DiscussionBlaire White says in video supporting SuperStraights: "If you're a straight man who is into transwoman, you are probably a couple points from the side on the Kinsey scale"

submitted by reluctant_commenter from self.LGBDropTheT

I realize that Blaire White is kind of a polarizing figure in this community, but I really, really wanted to discuss this video he put out about the "SuperStraight" movement. (Will be using pronouns in line with sex, not gender identity.)

First, I am glad he is speaking out in support of people having sexual boundaries and understands the motivation behind the SuperStraight movement. I also appreciate the video's message of: "Don't seek external validation to address your insecurities, find validation inside yourself."

However, the part that really shocked and amazed me about this video is that he actually came out and said that "straight" (edit: dunno how I forgot to finish this sentence) men who seek out transwomen to date are actually not straight.

At 5:06 in the video:

In my opinion, straight men who are attracted to trans women-- they're somewhere on the Kinsey scale, okay? Like they are not perfectly straight. I'm just gonna-- I don't care. It is what it is. That includes any man I've ever been with, who liked me because I'm trans. They are somewhere on the Kinsey scale, it doesn't make them gay, it doesn't make them bisexual, but they are not, clearly-- one hundred and ten percent straight. And to deny that-- why would you deny that?

Maybe straight is the best possible word for you, but you're clearly still one or two points to the left of "perfectly straight" on the Kinsey scale. And that's okay.

Why is every sexual preference okay, except for, not finding trans people hot?

My thoughts/questions:

  • Is anyone else surprised by this? Obviously, most trans rights activists (transgender or not) would find this offensive, but Blaire tends to criticize those people. I thought his fiance/boyfriend described himself as straight, is why I'm surprised.

  • It seems like there's a lot of avoidance about calling someone who is bisexual, bisexual. Not just in this video, but in the transgender movement in general.

  • Do you think it is useful to distinguish between a) bisexual people who are in the closet and don't have a paraphilia but date transgender people of the same sex, and b) people with a paraphilia who date transgender people of the same sex, because they are attracted by the paraphilia interest but otherwise aren't attracted to the same sex? My first thought would be yes, because those groups require different solutions for the issues they face; but arguably no, because they are all bisexual in behavior at least...? Would especially like to hear bisexuals' opinions on this.

General thoughts?

all 36 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]loveSloaneSuperDuperBi 29 insightful - 2 fun29 insightful - 1 fun30 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Imo If you’re a “straight” man who is open to dating transwomen. You’re not a straight man. You’re a bisexual man. And that’s okay. It’s so weird to me that people can’t just acknowledge this. It’s not hard to say “I’m bisexual but Im only into women and transwomen.” As for Joey- his fiancé has a whole dick (imo all TW have penises, just some are reconstructed. But Blaire hasn’t had bottom surgery so...) he is much more than “a few points to the left” of straight.

I think it’s so hilarious and lacking in self awareness when tras or trans people complain about heteronormativity but insist that their partners aren’t gay or bi. They’re placing more value on heteronormative relationships than anyone (unless they’re in a hetero relationship that they insist is gay/lesbian).

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It’s so weird to me that people can’t just acknowledge this. It’s not hard to say “I’m bisexual but Im only into women and transwomen.”

I guess a lot of people just have black-and-white thinking about sexuality, i.e. "you're gay or straight and nothing else." It seems like this may be an especially big issue for bisexual men-- some get lumped in with gay men, others deny their same sex attraction through various means.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Is it that women are women and trans women are men thus somebody who likes both is bi? Or is it that because Joey likes both vulvas and penises and thus bi? Or both or...?

Totally onboard that Joey isn't exclusively heterosexual, just wondering your thought process about "bi."

[–]loveSloaneSuperDuperBi 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

If I’m being honest, based on things I’ve heard him say in Blaire’s videos, i think he’s a gay man who can’t accept that he’s a gay man. But if I take him at his word, Id say he’s bi because his “girlfriend’s” penis is intact, and I think in a video he said something about having dated both women and transwomen before Blaire. But considering most transwomen don’t have bottom surgery, I’m not sure why it would be wrong to call a man who consistently dates both TW and women bi, unless he’s using women as beards and is really only into TW, or something like thst. I understand GAMPS exist, but if someone is truly open to both TW and women, again considering the fact that the TW likely hasn’t had bottom surgery, I’d think bisexual could still apply to them.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If I’m being honest, based on things I’ve heard him say in Blaire’s videos, i think he’s a gay man who can’t accept that he’s a gay man.

