you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 6 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

because their society couldn’t cope with their homosexuality

It's not that they couldn't cope necessarily, just that in those days you'd very likely be "the only gay in the village", so a gay person would have had little choice left to them. Gay people were probably very likely partnered with straight people for the majority of history. It's only in recent times that gay people can find each other to date. Nowadays it's taboo to suggest that straight people got into relationships with gay people, bc everyone has decided that heterosexuality "isn't a choice", bc otherwise the gay rights movement will collapse or something. Everyone's got a sacred calf, it seems, inhibiting their common sense.

In fact, modern gay people who completely lack a cross-gender identification are a new type of gay person, while the transgendered type of gay person would be the "original" type. Which firmly secures that neither is lesser, not that that was the goal, but it just seems to be where the evidence points.

that the homosexual identity only existed because society couldn’t cope with their transgendered identity

The only way for that to be true though is if homosexuality just didn't exist in their culture. You've also got to remember the context of desistance – how most underage people who identify as trans desist & most of those end up being gay, not the other way around. Cross-gender identification seems to be a part in being gay, a very useful part in the olden days.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I like the way you are thinking about it and it mostly makes sense to me.

Nowadays it's taboo to suggest that straight people got into relationships with gay people, bc everyone has decided that heterosexuality "isn't a choice", bc otherwise the gay rights movement will collapse or something. Everyone's got a sacred calf, it seems, inhibiting their common sense.

I feel like we should respect people sexual orientations though. I could talk about my experiences with straight men and they don’t make me to believe that someone being male in an abstract sense if everything else tells them female is ever a deal breaker for them, but straight men should still be able to have their orientation respected just like gay people. It’s just the right thing to do even if reality might be more complicated.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (3 children)

Absolutely! I believe that they are straight, despite technically being in a same-sex relationship. Even eye-tracking studies seem to confirm that Samoan men open to dating fa'afafine are not even bisexual (just not as "straight" as men unwilling to, apparently).

I recently saw an old British documentary about lesbians (uploaded by BabyRadFemTV) & according to it, 'lesbian' used to be defined as the type of woman who would dress & act like a man & pursue romantic relationships with women. The women they had relationships with were not regarded as lesbians at that time.

I feel like this old view is more accurate than the modern one. Nowadays, we have to all accept that the partner of a lesbian is always another lesbian (or bisexual) & that a heterosexual women can never love another woman. This is why political lesbianism has got such a bad wrap nowadays & seemingly every modern radfem rejects it as being homophobic (even though Sheila Jeffreys is a political lesbian in a very successful long term relationship). Then they wonder why every straight woman identifies as bi – it's bc they can't just be straight anymore if they are open to relationships with women. The modern political lesbian has to identify as febfem in order to avoid the wrath of lesbians & their allies.

Then again, I've heard people say that you can identify as bi even if you're not 50/50 bi – whatever the f*ck that means. I mean, if you're gay but like "5% straight", or whatever, wouldn't you still think of yourself gay? Don't know why a straight person who is "5% gay" is automatically bi. I think if a label were absolutely necessary then "heteroflexible"? But maybe it becomes less about semantics & more about preference as far as these labels are concerned.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)


If someone is 5% gay or 5% straight - they are bisexual. They don't need to act on it, but it is who they are, and they will have harder time understanding exclusive same-sex or opposite-sex attraction.


It is pretty homophobic point of view, pushed by society. That homosexuality is performative, and that it is not just same-sex attraction. I lived in a country where homosexuality was outlawed, and such view was (and somewhat still is) the main view on homosexuality. That only either "manly" or "ugly" women who "can't find a man because of their own flaws" are becoming lesbians, and they are pretending to be men to date women. And that only one who is "filling male role in relationship" is lesbian, other woman is not. Which is ridiculous, because it is way too heteronormative, lesbians are two women - we need no "man" in relationship. Same is with gay men - that only "more feminine one, or who is filling women's role" and one "who is penetrated" are gays. In USSR man who loves men and raped them would not be considered as gay, but his victim will be stigmatized as gay, even if he don't like men and was forcibly raped. That view is saying htat "nice looking" or "feminine" women who exclusively loving women are not lesbians, not homosexual. It is just homophobic view of old society, which was adopted by self-hatred and tries to adapt to society - as it was the only way for lesbians to be together without being prosecuted or shamed. I had such self hatred because of homophobia in society too, and I tried "to be a man" at few points in life, as I wanted to be free like men and seen as a human being, and because my homosexuality put me in troubles (like I got fired from job, beaten and almost "correctively" raped, etc). Lesbian, gay and bisexual are not a performative roles, it is sexualities. All you need to be lesbian is to be female and exclusively love and be attracted to females, does not matter how you look, how you act or how you think.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

What does 5% vs 50/50 mean though? If you can fall in love with both men & women then surely you're 100% bisexual. If you can only fall for one, you're 0% bisexual. Where is there even a possibility of a spectrum there? I suspect that straight people just think if they watched gay porn once & didn't hate it, all of a sudden they don't consider themselves fully straight – if that was the metric, no one would be fully gay either. The difference is gay people don't think of themselves as a little straight if they were to ever watch straight porn for instance. The porn example is just an example, there are probably equivalent examples of these so-called breaches in heterosexuality that supposedly justify a bisexual self-categorisation.

It's only homophobic nowadays, when both partners are more than likely homosexuals. In the olden days lesbian-lesbian relationships would have been unlikely & the further back you go the less likely it would have been possible. Populations were just too small.

The fact that many societies only treat effeminate gay men & masculine lesbians as gay & not the "straight acting" ones, seems to confirm this origin of "third gender" as homosexual in origin. There are societies that label all gay people a "third gender", but then differentiate between the gender conforming & cross-gender conforming ones.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreeing with this.

There are societies that label all gay people a "third gender", but then differentiate between the gender conforming & cross-gender conforming ones.

Most "third genders" in cultures I know are always very strongly patriarchic societies, and third gender are always gay, weak or infertile men who have less rights or power than men, but more than women. In most cases it is something like "to not shame males with you being not manly enough - we will say you aren't really a man". Women never got such "thrid gender" group (except few islamic countries, but there it is different, I'll explain later). Mostly women were pretending to be men in cases when women wanted to be free from oppression, or to learn science or to work on some jobs (like surgeon) which were forbidden for women to work. Other case is when lesbians were trying to live together, and only way was if they moved to new place and one was pretending to be a man on public ("Sea Purple" nice movie with this part, thought it was forced there). In those Islamic countries I've mentioned before - when husband of woman died, and she has no sons, no brother and no father alive, then she can inherit what her husband owned, but she must try look masculine, wear masculine clothing and never marry or date men ever again.