Ridiculousness of Some Gay Men on Transgenderism & "Woman"

submitted by Kai_Decadence from self.GenderCritical

Here's one of the latest comments I've recently got from a Gay man who was trying to school me on "Sex" and "Gender" and I am just baffled (thought not surprised). Here it is~

"If you think science doesnt change, you're not a scientist.

This was the first result on google:

Sex refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is primarily associated with physical and physiological features including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive/sexual anatomy. Sex is usually categorized as female or male but there is variation in the biological attributes that comprise sex and how those attributes are expressed.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people. It influences how people perceive themselves and each other, how they act and interact, and the distribution of power and resources in society. Gender identity is not confined to a binary (girl/woman, boy/man) nor is it static; it exists along a continuum and can change over time. There is considerable diversity in how individuals and groups understand, experience and express gender through the roles they take on, the expectations placed on them, relations with others and the complex ways that gender is institutionalized in society.

When most people say "woman" they are refering to gender (because they aren't talking about arbitraty sex organ differences). If you are talking about chromozones and cocks, you may want to specify that you're talking about sex or people will assume you're talking about who the person is (gender) instead of the specifics of their body (sex).

For most people, the arbitrary specifics of the molecules in someone's body is very secondary to how the person fits into society, that's why gender is refered to more than sex (it's also why lots of straight men like women with cocks and lots of gay men like men with pussies, because they are attracted to the gender, not the sex)."

  • Sincerely yours, A Gay man explaining why Transwomen are women.

According to this simpleton, "Woman" is a gender. Are you fucking serious? It's really frustrating when I have to talk to other Gay men about this kinda stuff because they have their heads up their asses and think that any "WOKE sCiEnCe" article that makes a claim like this then it must be true right?

all 43 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Shesstealthy 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I really hate this "lots of" bullshit. No "lots of" people are not attracted to trans people whose bodies don't match the sex those people are generally attracted to. "Lots of" straight women are not hot for men with vsginas. "Lots of" straight men don't want to sleep with women with cocks. "Lots of" gay men are not here for a soft squishy lover without a dick.

Some people are but it's not the general way of things.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Some people are but it's not the general way of things.

Exactly and more often than not the people who don't mind those things happen to be Bisexual. Oh wait, "Pansexual" /s But no seriously, they are just bisexuals who tend to be into those things.

[–]MarkTwainiac 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

lots of straight men like women with cocks and lots of gay men like men with pussies

This person doesn't understand what heterosexual and homosexual mean. I also suspect he's very young and has had very little RL experience with other gay men. Do you know how old he is?

Most gay men would laugh their asses off at the idea that liking "men with pussies" is something many gay men do - or any gay men do, for that matter. Being into dicks and male bodies is the defining characteristic of being a gay man.

When most people say "woman" they are refering to gender (because they aren't talking about arbitraty sex organ differences).

1) There's nothing "arbitrary" about sex organ differences, or all the other thousands of biological differences between male and female humans. Evolution and biology are not random or based on personal whim.

2) Which people is he speaking of when he says "most people" mean gender not the sex category when they use the word "woman"? Where do these people live? How old are they? What is their religious and class background? Their ethnicity? Do any of them have children? Have any of them studied biology, medicine or law?

Back when I was growing up and a young adult in the US in the 60s and 70s, the laws that barred girls and women from getting bank loans, obtaining their own credit cards, working without their husband's permission if married, applying for a vast range of jobs, attending certain schools, taking particular classes in school, entering numerous professions, being eligible for various work promotions, having access to school sports and PE lessons, being allowed to participate in various sports outside schools like marathon running, etc applied equally to all girls and women. Yes, these rules and laws applied not just to "girly girls" and grown women who'd be coded as "feminine," but just as much to "tomboys" and the most masculine, stone butches; to all the Roman Catholic nuns I knew who were anything but "feminine" in their attire (ugly habits), their mannerisms (stern, forbidding and often cruel, rarely kind) and their hair (which was shaved); as well as to all the hundreds of millions of girls and women back then who had short hair, wore little or no makeup in everyday life, adhered to simple and no-nonsense grooming regimes, dressed practically and were in no way concerned about trying to act and look "feminine" or "girlish" the way today's genderists like this guy assume has always been customary.