Got it, I've not watched a ton of Blaire videos. That's an interesting idea, that a conflicted gay man would go for TW w/ penises because they're "woman" enough not for it to count as being "gay."

I understand GAMPS exist...

What would be the dividing criteria for you between GAMP and bi? This is a topic we could beat to death, so please don't feel compelled to answer.

[–]loveSloaneSuperDuperBi 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don’t know what would be the dividing criteria, honestly. I’m just saying if someone enjoys interacting sexually with both vaginas and penises, I’d get why they’d call themselves bisexual, even if the penis is attached to someone who takes hormones and got breast implants. I guess the difference could be that a Gamp would solely be interested in specifically feminized men and women, but Idk. If someone calls themselves bi and they happen to be what someone else considers a Gamp, I’m not going to correct them and tell them they’re labeling themselves incorrectly, since there is some truth to them literally definitively being attracted to both sexes.

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

I’m not going to correct them... since there is some truth to them literally definitively being attracted to both sexes.

Yeah, I can get onboard with that.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman🇬🇧🌳🟦 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The problem comes from the erosion of language and the concepts that we use to describe sex and sexuality.

Chiefly, since a lot of morons believe the word 'woman' just means whatever the user wants it to mean (a la Humpty Dumpty) they can get away with being 'straight' because they're still attracted to 'women' even if those 'women' have a beard and a penis.

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

The problem comes from the erosion of language and the concepts that we use to describe sex and sexuality.

Which I'm not disagreeing with, but is there a parallel problem--or one that is a result of--that perhaps there isn't enough language? Trans women are a relatively recent thing, at least in any such numbers that there are now men out there attracted to trans women, especially those that retain their penis. Do we need a new word for that? Especially since it's starting to become a relatively popular thing.

Is the language being eroded, in part, because we've got these new phenomena we're trying to stuff into an old, tired framework?

[–]usehername 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Joey (Blaire's bf) is bi, but claims he's straight because of internalized homophobia. Even Blaire knows it's BS. I can't speak for all bi people, but it seems like him and I had a similar experience with our sexuality. We both thought we were monosexual (in his case, straight, in mine, lesbian) until we realized there was just a certain amount of femininity we were attracted to in either men or women, but it's very rare that men are actually that feminine. Joey also has an extra layer of being in denial about his same-sex attraction. Not to mention they're both pretending Blaire is a woman which adds an extra layer of confusion and denial.

I'm not surprised by this video. Blaire's the self-declared cleanup crew for the trans community. However, his criticism of the crazy shit TRAs do is toothless because he believes truscum/transmed ideology so he can never get the issues at the root.

And for your final question, they're bi. It doesn't matter if a guy only likes ultra-feminine men with breast implants like Blaire. He is attracted to that man. He's bi.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I can't speak for all bi people, but it seems like him and I had a similar experience with our sexuality. We both thought we were monosexual (in his case, straight, in mine, lesbian) until we realized there was just a certain amount of femininity we were attracted to in either men or women, but it's very rare that men are actually that feminine.

That's really interesting. How were you able to figure that out? It's kinda sad to see that Joey seems to be in so much denial about naming his same sex attraction.

I'm not surprised by this video. Blaire's the self-declared cleanup crew for the trans community. However, his criticism of the crazy shit TRAs do is toothless because he believes truscum/transmed ideology so he can never get the issues at the root.

Totally agree.

[–]usehername 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

How were you able to figure that out?

Basically I just met a man who was feminine but still attracted to women and fit my type (for some odd reason, I have a very rigid "type" and it's the same for men and women). I'm in the South (U.S.) so that's rare lol.

[–]oofreesouloo⚡super lesbian⚡ 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Interesting! I'm a lesbian, but we seem quite alike! Just like you, I'm drawn a lot to femininity and besides that I seem to have a very rigid "type" (which I don't really like, but the heart likes what he likes I guess...). I somehow ressonated with your story in a different kind of way... I have an EXTREMELY hard time making friendships with guys and that's mainly because of 3 things: 1) Not attracted to them (so I'm not ever interested in them, not even in that way) and 2) Most men are masculine and I don't like masculinity and finally 3) I'm a woman and they're men so we will have our differences not only biologically speaking but psychologically speaking

I really struggle to make friendships with guys. But when I do they're NEVER the "typical masculine man" and, 9 times out of 10, my guy friends were feminine and even when they were not feminine, they were mostly gay or bi... Never a "typical straight dude" you see on the street. And I start seeing a pattern there 😅😂

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

Glad you could relate. Lol I agree on the friendship thing, but I can tolerate a little more masculinity from a friend than a partner. It kinda sucks because my interests and career field are totally male-dominated.

