Both: What do you think of the new Super Straight movement?

submitted by worried19 from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (43 children)

It’s just an excuse to be transphobic. The whole thing is saying that being attracted to a trans person makes you less straight which is massively shitty to the straight people who are not averse to dating trans people and claiming to be part of the lgbt community is obviously not just transphobic but homophobic and biphobic.

Edit for clarity. It’s not transphobic not to date trans people but implying that we are so disgusting that dating us makes someone less straight is extremely transphobic.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

They aren’t saying it’s because trans people are disgusting, it’s because they aren’t the sex someone is capable of being attracted to. Being less than straight is not disgusting and it’s very homophobic to say it is.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (20 children)

They are literally saying that being inclusive of trans people makes someone less straight. They put themselves as “super” and therefore above the people who are inclusive of trans people. It’s not wrong to not be attracted to trans people but it is wrong and extremely transphobic to say that you are above people who are.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Super meaning very, not better than.

adverb. INFORMAL especially; particularly. "he's been super understanding"

It’s not disgusting to be bi or homosexual so how is it an insult to say someone is less straight than someone who is exclusively heterosexual?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (18 children)

Super is hierarchical necessarily and they are attempting to control other peoples sexualities by saying that straight people aren’t really straight because they include trans people. Of course not to mention the implication that follows that trans women aren’t women and trans men aren’t men which is literally the root belief of all transphobia.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Lol no. Asking for our own sexualities to be respected has nothing to do with anyone else’s. It never said people weren’t straight, they just weren’t super straight. Otherwise there’s have been a lot of informing people that an interest in say, transwomen and women means they are bisexual.

Of course it doesn’t believe TWAW/TMAM..it’s a recognition of SEXual orientation and the SEX of the individual. Genderism doesn’t come into sexuality. The entire point was the need for transgender people to stop ignoring the existence of their sex and the fact that sexuality, homosexuality in particular, is not a preference or choice.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (14 children)

You are actively arguing for other people’s sexualities not to be respected. It could have been cis sexual or orthodox sexual or a million other things that didn’t imply a hierarchy, but instead you create a hierarchy and use it to denigrate trans people and those who aren’t as anti trans as you. It’s just another way to be shitty to trans people.

You don’t have to be attracted to trans people but you also don’t need to insult us and those who actually respect us.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

The heirarchy is only in your mind. Cis would validate genderism so it couldn’t be used. Orthodox sexual insinuates there is something unorthodox about homosexuality or bisexuality. There is no denigration in our wording but plenty in yours.

How is there any insult in people saying they have a sexuality that excludes some people? Like quote me all this hatred and vitriol or stop claiming it.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (11 children)

For I believe the fourth time there’s nothing wrong with not dating trans people, but a marketing campaign about how trans people are so gross that being attracted to them makes someone less straight and how the people who don’t like us are SUPERior is pretty obviously transphobic.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

And for the fourth time to you, it’s not a marketing campaign to say transgender people are gross. Clearly you cannot back up this statement you keep making.

Super has already been defined for you as meaning particularly or especially. You are the one who keeps saying that not being extremely straight is somehow gross or inferior. You are the one choosing to interpret super as meaning superior and not the definition provided for you.
Not surprising given the absolute insistence of you and other TRA to ignore the existence of sex and other people’s sexual orientations.

You are inventing problems over a meme you choose to misinterpret in order to frame yourself as the victim of hate, when all that happened was a bunch of people got tired of being called bigoted for having a sexuality that does not include everyone.

Nobody has said that being less straight or more homosexual/bisexual is disgusting or inferior except you. Confront your own homophobic ideas before putting words in the mouths of others.

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

Yep

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

You are actively arguing for other people’s sexualities not to be respected.

I mean, so are you. Heterosexual people are not attracted to the same sex, homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex. Insisting that their sexuality should now include the sex that the whole term exists to exclude (and moreover, a term that also has a history of violence aimed against the people identifying with it) is invalidating. The only sexuality and gender that are to be respected are the ones that literally don't mean anything and can include whatever anyone wants. I don't think it's respectful in the least to take words used to define certain people targeted by violence and discrimination for being a certain way, and proclaim these words invalid and in fact, tools of violence by virtue of not including everyone and everything else under the sun. Actually, I'd call that the opposite of respectful.

