r/RealUnpopularOpinion

They are males who want to be females. Not just "the social roles of females," because they imitate female biology with surgery. They dislike words that reveal their sex and want to use words for the sex they imitate.

So they redefined "woman" with crazy ideological terms, claiming "gender" is a "social construct" distinct from sex, and made "woman" refer to "gender" rather than biology.

Now everyone hears the word "woman" and assumes they are female, while in reality they are male. They have deceived everyone and justify it with their redefinitions.

You can use this same trick for anything. Pick any category: sex, age, race, species. Invent a "social" version: social gender, social age, social race, social species. Redefine all related words to refer to the social version.

One could claim there's a difference between "biological age" and "social age," and then redefine words like "baby" to refer to the "social age" instead. So a guy in a diaper could enter a nursery.

They'll cite "suicide rates" and "harm reduction" as if that makes the transitioning from man to woman seem more plausible than the idea of transitioning from human to animal. But by that logic, if people who identify as dogs started committing suicide, species would become a "social construct" too.

Hey everyone, as a Black woman I’ve been thinking about this a lot since the World Cup ended. I kept noticing that a bunch of the Black players have White girlfriends or wives, sometimes Latina. But when you look at the White players, their partners usually look just like them.

I’ve seen posts on Twitter about it too, with people straight up asking why Black athletes (especially footballers) don’t date Black women. The replies are always the same tired stereotypes calling us masculine, loud, ugly, aggressive, all that. It’s the same stuff they say about Black American women. Feels super unfair to paint a whole group with one brush. Like, you can’t just compare Eastern European women to White women from the South in the US. They might look similar but the cultures are different.

The funny (and kinda ironic) part is seeing these same Black guys who are married to or dating non-Black women get upset about racism in the stands the banana peels, monkey chants, N-word stuff from White fans. You’re building a life and giving your money to people from that group? Makes you wonder what’s really going on. Is it preference, status, culture, or even some image/contract thing in the leagues? No hate, just an honest observation.

Black women, do y’all notice this too? What do you think? Football fans and others, what’s your take? Looking for real thoughts, not just arguing.

Hiroshima and 9/11 both used mass civilian death to generate terror to achieve a political goal. Yet one is called "tragic necessity," the other "terrorism."

They will come up with excuses for why America did not commit terrorism. And for this they have to make an argument for why killing civilians to achieve a political goal is terrorism in one case and not in the other. So they have to find some arbitrary difference to make them seem different. 

So they say "America is a state actor." As if, if Al Qaeda had captured territory and become a state, and then carried out the exact same attack, they would say it's not terrorism anymore, simply because they were a state. Even though America itself has multiple state actors on its list of terrorist organizations.

It was a “declared war” or “total war” as if that makes it no longer terrorism.

"It was a military necessity." As if a terrorist organization cannot think that a terrorist attack is necessary.

"It was a response to aggression, not unprovoked." As if it’s no longer terrorism if you didn’t start the war.

“A full scale invasion of Japan would have caused more deaths than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” A full scale invasion of America would also have caused more death than 9/11. If al Qaeda was strong enough to do a full scale invasion of America would 9/11 no longer be terrorism because they could've done a full scale invasion?

"Dropping the bomb was intended to end a war." Why does that matter? Why would that make it no longer terrorism? Do you care whether al Qaeda intended to stop America from causing wars in the middle east with 911? If it turned out 9/11 caused Americans to stop attacking the middle east because they feel their actions have consequences would you say it’s no longer terrorism?

Whenever I see a person abuse or kill any animal for no valid reason (Moths, Lizards, Dogs, Spiders, literally anything) it makes me actually angry. Whenever I see a person kill another person I don’t feel the same reaction.

Almost all animals are completely ignorant and doing what they can to survive. Everything they do is for survival and they have no capacity to be evil or aware of another animals suffering. Killing them, for absolutely 0 valid reason (not a threat to you in any capacity, wont affect you in any capacity, and you are aware of that) nearly equates to killing a child to me. And you are objectively cruel to do something like that, even if its a “lower” lifeform like a spider.

A person doesn’t have these traits. I genuinely don’t feel the same way when I see someone get killed unless I have the whole story, and most of them time I still just don’t feel the same way

I am 13 years old and would love to debate with all of you. This is my first topic:

I am not claiming what is wrong and what is right, but this should be some common sense.

The concept of "terrorism" is not a coherent ethical category but an empty political construct.

This hypocrisy is exposed by a direct comparison: the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Al-Qaeda’s attacks on September 11th.

Both acts followed the same logic: using mass civilian death to generate terror and force political surrender. Yet one is called "tragic necessity," the other "terrorism." The difference is not the act, but who defines it.

