Talk:Christian Weston Chandler

From CWCki
Jump to: navigation, search

...Okay, is it just me, or does Chrissy look drastically different when he's wearing his glasses compared to when he's not? Like, I almost can't believe it's the same person. I mean, I can, since no one else could possibly be that much of a fucktard, but he just looks really different. Or am I imagining it? Ayvuir

To do

  • pics of Chris, especially young Chris and the funny ones
  • life history
  • brief outline of his views
  • his future outlook

I'll do what I can to help this page along. I'm a wiki noob, learning as I go here. So, it won't look the best... MajorIronwood

We should add a sentence or two on the fact that he thinks he can call himself Christopher, just because it share the same abbreviation as Christian.~gourmetpickle

Christopher WAS his name, until he changed to Christian when he was 12.--UncleBastard 20:43, 10 March 2009 (CET)
Boy, do I feel stupid. But then again, if he changed his name, he should have to pick or the other.~gourmetpickle
That reminds me, we should add a few sentences about why he changed his name - I forget where but he had some story (maybe it was in the DVD slideshow) where he says how some teacher kept calling him "Christian" and the name "had a ring to it" so he changed it. --Champthom 16:52, 17 March 2009 (CET)
In addition, from El PokéSite 2, Christian considers his Spanish name to be Ricardo - Likely named after the Ricky Ricardo character from I Love Lucy. Realistic equivalents might be found in Cris, Cristián, or Cristóbal, but clearly these were not featured in the television shows he had watched prior to his High School Spanish classes. Mall Conductor Bear 09:25, 12 May 2009 (CEST)
To be fair, one's "Spanish name" need not be the same as their real name. For example, in 7th grade my Spanish name was Jose, though my name isn't Joseph, and in 10th grade I was Che, even though I'm not Argentinian. --Champthom 06:02, 1 June 2009 (CEST)
More Name Crap: "-Chan" suffix is generally used for a little girl in Japanese. Chris is possibly too dense to realize this, and enjoys the similar pronunciation to 'Christian'. In doing so, there was no need to create a word jumble of existing letters, as that convention was given to his more open alter-ago. LBearington 05:25, 1 June 2009 (CEST)

Racism and Noviophobia

Evidence of it goes back further than was previously thought. Read the notice to guys on this sign from when he was 21. "(and to all MEN with girlfriends, except marrieds and blacks, go jump off a cliff)". Where the white women at? --Tumbleweed 04:10, 26 March 2009 (CET)

  • I don't think that's racism though, because he's saying EXCEPT blacks. I think maybe he's paranoid about telling black people to jump off a cliff, because otherwise that's a hate crime. Sorta like when he made that post on his MySpace "I Respect the African American People." --Champthom 04:12, 26 March 2009 (CET)
  • Possibly, but since he's already stated that he simply doesn't like black people, I don't think it's likely. And besides, I don't think it would make much sense to make a special exception to black people unless you were hyper PC or just afraid of black people. (not to mention that he explicitly asks for only white women in later requests / demands / whines) --Tumbleweed 09:48, 26 March 2009 (CET)
  • Yeah, it's racism. He's saying "Blacks don't need to jump off a cliff, because I'm using my outdated and quriky view that blacks stick with blacks relationship wise, and the same is true for whites. So, I don't worry about blacks impeding on my 'love quest.'" However, I don't think Chris would be able to articulate that well. --Tregnier2795
  • Just a thought, should there be a separate article that would count how many times he's been racist other than his views of niggos? --AntonImausMk2 04:29, 3 November 2009 (CET)

Mr. Darcy is much better than Chris, y'hear.

I had it noted, along with a picture of Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy to compare the two, that Mr. Darcy and Chris are in no way similar. This came about from the cliche "Well, he's no Mr. Darcy..."