Similarly, the then-legal US workplace rules that caused women to be routinely fired from employment as soon as it became evident we were pregnant did not apply only to "feminine" women - they applied to all women regardless of looks and affect based on one thing: female reproductive capacity. Just as laws and rules prohibiting abortion and birth control applied to everyone with female reproductive biology, not just to those coded as "feminine."

In much of the world today, girls and women have very little freedom to venture outside the home, and when they do go outside they have to cover their heads and often much of their bodies - or their entire bodies - too. In countries where there are laws that require hijabs, burkas, abayas, chadors and other forms of female veiling, these apply to all female people over a certain age (which depending on the jurisdiction can be six or even younger) based on sex - not on "gender" or "gender identity.

A lot of women in the world - particularly older women who've had hard, disadvantaged lives full of endless toil - have lined, cragged, rugged faces that today's young Western genderists would consider quite masculine-looking. They don't have the sexy young babe figures the genderists consider "feminine" either, often coz of age and the fact they've borne many children. In fact, coz so many of these women older have missing teeth, visible chin hairs, portly stooped bodies etc, many young genderists would find them not just "manly" looking but downright ugly. But if they live in a country where veiling is compulsory, it still applies to them. Coz sex and its consequences are inescapable. Funny dat.

[–]artetolife 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

To me all he says is that gender is arbitrary and doesn't need to exist. If it's all about self-perception and not about the body then what's it all for?

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Good question.I will admit that I hate these arguments because they're so wordy and it makes my head hurt. It feels like they try to throw so many words to the wall and hope if confuses the person they're arguing with

[–]lefterfield 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And btw, one possible counter this tactic is to skim their arguments and pick out only the parts that you want to respond to. If they demand to know why you didn't answer everything else, just say it wasn't relevant. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you need to read all the nonsense they shove at you.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the tip! I'm still new to actually debating these things and I found myself getting overwhelmed whenever they throw me these long walls of word salad that I know really don't say much of anything but I still can't help but feel like I'm drowning lol.

[–]lefterfield 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Completely understandable. I did too the first time I saw it. With practice you see a lot of these phrases repeated by multiple people, and learn to filter it out. If they really wanted an answer, they'd be using their own brain and their own words to make an argument.

[–]lefterfield 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is exactly what they're doing. It's an actual debate tactic used primarily by people who don't understand their own arguments(and hope you don't either). There's no way for most people to respond to every accusation and claim, so they throw as many out there as possible.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This debate tactic is called Gish Gallop.

[–]lefterfield 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes! That's the phrase.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah I see. I had a hunch that was their little game they're playing.

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

I will admit that I hate these arguments because they're so wordy and it makes my head hurt. It feels like they try to throw so many words to the wall and hope if confuses the person they're arguing with

There's actually a name for this deliberate argument style/tactic that you've described to a T: Gish Gallop.

[–]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Scientific knowledge does change, but you still need evidence to support your claims. What evidence does TRA have to prove that sex is a spectrum or a social construct? All I've seen them doing is misrepresenting biological facts and other people's cultures. Can this man define what a woman is without using circular logic or relying on sexist stereotypes? What gender diverse people even are? No, seriously, what the heck are they? And since, lots of gay men like men with vaginas, has he dated any TIF or does he have some "genital preferences" that he needs to "unlearn"?

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I asked him exactly that. I asked him to define man and woman without using circular definitions or socially constructed stereotypes and he pretty much avoided the question (as per usual) and gave me that BS answer lol

And since, lots of gay men like men with vaginas, has he dated any TIF or does he have some "genital preferences" that he needs to "unlearn"?

I actually saw a reply he gave to another person and he said that he has had sex with "Transmen" and is open to doing it again. So yep, just a Bisexual man larping as a Gay man because there were plenty of gay men in the comment section who said they wouldn't have sex with a "transman" (but they were still playing along with the whole "It doesn't invalidate their manhood" lol).