They will come up with excuses for why America did not commit terrorism. "America is a state actor." As if, if Al Qaeda had captured territory and become a state, and then carried out the exact same attack, they would say it's not terrorism anymore, simply because they were a state. Even though America itself has multiple state actors on its list of terrorist organizations.

“America murdered civilians in a declared war so it’s not terrorism.” As if declaring a war and then doing a terrorist attack makes it no longer a terrorist attack.

"It was a military necessity." As if a terrorist organization cannot think that a terrorist attack is necessary.

"It was a response to aggression, not unprovoked." As if who started it matters and as if 9/11 was random and not also provoked by the actions of Americans in the middle east.

And many of them will make these excuses endlessly until they get tired and resort to a personal attack. In reality, no matter how much they dislike it, they start a new war every one or two years and bomb civilians to death for their political goals, destroying houses, hospitals, schools, and more, so that the country they are attacking submits to their demands. They are the biggest tyrants on earth, and any condemnation of any other group from their mouths is meaningless and a distraction.

1. The players don't know you exist. Are you vicariously living through the other players by being really happy that they win or score a goal?

2. There are way more important things in the world than a football match

3. It's just a game. At the end of the guy all the players are still rich and famous if they win or lose

At first, the internet is international. And the USA and some little countries are the only ones using feet and fahrenheit, the rest of the world is not, and the rest of the world genuinly doesn’t think the USA is as tough as some Americans think we think it is. Secondly, these systems don’t make any sense, unless you’re a cowboy in the 18th century. Most feet aren’t even the same size, and water freezing at 32 and boiling at 212 is just totally random (in Celcius, water is only liquid when it’s 0-100°). I mean, a meter is just a meter, but you can divide it by ten. Your foot divided by 10 is… Nothing. Or 13/64 inch, or 0,1 feet. It isn’t modern either.

Primal inclinations only evolved in us over thousands of generations to motivate us to pursue behaviours that our ancestors had to engage in for survival. The only reason we have sexuality is so we are urged to have sexual intercourse with the opposite sex and reproduce. Plain and simple.

This is why men are generally attracted to feminine features that indicate high oestrogen and reproductive health.

eg;

Fat asses = High regional DHA fat content to feed a developing fetus and a counterweight to an enlarged abdomen during pregnancy for better spinal posture.

Breasts = Source of milk for babies

Short stature and high fat to muscle ratio= Higher pubertal oestrogen and greater physical vulnerability to natural threats and need for protection.

The list goes on but you get the point. Primal men preferentially selected these features and it became ingrained in our nature and persists in modern men. Any other sexuality is an emasculation fetishism. It is the result of recognised insufficient masculinity to attract women and years of sexual frustration and insecurity that will never be resolved because the true desire to engage in sexual behaviours that simulate impregnation of women will never be satisfied.

Receptive sexual intimacy with men, cucking, sissification, anal penetration and denial of penile stimulation are all an acclimation of the tactile and neurological drivers that are trying to urge us to impregnate women. Saying that a femboy who "likes" to get fucked in the ass by burly men in chastity and a French maid outfit was "born gay" is like saying the homeless guy with schizophrenia and PTSD was born an alcoholic. He realised that he is too unstable and dysfunctional to be an engineer or a brain surgeon so turns to the bottle to find some comfort in being at the bottom echelon of society.

Said man realised that he will never be masculine enough to make women want to give him the sexual submission, softness and affection he wishes he could. Same as the cuck who watches his wife get fucked by more masculine men; he realised he could never be 1% as sexually appealing as her celebrity crushes, flirty co-worker and the neighbour with big biceps she twirls her hair to. Same as the "sissy-husband" who secretly wishes he made more money than his college-educated wife that manages a law-firm.

Whimpy white guys in a society that grooms us from early childhood onwards that masculinity is destructive and villainous and where women are more educated, wealthy and accomplished have 2 choices;

1. Constantly pursue what you will never have and automatically be seen by women as an Incel nazi who thinks women are sex-objects that you are entitled to sexual relationships with and actively hate them for it. And yes, this is how most women see most straight men who aren't getting any regardless of how you actually treat/view them as will be evident by the comments starting with "no wonder you couldn't get a woman".
2. Start cross-dressing, wringing your hand when you talk in a performatively girly voice, pretend to have left-wing views and give in to the gradually culminated emasculation fetishes you've developed out of sexual rejection. Now you get endless sympathy, get to whine about how hard your life is and how unfair the world is to your people and pretend to agree with women that masculinity is an evil social construct that needs to be neutralised for the better of society. Really they just want to tear down the men they wish they could be out of envy and be told by women "You're so brave, other men are such pigs, I wish they were all like you, awww how dare he call you the wring pronoun". It's better than constantly being scorned and hated by the people you are attracted to, so you might as well at least have pity, amicable sociability and a sense of victimhood from them. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

