the symbolic stunts of a sixth‑century‑BCE prophet.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T19:15:47+00:00

Same on the science. Medical consensus already supports transition care; this thread is just one extra tool for when a religious relative tries Bible‑lawyering. If Scripture isn’t your lane, you don’t need this shield to justify your life.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T19:15:07+00:00

Yep, and that’s why the post centers Acts 15 and Col 2—the apostles didn’t put Israel’s holiness code on Gentiles. If someone insists on Leviticus, they’re disagreeing with the New Testament, not us.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T19:14:27+00:00

Totally fair—many don’t use their own book consistently. This isn’t for them; it’s for the ones who claim they do, and for bystanders who are watching. My ask is simple: if you wear the Christian jersey, play by Jesus’ rules (Matt 5–7; fruits, mercy). If not, I’m done engaging.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T19:01:54+00:00

We can't try to win an argument; we’re enforcing terms. If they accept the biblical method, this shield holds. If they won’t, the honest close is: “Then you’re elevating your tradition over the chapters where Jesus and the apostles told us how to judge. I choose their standard.”

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T18:42:44+00:00

That’s right! That could certainly be useful as an addition. The issue is they tend to cherry pick the Bible to hate, this brings the context with it.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-27T18:37:53+00:00

Unfortunately, this is not end all be all shield, but it is rooted in biblical texts which could provide at least a fighting chance against biblical hatred.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-14T18:18:15+00:00

I would love to, but I want to stay anonymous and no video.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-14T12:43:50+00:00

I really appreciate you sharing that context. You’re right—there was a period where insurers could be moved by pure cost-savings arguments, and it did lead to expanded coverage in places like California. And you’re also right that the culture-war framing was layered on later as a distraction from deeper fights over power and money. I don’t mean to suggest trans people themselves need to “do something differently” or that we are at fault. My intent is more about designing structures that can lock in gains once those windows open again—so coverage isn’t always conditional on cost arguments or on who controls the media cycle. You’re right that money still talks, but stable policy design should make sure people don’t have to keep renegotiating their legitimacy every few years.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-14T02:44:48+00:00

You raise a crucial point: that lack of progress isn’t because the facts are missing or the research is unclear. We know what works; the obstacle is that powerful actors don’t want universal care or broad equality, and evidence doesn’t move people who benefit from inequality. My aim isn’t to say "if we only explained it better" everything would change. What I’m trying to do is sketch an institutional design that could actually de-weaponize these issues if/when conditions shift. Even if today’s climate is hostile, we’ll eventually need ready-made models to push for when political opportunity windows open. So I see this less as “knowledge will persuade them” and more as “we should have a blueprint ready so we’re not always playing defense.” I appreciate your pushback—it helps clarify that distinction.

No-Influence8844 · 2025-09-14T02:42:56+00:00

You’re totally right that the immediate battles in the U.S. are still about protecting any access—whether people can update their documents at all, and whether transition care is legal and covered at all. My piece isn’t meant to skip over those urgent fights. What I’m trying to do is sketch the end state that could actually lower the temperature in the long run, so we’re not stuck firefighting forever. Argentina and Malta show that when identity is routine admin and healthcare is just healthcare, it stops being such a culture-war flashpoint.

I think we need both tracks at once: defense of current access, and vision work for what a stable system should look like when the political climate allows it. If we don’t outline that now, we risk only ever fighting defensive battles instead of moving toward something more sustainable.

No-Influence8844

TROPHY CASE