I think it's a good visual aid. --Tregnier2795

Let me tell you about this page

It's great. It's fantastic. I read it for the first time in a while and I think it's the perfect, concise intro to Chris. The ED article on Chris sucks because it's so all over the place. True, we have the luxury of being a devoted wiki that instead of having to go into depth about Sonichu, we can just link to the article. The ED article is shit because it goes over the place, it's a bit out of date, and it picks poor samples of Chris's videos like just highlighting the "gaybian" vid. This is a fantastic article and this is why people come to us. --Champthom 10:03, 1 December 2009 (CET)

Since there's no actual "Chris and..." page

I hope it's okay to discuss it here. I was wondering if a "Chris and Intelligence" page can be of any use. Some things to cover are his 1) logic, 2) academics and 3) philosophy (to cover his stupid quotes and advice). --AntonImausMk2 09:56, 7 December 2009 (CET)

  • That's sorta what honor roll is at the moment, though it really should be expanded to that as opposed to the focus on art (which really isn't what honor roll is about). Why I suggest honor roll because Chris will say something like "I'm smart, I was on honor roll." "I know math, I was on honor roll for the love of God!," etc. --Champthom 10:07, 7 December 2009 (CET)

We need a "Chris and Aspergers Syndrome" page. --Cody

CWC split?

"CWC" should redirect here, but I'm thinking maybe we should make a page devoted to Chris's initials. He uses them a lot, they're a recurring motif in his work, and we can even keep track of when he uses them as a pun (like "A CWC Audition"). Thoughts? --Champthom 10:09, 7 December 2009 (CET)

Page Needed

Chris and Reliability - Cody

cleaned-up, needs to be expanded/updated

--Sonijew 22:29, 29 December 2009 (CET)

Contact information?

Okay. I realise I will be stepping into what can only be described as but a cat's whisker from the maw of hell- but I would like to talk to Christian Weston Chandler. I have a great deal of things to discuss with him and, rest assured, there will be luls. What is the best way to get in touch with him these days? I tried Facebook, but he doesn't seem to be checking it very often (I'm guessing he has a lot of trolls talk to him). I've also taken to staking out his AIM, but I'm guessing he doesn't use that either due to people spamming him with JULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY. Ronichu 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you a licensed therapist or religious official? Because I think a team of a shrink, a priest, and a journalist would be needed at this point. Vivian Gee tried to get through to him, Lord love her, but she's not a doctor--didn't even finish high school, I do believe. Look...I've had my share of problems growing up, and I know no one can compliment you and make you feel like a turd all at the same time like a school admin. I've got a kid brother who is an unrepentant drug addict and thief, who probably could have been reached if we'd gotten to him sooner. He's now a burned-out piece of crap who is on his third (maybe fourth, I've lost count) jail term. He's about Chris-Chan's age. I say someone better do something or else Chris'll be in jail or an institution before he's thirty, and then he'll be the taxpayer's problem. What will they do when his folks croak off? He's got a couple of half-siblings, but they've got their own lives to lead; they don't need a man-child with a lukewarm I.Q. underfoot. Could we live with ourselves if he flips out and kills a bunch of people in a mall or a campus somewhere, and maybe we could have done something if we'd been proactive five or three, or even just a year ago, to prevent it? The Iconoclast 19:37, 28 January 2011 (PST)
Although it pains me to have to use the phrase, the CWCki is not a forum. Take shit like this elsewhere. Also, you're responding to a 10-month-old comment. Freecell 20:27, 28 January 2011 (PST)