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

I think you're taking the super straight label to seriously. Moreover, you're ignoring the only reason super straight become a thing in the first place is because transactivists insist in changing the meaning of words and replacing sex with gender identity. Transactivists are the ones who are trying to make impossible to talk about attraction based in SEX rather than gender identity. Trans people are often the ones who are making their dating lifes harder by going after people with incompatible SEXual orientations.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, being lesbian or febfem is not transphobic. While transgender movement are calling lesbians transphobic for being homosexual and for something homosexual people can't control. And then they came for heterosexual people too.

That is why this "super" movement appeared in the first place.

And fact that gender movement is so outrageous about supersexualities - just shows all the hypocrisy. Gender movement is creating new sexualities every week, and saying all of them are valid, and appropriating old sexualities to change the meaning of the word - so it is very hard to find partner you want, if now anyone can be any sexuality as it is just "identity and choice" and not something innate like how it was before.

[–]Moonbuggy 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Noone was saying trans people are "disgusting" just that their sexual orientation was towards a particular sex or both. Our whole bodies are sexed its not just a "genital preference" its not that someone is "less straight". As a SuperStraight woman I am friends with Transmen, Lesbians and other women but I don't want to have sex with any of them as I am sexually attracted to XY men who like to be XY men and have the biology I am attracted to: deep voice, big shoulders, tall, big hands etc etc. I am supportive of trans people. If a gay man doesn't find me sexually attractive I don't call him a SuperStraightPhobe or XXPhobe.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (12 children)

It literally is saying you are more straight than someone who would date a trans person. That’s the implication of super. You cheapen their identity through mere association with us. You hate us so much you degrade people just for being accepting.

[–]Moonbuggy 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

It is just clarifying exactly who I am sexually attracted to. Noone can force sexual attraction on anyone else that's not how it works. I am not sexually attracted to XX women however they identify and I like men who are happy being men because I love their biology and they are embracing it. What's wrong what that? TW reject their masculinity as they don't believe they are men so they are not sexually attractive to me. They obviously wouldn't want to be with a person who isn't sexually attracted to them, nobody wants that. We all want enthusiastic sexual partners who love us for who we are. We all have the same right to boundaries, consent and choice of who we have sex with.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (10 children)

Literally none of that is contravened by what I said. In fact I said explicitly it isn’t transphobic to just not be attracted to trans people.

By framing it as a different and superior sexuality, you are essentially saying someone is lesser for being attracted to trans people. It’s such deep animus that you lower others by mere association with us. And that’s on top of the audacity that some are now claiming membership in the lgbt community by virtue of being “super straight”. You could have just said you are straight and not attracted to trans people but instead you create a hierarchy that puts trans people so low that you devalue people merely for being accepting.

[–]JollyPurple 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Look at it this way. There are now TWO types of sexualities. Neither is more better or superior to the other, just different.

  1. Genderality - sexual attraction based on which socially constructed gender created by patriarchy your partner and you identify with.

  2. Sexuality- sexual attraction based on the other person's sex.

And then within each group are subgroups.

Genderality - socially constructed gender based attraction.

  • straight - attraction based on one member of the couple having masculine cis gender identity and the other a feminine cis gender identity

  • gay - both members of the couple have a masculine socially constructed gender identity

  • lesbian - both members of the couple have a feminine socially constructed gender identity

  • bi - sexual attraction to both masculine and feminine socially constructed gender identities

  • pan - attraction to ALL socially constructed gender identities.

Sexuality - sex-based attraction

  • superstraight- attraction to a person of the opposite SEX

  • supergay - same-sex attraction for males (SEX)

  • superlesbian - same-sex attraction for females (SEX)

  • superbi - sexual attraction to both SEXes

There is no hierarchy here at all.

Sexual attraction by nature is exclusive. These categories helps create clarity and simplicity when informing others. As the transgender community ALWAYS says, language evolves, things change meaning, and new words are created to change with society's changing perspectives. And society felt the need to create a distinction between genderality and sexuality. Which probably occurred, because like religion, not everyone believes in the same thing. Most people don't believe in biological essentialism and innate gender ideology like the transgender community does. You shouldn't force someone to convert to a religion just because you believe in it, and gender identity ideology is the same way.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I’m tired of this topic but there is a hierarchy present and intended in the use of superstraight and accusing trans people of biological essentialism is absolutely ridiculous.

