HomophobiaCan you help me respond to this homophobic question please?

submitted by UWUness from self.LGBDropTheT

I had a conversation with a homophobe who asked me something along the lines of "how can "lesbians" be women? How can "gay men" be men? They don't use their organs for what they evolved to do. Women evolved to be with men, and vaginas evolved to be with penises. "Gay" people are sexless".

I don't understand 💀

all 28 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MisandryFTW 22 insightful - 2 fun22 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Are priests men because they choose to remain celibate? Are children male or female before they reproduce? Are infertile women still women?

[–]Three_oneFourWanted for thought crimes in countless ideologies 16 insightful - 10 fun16 insightful - 9 fun17 insightful - 10 fun -  (2 children)

If you're going for snark: "You say gay people are sexless, yet I'm having more sex than you, curious."

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Based on discussions I've seen:

I think they would say(at least about women having sex with women) "It's not real sex, cause there's no penetration. That's why you use phallic objects as substitute penises." Nevermind that not remotely everyone does it like that. But they just don't take it seriously as sex.

For men it'll be the opposite because it's -gasp- anal sex(even though no one cares when it's between men and women) and can be discounted for that reason alone. Nevermind that men can have other types of sex, but then they get into the whole "not real sex" angle. So anal is real sex to them(otherwise they wouldn't be having conniption fits over it), but not the "right" sex. Except when between men and women, even though it's not reproductive like they say it needs to be. Yeah, the mental gymnastics..

Anyway, there are so many other inconsistencies I can bring up. You can't really win with them cause they have a very particular definition of sex, or more specifically, proper sex. Even if they almost never satisfy their own narrow definition of being reproductive with their own recreational sex(assuming they have any). So even if you use logic, they'd make exceptions of all kinds for their own orientation and behavior- just like that. And it's only okay when they do it.

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

Snark is almost always the best response. Most people don't want a rational argument, they just want an opportunity to insult you or otherwise signal why they are better than you.

[–]HelloMomo 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

There are a couple theories that hold that humans evolved to be long-distance runners, who chase prey until it collapses of heat exhaustion. By being hairless and sweaty, humans could run for longer than other species before the heat exhaustion got to us.

Even though this is a thing the human body evolved to be able to do, very few humans actually do it.

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

This is a good analogy. Not absolutely everything that evolves for useful reasons is used by every individual every day (or even at all). It's about general trends in an entire species.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, although I think people who trek or exercise out regurlarly are physically and psychologically more sound than those who are sedentary. Including having better eyesight due to less booktime/screentime.

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

This isn't just like, people who go hiking regularly. This is serious distance running, chasing a deer until it collapses. If a dog could go with you on your walk/run and not overheat, it by definition doesn't count. It has to be something that gets your body temperature so high that you need to be furless to handle it.

[–]loveSloaneSuperDuperBi 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Id ask what vaginas and penises evolved from in the first place and how we as a species kept repopulating if our genitals had to evolve to be with each other…

Then I’d remind them that people have genitals even when they aren’t using them for sex with either sex. Maybe even ask if, if homosexuals are sexless because they don’t use their genitals to engage in sex with the opposite sex, what it means when someone masturbates? Are they even human?

If i bothered to respond. In this case I’d probably just laugh at the stupidity.

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Genitalia did evolved to reproduce and penis and vagina are naturally designed to meet each others. Now the fact that nature random variation makes a minirotiy of the population develops to have a typical sexuality of the opposite sex doesn't change the nature and purpose of our anatomy.

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

Sorry… vaginas don’t exist solely to be penetrated by a penis, nor do penises exist just to penetrate vaginas. Just because they can "meet each other" doesn’t mean that’s their whole purpose or function. I understand that genitals are sexual organs- that doesn’t mean they have to be used for sex at all or even specifically sex with each other. It also doesn’t mean they have no other functions.

And again, what did vaginas and penises evolve from? I don’t mean how did they develop in utero, I mean what did humans have before we evolved to have vaginas and penises, and how did we reproduce before this evolution?

People who don’t have sex at all still have a sex. Because the sex of a person isn’t based on what they do with their genitals or if those genitals ever "meet" with the other type of genitalia.

Genitalia being the means of reproduction doesn’t mean that that’s the whole point of our genitalia, is basically what I’m saying. Heteros have sex all the time without intending to reproduce. We don’t call them sexless when they use condoms or birth control.

[–]Bright_paintingLoad, lesbian biologist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

A answer to your question about how reproduction works, with or without reproductive/sexual organs. There is two kinds of reproduction, asexual and sexual. Asexual reproduction is common amongst cells, plants and a few selected breeds of animals (jellyfishes is one example). In that kind of reproduction, the organism will copy their entire genome and then pass it on to their offspring. The opposite of asexual reproduction is sexual reproduction. Here, two individuals exchange genetic material so their offspring gets a new, unique genetic make-up. This kind of reproduction is more common with more complex animals (including animals). For sexual reproduction to work there must be two distinct reproductive organs, ovaries and testicles, involved in the progress. Humans have at no point in the evolutionary tree been asexual, but once apon a time, (We are talking 2 billion years ago.), one of our ancestors did reproduce in this manor.

[–]loveSloaneSuperDuperBi 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Okay… but humans have to sexually reproduce so I feel like my point still stands lol

This was interesting to read but my point is still that we as a species may reproduce sexually but not doing so doesn’t render anyone sexless.

But I should have also just said that gay people reproduce all the time and are capable of reproducing even if they don’t (obviously not with each other but they still have the equipment). That’s really the answer to the post imo lol

[–]Bright_paintingLoad, lesbian biologist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Your reasoning is perfectly sound and I compleatly agree with you. It was just me who got a little bit carried away by the question about evolution...

