all 10 comments

[–]Penultimate_Penance 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

The Queer theorists have made all of this needlessly complicated.

  • If you are born male you will live male and die male.
  • If you are born female you will live female and die female.
  • Man = Adult human male
  • Woman = Adult human female

There is no such thing as being less female or less male. All the surgeries, hormones and makeup in the world will not change your sex. If someone's leg is amputated they are not less human. If a woman has her breasts removed she is not less female. That idea is absurd on its face. Having cat whiskers surgically installed on your face doesn't make you more cat either. Body modification doesn't change who and what you are.

  • Homosexual - Attracted to the same sex.
  • Heterosexual - Attracted to the opposite sex.
  • Bisexual - Attracted to both sexes.

Occam's Razor comes into play with this new modern theocracy. See my definitions of male, female, homosexual heterosexual and bisexual vs queer theorists definitions of the same terms. My definitions are based on obvious easily verifiable objective reality. Simple straightforward, to the point. No confusion.

Queer theorists definitions are based on denial of that same objective reality while contorting themselves into knots trying to redefine these words so that a male bodied person can be considered the same as a female bodied person, so that a heterosexual person is now magically somehow actually a homosexual person even if they are only attracted to the opposite sex. Once again that is absurd and obviously wrong to anyone who thinks about this for more than 2 seconds. A cat is not a dog. A woman is not a man. A heterosexual person is not homosexual even if their opposite sex partner made body modifications to try to look like the other sex.

Believing that 'Men can be women' makes the word woman meaningless. Believing that 'Heterosexual can be homosexual' makes the word heterosexual meaningless. There are two types of human beings. Male and Female. There are 3 sexual orientations. Same, Opposite and Both. Simple.

TLDR: Trans activists are literally telling you that black is white and white is black. Men are women and women are men. Heterosexual people are homosexual and homosexual people are heterosexual. It irks me to no end that this 'philosophy' even got off the ground when it is obviously and categorically wrong on every level. My refutation to all of those points is literally black is not white. Queer theorists will need a hell of a good argument to convince me that black is white and they should be the ones doing the convincing since they are making such a ridiculous claim.

Trying to force a definition change of the word white/black will not change the fact that out there in the observable world there is a color black and another color white. If you steal the words for those colors for your own nonsense beliefs the rest of us will come up with new ones for black and white, because we need words that actually mean something to describe the world around us.

A good summary of Occam's Razor: "The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Edit: Formatting

[–]Tarlatan 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Since queer theory is self-contradictory and ever changing, there are no answers to any of the questions, just torturous strings of cutesy labels to squabble about. For bio-realists, the answer is chasers are into kink but may like it as a side dish for their hetero or homo main meal relationship and so what?

[–]emptiedriver 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

So these trans activists have no trouble understanding, or even expect, that when a person transitions their partner will no longer be attracted to them?

I think for most GC people, the variations of attraction that don't have to do with sexual orientation (whether you feel physically aroused by same sex or opposite sex partners) are basically personality things, the same way all the variations of style, haircut, hobbies, speech affectation, are personality things. Putting it all under the umbrella of "gender" is locking it into a social role. Just be yourself, do what you like, like who you like, but you don't have to define yourself by rules of the culture.

Your sex is a physical fact so you can't "identify" in or out of that, but things like whether you like skirts or dating people with nail polish is just details. If you've got a thing for people who wear skirts, that's a psychological connection you've made somewhere along the way. If you're aroused by chemical reactions, that's an orientation (and if it happens with both sexes, you're bi).

[–]AlexisK 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Those questions are always forgetting different cultures, where manly men can look like transwomen or wear dresses and where dresses or skirts can be forbidden for women to wear, so transman here or transwomen there would be seen just as regular females or males accordingly.

In general, just cultural aspect is breaking apart whole gender ideology. Same with sexual orientations (and that conversion therapies had no effect on changing sexual orientation) which are making all gender ideology arguments to make no sense.

I think for most GC people, the variations of attraction that don't have to do with sexual orientation

I would not say it is for most GC people, it is true for most people period. Sexuality is not social, but biological, function. And we could saw that in last 50+ years, when women started doing "men's jobs" and wearing "men's clothing" - we did not got much more gay men and it is not considered as change in sexuality either. At least until last 5 years, when gender ideology started changed meanings of words every few months, so even for QT people it is impossible to clearly understand anything anymore.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Was bored, so I tried

“They claim attraction to "trans men", "trans women", "nonbinaries", etc is its own thing.”

