Yes, even Buck Angel

submitted by DifferentAirGC from i.imgur.com

top 100 commentsshow all 111
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 51 insightful - 2 fun51 insightful - 1 fun52 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Gay men who do watch videos of Buck Angel are getting turned on by those bisexual actors doing the scenes with her. And even if a gay man is turned on by Buck Angel, he’s turned on by the facade or the illusion, not the actual actress. Yes, Buck Angel might look like a man in certain camera angels with proper lighting and white balance, but take all of that away and interact with Buck in person, the illusion goes away.

By the way, even if those actors were actually gay, well guess what? They’re doing it for the money. Porn is a career. Not a career I want promoted, but a career nonetheless. People work in sewers for money. Though I’d rather work in a sewer than have sex with a woman on camera.

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 41 insightful - 1 fun41 insightful - 0 fun42 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

By the way, even if those actors were actually gay, well guess what?

There a lot of straight women doing lesbian porn to a point that it is impossible to watch. For them it is "just a work" and sex scenes can be re-cast 50 times same moment, it is not just continues one short sex scene. It is very abusive to porn actors/actresses in general.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 31 insightful - 1 fun31 insightful - 0 fun32 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There are a lot of straight men doing gay porn. If it wasn’t for editing software it would be obvious. I can’t imagine why would someone want to go against their own orientation for money. Okay, maybe if the actor or actress owed debt to a dangerous person, was in danger of becoming homeless, or was addicted to a serious drug. But these reasons just make it even worse.

[–]Prowindowlicker 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Even without the editing software it’s still very evident that the actor is straight. You can tell if a bottom actually likes dick or not very easily

[–]PriestTheyCalledHimBisexual 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Or maybe they are bisexual or gay and just not into anal sex as a bottom, or are not attracted to the man or men fucking their butt?

I know multiple gay and two bisexual men who did gay or all male porn. They said how it was more about showing off their body/genitals, one thought he would become 'famous' from porn, the ones who were doing sex for pay did porn to get more clients or in the hopes of finding a sugar daddy, and that to them it was just sex they were not attracted to the men they were being paid to have sex with but the director wanted them to pretend that they were. They all told me they did not make that much money from it and what $€£ they made was spent on rent, food, drugs, and porn was something they only did once or twice.

One bisexual guy I am friends with is basically more into oral sex both for hooking up and in general and in porn he was a bottom for anal sex and said the men who he sucked and fucked in porn were not his type.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

An actor goes to all this trouble to have sex with someone he doesn’t find attractive for the potential of hundreds of thousands of people to see, and he doesn’t get much money from it? Yeah, I just don’t understand the point. I get it if you’re an amateur actor who just records himself doing sexual things you enjoy for fun, even if it’s not something I would recommend to anyone, but you couldn’t pay me to have sex with a woman, or with a man I don’t find attractive, especially not in front of a camera.

[–]insta 31 insightful - 9 fun31 insightful - 8 fun32 insightful - 9 fun -  (4 children)

he’s turned on by the facade or the illusion, not the actual actress.

Putting way too much thought into this. People jerk off to cartoon moose having sex with foxes. The idea of anyone basing their "validity" on porn is laughable on its face.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

cartoon moose having sex with foxes

what.

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

You're better off knowing as little about furry porn as possible. Run and don't look back.

[–]insta 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

My friend is an artist and admitted to me that he had drawn some furry porn shit before, man, some of them will fucking pay out of the nose for you to scratch their insanely specific fetish.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is a good point.

[–]PriestTheyCalledHimBisexual 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

True my friends who are gay/homosexual are not sexually attracted to women, trans men, etc. And some were once married or partnered to women and said sex with women showed them how they are gay/homosexual and not sexually attracted to any woman at all.

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

No, if you like Buck Angel, you're pretty gay.

[–]LilianH 44 insightful - 1 fun44 insightful - 0 fun45 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not surprising. I recall a previous tweet from Buck a couple of years back when another trans man was complaining about a surgery delay due to more urgent cancer surgeries on women and Buck said something about the delay costing trans lives. They don't care about anyone but themselves, no matter what sex they are.

[–]PriestTheyCalledHimBisexual 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hah! True. They are completely narcissistic.

[–]just_lesbian_things 39 insightful - 8 fun39 insightful - 7 fun40 insightful - 8 fun -  (1 child)

She's a female porn star. Of course she gets way more dick than the average person. What's there to be jealous of? Is anyone actually bothered by it? Don't wanna be that guy, but the result speaks for itself- there are plenty of men out there who will fuck anything. Dick is free.

[–]PriestTheyCalledHimBisexual 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I wonder which STDs she has besides HPV and herpes?

[–]shveya 36 insightful - 1 fun36 insightful - 0 fun37 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Social media really helped to peak truscum me. I used to think that they were the semi-sensible trans, because they know how to behave better in public than the trenders. In reality, knowing how to act just makes their ideology all the more insidious.

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 24 insightful - 2 fun24 insightful - 1 fun25 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Glad I'm not the only one...I used to be a fan of Blaire White, but I can see completely through this trans façade. Those types of trans people(transmedicalists), might seem more "reasonable" but they're still part of a hurtful ideology. I see this ideology as grossly misogynistic/misandristic as well as homo/biphobic.

If they are legitamentally struggling, then I can understand, as I detransitioned myself and was raised in a toxic environment and had different cultural expectations. I just wish the T knew they don't need to transition(there are still some countries that force transitioning for homosexual people)...They need to get help for it(no shame in that). There's also a Swedish study that trans individuals who get surgery have a high suicide rate, to prevent that, I think we should talk to the those who are considering transitioning and advise of the dangers and side effects of it and let them know it's OK to be gender non-conforming or homosexual/bisexual.