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

I realized that after a few minutes lol. My bad

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

Okay, I'll take a stab at it. (I've written some form of this before, but I'll try to adapt it to your question.)

  • In human beings, there are two types of gametes. They are called sperm and ova. The first one, sperm, has an associated reproductive system that we call male which is used to create that type of gamete. The second one, ova, also has a reproductive system associated with it and that is used to create it, called female. (There are only 2 sexes in humans because there are only 2 types of gametes. No one has ever discovered a 3rd gamete in humans and until they do, there will only exist 2 human sexes...)

  • The vast majority of human beings have reproductive organs that are all-male or all-female; we therefore refer to these humans as male or female, or sometimes in the noun form as "males" and "females". A small percentage of human beings have parts of both types of reproductive systems; we call these people intersex, i.e. "between sexes" (inter = "between" in Latin, btw).

  • Regardless of whether a human being chooses to use their reproductive system, that reproductive system still exists and their sex is still them same as it would have been had they chosen to engage in sexual intercourse. This is biological reality.

You could ask this homophobe: "If a celibate male Christian priest never has sex with anyone, is he really a man? He is still biologically male, is he not?" If he says yes, then ask why it would be any different for a gay man or a lesbian woman. If he says no, then you're dealing with someone who is likely extremely brainwashed-- in one direction or another-- and I don't really know what else you could say to convince them, lol. I would probably advise calling it quits at that point, your time is better spent arguing with someone more reasonable.

What's the context? Online argument or someone you know IRL?

edit: left a sentence half written, lol

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

What's the context? Online argument or someone you know IRL?

It's an online argument with a "trans right activist". They asked me to define male and female, and I did, providing them with a similar explanation. They asked, "are kids and infertile people sexless then?", and "what about "gay" people? Aren't they sexless?" afterwards 😩

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

Omg lol. Careful, you might lose a few brain cells continuing that conversation, haha. Well, I would just emphasize that just because a reproductive system is not in use doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If you have any specific questions about how sex works, yourself, I'm happy to try to answer them; if you feel confident about how it works then that might help you when you engage in these sorts of debates.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's an online argument with a "trans right activist".

That's how it starts.

There's a saying that it is useful to keep in mind in these situations, allegedly uttered by Mark Twain: "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

They are professionals at going around in circles with people who innocently try to have a rational conversation with them. Limited exposure is advised. I tap out after one or two idiotic replies. It's not going to get better from there.

[–]szalinskikidproblematic androphile 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This line of thinking is the classic conservative version of gender woo woo. A rare breed these days, since their niche got overtaken by woke authoritarians. You can argue all day long with such a person, but the core problem is that their definition of man is the same as a woke person's definition of man: being a man is a performance. It's about behavior, it's a role, it's a certain set of hobbies, it's specific jobs, it's clothes, it's being a gentleman and paying for dinner... and it's about putting your dick into a vagina. The only thing you can say to such a person - doesn't matter if old-fashioned conservative or TRA - is that your definition of "man" (or "woman") is not the same as theirs. Yours is based on biological reality, and theirs is based on a sitcom in the 50s. There isn't even a basis for discussion.

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

Turns out it was a TRA. Funny how many TRAs sound exactly like classic conservative homophobes; they often use the same arguments, so it really is hard to tell sometimes.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Among the responses that come to mind: "Oh yeah? And what did the clitoris evolve to 'be with', huh? How 'bout the prostate?"

Also, let's not forget that sex is only exclusively about reproduction for less-intelligent/unintelligent, and/or solitary, species; among the most intelligent of social animals, it always has non-reproductive dimensions, and they are VERY important. (One of our closest relatives, the bonobo/pygmy chimp, has a social structure that's actually defined and maintained by non-reproductive sexual behavior-- much of it same-sex, incidentally.) Species like this require close social bonds for their psychological health and survival; sex that's about feeling accepted, liked, and recognized-- providing a sense of belonging and security-- is a primal way of creating these. I'd argue that human sexuality evolved for this purpose as much as it did for making babies. And how does homosexuality fulfill those needs any less than heterosexuality?

[–]Elvira95Viva la figa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The clitoris just exist because the dick exist. Male and female genitalia starts from the same base source and then develop differently based on hormonal exposure. The prostate evolved for sperm production. Of course not supporting the idea that homosexuality makes someone sexless, as the same of someone is based on genitalia, not on how they want to use it. But it's true that our genitalia purpose is to meet with the opposite sex for reproduction.

True that sex is social species can help with bond-creation and surving better in nature cause of release of oxytocin

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, male and female genitals-- as well as male and female themselves-- evolved for the purpose of reproduction; both sexes are ultimately reproductive categories. No argument there!

That said, if the significance of human sexuality's psychological/social aspects were more widely understood, I think we'd hear a LOT less of the "since sex exists for reproductive reasons, homosexuality must be unnatural/useless/wrong/etc." argument.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gay men are men because we have penises, XY chromosomes and sperm production. Lesbians are women because they have vaginas, XX chromosomes and wombs. Simple as that.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Ignore it, it's idiotic trolling.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

On an unrelated note, welcome! Have to say, taking a look at your brief post and comment history left me a bit unsure whether you'll like the rules of this sub or not. I can't always tell which of your sentiments are serious and which are facetious, but it's gonna matter if you were to say similar things here, so you might wanna read this just to be sure: https://www.saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/wiki/rules

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

I would just ask if someone who is wheelchair bound still has legs but thats me.