Is sexual attraction only based on genitals, or is there more to sexual attraction (e.g. attraction to secondary sexual characteristics, "femininity", "masculinity", etc)?

submitted by [deleted] from self.LGBDropTheT

[deleted]

all 38 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sexual attraction is based on SEX. A preference for femininity or masculinity has nothing to do with your sexual orientation. Take me as an example, I'm a femme lesbian only attracted to other femmes and that's because I love femininity (regardless of the sex!). However, I wouldn't be able to date a super feminine guy because at the end of the day I want the pussy. It's literally that simple. My body doesn't react to males, only females. TRA's make this super simple stuff overly complicated lmao.

Those men who say they're straight because they like "femininity" is bs, they just can't own the fact that they're either bi or gay. A feminine man is just as man as a masculine man. A masculine woman is just as woman as a feminine woman. Please, let's stop with this fucking TRA non sense.

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

No such thing as a "feminine" or "masculine" penis. Feminine and masculine are used to describe behaviors, cultural norms, and dress, stereotypically associated with the two biological sexes. In other words, "gender". It's a social construct.

A penis is a male sex organ. It is part of a male body, and is coded by male sex chromosomes. It's not a penis flopping around on the floor. Genitals don't exist in isolation from the rest of the human body. The human body has a genotype, which results in an outward expression of the genes, the phenotype. Male and female bodies, just like other human traits, are coded in our DNA.

"Trans" people are people who chose to take exogenous cross-sex hormones, block their natural hormones, and have cosmetic surgeries. They have a mismatch of secondary and primary sex characteristics due to tampering. It's not a natural state of affairs, and if they stopped their interventions, their bodies would eventually go back to resembling their sex's phenotype. Clothes and hairstyle irrelevant.

Is a man that is only attracted to "trans women", and is not attracted to men that are not "feminine" and don't take hrts or surgeries to "pass as" women, really gay? Or is he "straight" for being only attracted to secondary sexual characteristics that are usually on women and "femininity"?

Transwomen are men. If he's attracted to only transwomen and not normal men, or normal women, he is bisexual or a closeted gay. B/c he is attracted to a mishmash of male and female phenotypes.

To sum up: femininity and masculinity are social constructs entirely dependent on culture, time, and place. Sex is real, observable, and consistent across 99.99% of human beings, and in most non-human animal species too. Sexual orientation is based on sex.

[–]Not_a_celebrity 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I have a question regarding genotypes vs phenotypes. Is sex determined by phenotype or genotype? There are intersex conditions where a gene is not expressed and the body ends up having genitalia of the sex that has nothing to do with the genes. It's like someone has a gene for being tall, but the gene is not expressed so they end up being short. Are they actually tall or short? Should we say they are tall because they have the gene for a taller height despite it not being expressed and them being short in phenotype? Or should we only take phenotype into consideration?

Wouldn't that be the same for sex?

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

I have a question regarding genotypes vs phenotypes. Is sex determined by phenotype or genotype?

I have a question for you: Are you a troll? B/c these are questions we have all heard a thousand times before by TRAs.

To answer your q: In terms of height, obviously it's determined by phenotype b/c height is an objective, simple measure of someone's feet and inches (or other measuring standards for other countries). I don't know of any genetic disorder where someone is coded to be a certain height, but they naturally grow to be another. I am going out on a limb and guessing you made it up for your veiled TRA argument. Height can be stunted, artificially, by caffeine or accidents, or medication, or whatever. Just like any other human trait can be artificially influenced or altered.

Sex in humans is dimorphic. The reproductive sexes are male and female. People who have intersex conditions (disorders of sexual development) are not your battering rams to "break down" or "unpack" the reality of sex (in other words, obfuscate reality and manipulate people through rhetoric).