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

Huh, that's really interesting. Thanks for sharing!

[–]usehername 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're welcome. Thanks for providing content to the site. I think things are looking up after the whole Super thing.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No problem, and same!! :) I think between the launching of Lesbian and Gay News and the SuperStraight movement, we've seen a lot of fresh content. Last summer and fall I heard complaints from some people that we were posting too much stuff from Reddit, like low-hanging fruit type of TRA bullshit, but now there's so much new stuff that I feel like we'd be flooding the sub if it all got posted!

[–]usehername 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's fantastic. I do think that TRA stuff is important but definitely alongside some content that actually has some depth.

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think this Blair video is better, it covers the same topic, in more detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiFPIfN99N0

They talk about gyneandromorphophilia, which Blair and Joey agree is technically correct for him (as do I,) but they go with "straight" because it's "easier," without really explaining that. I don't get the sense that labeling things is that important to them. Two kinds of people in this world--those who obsess over taxonomies, and those that don't. Guess which one I am? =)

He's both GAMP because he's into Blair, and heterosexual as well, because he's dated women. Although sometimes het + GAMP turns into just only GAMP over time...

I don't think bisexual works, because if Joey, who's into women and trans women, is bi, then a guy who's into women and cis men presenting as men... well, they share a label but not a sexuality. This is a technical perspective. So, I mean, if this guy is bi, then we're looking at adding multiple, technical bi subtypes to cover those two cases. "Classic bi" and "paraphilic bi?"

"Not exclusively heterosexual" also works, if you want to frame it in the negative, since I think sexuality has to add up to 100%, not 120% or something like that. At least that's how I model it, but not being exclusively het does not necessarily put you into the bi category--assuming that means cis men, cis women.

You can't place furries, for example, on the Kinsey scale. Attraction to anthropomorphic animals, cartoon characters, does not fit in that model. Attempts to do so, assuming the Kinsey model is the only vaild one, is where you get weird answers about classification that nobody really agrees on. GAMP is close enough to typical sexuality that people try.

Society is really married to the Kinsey model, for lots of (IMHO, dumb and sometimes homophobic) reasons.

Adding in some societal thoughts... My opinion may have changed a little versus some prior comments I made about this topic.

Dude's not superstraight, and he's publicly on the record about that. Am I upset if he takes on a bisexual identity instead? Not really. He, and many others, are working under the false premise that the Kinsey model is the only way to look at the world. I think het and GAMP is correct for him, and he's out about that, so why not just go with it? In their own words, they're trying to solve for what's easy, and already understood by others, not what's technically correct. I personally value precision in language, and saying one thing when I really believe something else is just demoralizing--1984 style. At the same time, introducing new vocabulary, such as gyneandromorpophilia to such a fundamental question that we constantly have about other people--if they have a partner, who they are, if they could be a suitable partner for me--is just untenable to those sorts of discussions.

In some cases, I'm willing to take on paraphilic bi as bi, because from the outside looking it, it looks like plain old bi, so long as you're not privy to what's happening in the bedroom, which isn't anybody's business, anyways, nor do homophobes much care. This my societal, not technical perspective. I'd like the societal and technical perspective to be the same, but, alas.

I'm a little skeptical that I'll see people largely working under a broader model that captures more of the very real phenomena of human sexuality in my lifetime, so mislabeling is just kinda something I'm willing to live with.

GAMP is kinda just regarded as weird, freaky fetishism, thus "othered," but it appears Joey and Blaire are in a committed, monogamous, long-term sexual and romantic relationship. Good for them. It is however, homophobia, internalized or not, that in general Joey has to contend with.

All the other things that don't fit in Kinsey are fairly rare, and the practicality and utility of society using a different model, I'm not sure about that. Or even recognizing paraphilias as (sometimes) just another sexuality that's outside of a binary model. Let alone having the words for common paraphilias. (Reddit, their /r/all, I usually don't have to go very many pages deep before I see transwomen porn. "Women" with penises are really popular.)

Very few people are clambering for a new model, and I've seen some pretty sophisticated ones that'll probably never take hold. So we might just be stuck in this weird limbo.