I don't own a PS3 so somehow contacting him via the Playstation Network is also out. I live in Australia, so this makes things difficult. Thoughts? Suggestions? Ronichu 14:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless to try and talk to Chris, as he will just ignore you. --BreadGod 14:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Alec knows his personal phone number. I think that if you ask him nicely he might tell you. He certainly dosn't owe Chris anything. His Asperpedia account is ALBASPERCHU and his email is albasperchu(at) --Edward 15:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • 1) please sign your comments (it's four tildas [~] in a row). 2) Chris's contact info should be in 14 Branchland Court, 3) if it isn't, it should be there. I think Cogs didn't want it with the logic is that if you have to ask for Chris's phone number and can't find it yourself when he's mentioned it frequently, you really shouldn't be trolling Chris. However, people asking for it all the time is annoying and it defeats the purpose of CWCki being an open source of information.
    • Actually, I tried calling that number but either I fucked up international dialing (entirely possible) or it was disconnected (which is what I thought it said). Ronichu 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
That aside, I can guarantee that Chris will not listen to your call.--Champthom 16:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I know he'll ignore me, but at least it'll be funny. I'm not attempting to, directly, help him. Ronichu 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
CWCki is not a place to discuss how to troll or help Chris, if you want to contact Chris, do it, it won't have any effect on him whatsoever.Basgon 03:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd actually love to know if there's some online contact information at all. Inquiring minds need to know, since he evidently doesn't go on IRC anymore. anyone know where he can regularly be found? Boop 05:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I've yet to be able to find anything besides an AOL address. Does he still use that account? PrimeMinisterStephanHarper 17:26, 27 September 2010 (PDT)

Misapplication of social rules

Maybe this comment should go under the Autism page or the Honesty page but it seems like Chris's view of "Honesty" is likely influenced by an unspoken rule amongst nerdier internet communities where being extremely, unnecessarily open in private, especially with things verifiable by a third party, is seen as a way to build trust, due to the fact it is difficult if not impossible to establish it otherwise. My point being, he may have picked this sort of 'honesty' up from a geeky community somewhere. Insidious611 05:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I will note said openness doesn't USUALLY extend to ones bowel issues or other information nobody in their right mind would want to know. But it may extend to relationships and especially trouble therein. Insidious611 05:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to mention...

Christian Weston Chandler (born Christopher Weston Chandler on 24 February 1982) is a perverse, narcissistic, homophobic, sexist, racist, overweight, delusional "high-functioning autistic" virgin etc. etc.

What about "uncultured" (as shown by his not knowing the story of To Kill a Mockingbird'' and thinking Molvania is a real place) and "tone deaf" (his so called "album", need I say more?)Knucklechu 10:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose of this article was to make a list of all the negative adjectives that could be applied to Chris, it would be 20 pages long.--Beat 11:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, er... I just got done adding a bunch of those. This is going to be the first sentence of the first page that a lot of people are going to look at. If there's this really stupid, unwieldy list of all the totally horrible, totally accurate descriptors, they'll be like, "No way, no one can be that bad." But they'll... y'know... —Thepicklesuitintheman 03:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Anagram crackers

Interestingly, "clownish tender anarchist" is a perfect anagram of Chris' full name.

So is "antichrist enhances world". The Iconoclast 06:56, 13 March 2011 (PDT)

On the removal of a large chunk of the intro

Someone posted the other day how they objected to "transvestite" listed to the intro, saying it's made it seems like being a transvestite is a bad thing and that really got me thinking. As elaborated elsewhere, the CWCki doesn't really try to beat in an idea of Chris. It tends to be critical, nothing wrong with that, but it tries to at least aim for NPOV at least as it pertains to our context. I think starting off the article with "Chris is a bad guy who's a whole bunch of unflattering personal characteristics" is going to leave the reader with a negative impression from the get go - of course you're not going to like this guy, you've had it drilled into your head he's a bunch of unpleasant things like "stubborn," "racist," etc. But what should happen is someone reads this article, like "Okay, this guy is a bit off" and then let them decide that based on the facts, whether or not he's really fucked up. If you're going to say Chris is fucked up, let the facts about Chris speak for themselves, you shouldn't need to lead the reader into this.

I also had issue with the linking. For instance, take - "racist" linking to Chris and race. As you can see on the talk page of that article, there was some debate whether it should be "Chris and racism" versus "Chris and race." I argued for "Chris and race" as it's more neutral and whether or not Chris is racist should be left up to the reader. Yet having "racism" link is going to have the reader read that article expecting Chris to be racist. Once again, let the facts speak for themselves - let known facts about Chris's relationships and comments on certain races allow the reader to determine for his or her own self whether Chris is a racist or not. Hopefully these articles don't insinuate Chris is a certain thing, in which case I need to go through and review some of these articles carefully.