Disorders of sexual development, like complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, are not a "third sex". In the case of CAIS, it's a genetic male (XY), who develops to look like a phenotypic female because of a disorder. The person would appear to be a woman outwardly, and probably wouldn't know she had CAIS until she faced health problems or lack of period, or lack of female fertility, due to her MEDICAL DISORDER. Appearing phenotypically like the opposite sex doesn't give you that sex's reproductive function, which in a sexually reproducing, sexually dimorphic species is what defines sex. That being said, it's a matter of social simplicity and kindness of call the woman with CAIS a woman, because she appears to be one, and was born with a condition she has no control over.

TRANS IS NOT INTERSEX! It has nothing to do with intersex. Artificially altering your appearance to try and resemble the opposite sex does not make you the opposite sex, and it sure as shit doesn't make you intersex. There is no such thing as "female brain" in a male body which is what TRAs argue.

[–]Not_a_celebrity 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

If asking questions means one is a troll then so be it. To me, I don't consider myself a troll. I'm questioning. Also if I were a troll I'd use "he" pronouns to refer to a "trans man". Instead I used "she".

Regarding height, I remember reading on epigenetics that genes can be off or on, depending on environmental factors. So someone has a gene for being tall but due to environment, let's say nutrition, the gene is off and doesn't express itself, therefore this individual becomes short as a result.

If it's a matter of kindness to call someone with CAIS a women, trans right activists can use that to say be kind to people that don't like their sex and body and want to be the opposite sex, call them the opposite sex, treat them as the opposite sex, let them use spaces for their opposite sex, etc.

Nobody chooses the sex they are. Nobody has control over what sex they are. It's understandable these people wouldn't want their sex, or would feel uncomfortable, why extend your kindness to CAIS people but not to the TQs?

Either you are kind to all these cases, or you should go with facts, not someone's feelings. Is someone with CAIS a man or a woman? I'm not going to call them a woman just because they feel like it or identify as such. If they are a man, I'll call them a man even if they feel like they are something they aren't, even if they feel offended. I don't care about feelings.

You can be kind and feel holier than thou. I'm not kind. My kindness only goes to someone that's not crazy.

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Regarding height, I remember reading on epigenetics that genes can be off or on, depending on environmental factors. So someone has a gene for being tall but due to environment, let's say nutrition, the gene is off and doesn't express itself, therefore this individual becomes short as a result.

I already addressed that above: read my comment. I already said the expression of a gene can be altered externally, by say, accident, or nutrition, medication, etc. Read what I wrote carefully.

Read my comment re the woman with CAIS vs a trans person. The person with an intersex disorder did not induce the condition in herself/himself. It's a medical condition they had no control over. The whole concept of "transitioning" physically is that you do alter your phenotype through medication, hormones, surgery, blockers, etc. It's a form of radical body modification. Comparing radical body modification to a medical condition and treating them like the same thing is despicable.

I am kind to people who have medical conditions they can't control. I am not kind to people who radically alter their body and then bully others into playing pretend.

Edit: My bad if you are not a troll. The argument was suspicious to me, b/c we get the same arguments from TRAs all the time. I don't blindly trust people on the internet.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'd say they're a troll simply because they use the term TQ without understanding that TQ is the trans and queer community. In this case, we're only talking about transpeople, not the TQ crowd. They're trying to use terms they've seen people on here to try and sound like they're on our side.

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

That was my impression as well.

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

Queer people believe in 'gender identity', that's why you should be against the Q too. Q is where 'queer theory' comes from, which is what the T agrees with. Have you really not thought why they added a Q after LGB? Ffs you know what, think I'm a troll. Idgaf what you think.

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I know queer people believe in gender identity, however what you said was:

TQs are the same way, they are given a sex they don't want, they are given a body they never chose. They hate it, so they keep wanting hormones and surgery. Makes no sense to show the disordered kindness, but not these people.

Did you just mean transpeople? Queer people aren't necessarily trans, and therefore may be comfortable with the body and sex they were born with.

TQ is only used when you're talking about the trans and queer community as a whole. It would be like saying LGBT people are given a body they never chose, when you're just talking about a specific part of the community.

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

Oh I didn't even notice I wrote TQ instead of just T though. I know not all 'queer' people are 'trans'. Sorry for the typo and the misunderstanding.