Anyways, I covered a lot of ground and welcome discussion on these thoughts. I'm not married to them, but they're the best I've come up with so far. I think it's important to keep in mind when discussing this issue is that there are multiple things at play--what is this thing, technically, and how does it fit in society, rights movements, etc.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for the long, thoughtful comment (as always)!! That is all really fascinating. And thank you for sharing that video! I'm really surprised, I had absolutely no idea that Blaire knew what GAMP was and acknowledged that his fiance/boyfriend is GAMP. Really food for thought.

I don't have the energy right now to do justice to your comment, but I'm still thinking about it. :)

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

Ok. I'd like to take a stab at this topic, even though this is probably the murkiest, most uncertain topic I've ever argued over on saidit.

  • Definitions

  • Comparison of phenomena

  • Responding to comments

Definitions

Paraphilic

Paper about the DSM and its history of defining the word "paraphilia": https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093330?casa_token=U7lu4du7P84AAAAA:QtYgYN4ooP-6hk4Il5B4PHFvBzgHER51NqfYfuPuWmvvKG9gWhBJcNMpnWj6S3TwqLJRJjhRKOZ2

The authors write:

Blanchard (chair of the Paraphilias Subworkgroup for the DSM-5 Work Group on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders) suggested that the definition of the term paraphilia should be “Any powerful and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in copulatory or precopulatory behavior with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners” (Blanchard 2010a, p. 367). The final wording, however, that has been provided in DSM-5 is slightly wider in scope, in that a paraphilia is described as “an intense and persistent sexual interest other than sexual interest in genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners” (Am. Psychiatr. Assoc. 2013, p. 685); it is clarified later in the text that paraphilic interests are sometimes better conceptualized as preferential rather than intense.

paraphilia - an intense and persistent sexual interest OTHER THAN genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners

Note what is not mentioned in the definition of "paraphilia/paraphilic":

  • Ability to have monogamous relationships

  • Ability to have emotional connections with other people

  • Ability to be sexually aroused, in general

  • The sex of the participants involved (if any participants)

Etc.

Normophilic

"Normophilic" sexual arousal is only implicitly defined in the DSM-5-- as the opposite of "paraphilic". This seems to how it is also defined in other scientific literature that references the DSM-5, e.g.: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26797067/

These authors write:

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5), a sexual fantasy (SF) is paraphilic if it concerns activities outside the realm of "genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners" (normophilic).

normophilic - an intense and persistent sexual interest IN genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners

Comparison of phenomena

  • A. Being same-sex-attracted used to be considered paraphilic, back in the DSM II days, but is now considered normophilic.

  • B. Nowhere does it say, in either of these two definitions, "You can't be paraphilic if you're normophilic" or vice versa. It seems quite clear that it is possible for people to have some varying degrees of "paraphilia" and "normophilia", in any number of combinations.

Now, given (B), it seems entirely possible, in theory, that there exists (for example) a man who is accurately described by all of the following:

  1. Has normophilic arousal with regards to the female sex-- i.e. he has "an intense and persistent sexual interest IN genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting women" (woman = biologically female person, just so we're extra-clear...)

  2. Does NOT have normophilic arousal with regards to the male sex-- i.e. he does not have "an intense and persistent sexual interest IN genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting men" (man = biologically male person...)

  3. Has paraphilic arousal with regards to gynandromorph-ism-- i.e. he has "an intense and persistent sexual interest OTHER THAN genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners"

You might wonder, and this is where the arguments usually begin: "How the fuck can #2 and #3 be simultaneously true of this a person?"

Well, let's look at the definitions: "phenotypically normal" is the part that jumps out in regards to GAMP and relevance to the Blaire and Joey comments. And I think it's where the heart of all this disagreement about what is "bisexual" and what is not, lies.

phenotype - "the observable characteristics or traits of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment : the physical expression of one or more genes" (Merriam-Webster)

Google the phrase "phenotypically normal" and you'll get a bunch of papers referencing biological characteristics in humans.

Guess what they're not talking about...? They're not talking about clothes or makeup.

GAMP isn't just attraction to feminine men. It's attraction to SPECIFICALLY people who have a penis, and also female sex characteristics such as breasts.

These are two different phenomena:

  • A man is only attracted to very feminine women, and very feminine men. He has normophilic arousal regarding both sexes, and no paraphilic arousal. (Most people would call this "bisexual with a very specific type" or something.) He dates women who wear makeup. He dates men who wear makeup.