I think it can be to some extent (non binary isn’t real, so not that, but the trans attraction). But I also think homo/hetero sexuality is what it is regardless of how someone identifies. It’s still same or opposite sex, at the end of it all. Even if things get complicated- it’s still penis or vagina. There’s kind of no way around that.

“A women who is attracted to both cis women and "transwomen" isn't "straight", "bi", or "gay". She could be a gynephile, attracted to "femininity" rather than women, so even when a man that "passes as" a woman appears, she might be attracted to him (gynephilia describes the sexual attraction to women or femininity, while androphilia describes sexual attraction to men or masculinity).”

I think this is possible, but rare. I doubt there are many people who are just attracted to femininity/masculinity, regardless of the sex of the person. I’m not saying it never happens, just that I think it’s probably rare. But it sounds more like a fetish than a sexuality.

“Trans right activists however believe a woman who is attracted to both "transwomen" and cis women can still be considered a "lesbian" because: "transwomen are women/female/biologically female. A cis woman being attracted to trans women is lesbian/gay/homosexual and the relationship between a cis woman and a transwoman is lesbian/gay/homosexual".

No. Transwomen are men. They are not and will not ever be female. Lesbians are females attracted to solely to other females. Period.

“The terms "female" and "male" are used to refer to "gender", and "gender identity".”


“But because trans right activists believe sex can change,”

Lmao some people believe in unicorns, doesn’t mean unicorns exist. Some people believe the earth is flat- despite proof that it’s not. Some people believe Elvis is alive and in hiding. My point is that people believe stupid shit sometimes. This is one of those times. Sex can’t change in humans. It’s proven. I’m skipping any part of this post that pretends it does (not saying you think this but it’s just not true so why waste the effort when this is already long). And no, a reshaped penis is not female genitalia, nor is a reshaped vagina male genitalia.

“What are the arguments against that belief and the claims below:”

1- "transwomen are biologically female",

If they were they wouldn’t be trans. Sex doesn’t change in humans. Transwomen are males, and no less male than any other male.

2- "trans men are biologically male",

If they were they wouldn’t be trans. Sex doesn’t change in humans. Transmen are females, and no less female than any other female.

3- "trans women are less of a man/male",

Nope. I actually am starting to find TW more stereotypically “male” than other males. But I know you mean physically, and- nah.

4- "trans men are less of a woman/female",


5- "the relationship between a man and a transman is gay/homosexual",

Nope. Homosexual means same sex. It’s that simple. Saying otherwise is homophobic. Don’t be homophobic in 2021.

6- "the relationship between a woman and a transwoman is gay/homosexual",

Nope. Homosexual means same sex. It’s that simple. Saying otherwise is homophobic. Don’t be homophobic in 2021.

7- "the relationship between a man and a trans woman is heterosexual/straight",

Nope. Heterosexual means opposite sex attraction. This is gay.

8- "the relationship between a woman and a transman is heterosexual/straight",

Nope. Heterosexual means opposite sex attraction. This is gay.

9- "the relationship between a cisgender individual and a nonbinary or genderfluid individual is queer/bisexual/nonbinary/genderfluid, and not heterosexual or homosexual",

These aren’t real. If it’s two male people it’s gay, if it’s two female people it’s gay, if it’s one of each, hetero.

“And lastly, is attraction to "trans men", "trans women", etc separate from sexualities? Or is it not separate?”

Depends on the person, imo. They could be bi, they could be gay but have internalized homophobia, they could have a fetish, I don’t think there’s a clear answer that applies to everyone. I don’t think it’s separate from sexualities, just a specific preference or fetish or idk the word but it’s not it’s own sexuality.

“Is a man that is attracted to men and "trans men" "straight"? Or is he gay or bi? Or is he something else that has nothing to do with these sexualities?”

I’d say bi, and open to dating trans people (because just being bisexual doesn’t mean you’re open to dating trans people). I’m saying bi because at the end of the day, sexuality boils down to what you’re attracted to sexually, this is still someone open to sex with a male or female body. Even if the caveat is that the female body has to present male, they’re still comfortable with sex with someone with a vagina/neopenis, and as we all should hopefully understand, a neopenis is not a male sexual organ and a transman is not a male person.