Also I removed the post after being called 'troll' too many times. I don't want to sleep and wake up to multiple other comments with the same accusations so I moved it to GCdebatesQT. And because that sub is empty af I'll have to wait for hours for people to bother answering me

[–]lovelyspearmintLesbeing a lesbian 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Hopefully you get the answers you're looking for

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

I am kind to people who have medical conditions they can't control. I am not kind to people who radically alter their body and then bully others into playing pretend.

What I meant is not everyone feels like you. I stay consistent, I don't show kindness to both intersex individuals, and TQs that think they are something they aren't.

It seems strange to show kindness to someone with a disorder, but not to those that get surgery or hormones. Nobody chooses what they are. I think I'm an ugly woman, I didn't choose my looks and I cover my face with a mask everywhere I go. I didn't get surgery for my face because I'm scared of surgeries and they wouldn't make me pretty, but it's hard to feel comfortable.

TQs are the same way, they are given a sex they don't want, they are given a body they never chose. They hate it, so they keep wanting hormones and surgery. Makes no sense to show the disordered kindness, but not these people.

But I don't show kindness to the TQs, because their TQ ideology is homophobic. Same for intersex, they are either male or female. Them feeling like they are the opposite sex and others calling them what they feel they are instead of what they are is like calling a man that never got surgery or hormones a woman just because he feels like he's a woman.

Both are ridiculous to me. Both end up hurting gay people just so the feelings of the intersex or TQs don't get 'hurt', and that crosses the line. We should go with either feelings, or facts, and I choose facts. It's like someone with schizophrenia telling me they see something that's not there. They have no control over their illusions and their 'mental disorder', but I'm not going to say 'yes, there really is something over there'. I outright tell them there's no such thing. Intersex individuals that feel like some sex should be told what sex they actually are. CAIS feel like women but if they are men they should be treated as men and shouldn't be given a free pass to female spaces.

My bad if you are not a troll. The argument was suspicious to me, b/c we get the same arguments from TRAs all the time. I don't blindly trust people on the internet.

I get that. TQs have made everyone tired. I can't trust most people myself so we're in the same boat 🙃

[–]GoValidateYourselfuseful lesbian 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Kindness is not an all or nothing game. It is situational, and most people would agree with me on that. If you go through life acting like an asshole that's your choice. I will say this: everyone has issues with their appearance. If you consider yourself ugly well most of the world also considers themselves ugly. Having a medical condition is not the same as opting to alter your body. It's really that simple.

People with CAIS phenotypically are women, they are born with female genitalia and have other female characteristics. They don't have female reproductive organs (womb, ovaries). The purpose of women's spaces is to protect women from male violence. Genetically normal males are stronger than genetically normal females 99% of the time, along with potential for rape and killing women through beatings. A person who is phenotypically female (including born with female genitalia) needs protection from male violence and doesn't have the potential to beat a woman to death or rape her. Acknowledging grey areas and making reasonable accommodations for people with intersex conditions is simply the humane thing to do.

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

Kindness is situational, and morality is subjective, which means you don't get to tell me just because unlike you, I don't draw some arbitrary line for my kindness, I'm the asshole.

I only pointed out your hypocrisy. You show no kindness to someone that wants to alter their body, eventhough they didn't choose to have that body and if they go trying to alter it that's more of a reason to be kind towards them. Because they didn't choose that body, they are under no obligation to accept the body that was given to them without their agreement and they can do whatever they want with it.

But you show kindness to someone with a disorder because for the same reason, they didn't choose to have said disorder. You even go dismissing people's feelings when they have issues with their appearance. Lmfao.

Your holier than thou attitude is cringe, seriously. It's not 'human' to make accommodations for intersex individuals. It's your opinion that it's the 'right' thing to do, while I disagree and don't want to make exceptions because intersex are either male or female, they are not exceptions. Just because most people may agree with you doesn't make your opinion any less of an opinion.