  • A man who is gynandromorphophilic (GAMP) is only attracted to men who have female sex characteristics. He also might be attracted to women.

This paper defines GAMP as:

Erotic interest in natal males who have female-typical physical characteristics (e.g. breasts) while retaining a penis

Responding to comments

Bisexuality is the presence of same-sex and opposite-sex attraction, no other conditions or stipulations or anything. A GAMP man is attracted to "shemales" as the paper puts it. I suppose this brings us back to the argument in this thread, which is that "GAMP men are just a specific type of bisexual men" and that sort of repeats the same point that you (GatitoMalo) made:

well, they share a label but not a sexuality. This is a technical perspective. So, I mean, if this guy is bi, then we're looking at adding multiple, technical bi subtypes to cover those two cases. "Classic bi" and "paraphilic bi?"

Now I have talked my way into the same issue you are stuck with, lol:

I'm a bit perturbed that no one has pointed out how there isn't a consensus, and how that could be a problem. Do you really want to take on some paraphilias under LGB? T, in the case of AGP is a paraphilia. In some sense, paraphiles have already snuck in the back door. Also under "asexuality" as well--some asexual-identified people are exclusive paraphiles (who correctly surmise that since they are not interested in the sine qua non act of sex that they are different that het/homo/bisexuals, subsequently the asexual identification.) Gyneandromorphophilia is technically a paraphilia. Lots of people here are saying that's bisexual. Some dissent, but nobody's talking about that.

I am sick of the word "valid" but I'll just say... GAMP men are as valid as bisexual men. But, regarding whether or not GAMP men actually are bisexual men, just because they are GAMP (and, for the purposes of this discussion I'm assuming also, attracted to women)...

I guess I have some questions remaining about GAMP men. Particularly:

  • Does GAMP attraction require that the stimulation/target be a natal male? The alternative being: A man who is attracted to "shemales" but anyone could dress up as a female and fulfill that paraphilic fantasy, e.g. a woman with a dildo and breasts.

Because if a GAMP guy is like, "Yes, only natal males will do, and ONLY natal males who have breasts and wear dresses." then, I have to say, that does sound like "paraphilic bisexual". By the most literal, basic sense of the term bisexual: same-sex attracted. If their partner's sex being male is a requirement, then... yeah, I guess I would say that's bisexual. (Option 1)

BUT... if a GAMP guy is like, "No, it's the idea of shemales, anyone who looks close enough will do, I don't care about their actual sex," then I have to say, that person does not sound bisexual. Because same-sex attraction is not a fundamental or mandatory part of their sexual orientation. (Option 2)

I was under the impression that Option 2 described GAMP, but... now I'm not so sure.

Returning to the video. Ultimately, we can argue about whether or not Joey, Blaire's partner/fiance, is an example of a man like that, but we don't know him so we can't say for sure what is actually the case with him.

However, if we take him and Blaire at their word that he actually does have GAMP, and is not just gay or bisexual and in denial... then it sounds like he is a good example of this.

Finally I'll add. Yes, if "Option 1" that I described above is the case-- then there are some interesting implications of what this means for the LGB movement. But let's not open that can of worms yet.

Does that help? Lol. Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

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

Ok. ...take a stab at this topic,.. probably the murkiest, most uncertain topic...on saidit.

Don't let me drag you into it if you're unwilling... there is some futility in taking too much of a deep-dive on these things.

Now I have talked my way into the same issue you are stuck with, lol:

Yeah, welcome to my personal hell. =) I mean, in a different year, I probably wouldn't really care, it would just remain an intellectual curiosity, but the trans issue has just got me all worked up. I might need a break. I guess, what's the end goal here? 100% consensus among everybody? I won't be getting that. There's no authority we can go ask about this stuff. Experts, yes. Authorities, no. For me, it's sense-making, it's sometimes intellectual masturbation, and does have somewhat to do with the trans thing--which we all agree on why that's important. We all want harm reduction. I'm all over the place on this subsaidit, but I'm here for harm reduction and I reject trying to accomplish that with untruths. Just my moral principles.

The content between these two quotes above--you did a lot of work, it is consistent with my knowledge on the topic and I just wanted to take a moment to appreciate that. I'll circle back with some comments at the end.

"The most literal, basic sense of the term bisexual--same-sex attraction--as a fundamental or mandatory part of their sexual orientation."