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

Transgender ideology IS biological essentialism. Gender IS biological essentialism.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095507973

Where is the hierarchy? You still can't point it out. People having a different sexuality than you doesn't make them better or worse. You are claiming there's a hierarchy simply because people have a sexuality different than you.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Physical biology being less important than identity is biological essentialism? You are talking absolute nonsense.

They chose “super” to imply a hierarchy, that they are not just different than straight people but MORE straight which is at minimum disrespectful of the people who they are insulting by saying they are.

[–]JollyPurple 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They didn't do it for a hierarchy and you know it. The confusion is the transgender community's fault.

The trans community changed the meaning of words without informing the public. They changed men and women from SEX-based definitions of male and female humans into gender identities based on patriarchy's created gender norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy.

Because they changed the meaning of men and women, it also changed the meaning of sexualities into genderalities. But again, the general public isn't really aware of these changes. Most people don't know. They still assume sexuality is based on, SEX and not the socially constructed gender someone identifies with.

So when they said super, like really straight, they are saying to mean the OLD ORIGINAL meaning of straight with is sexual attraction based on sex NOT gender.

Most people think women and men are male and female humans, not some abstract thought in a person's head. They were saying "super" as a way to get the point accross that their sexuality isn't loose or based on an idea/essence/feeling/abstract thought/social construction of what a woman is, they are saying is based on the REALITY of what a woman is, which is an adult female human. Not on whether or not a person has a "inner woman feeling" or "interal woman personality" or "pink lady brains" or "feminine personality" or "lady essence" or anthing else like that.

That's literally all that means. Sex and gender are two different things. Saying one is NOT the other isn't invalidating the other. Because again, the are NOT the same thing. Someone can have a gender identity, that still doesn't change their sex.

If you use the words as they were created to be used you wouldn't run into these issues. Because your community appropriated man and woman to name gender identities, you WILL have to deal with the consequences of that when people STILL use them as they were originally created for.

If you want to stop the confusion then come up with your own names for the genders. The words that were created to name the socially constructed genders forced onto members of the male sex is masculinity, and for the female sex is femininity. If you said that transwomen are feminine, or have feminine gender identities, literally NO one would argue. Every radfem would agree with you.

But what your community wanted to do was muddy the water and appropriate and colonize words, change the meanings, then you all got angry when people used them the way your community doesn't want to.

If your community just sucked it up, and dealt with the fact that you can't just change the meanings of the words and have everyone on the planet just "go with it", we all would be much further along in this debate.

Because now, people are catching on to the appropriation, and many instead of fighting back to bring the meaning of words to what the ORIGINALLY meant, they decided to create new words to mean the same thing. Which is what the trans community should have done first.

What these supers are actually doing is the POLITE thing and letting you have the colonized and appropriate words, saying "you want them, you can have them then" and then making new words to replace the ones you STOLE.

Your community is just a bunch of whiny colonizers and appropriators getting mad and throwing a little hissy fits because people won't do what you want. People still need words to communicate, especially regarding one of the oldest things humans recognized in our existence, that of sex and male and female humans. You can't erase or change that no matter how hard you try. It's literally written in our DNA. And no matter how hard your community tries to erase it, there will ALWAYS be words, whether newly created or ancient, to explain and communicate the fact that male and female humans exist. The faster your community accepts that fact, the faster we can work on making sure both communities are protected from harm.

Physical biology being less important than identity is biological essentialism? You are talking absolute nonsense.

Believing in gender and thinking gender identities are innate is biological essentialism.

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

It’s just an excuse to be transphobic. The whole thing is saying that being attracted to a trans person makes you less straight which is massively shitty to the straight people who are not averse to dating trans people

But you're still straight, there is just a distinction for some people who will not be attracted to trans people. If you can agree there can be a sexual orientation that makes a distinction then how is that transphobic? No one is saying you can't be straight, or LGB, and still date trans people, so why is it shitty to them or the trans people they date? And if you agree there can also be those who aren't attracted to trans people, how do we refer to that category?

Either that can be an orientation - by nature, you are not attracted - or it is just coincidental, even discriminatory, and they have not yet met the right trans person. If it's an orientation, they should be able to refer to their sexual nature and make it clear when seeking partners. If they are being transphobic, you are implying they may someday meet a trans person who they would date, even if they have never been attracted so far.