I've always known I was attracted to women but know I am not enough to make them desire me and I've never hated them, blamed them or thought I was entitled to them. It sucks, I hate it and wish more than anything I was a bad-ass but know I never will be. The idea of having the privileges and victimhood these men have and not being hated by the people I am attracted to and admire sounds more appealing than ever. Then I realised the conservatives were right all along and non-heterosexuality is the result of rejecting the very same masculinity present that causes men like me the pain we want to escape from. I'm thinking it's time to commit to it and the idea that I was born gay but finally succumbing to my "state of denial" is simultaneously insulting and laughable. As a teenager I always knew I was attracted to submissive feminine women and repulsed by men or the idea of being feminized. Only difference is now that my brain has forcibly eroticised the humiliation with my own sexual insufficiency.

Straight men have always been the only people straightforward and cognizant of what we are attracted to. The same people that claim everyone should be free to express the sexuality they were born with and we cannot claim that any cultural or personal conditions facilitated it will happily say straight men who want to be the leader, provider and protector in the family/relationship are brainwashed misogynists who are too afraid to "fall out of patriarchal gender norms". There is a mass delusion among women that they with-hold relationships with conservative men and reserve it for progressive femboys that challenge societal norms but how masculine/attractive a man is just correlates to how much of a feminist he has to pretend to be. If that weren't true then millionaire businessmen and superstars would struggle to find hot young stay-at-home wife/mums.

I look forward to getting the kind of softness society gives to these kind of men and indulging in the sexual degeneracy I am inclined in to because I don't respect myself enough to protect any dignity that remains in me. I don't hate women nor do I think they are committing any wrong-doing by not having the relationships and sex with me I so desire but I know this is the only way they will believe it's true. It's sad but it's reality.

Transgenderism is a semantic trick. Here is how it works:

1. Take "gender," a synonym for sex and redefine it as a "social construct."
2. Rewire every female-designating word, "woman," "girl," "she," "daughter," "sister," from biology to this new "social gender."
3. Now anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman. Biological reality is obscured. The words still sound biological, but they no longer mean that.

Why it is a trick: Transgenders do not want to be "social women." They want to be female. That is why they take hormones and get surgeries to emulate female biology. But they cannot actually become female. So they redefine the words instead. So now everyday words do not point out their sex anymore, and rather they can disguise themselves as female, because when people hear "woman," they still think of a female.

You can use this trick to claim to be “trans” anything by just redefining the words. 

1. Pick any category: sex, age, race, species, height, weight, health. 
2. Invent a "social" version: social gender, social age, social race, social species. 
3. Redefine all related words to refer to the social version.

One could claim there’s a difference between “biological age” and “social age.” and then redefine words like “baby” to refer to the “social age” instead. So a guy in a diaper could enter a nursery. This is not any more ridiculous than transgender. The only reason you might see it as a joke is that you haven’t been blasted with propaganda to normalize it as you have for transgenders.

Keeps seeing posts about telling unattractive men to go out there and present themselves. Well then that’s just gonna land them in the friendzone. And then you just see all these complaining posts about how to get out of the friendzone.

As a female I am always surprised when a male friend confess out of the blue or express their interest. It always freaks me out and I drop them immediately. Dude, I thought we just share the same hobby and have conversations about it, I consider all these conversations pretty platonic and nothing romantic, I would never be interested in dating you.

And if you are unattractive, a good personality only gets you a friend as far as it goes. Attractiveness is the first thing in dating and without that we are not talking. And if I fit into the female beauty standard thin, fit, well maintained, then I would not want a man that does not fit the male beauty standards.

I get that everyone wants to believe that gender is just a title but male and female brains are different and testosterone and estrogen are completely different so why do I almost always see on tv guys expecting women to be like men and women for men to be like women when fundamentally we are different? And maybe it’s just me but isn’t respecting and understanding our differences the best option.