Are CAIS men or women? If phenotypically woman then you agree sex can be determined by phenotypes and not just genes. In that case, it's not wrong to let CAIS in female spaces because they would be women. If they are men then it doesn't matter that they are physically weaker than most men. It's not us women's responsibility to take care of a physically weaker man just because you are a misandrist and think other men are aggressive brute rapists that can beat him up if they see him. Men should solve that issue among themselves. Women shouldn't give their spaces up and let a man in just because other men have anger issues and can't be calm around a man that's not as strong.

[–]8bitgay 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If it's a matter of kindness to call someone with CAIS a women, trans right activists can use that to say be kind to people that don't like their sex and body and want to be the opposite sex, call them the opposite sex, treat them as the opposite sex, let them use spaces for their opposite sex, etc.

That's the problem.

Frankly I'm fine with calling people their preferred pronouns, or the name they decide. Your example is extremely simplistic though, since by your language alone on this sentence you imply people only identify as man/woman. Activists moved past this a long time ago.

But anyway, being kind to call them the way they want to be called doesn't mean they are whatever they want to be. Letting them use spaces that aren't theirs isn't being kind. Where is the kindness towards the other people involved? Why should, for example, gay men lose their safe space, because someone who identifies as a man decides they need to be part of it?

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

I agree with the second part. That's why, if a woman says she's a man, I will not call her by her preferred pronouns. I don't want to indulge in her delusions, and don't want her to get further away from reality. After pronouns, she will make others treat her as a man, let her go in men's spaces, etc. To stop women from invading gay men's and gay women's spaces, we shouldn't call TQs by their preferred pronouns. When they say they are the opposite sex, we should stop them right there, before it's too late and they move on to the next stage, which is invading the spaces of the opposite sex that they have been doing for years now.

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

Is sex determined by phenotype or genotype?

Phenotype, strictly speaking. There is a lot of talk about primary and secondary sexual characteristics, and I think people are getting confused about it all. Male and female, biologically, are defined by the gamete-producing organs of an organism. In humans, that means ovaries or testes. This is fundamental because it's what sexual reproduction is based on and what the entire concept of sex is built upon.

Nearly every human was born with structures to produce one of the types of gametes: sperm or ova. Despite any disorder of sexual development or intersex condition, it's virtually certain they have either ovaries or testes.

Having none at birth is a very rare anomaly. From strictly biological view, such a person is neuter. (Despite this, an argument can be made that they still have a sex that can be determined by which organs "should" have developed if whatever blocking factor were removed.) Having both at birth is beyond rare and biologically such a person would be a true hermaphrodite. These two kinds of people are the only ones who can possibly claim to be neither male nor female, or both, and there are maybe a few thousands or tens of thousands of them in the entire world.

For example: Caster Semenya was born with testes, just ones that didn't develop properly and remained internal. Despite outward appearance, Caster Semenya is male, biologically.

[–]8bitgay 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's like someone has a gene for being tall, but the gene is not expressed so they end up being short. Are they actually tall or short?

In this situation, they're short. But going with the trans analogy, if they wore high heels they'd still be short.

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

I'm not sure that's a picture of a "trans man", can you confirm?

No, I don't know who that is.

More and more people turn out are attracted to secondary sexual characteristics, "femininity", and "masculinity", rather than genitals.

Evidence? All you have done is cite a couple of people off the internet-- those are anecdotes, not actual evidence. On the contrary, most gay men, lesbians, and straight people choose who to date on the basis of their sex, and this is evidenced by the low rates of gay men wanting to date transmen, straight men wanting to date transwomen, straight women wanting to date transmen, and lesbians wanting to date transwomen (lesbians are most likely to be shunned, ostracized and violently threatened for refusing to date transwomen, and correspondingly, they have a somewhat higher rate of reporting that they will date them than straight men reporting they'll date transwomen, etc.). I'll update with a link. edit: here's a link to an article describing a research study. The article observes that many heterosexual women, for example, are open to dating transwomen but not transmen, which "goes against their sexual orientation" but actually does not at all, lmao-- straight women are attracted to men... and transwomen are men.

