you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]8bitgay 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

https://twitter.com/BronSatyr/status/1301285500838465537

Check this comment thread. Kinda makes me want to make a twitter to go reply to this guy.

They always do this. They always use the example of a very feminine transwoman and a very masculine transman.

Why not use as example a feminine transman? Or are they saying that transmen are only valid when they're super masculine?

Why not use as example a masculine dude that identifies as female? Or are they saying that transwomen are only valid when they pass?

Why are they forgetting that masculine cis women and feminine cis men exist?

Edit: not to mention the transman picture even has a bulge lol Bulges are sexy because there is a real cock under the fabric. If a cis guy stuck a bunch of socks in his underwear it wouldn't be sexy, and a transman putting a piece of plastic in the underwear isn't sexy either.

[–]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.