Sources: The gay people pushed to change their gender; SEXUAL ‘CLEANSING’ Iran is forcing thousands of gay people to have gender reassignment surgery against their will or face execution

  • Note: One of the articles claims that Iran is not 'forcing' sex reassignment surgery, but that people are pressured into it, while the other suggests the opposite---people are gettinng force to 'cleanse' homosexuality. I wanted to provide both articles for slightly different perspectives.

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

Later he moved to Canada and set up a support group, the Iranian Railroad for Queer Refugees.

I can't really criticize him considering that he's a gay man that escaped that horrible situation and is now trying to help fellow gay/lesbian people who are going through a similar situation.

But I can't help but wonder, gosh, that name is in bad taste. The whole point of the article is that they go through all these issues precisely because they're gay and lesbian. Trans and queer people wouldn't go through the same situation. They are gay and lesbian refugees.

[–]PriestTheyCalledHimBisexual 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What is truscum?

[–][deleted] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The transgender community is split into a couple camps - truscum would've been your older-school transexuals who still believe you need dysphoria to be trans - they call themselves transmedicalists. Tucutes (seriously not kidding on the names these guys chose for themselves and their "enemy") are the heterosexual AGPs (for the most part) who are pro-self-id, anyone/everyone is trans! crowd. They don't like the truscum for being "gatekeepers."

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]automoderatorHuman-Exclusionary Radical Overlord[M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Your submission has been removed due to:

    Rule 4. Disallowed Language

    Homophobia, slurs, and otherwise derogatory terms are not allowed. These include, but are not limited to: dyke, faggot, tranny, trap, troon, trancel

    Quoting someone else, referring to yourself, or discussing the usage is okay. Using that label towards other users is not.

    If you edit your submission to remove the phrase, or you feel this removal was performed in-error, please let the subreddit Moderators know by sending ModMail so your submission may be re-approved.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this sub if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Woops, didn't realize you already got an answer to this question! Please disregard my previous comment.

    [–]crodish 31 insightful - 3 fun31 insightful - 2 fun32 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    That's disappointing to read. Buck was very vocal about acknowledging her female biology and that without it, she wouldn't BE trans. Penis in vagina sex is always gonna be straight or bi sex, otherwise you're basically subscribing to girldick and man pussy theory.

    [–]jiljol 25 insightful - 1 fun25 insightful - 0 fun26 insightful - 1 fun -  (71 children)

    The only difference between tucutes and truscum is that the latter believe homosexuality can be overridden with enough plastic surgeries and synthetic hormones. Neither group ultimately believes in the existence of exclusive same-sex attraction; it's all just conditional. It's no surprise to see Buck/Susan advocating this, considering she went from self-hating lesbian victim of bullying to full-time sadomasochistic transsexual pornographer, going as far as to marry a professional dominatrix by the name of Ilsa Strix. Ilsa eventually left her for Larry Wachowski, at the time her next pet project. Trauma and untreated mental illness can wreak a person's life, and Susan is a textbook example of this.

    Looking at the comments section of that tweet you can find "Duncan", armchair expert of the ~Gender Critical~ twittersphere, who gave us his "Grand Unified Hypothesis" (not quite as rigorous as it sounds) on male sexuality (https://medium.com/@duncanhenry78/sexuality-revisited-my-grand-unified-hypothesis-3ddc0c05798f). In Duncan's world, heterosexual men who are attracted to tomboys don't exist, and attraction to feminine men would commonly be described as "Straight". Lol.

    [–]strictly 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (65 children)

    she went from self-hating lesbian victim of bullying to full-time sadomasochistic transsexual pornographer

    She's into getting dick so she can't be a lesbian, she's bi if she's into both sexes.

    [–]jiljol 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    she's bi if she's into both sexes.

    But is/was she really? Or perhaps we could look at this from the perspective of a mentally ill woman with a history of trauma and self-destructive behavior. The only reason Susan/Buck managed to transition in the first place was after months/years of shopping for a doctor who wouldn't tell her that she was just a lesbian with a mental illness.

    [–]strictly 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    But is/was she really?

    If Buck is into dick she isn't/wasn't a lesbian. Lesbians don't become bi but bi people can be late bloomers. And it's not unusual to see bisexual female trans people say they misidentified as lesbians pre transition due to not wanting to be with a man without having transitioned, that's not lesbianism. Wanting to be with men after transitioning is still a sexual interest in men.

    The only reason Susan/Buck managed to transition in the first place was after months/years of shopping for a doctor who wouldn't tell her that she was just a lesbian with a mental illness.

    Gender non-conforming women are/were often seen as lesbians even if they aren't, especially if they are into women. So I'm unsure if they were referring to Buck being exclusively attracted to women or just Buck being GNC and being into women non-exclusively. I don't know Buck Angel so it's possible she's faking an interest in dick/men and but I don't think there is enough evidence of that.

    [–]jiljol 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    If Buck is into dick she isn't/wasn't a lesbian

    Again: is/was she really? This thread has made it pretty clear that performance in pornography is not always indicative of a person's sexual orientation. The people involved in the porn industry (specially as performers) overwhelmingly come from a background of abuse, addictive behavior and financial insecurity. Trying to rationalize their actions in front of the camera using a normal understanding of sexual behavior seems rather futile.

    All we know is that Buck/Susan grew up as a lesbian, was bullied for being a gender non-conforming lesbian, told by multiple doctors that she was a lesbian, despised the idea of being a lesbian to the point of undergoing extreme body modifications, fell into a lifestyle of self-destructive behavior, married a woman, divorced that woman, married another woman and finally divorced her as well. Silly me for making the assumption that Buck/Susan might be... a lesbian.

    I'll step out of this discussion now. Feels a tad odd to speculate about the sexual orientation of a woman who is almost six decades old lol.

    [–]strictly 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Again: is/was she really?