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

These people are impossible to deal with...

So, he is a bisexual man pretending to be gay? What does he gain with this? Only for the woke points?

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yep, he's a bisexual man pretending to be gay though I think he genuinely may think he's gay because the trans-identified women can often "pass" as men hence why he considers himself a "Gay" man. But like most of these idiots, they don't understand SEX in "SEXUALITY". Sex organs matter and actual gay men do not find vaginas arousing just like lesbians don't find dick arousing, it's only the Bisexuals who claim that these things don't matter. Again not all of them of course but only them.

I think he's just trying to get woke points.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Kai, yes, these dunderheads don't understand the sex in sexuality and sexual orientation. But I think you're being misleading in your narrow focus on sex organs. Most males who are are attracted to females are not usually attracted to vaginas per se, but to females in their totality - the whole body - including many things about the body that can't been seen or touched, such as smell and pheromones - as well as the human personalities of females. If we have to narrow it down to single elements, I think many males would tell you it's things like the shape of a woman's buttocks and back, her legs, the curve of her jaw, the look of her face, her hands, her sense of humor, her confidence, etc that's the biggest attraction and turn-on.

From my observation over more than 50 years, the idea that sexual attraction is mainly about genitals is a new idea in our culture that has only appeared in recent years - and it seems to come mainly from men (and perhaps some young women now too) who have learnt most/much of what they know about sex from graphic pornography in which the genitals can be seen prominently.

And this idea also seems to come from gay male culture. It's gay males who are the ones really into genitals - in their case dick - a fact that became glaringly obvious in the genitally explicit gay male porn and art that emerged and in the 1960s & 70s and had become mainstream by the 1980s(such as Tom of Finland and Robert Mapplethorpe's photos).

The trends in gay male porn have always been very different to those in heterosexual male porn. None of the mainstream "girly magazines" nor porn films meant for heterosexual men traditionally showed female genitals. Often, the female crotch was kept hidden - you didn't even see the mons pubis or a bush. That eventually changed in the 60s, but even so it wasn't at all common for mainstream porn to show female genitals in an up-close and personal, detailed way the way online porn now does. Whilst hardcore stuff was available, in the mid-20th century mainstream porn made for het men was mostly about breasts, backsides, legs, faces and the female form in its entirety - not about genitals. In fact, shots of women's genitals were shied away from and were thought that they'd put men off coz they were "too clinical." The only exception to this that I know of was Screw magazine, a tabloid on newsprint which was showing spread-legged crotch shots of women in its inside fold circa 1970. When Hustler magazine "showed pink" - code word letting a bit of the vulva appear in photos it published for the first time in 1974, it was a very big deal - and widely considered shocking.

Similarly, I don't think it's correct to suggest it's only lesbians who "don't find dick arousing." Coz the fact is, a lot of females who are attracted to males don't find dick arousing, either. Lots of het and bi women who love men are decidedly lukewarm about male genitals - and many find male genitals to be unattractive, funny looking, even ugly and repulsive. If you spoke to a wide range of opposite-sex attracted females about this, I suspect you'd find that a majority of us are attracted to males in spite of their genitals, not because of them.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Kai, yes, these dunderheads don't understand the sex in sexuality and sexual orientation. But I think you're being misleading in your narrow focus on sex organs. Most males who are are attracted to females are not usually attracted to vaginas per se, but to females in their totality - the whole body - including many things about the body that can't been seen or touched, such as smell and pheromones - as well as the human personalities of females. If we have to narrow it down to single elements, I think many males would tell you it's things like the shape of a woman's buttocks and back, her legs, the curve of her jaw, the look of her face, her hands, her sense of humor, her confidence, etc that's the biggest attraction and turn-on.

I don't deny that those things are just as important to the attraction but I try not to lean too much into that because then you have "those" people who say that men can possess those things as well. Men can be smaller in stature and have small hands and shapely buttocks and so on. I just try to keep it to the point because it's the one thing that men can't have.