So what did I leave? I left high functioning autistic (why was it in quotations? The autism article makes a strong case that he is autistic) because this is what Chris describes himself as. Also, he's a virgin - once again, his own description. I was very generous with leaving "man child," which I would say is leading the reader but this seems to be a most popular characterization of Chris.

If you'd like to debate it, you're more than welcome to here. Sorry to take advantage of editing it when the page is locked, I think I'll change it so only new users are blocked from editing the page for the week. --Champthom 05:38, 26 July 2011 (PDT)

  • That's a long explaination there boss. You could have just said "You don't need to call Chris a faggot in an article. That's obvious enough", and it would have been just as effective. --Old meme 06:45, 26 July 2011 (PDT)
I beg to differ. Chris is not the only one who uploads/uploaded shitty comics of his recolors yiffing each other. What sets him apart from others in that category is him being a major jerk as well, and the previous introduction had links to the articles which dealt with those significant aspects of his personality. The current introduction does not capture the full essence of Christian Weston Chandler.
It seems to me that the rule of thumb on this wiki is that you can write from non neutral POV if what you're adding to the articles are reasonable observation which will be met with agreement by all sensible people who are properly informed regarding the matter involved. For example, outright saying that Chris is an extremely egotistical person goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy, yet we do outright call him as such - in fact we have two articles dedicated just for that purpose. Why? Because once a sensible person sees all the facts those articles gather, he cannot reasonably argue that Chris is not an extremely egotistical man. There's no point in having this article refrain from calling Chris narcissistic, homophobic, transvestite, racist, overweight, delusional, or hypocritical when other articles on this Wiki do just that.
With the exception perhaps of the first five (and even here I'm not sure), I think it is firmly established that Chris deserves most of the unsavory qualities which were mentioned in the previous revision. His homphobia, semen drinking and transvestism (if one takes the word to mean cross-dressing) are self admitted; his obesity is evident in the pictures taken of him and the rest of the linked articles all make a compelling case for Chris being racist, egotistical, hypocritical, untalented and so on.
Furthermore, I think that the CWCki will become somewhat stale if all other articles are written in the same spirit as the current introductory paragraph. While I'm not saying we should adopt ED practices and write against the truth if it provides more lulz, I also think we shouldn't emulate wikipedia's NPOV policy. Instead, we should go for a for a rule saying that when writing about Chris once should only stick to facts and observation which can be agreed by all reasonable and informed people - with the occasional snarky comment. NegaCWC 10:09, 26 July 2011 (PDT)
To put in my two cents here, I'd say I think everything is fine the way it is as long as it's simply about the facts (or any assumptions are stated as such). If someone stole stuff all the time, you'd call them a wouldn't sugar coat it (and in reality you couldn't). Chris is a lot of things, most of those things are backed up by examples Chris himself have given people to view. Telling someone Chris is a man-child and giving them examples of said man-child tendencies is no different, in my opinion, as if we'd just given them the examples and they came up with the same conclusion. Most people have brains and use them, if we tell them Chris is racist and then give them examples of said behavior, they can still disagree if they feel the evidence is not conclusive. As for the problem with making "transvestite" or "homosexual" seem like something bad, all I can say is that it's how you read it. I've read almost every article in this CWCki and I don't feel like it's "dissing" or "hating on" anyone that is of any sort of religions, race, gender, or sexuality. It's simply showing what Chris is and how he acts. Straight-out calling Chris a transvestite (Noun: A person, typically a man, who derives pleasure from dressing in clothes appropriate to the opposite sex), isn't too far from the truth, but at the same time, it's not insulting transexuals as a whole. Using that type of logic (meaning you're insulting a group of people if they are in some way associated with what Chris does) would mean that all men, all virgins, all autistics, and all humans are bad/horrible people because they are in the "same group" as Chris. --4Macie 12:33, 26 July 2011 (PDT)
I wasn't a huge fan of the intro as it was. I prefer more subtle jabs; I think that it can be pretty funny to throw in a dig here or there, but a long (entirely piped) list of 'OMG HOMOS' is just... meh. I don't agree with some of the overzealous insult (and humor) purging that has hit some articles, but this I can agree with. Dude 17:41, 26 July 2011 (PDT)

August 2011?

