5 ms·

You're speculating too much here. Calm down a little. Your last two paragraphs are basically unsubstantiated. And if she's "attention seeking" What are the othe

You're speculating too much here. Calm down a little. Your last two paragraphs are basically unsubstantiated. And if she's "attention seeking" What are the other millions of Youtubers doing, scratching and sniffing? Also, did you have to create another Greenhorn account just to write that nonsense?

show_dead 8y ago
It definitely changes a significant chunk of the “Women in Tech” narrative, when she poses as woman, but was not born a woman. The key feature being the sense of abandon that this person operates apparent sexuality with. It’s deceptive to portray an image of, say, shining LED lighting through breast implants casually, like they’re nothing, if the individual wasn’t born with breasts and so, doesn’t feel an instinctive urge to take them seriously. This person obviously toys with the novelty of a sexualized appearance, because it wasn’t an authentic portrayal from the start. Now the true colors of the media apparatus become clear. Large recognizable outfits (NYT and Vice), opperating in coordinated unison, as fellow collaborators to destroy an oddity that threatens to tarnish what can longer possibly be anything but a carefully orchestrated propaganda program. An example of a highly sexualized MTF transexual that readily outperforms women is patently incompatible with concepts like women in tech and #metoo, and therefore must be destroyed. That Vice might play the role of a villain with teeth is less of a surprise, but that The New York Times acted in concert is doubly interesting, since we now can view evidence of the methods thet employ to keep their hands clean and their fingerprints away from the dirty work.
- dragonbonheur 8y ago
  And where have you seen that she was not born female? Where did that come from? Please, please, please give PROOF for your statement, because if you fail to do so, your entire comment falls apart.
  - dragonmalheur 8y ago
    Why? You’re in this fight so hard, it requires no effort to convince you of anything you don’t already believe. You should learn to write with a voice that’s more urgent and stressed. Anyway, Naomi Wu has such a feminine face. To look at it, your mind doesn’t even flicker a question of sexual identity. You look, your mind adjudicates “female” and moves on. There’s simply no question.
- sctb 8y ago
  I don't really know what to make of this comment, but without a doubt it breaks this guideline: > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

show_dead 8y ago

It definitely changes a significant chunk of the “Women in Tech” narrative, when she poses as woman, but was not born a woman. The key feature being the sense of abandon that this person operates apparent sexuality with. It’s deceptive to portray an image of, say, shining LED lighting through breast implants casually, like they’re nothing, if the individual wasn’t born with breasts and so, doesn’t feel an instinctive urge to take them seriously. This person obviously toys with the novelty of a sexualized appearance, because it wasn’t an authentic portrayal from the start. Now the true colors of the media apparatus become clear. Large recognizable outfits (NYT and Vice), opperating in coordinated unison, as fellow collaborators to destroy an oddity that threatens to tarnish what can longer possibly be anything but a carefully orchestrated propaganda program. An example of a highly sexualized MTF transexual that readily outperforms women is patently incompatible with concepts like women in tech and #metoo, and therefore must be destroyed. That Vice might play the role of a villain with teeth is less of a surprise, but that The New York Times acted in concert is doubly interesting, since we now can view evidence of the methods thet employ to keep their hands clean and their fingerprints away from the dirty work.

dragonbonheur 8y ago
And where have you seen that she was not born female? Where did that come from? Please, please, please give PROOF for your statement, because if you fail to do so, your entire comment falls apart.
- dragonmalheur 8y ago
  Why? You’re in this fight so hard, it requires no effort to convince you of anything you don’t already believe. You should learn to write with a voice that’s more urgent and stressed. Anyway, Naomi Wu has such a feminine face. To look at it, your mind doesn’t even flicker a question of sexual identity. You look, your mind adjudicates “female” and moves on. There’s simply no question.
sctb 8y ago
I don't really know what to make of this comment, but without a doubt it breaks this guideline: > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html