Is there such a thing as a "feminine" or "masculine" penis?

No.

Is a man that is only attracted to "trans women", and is not attracted to men that are not "feminine" and don't take hrts or surgeries to "pass as" women, really gay?

Impossible to know for sure without knowing the individual in question. He could be gay; he could also be gynandromorphophilic (GAMP) i.e. have a fetish for men cross-dressing, and be aroused by the idea of gynandromorphism as opposed to being attracted to men.

If this man is gay, why is he only attracted to "trans women"? Why not "cis" men?

Sounds like GAMP but again, it's impossible to know without knowing the individual. In the trans community, these men are sometimes referred to as "trans chasers" if you've heard the term.

What about a man that is only attracted to "trans women" and "cis" women, is he bi? Why isn't he attracted to "cis" men if he's bi?

Impossible to know without knowing the individual. He could be bi (i.e. his liking transwomen is just his "type"). He could have a fetish for people crossdressing.

Or what about a man that is only attracted to "feminine" men, but not "masculine" men like the second example? Is he bi or gay?

Or is he "straight" for being attracted to "femininity"?

Lmao. A man is not straight if he is genuinely attracted to other men.

If he's only attracted to males (male = sex corresponding to sperm reproductive system)

Now I have a couple questions for you, since you asked so many:

  • Did you read the rules of s/lgbdropthet before posting?

  • You say this is all "confusing af"-- are you familiar with the human reproductive system? There are two types of gametes, which is why there are only 2 sexes, male and female-- have you ever heard of those two types of gametes?

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

some people are attracted to femininity or masculinity regardless or sex, but those people are bisexual. Some of them don't want to admit that so they say that they're gay or straight when they're not. If you're bi you don't have to be attracted to everyone, so someone could only be attracted to feminine women and men, but not masculine women or men. at least that's my opinion.

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

I find it hard to imagine a gay man would find a transwoman that transitioned far enough attractive. Same for lesbians with transmen. IMO for these instances maybe we should create new sexuality names. People are so keen on creating new sexualities anyway. Maybe we should call people who feel legitimely attracted to transmen/transwomen pansexual, or something else.

These same men that date "trans women" would never date a "cis" man. They say, "I would suck a dick if it's on a trans woman, because they are women, but can't if it's on a man"

Internalized homophobia is hard to fight. These men can't accept the idea of being anything other than straight. It's easier to justify yourself for sucking a dick if you .

Why is it much more common for "straight" men to be obsessed with transwomen? Why don't we see gay men having the same obsession over transmen? That's easy: if a man finds women attractive that is socially accepted, he doesn't need to justify himself by resorting to transmen.

We're already attracted to someone way before we learn what's in someone's pants.

We can also be attracted just by seeing their faces and lose attraction when we see their bodies. We might find someone attractive and lose attraction when finding out their age. On the opposite direction, someone who we find uninteresting might become more attractive after we see their bodies or their genitals. There are many situations that make us get or lose attraction.

The idea that we can't be attracted to genitals is very puritanical. Glory holes exist, gay men go there just to appreciate the dick coming from the hole. People post pics of their genitals on the internet for other people to enjoy.

The whole thing about femboys is hilarious. Femboys don't even identify as women. They are men, men with dicks who identify as men. Twinks exist, and many gay men like twinks. Some don't. Some gay men like masculine men, some like feminine men, some like both.

Also a reminder that people can become more/less masculine or feminine as time passes. You can't really think that a guy is straight while his boyfriend is shaved, but then become gay when his boyfriend decides to grow a beard.

Activists talk so much about respecting people identities, yet this whole model of sexuality based on secondary characteristics doesn't respect identities. A man who says he is straight because he only likes femboys is invalidating the manhood of the men he feels attracted. He is saying that men are only men if they're masculine enough.

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

FYI-- this person seems to be a troll. Please report and move on.

u/Not_a_celebrity, you made a post similar to this one about a week ago. I gave you a detailed response to it and you did not reply, so I will re-post it here.

https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7bou/how_does_the_neopenis_differ_from_a_penis_and/rngy

This is not a debate sub. I would suggest you post this on s/GCdebatesQT instead, and please take a look at the rules on our sidebar.

