all 26 comments

[–]artetolife 24 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 0 fun25 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Absolutely not. This is exactly the kind of mindset that trans are trying to push. SSA is just some sexy kink that the BTQ+ can opt in or out of, which is NOT the case for lesbians and gay men.

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I was under the impression fetishes are things people can't opt out of, a line that cannot be crossed but if that is not the case I can see its not a solution.

[–]fuckingsealions 25 insightful - 12 fun25 insightful - 11 fun26 insightful - 12 fun -  (5 children)

I think everyone should come out as trans. Then all of our opinions will matter.

[–]oofreesouloo 12 insightful - 8 fun12 insightful - 7 fun13 insightful - 8 fun -  (0 children)

I'm trans Daniel Radcliffe!!!! (who remembers this pearl??? Has anyone saved this post, I'd love to save it). Trans Daniel Radcliffes are Daniel Radcliffe and whoever disagrees is a TERD (Trans Exclusionary Radcliffe, Daniel). Even though I wasn't ADRB (Assigned Daniel Radcliff at Birth), I'm just as valid as cis Daniel Radcliffe 🥰🥰🥰 suck my Danieldick TERDS!!!

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

LOL! That is bumper sticker gold!

[–]hufflepuff-poet 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

If everyone came out as trans would it cancel out and make us all cis again?!

[–]LesbiSilly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


[–]LesbiSilly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

HAHAHHH!!! Brilliant!

[–]LesbiSilly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A fetish is by psychology terms, something that can't be changed and is needed to have sexual arousal.

[–]MezozoicGay 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


First of all - they are attacking us for not validating their fetishes, so regardles what we will say, they will still seek validation from us.

Second - they are pushing exactly this idea. They are pushing narrative that homosexuality - is just a kink, therefore homosexuals refusing to have sex with transes with their original reproductive organs intact - are disliking transes in general, because it is our cognitive choice to not date or have sex with transes. While in reality homosexuality is not a choice and not a kink, we don't want to have sex with them not because we chose to not have sex with them, but because Nature have chosen for us and we are simply not attracted to them, and can't be attracted. That's it. So saying "yes, LGB is just a kink" we will accept their terminology and their rules, and erase ourselves, with leaving no possibility to defend ourselves.

Third - they are hostile even to their own transgenders, who are not completely agreeing with them.

[–]les4les 17 insightful - 4 fun17 insightful - 3 fun18 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

Would they respect us if we said this? Maybe, but should we do it? honestly I'd rather just be seen as a transphobe lmao

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Its not that they would respect LGB but that they would respect the concept of fetish, they would acknowledge that a fetish is something people need to be present for them to function sexually.

My asking this question is based on an assumption that people who have fetishes, need them, they are essential to their sexuality however I do concede that I might be wrong about that.

[–]emptiedriver 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

seriously, it is hilarious they put people down for being "vagina fetishists" but at the same time make such a point of "not kink shaming" - clearly they do not actually believe that a lesbian or a straight man is a "fetishist" since then they would not be so shamed for this preference!

No, it's just for some reason a moral shame they can allow - it's unacceptable to shame someone for rape fantasies, but to shame them for desiring a penis consensually is okay? It's terrible to shame someone for identifying as a person who chokes and dominates but you can shame them if they identify as someone who clitorally stimulates? If they actually listed the facts in their own words and compared ideas rationally they would see how ridiculous it all was but that's not how these things work...

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

You're right there is no consistency in their thinking so that throws a wrench into my idea. It was that "no kink shaming" phrase that made me wonder whether LGB could get their own spaces and stop being harassed by identifying themselves as people with a particular kink and that kink ought to be respected.

[–]lairacunda 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Would it were that simple!

[–]momiji 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem TRAs have is not what they call having "genital preference", the problem is women and lesbians having boundaries and a sexuality that doesn't involve penis havers. They don't harass gay men nearly as much as they do lesbian women. So no, the cis is my kink thing wouldn't work.

[–]SharpTomorrow 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

As soon as you start using their language, like the word "cis", you've already lost the debate since you acknowledge "gender theory". Do you really think these people can compromise? Do you really think you should?

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Used it due to limited space in subject line

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

It would be internally consistent with their ideology, however their hatred of women having boundaries would mean they would find a way to rationalize being against it.

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

Sorry, but this post made me laught.

Fight for our rights against homophobes, to then back off under new wave homophobic pressure?

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

Depends. Gay men can and do establish boundaries and gay spaces that are respected. In theory they could get sued for discrimination, in the US anyway, but the truth is they rarely do. Female socialization is such that those 'exclusionary" policies are rarely challenged and most women (except traditionally, faghags - straight women who like gay men) aren't going to go to the club or bar and make a nuisance of themselves. Gay and Bi men who only want to be around other men don't usually have a problem finding them.