Whilst hardcore stuff was available, in the mid-20th century mainstream porn made for het men was mostly about breasts, backsides, legs, faces and the female form in its entirety - not about genitals

I actually have noticed this when I used to look at hererosexual porn and "Playboy". You're right, it's mostly about the face (albeit all done up in heavy makeup), breasts, butts, legs, and back but again, the reason why I don't like to zone in too much on this is because then those people who argue that transwomen are women by showcasing a trans-identified man who get breast implants, wearing heavy makeup, and skin all shaved smooth. Because I've seen in some threads on Reddit of guys using these Transwomen porn models as "looking better than real women".

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

I don't think I explained my point well enough. In the days before the internet, when nearly all people had the bulk of their interactions IRL (with some letters and phones calls in addition) and dick pics and nude selfies sent via smart phones weren't yet a thing, most people came face to face with the physical totality of other people. And since everyone except naturists and people who lived on warm beaches was usually wearing clothes, not all body parts of other people were visible. People became attracted to the whole person and the parts that were visible or were outlined or suggested by the shape of clothes, but they only discovered and saw each other's parts hidden under the clothes much later - and since so many people in the old days had sex in the dark, lots of people didn't necessarily see each other's genitals initially - or ever.

Even when couples had sex in daylight or with the lights on, the nature of female anatomy means most males never saw their female partners' genitals unless they did cunnilingus with their eyes wide open. But even then, when men went down on women they usually didn't spend their time eyeing the women's genitals - in part coz they'd be at too close range to see properly. Their mouths were on the genitals, but their eyes were usually looking up to see their partners' reactions.

Here's an example from my own life: when I started seeing the man I eventually married, he was always dressed in a business suit the first dozen or more times I saw him. I had no idea then what his feet, ankles, legs, ass, forearms, shoulders, back, ass or genitals looked liked. Only after we had started falling in love did I see him in a short sleeved shirt, shorts and without socks - and it was only then that I first became aware of the shape of his forearms, the color and pattern of the hairs on them, the turn of his ankles, the lovely shape of his calves and knees, etc. I found those parts of him very attractive, but they were not what attracted me to him initially coz I had no idea what they looked like. And it took many more dates before we began having sex and I saw him naked.

BTW, I think it's very interesting that when I said for men it's

things like the shape of a woman's buttocks and back, her legs, the curve of her jaw, the look of her face, her hands, her sense of humor, her confidence, etc that's the biggest attraction and turn-on

You responded by saying

I don't deny that those things are just as important to the attraction but I try not to lean too much into that because then you have "those" people who say that men can possess those things as well. Men can be smaller in stature and have small hands and shapely buttocks and so on. I just try to keep it to the point because it's the one thing that men can't have.

Kai, in my description I never mentioned smaller stature or small hands - I never mentioned size at all. And I wouldn't coz I don't think in those terms, coz I'm not one who has ever thought that being female and attractive = being short, small, dainty, delicate. You're the one making those stereotypical assumptions. I did mention "shapely buttocks," but there are a zillion ways for humans of both sexes to have shapely buttocks. Lots of men have great asses, and they are in no way female-like.

It's not just vaginas and other female gentials that males who ID as trans can never have, it's being female. Which is an inherent fact of biology that can't be replicated by any human intervention, be it hormones or surgeries. There are dimensions to human experience that you seem to discount to because you seem so exclusively focused on the visual, on what things look like in a surface way, and you seem to think that most people can't discern between reality and facsimile, between authenticity and pretense.

Also, just as the fauxlvas and fauxginas of males who've had trans genital surgeries are nothing like the vulvas and vaginas of actual female people, the breasts of males who take CSHs and/or get sacs of gel or fluid implanted into their chests don't feel, look, move or function like female breasts. You've really gotta stop believing that "those people" whose views you put such stock in are most knowledgable and authoritative about human sexuality and sexual relations. It sounds to me like "those people" get most of their ideas about sex from porn, gaming, make-believe, cosplay, queer theory, gender ideology, and relating to others through technological devices rather than in real life. I am so sorry this is what the world has come to.