The events so far of August 2011 appear to be missing. The most recent entries relate only to the Tomgirl forums. --IwegalBadnik 12:56, 13 August 2011 (PDT)

Yeah, the part saying he hasn't made any new videos should be updated Martymoinklers 17:16, 1 September 2011 (PDT) I did it --ThatPianoGuy 21:05, 8 September 2011 (PDT)

Chris as a troll

Not sure why the category has been deleted multiple times. Chris has been (if not currently) a troll, in his career. Most notably, to Alec Benson Leary during the Asperchu saga, especially during the phone calls. He's also been Evan's to some extent, i.e. plagiarism which still hasn't been reverted. And, of course, the infamous Rollin' and Trollin'. Boomhauer (talk) 2:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because there's some trolls you dislike doesn't mean Chris is a troll to his trolls. Alan Pardew (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What? First off, I never said I disliked any trolls; I'm not trying to bias this. Secondly, Chris has fully admitted to being a 'troll' in the past. As for being a literal troll, like I said, the Asperchu saga says it all; his constant insulting and mocking of the 'Asperchu Four' along with his disregard for other's work is the clean-cut definition of a troll. Boomhauer (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight in summary.

1. Chris said that he's a troll so therefore he's a troll.

2. A troll's definition is to mock someone else's work.

If these are what you are pointing out, no. Alan Pardew (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So by that, no trolls listed in the wiki are actually trolls? I mean, even Liquid isn't regarded as a troll by some, and all he did was mock. Even Alec's called Chris a troll, and that was one of, if not the, most eventful sagas to date. Boomhauer (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So? Alan Pardew (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Chris on happy tree friends

I don't really know if he likes happy tree friends, and it is probably for the best...unless of course he fucks up and adds sonichu as a happy tree friend OC.

Changing the top image to modern CWC

I was wondering if the image in the "Chandler Family" box should be replaced with an image of today's 30+ y/o CWC, instead of classic CWC. ED did it, so why not here? I get that it's probably the most recognizable pic of CWC, but I'd feel it would be more appropriate, especially when the info in the same box is constantly updating. CWCFlick


00dani‎ changed all the pronouns in this article to female, to suit Chris's gender choice. I think an edit of that magnitude should be discussed first, so I undid the edits.

Should the pronouns be changed to female?