    She's bragging about getting dick and it seems odd to brag about something one would be repulsed by. It's more likely to me that she does sees dick as something worth getting/is into dick as she brags about it.

    All we know is that Buck/Susan grew up as a lesbian

    If Buck is into dick as she presents herself then she grew up as bisexual, not as a lesbian. I think unless Buck's Angel sexual behavior would indicate otherwise (i.e refused to do scenes with men) we should take Buck Angel's words for it when Buck Angel indicates being sexually into men.

    fell into a lifestyle of self-destructive behavior, married a woman, divorced that woman, married another woman and finally divorced her as well. Silly me for making the assumption that Buck/Susan might be... a lesbian.

    Lesbians are not the only women who are into women and bisexual women can be self-desctructive too.

    [–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    a) People lie. b) People have internalised homophobia. "I'm a trans man who is muscular and hairy and into dicks and vaginas, definitely not a lesbian woman".

    c) What about all the straight women who do lesbian porn? And lie on the internet saying they were really into it so more men go and watch their videos and give them money? Are they bisexual by your logic?

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

    People lie.

    Sure, but she has sex with men, brags about it and identifies as bisexual so I don't see why we shouldn't we take her actions and words for what they are. Women can be bi and bisexuals outnumber lesbians, so I think the simplest explanation is that she is bisexual as she says.

    "I'm a trans man who is muscular and hairy and into dicks and vaginas, definitely not a lesbian woman"

    I don't see why Buck would be more ashamed by the idea of being a lesbian woman than a bisexual woman in your example. And bisexual people can experience internalized homophobia about their homosexual attractions too. If Buck is exclusively attracted to women she could identfy as a straight trans man who is "gay for pay" instead of bragging about getting dick like it would be something to envy.

    What about all the straight women who do lesbian porn?

    If a woman does lesbian porn and says she is bisexual, then I wouldn't immediately assume that she's straight as bisexual women can do porn. Some straight women might do lesbian porn and lie about being bi to get more money, but I don't think doing lesbian porn and identifying as bi is in itself evidence of being straight so I would take for their words for being bisexual unless there was something indicating otherwise.

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

    Yep I agree with you here.

    If we are to say that Buck isnt a lesbian because of the male porn then it's the same for so called lesbian porn actresses.

    I, for one, don't buy it. People can and do dissociate when it comes to porn and performing.

    That said I probably err on Buck being bisexual due to the exclusivity of the porn performed.

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

    Yeah, I can only really conclude that we don't know what Buck's sexuality is, only that people will do things they wouldn't otherwise do for because because they need money. The act in ways that demonstrate a lot of internalised homophobia. And I'm sure that saying you're a lesbian or only into women when you do porn with men (as a man) wouldn't make you as much money as saying you are bi. So I would take whatever Buck says with a grain of salt.

    [–]reluctant_commenter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (44 children)

    This is not necessarily true. She could be enjoying sex involving dicks because of a fetish, as opposed to her sexual orientation.

    We often assume people's sexual orientation here, but fetishes can obscure sexual orientation-- and fetishes are a VERY relevant component of this conversation, given the prevalence of autogynephilia among self-described "transbians" and their female counterparts, transmen who seek to date gay men.

    There was a study showing that some GAMP men (gynandromorphophiles; "chasers" of transwomen) had a heterosexual arousal pattern-- both physiological arousal and self-reported arousal to women, but not to men-- yet were highly aroused by autogynephilic-presenting men. It's not really being "into getting dick"-- it's about the fetish.

    [–]strictly 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (43 children)

    This is not necessarily true. She could be enjoying sex involving dicks because of a fetish, as opposed to her sexual orientation.

    Then you have a different definition of female homosexuality if you include women sexually into penises as "lesbians" too. Conflating lesbians with women into penis creates practical problems for lesbians, that is why I support dropping the T as I want that conflation to end.

    We often assume people's sexual orientation here, but fetishes can obscure sexual orientation-- and fetishes are a VERY relevant component of this conversation

    Sexual orientation is not the same thing as the etiology so if someone's fetish makes them into both sexes they are still bi.

    There was a study showing that some GAMP men (gynandromorphophiles; "chasers" of transwomen) had a heterosexual arousal pattern-- both physiological arousal and self-reported arousal to women, but not to men-- yet were highly aroused by autogynephilic-presenting men. It's not really being "into getting dick"-- it's about the fetish.

    They are into dick though, they just like dick on males with breasts and on cross-sex hormones. I see that as bisexual/heteroflexible. If they want to create a different word for their type of bisexuality I am not against that, but they are not heterosexual if they are into some males too.

    [–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

    you have a different definition of female homosexuality if you include women sexually into penises as "lesbians" too

    That is not what I said. I said: "She could be enjoying sex involving dicks because of a fetish." What I am trying to get at, is that we can't always assume sexual orientation from behavior alone. If a man in a porno fucked a another man, we can't assume he's gay, for example.

    Conflating lesbians with women into penis creates practical problems for lesbians, that is why I support dropping the T as I want that conflation to end.

    I agree-- but that's not what I did.

    so if someone's fetish makes them into both sexes they are still bi.

    That is not what a fetish is. If someone is into both sexes, they are bisexual. Someone with a fetish for autogynephiles is not attracted to the autogynephiles' sex (the fact that the AGPers are male), they are aroused by the behaviors and appearances of the autogynephiles. Blanchard calls this "pseudobisexuality". And there are, in fact, some men who exhibit heterosexual arousal patterns (both physiologically-measured and by their own report), who still will date trans-identified men because their fetish is autogynephilia and it overrides the fact that they are not aroused by men or otherwise attracted to men. I'll link a source for this. edit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26498424/

    If they want to create a different word for their type of bisexuality I am not against that, but they are not heterosexual if they are into some males too.