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

You make good points. I apologize. And when I talk about "those" people, the people I'm referring to are the ones (women included) who will try to use any leeway you seemingly may hand to them and they just run with it.

[–]anxietyaccount8 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

He said all that, just to say "transwomen are women because they're feminine" ?

When most people say "woman" they are refering to gender (because they aren't talking about arbitraty sex organ differences)

Clearly, somebody who has never been outside of the West before.

[–]Shesstealthy 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Someone should tell that to straight men because I think they'd find those men would vehemently disagree.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

He said all that, just to say "transwomen are women because they're feminine" ?

I believe so... Initially the thing that sparked that response was when I was explaining to him that "Woman is not a feeling" because according to him, "Transwomen are women because they FEEL female" and all I did was respond with the deifnition of "woman" followed by the definition of female and then asked "How do you feel female" and then he responded with "You have an outdated view and science doesn't agree with you" and then proceeded to post that word salad that he found on Google.

[–]ChodeSandwich 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Throw him to the social justice wolves for saying that you can know someone's gender at a glance. Maybe he'll figure out that these people don't give two fucks about him or any human rights after the fifth time someone curses him out over little details like that, or maybe when some trans guy calls him a slur and tries to get him fired for turning her down.

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

Yep though this guy is actually a Bisexual man. I saw a recent reply he gave to someone else in the thread where he admitted that he's had sex with a "transman" and is open to doing it again so it makes even more sense with where his head is at.

[–]dadahorse 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Arbitrary" is one of those words that has lost all meaning in these people's hands. So apparently, biological sex is totally random in relation to your gender identity. The fact that vulvae are associated with women and penii with men is just pure coincidence that has no real relevance to any trends in nature. Psychological gender is something that rose independently to any physical realities and it's just HAPPENS that most people with vulvae identify as women, despite genitals having absolutely nothing to do with gender identity. Arbitrary!

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

The sugar in that Trans-Kool-Aid punch bowl is strong isn't it? lol

[–]teacherterf 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, expressions and identities of girls, women, boys, men, and gender diverse people."

I'm dying to know the what the socially-constructed roles of gender-diverse people are. Getting bad haircuts and dyeing their hair with Kool-Aid? Sharing their bespoke pronouns with everyone they meet? Some cultures with third genders (hirja, fa'afine) do indeed have specific roles for such people but none of them apply to western they/thems.

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

I'm dying to know the what the socially-constructed roles of gender-diverse people are. Getting bad haircuts and dyeing their hair with Kool-Aid? Sharing their bespoke pronouns with everyone they meet? Some cultures with third genders (hirja, fa'afine) do indeed have specific roles for such people but none of them apply to western they/thems.

I'm sure all of what you said is exactly how they would describe it lol. And yeah I actually have done some more reading into the Hirja, Kathooey, and Two-Spirit cultures and something I found VERY telling about their origins is that they were given to men who didn't conform to masculine gender roles. In the case of Two Spirit, they never claimed that these men were women but they did say that they weren't "fully men neither" (aka not fully masculine). Same deal with the Hirja, effeminate men who didn't exude masculinity pretty much (though they eventually threw in women into the mix though I can't remember the word they called these masculine women).

[–]our_team_is_winning 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

<When most people say "woman" they are refering to gender (because they aren't talking about arbitraty sex organ differences).>

First I have to ask (sorry if you said and I missed it): Is this a gay man you know in real life? Or only online? If this is online, I think this could be a woman with a gay man fetish and she is role playing.

If this is a bona fide gay MALE, real male, not TQ+ then he's just parroting the narrative. Just the other day in one of these forums someone had posted about a transman saying gay men were "vagina phobic" and I said I didn't think gay men were afraid of vaginas, just not interested. And a gay man responded to me that actually he IS grossed out by them. Kai, you're the gay male here, not me, you tell me if gay men are attracted to men's bodies or just men's clothing! If someone wanted to set you up on a date with a woman, I think you'd pass because that's not the body you want. Your first thought would not be "oh a woman, you mean a man who acts a certain way"!