Also - why is it disgusting to be less straight (or less LGB)? I don't know if that is what it has to mean, but if it did - aren't we past that? Some people may be more strict, some more flexible - like, it's all good, right? Honestly, it's just How You're Born. I probably wouldn't even qualify as a super myself, but I like the movement bc I think it help clarifies some of the confusion. I've always been bi and when I was young I used to think "well, everyone is really bi" but talking with older gay people helped me realize how hard it is when your sexuality is not accepted. It would have been easier for me to live as straight if I had grown up in a less accepting time, but that wasn't true for everyone. Why force expectations on people? Perhaps they know who they are.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

But you're still straight, there is just a distinction for some people who will not be attracted to trans people.

The use of super creates a hiaerachy where being trans inclusive makes someone less straight.

And if you agree there can also be those who aren't attracted to trans people, how do we refer to that category?

Straight but not attracted to trans people or if you need a specialized term one that doesn’t create a hierarchy.

Also - why is it disgusting to be less straight (or less LGB)?

Never said it was. I said the idea is trans people are so disgusting ( wrong, gross, pick your insulting adjective of choice) that being trans inclusive lowers someone in the eyes of the “superstraight” they make a hierarchy and put themselves on top.

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

or if you need a specialized term one that doesn’t create a hierarchy...

It's not a hierarchy, it's just an intensifier - I really don't think there's any reason to think it's meant to make someone better, just "more" straight or gay. You are the one adding the judgment to that. You could be "super into Chinese food" or "super tired" - it doesn't put you above or below anyone. It just describes state of things. A super straight man would be attracted to a woman who was AFAB and lived her whole life female. If she had been AMAB and was now female, he'd have to have a more flexible type of sexuality. But neither is a higher or lower type of sexuality, just more or less intensely straight.

the idea is trans people are so disgusting... being trans inclusive lowers someone

This is coming from you. I don't want to condescendingly tell you to talk to your therapist, but seriously, I do not see this at all.

So is it just the word "super", then? If they had called themselves "bio straights" or "chromosexuals" you would have been fine with it? I pretty much think the whole thing started as an off-the-cuff joke, that gathered steam because there was a void that needed filling, so I doubt the name was given a lot of thought. It's just, "extreme straight."

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

So is it just the word "super", then? If they had called themselves "bio straights" or "chromosexuals" you would have been fine with it?

It would certainly at least be less of an issue since it doesn’t imply superiority or condescend to trans inclusive people like “super straight” does. Though extreme straight still has the same problems of saying someone is less straight for being trans inclusive.

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

It would certainly at least be less of an issue since it doesn’t imply superiority or condescend to trans inclusive people like “super straight” does.

But it would still be a little bit of an issue? Are we 100% agreed that it's 100% awesome and everyone can have their own sexuality, or is there a reason to think something's fishy if they are excluding trans people from their sexual orientation?

Though extreme straight still has the same problems of saying someone is less straight for being trans inclusive.

a) why is it a problem to be less straight? Or just, normally straight instead of extra-straight? b) is it not reasonable to say that someone who is attracted only to those who were born and remain the opposite sex is "more opposite sex attracted" than someone who can also be attracted to those born the same sex but who now live as opposite sex? It's like if you have "extreme taste" and can catch nuances that not everyone does, but they're still there.

Either everyone straight can be attracted to the whole group who identify as opposite sex, and those who say they can't be are only saying that due to bigotry, or there is a categorical distinction which allows for a sexual response only to that segment of the population who have also been the opposite sex from birth and on a biological level. If it's the latter, they have "more" requirements. Therefore, they are "more" straight. It does not make them better. It does not include judgment.

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

a) why is it a problem to be less straight? Or just, normally straight instead of extra-straight?

The existence of another label itself, particularly a hierarchical one, as opposed to just being a subsection or straight fundamentally says trans women aren’t women and trans men aren’t men. That’s always going to be transphobic on some level.

B: same as above, the hiaerachy necessaarilly disrespects trans identities whereas just being a straight person who isn’t interested in trans people doesn’t

Are we 100% agreed that it's 100% awesome and everyone can have their own sexuality, or is there a reason to think something's fishy if they are excluding trans people from their sexual orientation?

You are allowed to be into whatever consenting adult you are into or not, the issue is with creating a label implying straight people are less straight for being trans inclusive since it disrespects their sexual identity and autonomy as well as insulting trans people. This is distinct from for instance Just saying you are straight but not interested in trans people.

[–]worried19[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The kid who invented the term was being harassed on TikTok for not wanting to date trans women. The reason "super straight" was invented is because straight is somehow no longer good enough.