Their homophobic rage always increases when they're call out for it

submitted by ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah from twitter.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jiljol 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And it's always the exact same people: the underwear model (who is really just a self-hating lesbian), Buck Angel (who is ironically very anti-modern TRA), etc lol.

I went into detail about this "gotcha" that they often use in another thread:

https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/6bam/freedom_for_me_but_not_for_thee/ohcx?context=3

They love to parrot "BUT WHAT ABOUT THESE PEOPLE WHO CAN PASS!?". Well, we can actually use their hilarious logic against them. Let's do an exercise: Who in these photos is a "cis man", "trans man", "cis woman", etc?

https://i.imgur.com/amfTplU.png https://i.imgur.com/hWWTzha.jpg https://i.imgur.com/9mdrNiy.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/l3kP8fM.jpg

It doesn't matter because sexual orientation goes beyond the superficial. We are attracted to biological sex. A woman with naturally "strong" features in baggy clothes is not a male. A woman who spends thousands of dollars surgically and hormonally modifying her body is not a male. The very idea of "passing" as the opposite sex is irrelevant.

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

They complain about us being exclusionary, and sure, we are. But every definition of sexuality will be exclusionary. Our definition at least is being honest and we actually include a broader range than them.

Our definition: gay men are attracted to the male sex AKA cis men. This includes every expression of men, from the super masculine bearded dude to a cute feminine guy. Of course, not every gay man is into all "types", but all of them are valid.

Their definition: gay men are attracted to masculinity. To hell with men who don't conform to masculinity. Weirdly this definition excludes even non-masculine transmen.

Not to mention that our definition only excludes transmen from gayness. Another sexuality might be attracted to the female sex and transmen, it simply isn't gay men.

But if you actually follow their definition, it completely excludes non-masculine men. Gay men in their definition wouldn't be attracted to feminine men. Straight men wouldn't be attracted to feminine men either, since feminine men don't identify as female, and self-identification is important for them. So in their definition feminine men just exist in a limbo.

They worry so much about "being excluded", but if you follow their logic strictly you'd have to exclude many others.

But let's be honest: transmen don't care about feminine men, and transwomen don't care abut masculine women. A feminine men can be as feminine as he wants, he can make 0 effort to be masculine, and he'll still be a man, with a dick, and many actually gay men will feel attracted to him. This is pretty much the opposite of transmen.