    Sex researchers would say differently. (edit: because those males are not actually "into" other males, they are "into" their fetish.)

    I totally agree that all of this is harming LGB people, and homosexual women in particular. But, when paraphilias are involved, it is difficult for us to really know a person's sexual orientation from just one piece of information.

    Also-- just a side note, you wouldn't happen to be an alt for StrictlyDykely, would you? Was going to say, if you were, haven't seen you in a while, hello and hope you're doing well. :) But no worries if not haha.

    [–]strictly 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (41 children)

    I said: "She could be enjoying sex involving dicks because of a fetish."

    If she enjoys sex involving male genitalia then she is into male genitalia and not a lesbian.

    we can't always assume sexual orientation from behavior alone.

    Yeah, if she reluctantly tried sex with male genitalia and hated sex with male genitalia then that might be a case where we shouldn't judge her sexual orientation from one behavior alone, but if she pursues sex with male genitalia because she enjoys sex with male genitalia she's obviously not a lesbian.

    If a man in a porno fucked a another man, we can't assume he's gay, for example.

    I wouldn't assume he is straight either, and if he enjoys sex with male genitalia I definitely wouldn't consider him straight.

    Someone with a fetish for autogynephiles is not attracted to the autogynephiles' sex (the fact that the AGPers are male)

    They are though, they are attracted to male trans people specifically because they are male, as in, the maleness/penis of someone with breasts/curves enhances things for them, they just want maleness packaged in estrogen.

    EDIT: I realize you don't count being into male genitalia as being into males but I do. Few things are as uniquely male as the male genitalia, a person can't enjoy sex with male genitalia without enjoying sex with males as males are the only ones who have male genitalia.

    I'll link a source for this. edit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26498424/

    I have read a lot of sex research, including the linked study. I generally don't disagree with the data but what researchers choose to call things. There was one study where they put women who said they were kinsey 4 in the homosexual category and then they presented homosexual women as fluid when these kinsey 4 women seemed into men. I don't reject the data that showed that these kinsey 4 women were sexually into men, I disagree that Kinsey 4 women should categorized as homosexual in the first place. Similarly I don't disagree that there are different types/etiologies of bisexuality but that doesn't make someone who is into both sexes strictly monosexual.

    Sexual orientation =/= the etiology, for all we know there could be several different biological mechanisms that could make someone end up a certain sexual orientation. Identical twins don't always have the same sexual orientation, so same genes, different outcomes and sexual orientation is the outcome, i.e the sexes the person sexually orient towards. I don't disagree that it's possible that person who would otherwise be biologically more predisposed toward heterosexuality could have a paraphila making them end up bisexual instead (paraphilas like autogynephilia often start early). They would have a different etiology of their bisexuality than someone without the paraphila but they are still sexually into both sexes either way. Homosexuals might not all have the same etiology for their homosexuality either. If a woman who would otherwise been more biologically predisposed toward asexuality but developed let's say an early "vagina fetish" lol making her sexually into women the outcome is still homosexual.

    Also-- just a side note, you wouldn't happen to be an alt for StrictlyDykely

    Sorry, no.

    [–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (40 children)

    If she enjoys sex involving male genitalia then she is into male genitalia

    Not necessarily. That is the point I'm trying to make. A paraphilia is about the power of the human mind. If she WERE into male genitalia then I would also call her a lesbian. But a paraphilia is a psychological disorder, and it can lead to behavior that runs counter to one's sexual orientation. If you do not believe in this empirically-supported definition of what paraphilias are, then I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.

    if she pursues sex with male genitalia because she enjoys sex with male genitalia she's obviously not a lesbian.

    I agree. I'm saying that we don't know that that's WHY she is pursuing sex with men. Again, as with the porn example-- a man could be "pursuing sex with men" because he is trying to make money. That is a different reason than a paraphilia, but another reason for the behavior besides sexual orientation.

    EDIT: I realize you don't count being into male genitalia as being into males but I do.

    No, that is not what I think. That is literally the opposite of what I have said this entire thread. edit: Just because we are disagreeing does not mean that I believe in gender ideology or that I am a TRA. Everything I am saying is consistent with a worldview in which homosexual female = exclusive same-sex attraction. This is not an attack on female homosexuals. I apologize for coming across that way, if that bothered you.

    There was one study where they put women who said they were kinsey 4 in the homosexual category

    That sounds like a poor operationalization of the definition of "homosexual women," I agree.

    Similarly I don't disagree that there are different types/etiologies of bisexuality but that doesn't make someone who is into both sexes strictly monosexual.

    Fetish != bisexuality... and it seems trivializing to bisexuality that you are suggesting that. There are heterosexual AGP people, bisexual AGP people, and homosexual AGP people, for example.

    I don't disagree that it's possible that person who would otherwise be biologically more predisposed toward heterosexuality could have a paraphila making them end up bisexual instead (paraphilas like autogynephilia often start early).

    It sounds like you base your definition of homosexuality more on behavior, as opposed to attraction to the person. A man who has a paraphilia for attraction to autogynephilia, is not attracted to the autopgynephiles he has sex with-- he is attracted to the concept of the fetish, in what some researchers suggest is a "target location error".

    Sexual orientation is about attraction to humans and humans genitals; paraphilias are about attraction to things other than humans and human genitals. I am saying, a person with a paraphilia is not attracted to people who they engage in sexual activity with, regarding their paraphilia. It's a different axis entirely than sexual orientation.

    [–]strictly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

    Not necessarily. That is the point I'm trying to make.

    I don't see a distinction between enjoying sex involving male genitalia and being into/attracted to male genitalia, it's the same thing in my view.

    If you do not believe in this empirically-supported definition of what paraphilias are, then I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.