“What about a woman that is attracted to women and "trans women"? Is she a lesbian? Or is she bi? Or is she something else that has nothing to do with these sexualities?”

Id say bi, and open to dating trans people (being bisexual doesn’t mean you’re open to dating trans people). Also reverse the caveat don’t feel like typing it all again

“What about a man that is only attracted to "trans men"? Is he gay? Is he bi? Or is he something entirely different?”

He’s hetero, with a fetish imo. Def not gay or bi.

“What about a woman that is only attracted to "trans women"? Is she gay? Is she bi? Or is she something entirely different?”

She’s hetero, with a fetish imo. Def not gay or bi. Both examples are probably almost as rare as unicorns.

Please explain your reasons. Thank you in advance.

you seem to want detailed well articulated explanations- you don’t need them if you understand how sex and sexuality work. It’s really not as complicated as tras/some trans people want it to be. Finding the rare person who is open to being with trans people (or the even more rare person who is only interested in being with trans people) doesn’t negate how sex and sexuality work for everyone else. Heterosexual means what it means. Homosexual means what it means. Bisexual means what it means. Lesbian, gay, gamp... all mean what they mean. It’s like tras find the exception and then pretend it’s the rule, and try to force everyone else to accept that it’s the rule. Even if you found a unicorn, there’s still gonna be waaay more horses in the world lol

[–]divingrightintowork 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can speak from my own experience - and that should probably answer your questions...

IME Sex with trans women feels like sex with a variety of men, men with erectile dysfunction, medically feminized men, or just normal men... and I've had a lot of sex with a lot of men, yes, including medically feminized ones.

Less experience with women who have been medically masculinized (but I've med masc'ed my own body some) - but yeah, IME there it... just feels like sex with a woman, or as a woman.

LMK if that helps!

TLDR - "No, not really. It makes sense heterosexual women are more likely to consider TWs than TMs, and so on... " Though sure I get why some may not really consider medically feminized men to be like uh, peak desirability.... and won't really consider medically masculinized women to be men... because they're not by most normies meaning of the word man.

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Way too complicated for me. Let's just go with bisexuality as a label. Other people are massively overthinking this. If you don't care about the biological sex of your partner, you're bisexual to some degree.

[–]FlanJam 5 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

If they're fine with both male and female characteristics they're probably bi. For example, a woman who likes natal woman and transwoman (and doesn't mind the transwoman's male characteristics), they're probably bi.

[–]grixitperson 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sex is not a spectrum, but for some people, sexuality is. And some people are a little bi.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I'd agree that "some people are a little (or somewhat) bi." My own observation is that for many people the bi part tends to be more emergent and louder at certain times of life, and goes dormant and gets turned down to low or no volume at others. And that what causes bi-ness to get shut off or downplayed for a part of life very often are such factors as desiring to couple up & settle down then actually doing so, having & raising children, forming and wanting to remain in a committed LTR, legalizing sexual relationships through marriage, DPs and procreating or adopting together as well as formal step-parenting arrangements, making & buying a home with someone else, pooling finances etc - as well as politics. Many "little bit" or somewhat bi people end up in LTR het relationships in part coz they are aware that in a heteronormative society where homophobia is rife, doing these things with a same-sex partner can be more stressful than doing them with someone of the opposite sex. But before and after the stage in life when having & raising kids is a main focus, lots of people's bi-ness comes much more to the fore.

Similarly, some men who are a little bit or somewhat bi end up living most of their lives as out exclusively gay men coz amongst those men who have sex with men for whom men loving men is as much a political act/statement/identity as a sexual one, MLM who have any sexual interest or dalliances with women tend to be looked down on - or worse.

At the same time, I've had personal experience with men who've spent the bulk of their lives as out and proud & policitized gay men yet who also have very much shown bi-ness behind the scenes in their formative & early adult years as well as in their later years.

Moreover, in the 70s and 80s, it wasn't uncommon for two men who were in a same-sex relationship with one another to fall romantically in love with a woman, and for the three of them to dream of - and even try to - make a home and even have/raise a child together. Back in "my day," the type of "oddball" love triangle of two men & a woman depicted in the Michael Cunningham novel and movie A Home at The End of The World wasn't all that odd amongst certain circles. I personally was deeply involved with two guys who were in a couple together to the point where we often would talk about me marrying one of them (but we never could decide which one, LOL).