Don't let people on the internet gaslight you.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Some gay men are "vagina phobic." There are gay men who have hired women to bear children for them, or want to do so, who take the position that the "surrogate" mother must have a C-section so the child never has to have contact with a vagina. This is particularly the case if the fetus is male.

"Platinum gay" is a gay man able to boast that coz he himself was born by C-section and has never had sex with a girl or woman, he has never touched a vagina. Jack from the TV show "Will & Grace" was said to be a "platinum gay." "Platinum gay" coffee mugs can be bought on Amazon, "Platinum gay star" T shirts are available from Redbubble.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Platinum%20Gay

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

That is both sad and crazy...

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

I'd heard "gold star" meaning had not had sex with a woman, but I didn't know that being born C-section so that you didn't touch your own mother's vagina even to be born (!) was a thing. I don't know what to make of that.

[–]artetolife 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Some gay men really are afraid of vaginas. I think they are fascinating, but I'm not aroused by them, or the countless things that make men physically different from women, even if she has her breasts removed and takes testosterone etc, because as soon as you notice those things, sexual feelings fly away out the window.

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

Same. Vaginas don't scare me but I'm not aroused by them neither.

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

First I have to ask (sorry if you said and I missed it): Is this a gay man you know in real life? Or only online? If this is online, I think this could be a woman with a gay man fetish and she is role playing.

No problem. This was an online discussion, I don't know this man in person however I read some of his other replies in the thread and learned that he's not a gay man because he replied to someone else saying that he has had sex with "Transmen" and wants to do it again. So nope, this man is definitely not Gay because a lot of the other men in the thread who actually were gay were saying that they would never sleep with a "transman" however they were also annoyingly saying that them not wanting to date/sleep with them "doesn't invalidate their manhood".

Just the other day in one of these forums someone had posted about a transman saying gay men were "vagina phobic" and I said I didn't think gay men were afraid of vaginas, just not interested. And a gay man responded to me that actually he IS grossed out by them. Kai, you're the gay male here, not me, you tell me if gay men are attracted to men's bodies or just men's clothing! If someone wanted to set you up on a date with a woman, I think you'd pass because that's not the body you want. Your first thought would not be "oh a woman, you mean a man who acts a certain way"!

Yep I've seen this play out as well, these trans-identified women trying to shame gay men for not wanting to sleep with or date them and just like how the Lesbians have the "cotton ceiling", a gay man came up with the term called "The boxer ceiling" lol But yeah as I shared above, this guy is not a gay man because upon further reading, it became clear he is an Androphilic Bisexual.

[–]FlippyKing 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I especially take issue with this statement from the gay man: "When most people say "woman" they are refering to gender (because they aren't talking about arbitraty sex organ differences)."

Bullshit. Otherwise how and why does "misgendering" happen, and why do people have to put their pronouns up front to preemptively prevent misgendering? It is because we do in fact say women in reference to sex and not gender. Sex is real, gender is a social construct, people tend to talk about real things and social constructs are what we are forced into accepting. We deal in right or wrong, but the social construct of law is what we get hit upside the head with by those who are more concerned with the social construct than the real. We do things for each other in our communities and we help each other if we get hurt, but the social constructs of insurance and liability means a neighbor shoveling someone's driveway full of snow could end up in a legal battle if something goes wrong. We have the attributes of strength, speed, dexterity, charisma, intelligence, beauty, competitiveness, but the social construct of money replaces those things as the only currency we trade in that matters. But, we deal in the real in all these matters, and only in the social constructed versions when we are forced to. We do not refer to gender, we are not attracted to gender we do not have sex with a gender and anything beyond polite kissing involves sex organs and not gender organs. The gay man is lying.

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

Agreed

[–]hfxB0oyA 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Transwomen are - woah - men.

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

Yes lol.

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

Tell him to eat pussy or he's a bigot.