Why would a trans man with this same neopenis not be a man and their neopenis not be considered a penis?

Because:

  • There are only two types of gametes involved in human reproduction-- sperm and ova. (If you have discovered a third type of gamete, please contact the press and collect your Nobel prize.)

  • There are, correspondingly, two sexes found in humans-- one that has a reproductive system corresponding to one type of gamete (sperm), and another that has a different reproductive system corresponding to the other type of gamete (ova).

  • The two sexes are called "male" (for humans with a reproductive system corresponding to sperm) and "female" (for humans with a reproductive system corresponding to ova).

  • Transmen are female, by definition-- they are female people who "identify as a man" or otherwise as not having the sex (male/female) that they have had from birth.

  • Attaching an external appendage to one's body, i.e. a "neopenis", does not change one's reproductive capacities. (edit: i.e. whether one has a reproductive system corresponding to one type of gamete, sperm, or the other, ova.)

Sometimes people ask, "Why are these discussions about man/woman so focused on reproductive capacities?!" and the grand answer is that it's because... biological sex is defined on the basis of reproduction (i.e. gametes).

Hope that helps. Again, this is not a debate sub and you might want to try posting elsewhere.

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

You think I don't post on GCdebatesQT? That's the only other place I can post questions. But very few people ever go there, and it's for GCs only. I want to ask in a sub for gay people, because these questions are related to gay people. You got a sub for gay people that criticize the TQs and answer questions, besides here? No? But yes please call me a troll 🙄

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

But very few people ever go there, and it's for GCs only.

No it's not, it's for GC and QT. And actually some people who post here, also post there-- there are quite a few LGB on that sub as well. So it would definitely be a good place to ask LGB trans-critical people's opinions.

You got a sub for gay people that criticize the TQs and answer questions, besides here? No?

No we don't, do you know why? Because the entire infrastructure of LGB, GC and trans-questioning subs got banned from reddit, and we are still rebuilding. Our priority is taking care of LGB people and addressing our needs. Again, it says that on the sidebar. A s/askLGB sounds like a great idea, but until then, your best bet is probably r/askgaybros-- have you tried there? A lot of them, though not all, are trans-critical.

But yes please call me a troll

I will, thanks, until your actions suggest otherwise. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but you still have not responded to either of my comments' substance on the topic that you introduced. Does that mean you are convinced by the points I made?

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

I have no issue with your (scientific) definition of what a male or female is. If I did, I would respond to you.

Also, GC is different from LGB. Most GCs are radical feminists. Don't see much of a difference between 'gender critical' and 'radical feminist' anymore, because every GC here and on ovarit was also a rad fem.

LGBs are not necessarily radical feminists. Most aren't actually. Do you really not see a distinction? And you understand everytime I post on GCdebatesQT very few people bother going there? Out of 316 users, only 5 bother showing up. Where did you get 'a ton of LGBs are there' from?

I know lgbdropthet was removed from reddit, that's not exactly news. But it's been a whole year. There should have been a asklgbdropthet or something by now

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

I have no issue with your (scientific) definition of what a male or female is. If I did, I would respond to you.

Good to hear. I brought it up because it was relevant to your questions. Sometimes people ignore comments because they have inconvenient facts, and since I'm not familiar with you, I have no way of knowing why you did so.

Also, GC is different from LGB. Most GCs are radical feminists. Don't see much of a difference between 'gender critical' and 'radical feminist' anymore, because every GC here and on ovarit was also a rad fem.

Yeah, I agree.

Where did you get 'a ton of LGBs are there' from?

I don't post there regularly but browsing through, I recognize many of the usernames as ones who also comment here (I don't hang out on GC spaces).