    I am not denying people can have paraphilias, I'm saying paraphiliac sexual attractions are still sexual attractions. A sexual attraction might be considered disordered or not, but it's still there, and if the paraphilia influences which sexes they are attracted to that's just reality even if it's disordered. It seems you don't count something as being a sexual attraction to a person/genitalia if you consider the attraction disordered but I don't think attractions to people/genitalia by definition have to be healthy or non-paraphilic to exist/count.

    a man could be "pursuing sex with men" because he is trying to make money. That is a different reason than a paraphilia

    Yeah, if he pursues men to make money he would be doing it for monetary reason, and if he did it because of an paraphilia he would be doing for sexual reasons. Having sexual reasons to want sex with men is, in my view, having a sexual interest in men.

    Just because we are disagreeing does not mean that I believe in gender ideology or that I am a TRA. Everything I am saying is consistent with a worldview in which homosexual female = exclusive same-sex attraction.

    I haven't called you a TRA. But we define exclusive same-sex attraction differnetly, which means we define homsexual differently too.

    It sounds like you base your definition of homosexuality more on behavior, as opposed to attraction to the person.

    I base it on attraction but I think people are generally more likely to initiate sex with people they are attracted to than repulsed by so I would doubt the sincerity of lesbian-identifying woman who repeatedly sleeps with men. I disagree with your take on GAMP (and I have read the research and I know what AGP/ETLE is). A man with GAMP who sleeps with a male trans people isn't merely behaviorally having sex with males, they attracted to these males and can fall in love with these males. It's an attraction to other people. Paraphilic people don't lack the capacity to be attracted to other people. I know someone with GAMP irl and he was in love with his partners, he just seems to always fall for people who are male and trans.

    No disrespect but I think we disagree about most things so we might have to accept that we just disagree.

    [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

    Quoting some salient points for my commentary.

    /u/reluctant_commenter :

    But a paraphilia is a psychological disorder, and it can lead to behavior that runs counter to one's sexual orientation.

    She could be enjoying sex involving dicks because of a fetish, as opposed to her sexual orientation.

    fetishes can obscure sexual orientation

    /u/strictly :

    A sexual attraction might be considered disordered or not, but it's still there, and if the paraphilia influences which sexes they are attracted to that's just reality even if it's disordered.

    Sexual orientation is not the same thing as the etiology so if someone's fetish makes them into both sexes they are still bi.

    I realize you don't count being into male genitalia as being into males but I do.

    I like strictly's point about etiology and orientation. My understanding of regular homosexual men is that there are probably distinct etiologies that results in male androphilia. Fraternal birth order, genetics, epigenetics, etc. Those sorts of things are interesting in sex research. In terms of social movements, they're completely irrelevant. So, there's two different worthwhile contexts for "sexual orientation" here. As is the case with me, only interested in sadomasochism with both sexes and completely uninterested in sexed bodies or sex, I maintain "exclusive paraphile" as my orientation and sometimes use "bisexual" as my identity. Homophobes are not checking my receipts. This sort of scheme may appeal to your respective interests on this topic and resolve them.

    reluctantcommenter, I treat paraphilias (GAMP/masochism/AGP/etc) and copulatory interests, with phenotypically normal partners, (gay/straight/bi/ace) of being the same hierarchy. One can be straight and gamp. Or gay and a masochist. Or just a masochist and neither gay/straight/bi/ace. Someone who is only GAMP is not straight nor bi nor ace nor gay. Fetishes can absolutely make discerning sexual orientation interesting. If we limit sexual orientation to mean a copulatory interest with phenotypically normal, adult, consenting partners, as does the domain of sex research, then it's fairly easy to discern: "Who do you _want to fuck?" The clause of phenotypically normal omits people with an interest in bodies where the primary and secondary sexual characteristics/gender presentation do not match as is the case of GyneAndroMorphoPhilia. That sort of thing falls into the paraphilic category. Someone with only a paraphilia might be considered to not have a sexual orientation--not the same thing as asexuality--I'll cover the expanse of that phrase in a bit. (I wouldn't consider an exclusive paraphile to be asexual/anerotic, esp wrt attraction to others based on the paraphilia.)

    But at the end of the day it's all just a semantic argument, isn't it? The lines have to be drawn up somewhere. I'm inclined to use the definitions of sex research, as there are some fairly well-educated, smart people sitting around thinking about this stuff. It's an appeal to authority. But their definitions have certainly not been adopted by the mainstream, nor do I really expect them to. I also use the definitions of sex research because they are more precise instruments useful for untangling a whole mess of human sexual desire. If a guy tells me he's bi, I'm curious if he's straight & GAMP, just GAMP, or actually bisexual, because those are all very different things.

    But then there are a few sex researchers, Bailey comes to mind, who say that the phrase "sexual orientation" should refer to (especially men) somebody's consistent pattern of arousal, no matter what that thing is that turns them on. (DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-09556-1_3) I'm not certain if he would clarify that to exclude the paraphilias. If this is his standpoint, even Bailey is wise enough to not publically share that opinion with that kind of specificity.

    Making all these terms that describe their essential phenomena fit in a neat fashion with a perfect typology sure is a challenge. Getting people to agree to that typology is a different challenge. But, I'd consider the differing contexts--social movements? or sex research? Etc.

    EDIT: for quote clarity (newlines)

    [–]strictly 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    In terms of social movements, they're completely irrelevant.

    Yeah, I am talking more about real life outcome from a sociological perspective.

    I maintain "exclusive paraphile" as my orientation and sometimes use "bisexual" as my identity

    I don't disagree with either, you are an exclusive paraphile and you have sexual interest in seeking sexual encounters with people of either sex. I sometimes think it could be useful to make a distinction between pansexuality and bisexuality. If we made such distinction we could define bisexuality as being into both male/female bodies (or a subgroup of those bodies) and define pan-sexuality as when the person is interested in sexual interactions but don't really care about the sexed body or the sex of the sexual partner.

    if we limit sexual orientation to mean a copulatory interest with phenotypically normal, adult, consenting partners, as does the domain of sex research, then it's fairly easy to discern: "Who do you _want to fuck?"