Lesbians on the other hand are basically shit out of luck. Women who try to establish women-only clubs will probably get sued. Announcing or publicizing events acts like a beacon for males. Men can and do bully themselves into spaces or else they try to sneak in. For them it's one big game of boys going where they are told not to go. Female socialization makes it difficult for many women to argue and stand our ground. Physical differences in strength and build make it improbable the interloper will be ejected. On top of that there is a never-ending parade of handmaidens willing to bring in their "girlfriend". There are also practically NO lesbian (or even just women-only) spaces or events left anywhere for lesbians to enjoy or males to invade. The current lesbian bumper-crop has no conception of what it means to be in women-only environments.

[–]MezozoicGay 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Female socialization is such that those 'exclusionary" policies are rarely challenged

Not only that, women are physically weaker too, and it matter - like it was seen in Vancouver situation, when 2 meter tall transes came to opening ceremony and were screaming or intimidating with threat of violence. In UK they were knocking into windows and hitting doors with legs, screaming and drumming over walls, so women were feeling scared and it was too loud to speak for them. Or how transes vandalized memorial for victims of men's violence against women in France, when they just came and moved women away with intimidation or force. There were videos of Vancouver and UK situations in /s/LGBDropTheT, but I've lost them somewhere, and photos of France situation here in /s/GenderCritical/ a week or so ago. Same was with Michigan Women's Festival, where transes were loud nearby and attacking them, or with Vancouver Rape Relief, when transes were throwing dead mice there and pushed goverment to defund VRR. When man and woman write gender critical views in Twitter - it is woman who is fired from job. And so on.

Gay men on average stronger, especially masculine ones, than transes, so they afraid to jump on gay men, as gay men can hit back and break their faces (espceially if there more than one gay men), so they are going like that only on someone who is weaker than them. And transmen are still females, so they can't force or intimidate gay men, like transwomen who are still males can do with women.

[–]oofreesouloo 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Absolutely not. (plenty of good answers here already)

[–]Spikygrasspod 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It might be simpler and quicker to say 'no' more often.

[–]endless_assfluff 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Eh, I'm going to expand on what the rest of the thread says. If you present it as an argument or satire, it works as a reductio ad absurdum. It won't support gender ideology if you keep it hypothetical.

I'm going to expand on that because I think some people may find it helpful. "Suppose kink is non-negotiable, homosexuality ('genital fetishism,' ugh) is a kink, and genital fetishism needs to be unlearned because it's bigoted" is the first line of a proof by contradiction---an argument that ultimately refutes the statement made in the opening sentence---not an assertion that these statements are true. (As you're saying, the next two lines would be "By the first two statements, homosexuality is non-negotiable, which contradicts the third statement. Hence these three statements cannot simultaneously be true.") For those who like simpler language, it's like saying "You can't claim these things are simultaneously true. When we apply formal logic, they conflict with each other."

The weakness of this strategy is that it doesn't work when everyone else involved (a) doesn't understand formal logic, (b) does understand formal logic, but chooses to ignore it because they believe holding the opposing belief is harmful; or (c) simply isn't listening because you are a TERF TERF TERF TERF TERF.

The strength is, they strawman every statement we make anyway, so it's easiest to see what's wrong with their ideology by letting them talk themselves into a fallacious corner. They can't use sound argumentative strategies because what they're claiming is fundamentally untrue. Never interrupt your opponent when xe is making a mistake, after all.

Other good reductio ad absurdum strategies include starting a gender arms race where one pursued sexually by a transperson can 'come out' as a gender outside of the list of genders said transperson says they're attracted to, Cantor-style ("sorry, I identify as contragender, it's a gender that no one finds attractive. Respect my gender identity!"); and claiming that because TERFs are so dangerous, TIMs should be able to use the women's room freely but women should have to pass a test to see if they're not a TERF---and if they fail, tough luck, they can't use the bathroom. (For anyone who needs to hear: yes, this is satire, I'm not saying you should seriously do these things.)

[–]SanityIsGC[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The weakness of this strategy is that it doesn't work when everyone else involved (a) doesn't understand formal logic, (b) does understand formal logic, but chooses to ignore it because they believe holding the opposing belief is harmful; or (c) simply isn't listening because you are a TERF TERF TERF TERF TERF.

Point taken. My mistake was assuming that one could construct an argument they would have to respect by framing it in such a way they couldn't refute. What struck me reading your post is that their mindset is absolutely no different than Trump's which is that words are meaningless to them, prior statements are meaningless. A mindset with zero interest in being logical.