I know lgbdropthet was removed from reddit, that's not exactly news. But it's been a whole year. There should have been a asklgbdropthet or something by now

I think that would be awesome, but it takes effort to get a sub up and running in a sustainable way and also contribute enough content that people latch on to it and add some as well. I have been trying to plan for at least two other LGB-adjacent subs for a while; an "askLGB" or something would be great, but it's a back burner idea for me personally. I think the mods are pretty stretched thin and that's why there hasn't been more stuff like that; as you can see, even s/LGB is not finished being set up yet.

I'm not opposed to you or anyone asking questions here, but the way the questions are asked DOES matter. I tend to be suspicious of people who may be trolling because 9/10 times in my experience on this sub, the people who come in asking those questions do so in bad faith. If you are truly just trying to find some answers, I understand why getting this reaction would be very frustrating-- but do you understand where I'm coming from? The questions you are asking are important ones, but they also have a lot of weight behind them-- weight that's been used to silence, threaten and intimidate same-sex-attracted people. It is completely reasonable for the people you're asking to be a little suspicious.

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

but do you understand where I'm coming from? The questions you are asking are important ones, but they also have a lot of weight behind them-- weight that's been used to silence, threaten and intimidate same-sex-attracted people. It is completely reasonable for the people you're asking to be a little suspicious.

Yes I get where you come from, why you would be suspicious because the people that silenced you on different platforms asked similar questions. It's just multiple people were calling me a troll and accusing me instead of answering my questions without pointing fingers, and I already deal with issues, like I start shaking when people yell at me, or things like that. So that was too much for me. Hopefully, there will be a asklgbtdropthet sub for me to ask questions. Until then if I ever get tired of waiting for hours in a gcdebatesqt for someone to answer my questions, and come here instead to ask questions, please please don't unite to attack me. Thanks. And have a nice day

[–]Not_a_celebrity 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Posted this on gcdebatesqt, now leave me the f alone, thanks 🖕

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

Lmao. You asked people's opinions, I gave you mine, you refused to answer so I wondered if you might be asking in bad faith, and now you are telling me to leave you the f alone.

Have a nice day.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sexual orientation is based on sex as a baseline, with many, many layers of preferences, environmental influences, etc on top. That's it. Really. Anyone who claims to only be attracted to masculinity or femininity regardless of sex is bisexual by definition, or has a very intense fetish (like Mr. 'I'm straight but I love femboys'). It's not that hard.

I'm getting really tired of seeing arguments from TRAs that all boil down to 'well so and so says they like masculinity/femininity, not just maleness/femaleness. you don't look at someone's genitals before being attracted to them.'

No one checks to see if their partners are fertile before we have sex with them, despite the fact that reproduction is the reason we have sex drives in the first place. We discern fertility on a largely unconscious level based on appearances. It's why wide hips on women is generally viewed as attractive. Wider hips = bigger birth canal = more babies.

TRAs love overcomplicating the simplicity of this.

Edit: It also implies that you can only be but so masculine as a woman or but so feminine as a man before you lose the right to be seen as your birth sex.

Is a man that is only attracted to "trans women", and is not attracted to men that are not "feminine" and don't take hrts or surgeries to "pass as" women, really gay?

Yes, because to claim otherwise would mean implying that extremely feminine men aren't men. I don't give two shits how well Blair White, Nikita Dragun, and Nikkie de Jager might 'pass'. They are still men and I'd like them a lot more as people if they embraced their gender nonconformity and homosexuality instead of wearing womanface and trying to trans the gay away. A man who is not at all attracted to women, but is only attracted to men who look like women, can never be straight.

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

A man who is not at all attracted to women, but is only attracted to men who look like women, can never be straight.

Thank you!!! These individuals are only playing mind games with themselves, & even the "women" (males) involved with these men know it.

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

I don't think I'm channeling eloquence tonight, so suffice to say that while he explains himself well, the "ascribed" viewpoint is complete hogwash. The bayonet replica is just that — a flawless imitation of an invaluable historical artifact. Is a penis a flawless imitation of a vagina? Do they even have half their parts in common? This person is simply yet another self-hating gay man.