    I see sexual orientation as answer to the question "What are the sexes of the people who you want to fuck" without a clause that only phenotypically normal people count as trans people are part of the general population too. So the honest answer from a person with GAMP would be they want to to fuck both males and females, they just have a specific type in males (but other groups can have types too). Generally I agree that calling them GAMP instead of bisexual would a lot more specific and useful but calling them heterosexual and GAMP would be a lie in my view as they are factually not exclusively attracted to female people.

    Someone with only a paraphilia might be considered to not have a sexual orientation--not the same thing as asexuality

    In the same way you don't think you an exclusive paraphile should be labeled asexual for lacking non-paraphilc sexual desires for sexual interactions I don't think a nonexclusive paraphile should be called heterosexual/homosexual for lacking non-paraphilc sexual desire for sexual interactions with the same/opposite sex. I assume the reason you don't think an exclusive paraphile should be called asexual is because asexual implies not wanting to sexually interact with people at all so calling exclusive paraphiles asexual would conflate the two groups which would lead to practical problems for both groups. Similarly homosexual/heterosexual doesn't just imply ambivalence for sexual interactions with the undesired sex, it's implies that such sexual interaction would actively be unwanted so lumping them together with nonexclusive paraphiles who don't mind or maybe even desire sexual interactions with that sex would lead to a harmful conflation.

    I'm inclined to use the definitions of sex research, as there are some fairly well-educated, smart people sitting around thinking about this stuff. It's an appeal to authority.

    Scientists supporting a conflation wouldn't negate the negative effects of the conflation so I wouldn't support it either way. Many scientists support things I don't agree with so I don't automatically trust their judgment.

    Regarding Bailey, in research context in might be useful to have a words for sexual patterns that are more etiological in nature and I don't mind that as much even if I can still factually disagree with some definitions they use.

    [–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

    But at the end of the day it's all just a semantic argument, isn't it? The lines have to be drawn up somewhere.

    Totally agree. It's true. These are just definitions to describe behaviors. I think part of the problem, or at least my problem with conceptualizing paraphilias vs. sexual orientation, comes from the fact that trans rights activists actually censor language and muddy definitions in order to then push themselves into spaces in an intrusive way. I've become more firm about standing by definitions, and I know a lot of other people on this sub have talked about the need for gatekeeping, as well; it's something worth thinking about, to be sure.

    One can be straight and gamp. Or gay and a masochist. Or just a masochist and neither gay/straight/bi/ace. Someone who is only GAMP is not straight nor bi nor ace nor gay. Fetishes can absolutely make discerning sexual orientation interesting.

    That is exactly what I believe as well, thank you for clarifying.

    Someone with only a paraphilia might be considered to not have a sexual orientation--not the same thing as asexuality--I'll cover the expanse of that phrase in a bit. (I wouldn't consider an exclusive paraphile to be asexual/anerotic, esp wrt attraction to others based on the paraphilia.)

    Yup, totally makes sense. I was about to link you an article about asexuality and paraphilias, but I think you've already seen that one if I recall correctly.

    I'm inclined to use the definitions of sex research, as there are some fairly well-educated, smart people sitting around thinking about this stuff. It's an appeal to authority. But their definitions have certainly not been adopted by the mainstream, nor do I really expect them to.

    That's true. And I realized as I was writing my last reply to strictly, that I have been basing my perspective off of some articles that are rather controversial even among people who work in this field. Opinions are somewhat divided even among researchers (although, there is a lot of division in sex research because of gender ideology).

    I also use the definitions of sex research because they are more precise instruments useful for untangling a whole mess of human sexual desire. If a guy tells me he's bi, I'm curious if he's straight & GAMP, just GAMP, or actually bisexual, because those are all very different things.

    Exactly. Also, if you have any more suggestions for papers to read on this topic, by the way, I'd love to hear more. This topic has been on my list of things to read about for a while but I just hadn't gotten to it yet.

    I'm not certain if he would clarify that to exclude the paraphilias. If this is his standpoint, even Bailey is wise enough to not publically share that opinion with that kind of specificity.

    Hah, that's a good point... and I wouldn't be surprised if he is not keen to die on this hill, whatever his views, after all the vitriol he has gotten over other topics.

    Making all these terms that describe their essential phenomena fit in a neat fashion with a perfect typology sure is a challenge. Getting people to agree to that typology is a different challenge. But, I'd consider the differing contexts--social movements? or sex research? Etc.

    Good point. Maybe strictly and I are just coming at this from different perspectives. And I appreciate your summary/breakdown of the conversation.

    [–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

    I am not denying people can have paraphilias, I'm saying paraphiliac sexual attractions are still sexual attractions.

    Yes, they are one type of sexual attraction-- but, according to the research study I cited, and many others about paraphilias, a paraphilia is not a type of sexual orientation nor does a paraphilic sexual attraction determine sexual orientation. (That is how the authors end up describing some of their sample as "pseudobisexual".) To be fair, though, this is a controversial area of research and not all experts agree on these nuances. So if you are not convinced by the study I linked, I understand; I am simply describing these people's work. If you know of any other studies that rebut the points made in the study I cited, or that provide another perspective on the topic, I would be happy to hear about them.

    I haven't called you a TRA. But we define exclusive same-sex attraction differnetly, which means we define homsexual differently too.

    If you believe paraphilic attraction-- that is, attraction to something that is not human sex-- determines sexual orientation, then I guess we do define it differently. I know you did not call me a TRA, but TRAs believe that one's sexual orientation is not determined by exclusive same-sex attraction, and I'm trying to be clear that I don't condone those views. Discussing paraphilias, or other psychological disorders for that matter, doesn't threaten the existence of sexual orientation.

