The "women are always screaming" stereotype is sexist. It's a direct extension of the pseudoscientific hysteria diagnosis that used to be commonly accepted. "A women," as you put it, might scream, and you might find that annoying. Women as a category have higher pitched voices on average, and the line between "reasonable yelling" and "hysterical screaming" is often just one of pitch, even when the cause for alarm or injury is the same.

Additionally, neither I nor any of the women in my life "scream" in response to injury. We yell in pain just like someone with a masculine voice, if a bit higher pitched. Some may, but it's not common and is usually reserved for situations of extreme alarm or fear, or occasionally excitement. Any time a woman does scream on video, you always see someone in the comments complaining about how annoying women screaming is. The same is never said about men screaming, unless they scream "like a girl."

9/10 times. How out of touch are you?

Your phrasing makes it appear as if trans people and feminists are on opposite sides of an issue, which they aren't. Only a small subset of feminism-appropriating weirdoes call themselves anti-trans feminists.

The laser is for drones or missiles. Missiles are used for ships, which outrange battleships by a large margin, hence why they've been phased out of service. One jet can sink a ship hundreds of miles from its carrier.

Don't speak for trans people. Regardless of whether drag thinks drag's an actual dragon or if it's roleplay or just a fun neopronoun, respect people's identities. I don't have to get it. If someone says "I'd like to be referred to as fae," then I'm calling fae exactly what fae wants. I have a friend that uses "love/love" as neopronouns. I don't get it, and yes it can be confusing, but that isn't roleplay or hurting anyone's right to exist. This is exactly the type of infighting that conservatives try to start, and you're either falling for it or white knighting for people that don't need it.

Gender is made up and entirely a social construct, and some people choose to make their own rules because the rules don't actually exist. For some reason that really pisses people off that otherwise think they're being allies.

In your comment, whether intended or not. It's not a long comment. By "whatabouting" the idea of replacing men with any marginalized group, you are making a false equivalence via equivocation. By leaving out the crucial aspect of power imbalance, you minimize its role by implication. See: all lives matter in response to BLM.

Additionally, statements like men are trash can hurt other marginalized groups. I've heard "men are trash" be followed or countered with "except trans men." This is transphobic. I'd like to make it very clear that "men are trash" is an unjustly prejudiced statement, but it is one that is a product of a broken system. See: ACAB.

That's not what the definition has changed to. Women can be women without identifying with that traditional role. A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. I am a woman, and I certainly don't identify with the role of a traditional woman.

Okay but I enjoy realistic milsim games. You don't have to play them. Weird take.

Yes. "Cis" is just a description, like "straight" or "white." Calling someone "cis" is not an insult, but some conservatives take it as such. The common phrase they echo is "I'm not cis, I'm normal." They're trying to denormalize trans people by making an inoffensive and common descriptor an insult. The same people sometimes have a problem with being called straight by queer people because they see themselves not as straight, but normal, and anything different is abnormal. In reality, "gay," "straight," "trans," and "cis" are no more abnormal descriptors than calling someone "black," "white," "American," or "tall." It's all just "othering" those they perceive as political opponents.

Authoritarian doesn't mean exercising authority. Banning slavery did exercise authority, of the law, over slave owners, but it was anti-authoritarian. It took power, and authority, condensed wrongly in the hands of a few and, in theory, distributed it to the many, however effective it actually was.

You could make an argument that infinite $100 bills are more valuable for their ease of use or convenience, but infinite $100 bills and infinite $1 bills are equivalent amounts of money. Don't think of infinity as a number, it isn't one, it's infinity. You can map 1000 one dollar bills to every single 100 dollar bill and never run out, even in the limit, and therefore conclude (equally incorrectly) that the infinite $1 bills are worth more, because infinity isn't a number. Uncountable infinities are bigger than countable ones, but every countable infinity is the same.

Another thing that seems unintuitive but might make the concept in general make more sense is that you cannot add or do any other arithmetic on infinity. Infinity + infinity =/= 2(infinity). It's just infinity. 10 stacks of infinite bills are equivalent to one stack of infinite bills. You could add them all together; you don't have any more than the original stack. You could divide each stack by any number, and you still have infinity in each divided stack. Infinity is not a number, you cannot do arithmetic on it.

100 stacks of infinite $1 bills are not more than one stack of infinite $1 bills, so neither is infinite $100 bills.

You can't run for president if you're not a natural-born US citizen. His name doesn't mean he was born elsewhere. If the idea is that he's a second or more generation immigrant, so is everyone that isn't a First Nations citizen.

But yeah, anyone part of a group the Republican party hates (POC, LGBTQ+, working class, etc) that supports the party has some bizarre cognitive dissonance going on.