I will say though, one point on which I agree with him, and something extremely unpopular on this sub, is that you can be attracted to someone without caring about their genitals. I am NOT saying that the people for whom only one set of genitals is "correct" can be conditioned into liking the other set. Just that, as someone who finds sexual intercourse pointless all around, the urinary receptacle you own doesn't factor into my attraction

[–]Not_a_celebrity 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I will say though, one point on which I agree with him is that you can be attracted to someone without caring about their genitals ... Just that, as someone who finds sexual intercourse pointless all around, the urinary receptacle you own doesn't factor into my attraction

Doesn't that just mean you're bi or asexual? 🤔 Some bisexual people say they don't care about genitals. Asexual people don't care about sex so some of them don't care about genitals either.

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

Asexuals are a heterogeneous group, discussing them is difficult on account of this. Largely, they're people who correctly surmise that heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual have something to do with (pardon the word, it's just works so well...) fucking, which does not interest them for... reasons, plural.

Lack of a copulatory, procreative interest does not necessarily make a person asexual. Some of them have atypical sexuality, such as fetishism, but end up "asexual" because they only have het, homo, bi, and ace to choose from. "Fetishist" would be a better label, for example. Their sexuality is directed in whole or in part to an abstract concept, activity, or object that isn't sex. They break the mold of the binary model of sexual orientation, but often try to shoehorn themselves into that model because they don't know any better. This is one way you can achieve a person who considers the sex of their partners to be irrelevant, but you see, we're in different territory here than how the overwhelming majority of people work. Sometimes they're "asexual" or "bisexual" identified.

It does logically work the other way around however, a person who is asexual won't have a copulatory interest. I think some ideal-type asexual people do exist, people who are otherwise normal and just lack sexual interest. For this ideal type, yeah, genitalia shouldn't matter. Asexuals love to talk about their "romantic orientations..."

Similar to this, heterosexual men like women because they're women. Bisexuals, like men and like women because they're men and because they're women. But if you find yourself in a spot where it's irrelevant if the other person is a man or woman, then it's a bit different then, isn't it? Maybe that's the mythical 50/50 bisexual.

If you're not interested in the sexy parts of a person, but still sexually interested, be that man or woman, that's probably not bisexuality, in a technical sense. "Bi" in this case would describe the who, but not the necessary "how" that is required for bisexuality--a copulatory interest in phenotypically normal, adult, consenting partners of either sex.

Some bisexual people say they don't care about genitals.

Yes, and some of them are woke. Trying to appeal to the trans discourse.

[–]Not_a_celebrity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

May I know what you think of the split attraction model? Split attraction model allows for identities such as homosexual heteroromantic, which means someone is sexually attracted to the same sex, isn't romantically attracted to the same sex, is romantically attracted to the opposite sex, but is not sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

The model was used by 'asexuals', and later on others started using it too. E.g. a woman who likes sleeping with other women but doesn't like having romantic relationships with them, but has romantic relationships with men would say she's a homosexual heteroromantic.

Are there such identities? Is romantic attraction separate from sexual attraction? If they are not separate why do many people feel like they are only romantic with one sex but only sexual with another sex, etc?

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

It's in its infancy. I would like to be able to objectively measure romantic feelings. fMRI is capable of this, and there has been preliminary work on "love" in general. Nothing on SAM. The outcomes thus far lead me to a belief that romantic love is in fact a physiological drive, same as hunger, thirst, or sexual desire.

It is however overwhelmingly concordant with sexual orientation, so an ideal-type asexual person who claims a romantic orientation, especially such a person who is say "asexual homoromantic" is highly suspect to me that they have a high degree of self-awareness. Likewise, an asexual person that claims a romantic orientation to the opposite sex, do they actually have that configuration, or are they being pressured to follow a heteronormative script? When they say "romance"--do they know what that means/have a consistent definition of it? Are we talking about a physiological drive, or merely the sex of a person one would choose to partner with, bereft of the typical motivations that cause people to partner?

Ultimately, the way people use it, to me, strikes me as the latter. It's just used to explain a preference, and not necessarily a phenomena.