    No disrespect but I think we disagree about most things so we might have to accept that we just disagree.

    I know nothing else about what you believe, but sure. Have a nice day.

    [–]strictly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    according to the research study I cited

    Science is interested in the etiology as they are studying causes, correlations etc but I'm not talking about etiology but sociology here. I can reject that paraphilic attraction to a members of a certain biological sex should count as a completely separate axis to sexual orientation sociologically speaking without rejecting the data from etiological research (the same way I can disagree with researchers who think men should be categorized as women if they are dysphoric without rejecting the data from trans research). With sexual orientations I'm referring to the real life pattern, the sexes of the people the person desires to sexually interact with/is aroused by as that is in my view a more useful sociological categorization.

    So if you are not convinced by the study I linked, I understand;

    I don't disagree with the data, and the data showed that GAMP men were aroused by these males which is evidence in itself that these men are not exclusively attracted to female people. I also agree that they are not homosexual as they are not exclusively attracted to males either. Pseudo-bisexuality refers to the etiology and I don't disagree with the etiology. But I'm not talking about causes but real life pattern. The GAMP man I know irl, all his partners have been male, calling him as heterosexual because he's GAMP wouldn't reflect reality when he's more attracted to males than females.

    attraction to something that is not human sex--

    We define attraction differently as you don't count enjoying sex with a penis as an attraction to penis, and you don't count attraction to penis as an attraction to the male sex either because you don't count attraction to the penis as an attraction if you think a paraphilia is involved (it's quite common for GAMP men to prefer non-op male trans people as many are into the penis).

    Hypothetically a lot of women on actuallesbians could be preferentially GAMP but only like males who transition. You would in that case discount all their male attractions as not being part of their sexual orientation, right? Then if these women also experience attractions to female people they would be lesbians in your eyes, no? In that case these penis-attracted "lesbians" would have the same right to be part of lesbian groups, and would probably call it discrimination if they can't talk about the genitals/"girldicks" they are into if homosexual women can talk about vaginas. And male trans people would be in the right to pursue "lesbians" as there would be "lesbians" who are sexually into or even prefer male bodies (as long as that male body is on HRT).

    TRAs believe that one's sexual orientation is not determined by exclusive same-sex attraction, and I'm trying to be clear that I don't condone those views.

    We use the same words but we don't mean the same thing with exclusive same-sex attraction.

    In debates with male trans people there is sometimes a type that agrees that a woman is an adult human female, he just happen define himself as female, or he agrees that women are of the female reproductive sex but he happens to consider himself reproductively female. In those cases, when he agrees with the "definitions" the disagreement about definitions is more fundamental.

    EDIT: I saw your response to the other poster. Perhaps we do come from different perspectives making me misunderstand what you mean, and in that case I apologize for that. Also, you give the impression you think I disagree with Blanchardianism or see it as controversial, I mostly agree with Blanchardianism and have since years back.

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

    What are tucutes?

    [–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Tucutes(aka, transtrenders) are transgender people who believe you do NOT need gender dysphoria to be trans(basically anyone can be if you feel like it).

    Truscum(aka, transmedicalist) are transgender people who DO believe you need gender dysphoria in order to be consider trans, otherwise that person is a transtrender/tucute.

    Sources: Truscum, Tucutes, And Kelpselves; Truscum SJWiki.

    EDIT: Both are considered derogatory words according to the resources, so I don't believe they use that term themselves unless they're being ironic. Similar to use the word "TERF" or "TEHM" to describe oneself---it's a slur but used ironically if used by that group..

    • TERF = Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist.
    • TEHM = Trans Exclusive Homosexual Man/Male.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [removed]

      [–]automoderatorHuman-Exclusionary Radical Overlord[M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      Your submission has been removed due to:

      Rule 4. Disallowed Language

      Homophobia, slurs, and otherwise derogatory terms are not allowed. These include, but are not limited to: dyke, faggot, tranny, trap, troon, trancel

      Quoting someone else, referring to yourself, or discussing the usage is okay. Using that label towards other users is not.

      If you edit your submission to remove the phrase, or you feel this removal was performed in-error, please let the subreddit Moderators know by sending ModMail so your submission may be re-approved.

      I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this sub if you have any questions or concerns.

      [–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Now I'm curious about what the removed comment said. :O

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

      I like guys & I like them hairless. I respect butch women and FTMs, be what you wanna be and all, but "muscular hairy females" is the opposite of my type.

      Also, if Buck is so happy getting gay dick, why does she need to hop on Twitter to prove it? Hmm. Why not go back to your swarms of gay men you claim to entice then?

      [–]8bitgay 19 insightful - 4 fun19 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

      I mean, I guess the last tweet said it all. Probably Buck gets more dicks - but not gay dicks.

      [–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      Getting lots of dicks or lots of pussy is not an achievement, so Buck Angel is still delusional to think she has won the argument.

      [–]jiljol 14 insightful - 7 fun14 insightful - 6 fun15 insightful - 7 fun -  (2 children)

      Bragging about getting dick, to a gay man of all people, is specially laughable. It's true that there are body "ideals" within the community (just like in any other group of people), but by and large it is not particularly difficult for the vast majority of the gay male population to get laid. It's like bragging to an Inuit about your mini fridge.

      [–]8bitgay 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      I also think it's interesting because they keep "accusing" other men of being privileged. In their view, cis men are privileged and get lots of sex because of this privilege, while transmen don't get sex and this is oppressive.

      But sure, whenever they feel like the whole argument suddenly gets flipped. Now suddenly transmen are having lots of sex, all gay men love transmen, and cis men are just jealous because we don't have sex.

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

      It's like bragging to an Inuit about your mini fridge.

      I might borrow this, hahaha.

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

      This is something that trans people constantly do though.

