Quote:
Originally Posted by new believer
Well maybe you're right about some things in your statement here, but the point is that the topic is still relevent. And yes the time goes by. I found two things of interest going over some comments. First, Fran use to be a lot more 'involved' and I do miss her very very much. Seeing her avatar and 'hearing' her comments always brought a happy spark to most of us. I still adore her even though she's somewhat elusive these days.
The second thing I noticed is a comment by me. Well, if I were to put on a dress(sorry, it's not happening)I would no longer look like a female 'wolverine'. I've since shaved off my mutton chops.
|
I'm not going to argue the "relevance" of the topic. However, the question posted by the OP is rather ridiculous ... and wow, did he ever miss the point of the response he got from the women in question. She focused on his gender-identification language, not the word "cute" (if we are to believe the story exactly as written). She told him to refer to her as a "transsexual," not as a shemale. And yet, what is the insipid question he poses?:
Can someone tell me if the term "cute" is onerous to most shemales.
So, am I to understand that what you think is "still relevant" is the question of whether the term
cute is "onerous to most shemales"?
Heaven help us.
(And, yes, I note the title of the thread, completely absent from the actual question posed by the OP.)