  • I'm voting no. This wiki is primarily about classic Chris, so the gender pronouns should reflect that. A sweeping change of "him" to "her" doesn't make sense, since, for instance, the early life section would get changed as well, and Chris identified as a male for most of his life. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    • First off, good on you for fixing that awful edit. Second, I'm going to weigh in and say that even if Chris did legitimately suffer from dysphoria, changing his pronouns on the wiki would be the wrong course of action. I didn't push for my point of view strongly enough the first time it came up. The point of pronouns isn't to do with the feelings of what someone believes himself to be, it's to make discussion of what a person really is clearer. Enabling delusional thinking by giving people whatever pronouns they ask for muddies up the already-difficult art of communication. Once they invent a form of gender reassignment surgery that produces reproductively viable results in the end, then we can consider and discuss the merits that maybe giving people pronouns correlating to their new reproductive organs instead of those they were born with. Until then, Chris is just a man who hates JERKS and wants china, regardless of if he has a professional surgeon give him an Un-Clit 3.0 and removes his much-hated duck (which he won't). Nathan (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Kudos to Nate for that epic comment. I 100% agree. If we were going to give any credence to Chris's ludicrous assertion of self-femininity, we might as well also accommodate for his belief that CWCville actually exists as a tangible place. Besides—providing that Chris lives long enough—I believe the tomgirl saga will eventually come to an end.--Galilean (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Chris is a man who likes applying feminine traits to himself. It's biologically impossible for a man to be a woman, or vice versa.
    I disagree with Wikipedia's policy on applying pronouns from transgenderism throughout an article since it distorts the depiction of events. For instance, this Wikipedia image of Bruce Jenner has a caption referring to "she," even though the person depicted in the image is male. Like I said earlier, making a sweeping change to Chris's pronouns in this article would affect the early life section and render it inaccurate.
    And suppose that we adapt this policy - we would need to rewrite every article on this wiki to match. The problem with that is there are many pages about Chris's ideas on sex and gender that would be rendered nonsensical by switching the pronouns. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Trans women are women, good lord. Caitlyn Jenner isn't male, and unless she says otherwise, neither is Christine. 00dani (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Jenner sired multiple children. One needs to be male in order to do that. As for Chris, he's made many comments, even as a Tomgirl, about how he dislikes his male genitals, so he is also a male. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • For heaven's sake, it's 2017, let's get this cleared up. Some men have vulvae and some women have penises. The shape of a person's genitals does not determine their identity - what that person tells you determines their identity. Caitlyn is openly and proudly a woman, regardless of her history. Christine expressing a dislike for her genitals is a classic example of gender dysphoria, which almost always indicates a person is trans, and almost never indicates a person is cis. Trans men are men, trans women are women. It's not hard. 00dani (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't agree, but we're starting to repeat our points. The CWCki isn't here to be respectful towards Chris - its purpose is to document his life, flaws and all. We're not obligated to indulge in his ideas about himself, whether he thinks he's the Mayor of CWCville or a lesbian transwoman. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a very important difference between CWCville and trans women, which is that trans women actually exist. Heck, I should know, since I am one. It's true that the CWCki is under no obligation to respect Christine's fictitious mayorhood, but refusing to respect her gender is hurtful not only to her but to all trans women. Indeed, you've made abundantly clear that you've no respect for us, given your completely unnecessary deadnaming and misgendering of Caitlyn. 00dani (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Whether or not a concept is real isn't relevant to my point about the CWCki. As another example, Chris believes he is descended from royalty. Royalty is an existing concept, but this Wiki isn't obligated to write about Chris as if he were royalty.
    As for my opinions, you've set up your side of the discussion so that there doesn't seem to be a way for me to discuss my perspective without you interpreting it as disrespectful. I consider Chris to be a man and use male terms, but you interpret that as hurtful. I don't see a good alternative. I could use female pronouns to talk about Chris, but it would be self-defeating since I'm arguing that this Wiki should consider him to be male. Jenner is a public figure, and I only brought him up as a counter to a point you made about Wikipedia's coverage on Heineman. Also, it's irrelevant for you to mention that you are also trans, as you are not the subject of this discussion. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be a point in continuing this debate since no one else has weighed in lately, and you and I haven't budged from our positions. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The reason you can't discuss your perspective without it being interpreted as disrespectful is that your perspective is disrespectful. Trans women are women. We are not men, nor are we male. Caitlyn isn't a useful counterexample to Rebecca's article, since Caitlyn's Wikipedia article does exactly the same thing: use her correct pronouns and gender. Your continual misgendering of her speaks only to your own bigotry, not to any practical consideration for wiki editors. 00dani (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Even though I'm neutral to this whole debate (I don't care which direction this wiki goes, if it's all female, all male, or female post-Tomgirl), but here's a suggestion for you 00dani: Give Up. It's obvious at this point that the CWCki will not change their minds about this whole debate. You. Lost. I suggest you give up and move on, since I'm pretty sure that the admins like Canine are QUICKLY losing their patience with you. Plus, the CWCki isn't really for such a debate anyway. If you really want to debate if we should now use feminine pronouns with Chris, head to the Kiwi Farms (be forewarned, you'll probably be insta-banned and mocked every way to Sunday). --Windows OS (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Right, you definitely sound 100% neutral on this debate and not at all transphobic. Honestly, I'm not surprised a community founded on mocking autistic people refuses to afford basic respect to trans folk - feel free to keep peddling your toxic attitudes toward anyone who isn't exactly like you. I'm out. 00dani (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)