LGB not the whole TQ+ stuff. I’d love to go to pride if it wasn’t ruined by all the extreme woke 1000000+ gender people. I also feel embarrassed to tell people about my sexuality because I don’t want to be associated with trans people

A good example of this could be GTA5/6 or Roblox, three games that have been on the news because people are simply mad at their existence. Let’s start with grand theft auto it has been blamed for the most crimes since its first video game release in the 1990s, such as school shootings and car jackings. Simply if people were parents, they would either not let their children play those games or even better teach them right from wrong. Now let’s start with Roblox an app that was originally meant for children, it is not their fault of people‘s actions on their app, I agree they should do better moderating, but it is not their fault that they have predators targeting children people are just sick. I seen the news article about how a child spent $7000 on the Ingame currency Robux. And they are blaming the Roblox company, for “ letting their child do it” as if Roblox can tell when someone is supposed to and not supposed to be using their parents credit card, for all they could’ve known the parents were multimillionaires, and they could’ve given their child access to buy, however, much they wanted. Instead of blaming the company how about punish your child for sneaking into your wallet and grabbing the credit card in the first place? Or better yet blame yourselves for being negligent parents.

When people tell stories about interactions with random people they’ll often describe people as “black”, “white”, “Asian”, etc. If it’s used in a negative tone or derogatory way then yes, that’s racism (excluding white people cause you can’t be racist towards white people obviously). But if you simply describe what skin colour a person has with no ill intent or racial undertones, I don’t think that’s racist.

I get annoyed as hell when people say “well why’d you have to mention their skin colour?” And it’s not a matter of HAVING to mention anyone’s skin colour, it’s just one of those things you say when telling a story for no reason. At least that’s how I see it.

I feel like a ton of people will disagree with me on this but I’m willing to have my opinion changed in the comments if anyone wants to say why I’m wrong! Always open to hearing people out.

Claiming a male is a woman requires a redefinition of “woman.” The original definition, adult human female, excludes males by definition.

They fabricated a sex/gender distinction, saying that sex is biological, but gender is a "social construct," and reassigned female-designating terms ("woman," "girl," "lady," "sister," "daughter," "she") from biology to this new "social gender." This lets anyone "identifying" with that gender claim the whole cluster. They target these labels precisely because everyone pictures a female; they want to be female, they are not, so they demand the words.

If transgender grew in number enough that "woman" no longer reliably signaled sex, the public would drop it for "male" and "female." Transgenders would then abandon "woman" and chase "female" instead, inventing new distinctions like "biological" vs. "social female" to justify claiming it. "Social gender" is not valued for itself; it is pure mimicry of females, a rhetorical tool with no purpose beyond hijacking whatever word females currently use.

You can use this trick to claim to be “trans” anything by just redefining the words. One could claim there’s a difference between “biological age” and “social age.” and then redefine words like “baby” to refer to the “social age” instead. So a guy in a diaper could enter a nursery. This is not any more ridiculous than transgender. The only reason you might see it as a joke is that you haven’t been blasted with propaganda to normalize it as you have for transgenders.

Being a non acting MAP it’s important that we should be accepted
Is this an unpopular opinion

i swear when people say they aren't political, its a social que to stop bothering them about it. Redditors don't understand this because they lack social awareness.

People obviously have opinions about society and what not, they just don't want to share it with you because you're authoritarian. If you bring up politics randomly to spew leftist or alt right propaganda and I say I'm not a socialist or a conservative and then you virtue signal for 10 mintues about how its such a great system.

You're not convicting me. You're just virtue signaling. Its why people avoid these discussions because there's more nuance in life. It's not a cut and dry, you're not either a leftist or a right winger.

Then people gaslight and make up lies about people saying apolitical = bat shit crazy conservative. That's not entirely true. Usually people will change their views once they get to know you, but if you just hop into a first date interrogating them like a kgb officer, people will be turned off from it. Its extremely weird and off putting.

Men and women are physically and mentally different. Their mind aligns with their roles. Men and women think and act in inherently different ways. Denying this makes no sense. Even with feminist arguments of "not needing" these roles anymore. As we have lived with them for hundreds of thousands of years and they are visible in every part of our body and behavior.

Women are smaller, weaker, their faces are more childlike and radiate weakness, while men are bigger, stronger, and their faces are more adult and radiate strength. Women have breasts to feed children and are less suitable for fighting. Obviously it is clear that their mind aligns with this, they will naturally want a man who can protect her, while she wants to stay with the kids.

The idea that women are just men with vaginas is a joke.

The ability for women to ignore their roles does not disprove that it's part of their nature anymore than that the ability for children to not listen to their parents, be monarchs, lead their household, fight wars and so on, disproves that they are meant to listen to their parents.

A society where women do not follow their roles exists in a dysfunctional state and will slowly die out from low birthrates.

Feminism wants to abolish a system which is ingrained in our biology. And this will lead to the death of society. Because of social dysfunction, high divorce and low birthrates.

The American political landscape as it stands today was not possible without the female vote. That goes for all elections local, state and federal. The ivory towers where decisions are made were filled by a popular vote.