LGB refutation of TQ+, Part 1: Self-defense

submitted by PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust from self.LGBDropTheT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Destresse🇨🇵 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree it's time to organise and come up with common strategies. I'm not sure about claiming Ts have a "gender-sexuality", I don't think it's accurate, so I wouldn't argue in that sense.

The only fact I know for sure, is that homosexuals, exclusively attracted to the same sex, individuals exist. As do heterosexual individuals, as a result. This insistance that everyone is basically bi, however they decide to name it, "attracted to genders", "hearts not parts", "pansexual", is wrong. Theorically, heterosexual people should understand this reasoning, as this implies their sexuality doesn't exist either. Theorically. Facts are, the Ts hold the power and heterosexual people are not being colonised the way we are, and natural preservation instinct will tell them to side with the winning side.

I don't mean to be pessimistic, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm incapable of arguing without getting incredibly upset, which isn't very good for credibility, haha.

I think we should have: this space (or another) to organise the... uh, international resistance online?

And different spaces for different continents. Namely, I think European LGB should be a thing. If it gets big enough, country-specific LGB groups would be ideal.

Btw, mes chers compatriotes, please contact me, let's find each other :)

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I agree it's time to organise and come up with common strategies. I'm not sure about claiming Ts have a "gender-sexuality", I don't think it's accurate, so I wouldn't argue in that sense.

I don't know that many of us would believe it's true, but it's rather "You are saying you have a gender-based sexuality and ours is based on sex." I think it's better to not try to fight them on their subjective experience here because that's a losing argument. In fact, I've been told that I'm lying about my sexuality being sex-based so we need to be firm in this point. The dating, sexual, and romantic behaviors of established gay people (i.e. not self-ID under 25s) shows gay people consistently dating based on sex, even when they support transgenderism. This is evidenced by every celesbian YouTuber, for example. Unless they want to go after those celesbians for being bigoted and peak their audiences?

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know that many of us would believe it's true, but it's rather "You are saying you have a gender-based sexuality and ours is based on sex."

Yes, this is my intended meaning, since I actually don't believe that ANYONE'S sexuality is gender-based. (The closest thing might be certain kinds of fetishism-- specifically, how straight men can seem more attracted to the artificial stuff symbolizing "woman"-- the trappings of the female gender-role, such as makeup, high heels, lingerie, long hair, and so on-- than to women themselves. But even this looks like it's still really about biological sex; that's just getting confused with, and obscured by, cultural signifers thereof somehow.)

The reason I don't debunk this gender-based-sexuality assertion in my post is that we can use it against them. Because, if it's true, shouldn't the T only pursue each other sexually? And, if it's not, quit harassing us to be attracted to THEM based on "gender"? The upshot either way being: leave LGB people the hell alone.

(So, if you want my argument in a more confrontational form, maybe just add this bit where the self-own implications of gender-based sexuality are spelled out.)