      This overcompensating, overtly sexualising themselves as some sort of come back.

      "Oh you're just jealous cause trans women get more men than you" or "I get more dick than you". Like .... outside of TRAs, nobody says this rubbish.

      [–][deleted] 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I try really hard to stay open minded that there is a trans person out there who isn't homophobic or misogynistic as hell but shit like this makes me lose hope.

      People tout Buck Angel and Blaire White as the 'reasonable' trans people but they're the main ones who think their internalized homophobia makes them the opposite sex. That doesn't mean you have an opposite sex brain, it means you need therapy.

      I agree most of the guys who do scenes with her are either straight or bi. However, even if there were gay guys fucking her she realizes she's is in the porn industry right? Surely she's well aware that just because someone can dissociate long enough to have sex on camera doesn't mean they're attracted to the person they're fucking.

      [–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I used to be a transmedicalist when I was FtM, but after detransitioning and reading/see how these other transmedicalists are--such as Blaire White & Buck Angel as you mentioned--they're always misogynistic/homophobic. I say this as someone who had self-hate while trying to transition. I hated being a women/other women and I hated the thought of being only same-sex attracted(I thought I was a lesbian since grade school because I didn't find ANY man attractive until my late teens to young adult years. I was scared to be branded as "gay" girl due to the super Catholic background I had).

      I think I read somewhere or saw a video about pornstars being straight and merely acting out sex scenes. I have to find the resources again...But yes, if I remembered correctly, most pornstars just say it's a job and aren't really attracted to the people they fuck--they just want the money.

      EDIT: word

      [–]ChodeSandwichtender and moist 15 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      I'm not familiar with this person but I thought these airhead sex positive types were always going on about how porn is a harmless fantasy with zero ties to reality. 🙄

      [–]Rosefield 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      She is just an older Aiden. "Hurr durr ze gays love me!!1"

      [–]PriestTheyCalledHimBisexual 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      People who try to make a lifelong or multi-decade 'career" in porn are often narcissistic, have multiple STDs as Buck does, and the days of making lots of $€£ in porn ended decades ago.

      [–]LeoneOkada 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

      TF is Buck Angel?

      [–]WanderingWonderWizard Extraordinaire 26 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 0 fun27 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      A famous Tif pornstar

      [–]lazy-summer-godSuper Gay 7 insightful - 16 fun7 insightful - 15 fun8 insightful - 16 fun -  (0 children)

      tif

      Ah, I've heard about that. Png is fucking superior.

      [–]DifferentAirGC[S] 21 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      A FTM who is less insane than most TRAs, but still not immune to their ideology

      [–]automoderatorHuman-Exclusionary Radical Overlord[M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Your submission has been removed due to:

      Rule 4. Disallowed Language

      Our sub seeks to champion LGB people of a variety of backgrounds, and want all of our LGB users to feel welcome. We do not allow specific ideological slang/terms to be used which may be used in a negative or divisive context. These include, but are not limited to: TIM/TIF, Timmy/Tiffany, MTT/FTT, etc

      We suggest using the following terminology instead: trans-identified (fe)male, trans (wo)man, trans natal (fe)male, trans people, FTM / MTF

      If you edit your submission to remove the phrase, or you feel this removal was performed in-error, please let the subreddit Moderators know by sending ModMail so your submission may be re-approved.

      I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this sub if you have any questions or concerns.

      [–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      Here's the twitter thread between Juno, and Buck if anyone's interested:

      Juno Herb: @junoalexandrite Replying to @BuckAngel and @Matt_Zeleo

      Ma’am, I’m not jealous of bisexual males who sleep with you. I’m saying that gay males exclusively like males. You built your confidence on pornography and male approval—why would anyone be jealous of that? [10:22 PM · Nov 26, 2020·Twitter for iPhone]

      Buck Angel® (TRANSSEXUAL MAN) Nov 26 | Replying to @junoalexandrite and @Matt_Zeleo

      Calling me that is going to get you in deep shit

      Juno Herb @junoalexandrite | Nov 26

      Is that a threat?

      EDIT: Bonus comments below. ↓

      robin @Crystal_Ball1 | Nov 26

      I reported you myself for targeted harassment addressing Buck, who is a trans man as "ma'am". You purposely misgendered him. Not cool. That's the "deep shit" you are in. Buck did not "threaten" you and you know f'in well he did not.

      MonCat @Monikademia | Nov 26

      This is another topic, but it seems to me that Buck also called this guy a 'lady'. I'm not sure if you cannot misgender trans people or anyone on this app according to ToS 🤔

      Buck Angel® (TRANSSEXUAL MAN)

      Lady, i am not having sex with you so just leave me alone already! You are not my type. Have a nice day 🖕🏻

      Edit: Formatting

      [–]DifferentAirGC[S] 10 insightful - 9 fun10 insightful - 8 fun11 insightful - 9 fun -  (1 child)

      Calling me that is going to get you in deep shit

      So now we have the FTM version of IT IS MAAM

      [–]Rosefield 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      She misgendered him and then threatened him when he called her Ma'am. It's all an act. Buck is exactly like all the other trans narcs. Don't get fooled.

      [–]Seahorse 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Sigh.

      The weird thing is Buck is with a woman....the whole thing is a clusterfuck that might have been solved with decent parents, upbringing (I read that Buck got a lot of shit) and therapy.

      But yeah, Buck is still female and has a vagina. Gay men aren't into vaginas. This really is where it shows transgenderism is a delusion, because they absolutely must be validated by outside sources.

      Ie the men attracted are gay and not bisexual.

      [–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      When you take out the bisexuals who call themselves homosexual and the self hating morons that say they'd fuck someone of the opposite sex but actually wouldn't, you have 0 gay men who'd fuck a transman and 0 lesbians who'd fuck a transwoman