Okay, let's have that be the litmus test. It's workable. It's as back-to-basics as we can get, and seems to be the way that lots of other people in this thread are treating it. A trans woman is fundamentally, inherently male, nobody is in disagreement on that. (So the outcome of that is that GAMP constitutes same-sex attraction and thus passes the exact same-sex attraction litmus test as any other LGB. We'll leave what that means aside for the moment, but the implications are very far from trivial. I would be quickly relying on reductio ad absurdum to treat that topic.) Framing it in the negative, that a person who is attracted to literal both sexes wouldn't have "same-sex attraction" is untenable.

So, now I can move on to consider your two frames.

Does GAMP attraction require that the stimulation/target be a natal male?

I think most gyneandromorphs are natal men, because there are a bunch of trans women. There's androgen insensitivity syndrome in XY. Extreme virulization ("It's a BOY!") in 46XX I believe happens, like severe cases of congenital adrenal hyperplasia, but IIRC, there are no male gonads. (Great. Another can of worms. Do intersex count for bisexuality?)

Short answer, no, I don't think GAMP requires a specific criteria, just a specific form.

I hate to do this to you, but if you meander over to Reddit and have a looksie at the ahem topically relevant material, you'll probably be able to get the best handle on it. Look for consistent thematic elements such as erect penis, or not erect penis, or type of sexual activity depicted, how much of a "surprise" the penis is, for instance. Things like that. Nobody there is asking how the GAM came to be. Comments are like "Please higher powers 🙏🙏 once, just once." Porn can be instructive. Also, take note of subscriber count and compare to other more "normal" porn subreddits. That'll make your eyebrows go right up.

So I guess that answers the issue of option 2? The real or perceived sex is irrelevant. It's people who look like women who have penises.

In some sense, GAMPs are clocking GAMs as women. They comments don't say "nice cock, man." They read: "such a beautiful woman." Of course, we have to factor in wokeness, but wokeness seems to be suspended on porn subreddits sometimes. The presence of the penis isn't informing their brain--no, that's a dude, you don't like dudes. And they don't like dudes. They're stuck in some weird halfway point with their lizard brain trying to figure out if that's a viable sexual partner, it short-circuits and they get an erection. But in another sense, they very well recognize that that is a penis, and women don't have those, but look, clearly this here, that's a woman, see? breasts, long hair, wide hips...

And now I feel even more confused. I started this. There may be some very fundamental flaw in my overall reasoning that's caused coming to concrete conclusions untenable... and this is how you get people thinking postmodernism is a good thing. Not giving up yet. I may need to sit down and do some heavy philosophizing about this, but if I come up with a solution, I'm fairly sure it'll be crazy and incommunicable.

...not mentioned in the definition of "paraphilia/paraphilic": Ability... The sex of the participants involved (if any participants)

Right. Collected an anecdote yesterday of somebody who's into doors with multiple, apocalypse-level locks. (https://old.reddit.com/r/BDSMcommunity/comments/m4amzv/my_fetish_doors_with_heavy_locks/) Yeah, if we stop focusing so much on sexuality for a minute, and look at the relationship aspect of things, that in some sense could constitute "bisexuality." This is how the American Psychological Association defines it, and they're doing it for reasons of trying to help people. "Enduring Sexual OR romantic OR emotional bonding."

Nowhere does it say, in either of these two definitions, "You can't be paraphilic if you're normophilic" or vice versa. It seems quite clear that it is possible for people to have some varying degrees of "paraphilia" and "normophilia", in any number of combinations.

Exactly. This isn't given enough treatment. I was over on Reddit looking at a "Trans/Sissy Hypno" porn "recovery" subreddit the other day. They're framing it as an addiction, and the "porn made them do it." That's a pretty good defense mechanism if you don't want to admit to yourself that you're paraphilic, in this case, AGP/GAMP cluster. (Let alone being aware of the concept of atypical sexuality.) Some posters were adamant that they were able to kick their "habit" and that anyone who tries hard enough should be able to as well. Well if that person was only 10% paraphilic, of course they're going to be able to have that sort of outcome. Then somebody who's got 90% of their sexuality wrapped up in a paraphilia is going to feel like complete shit that they can't kick their addiction that might be more intrinsic than they want to believe. Harmful! (The GC crowd tends hold the "porn made them do it" mentality.) I see this problem pop up in all sorts of paraphilic sexual subcultures is a variety of ways. They don't recognize that while they may have some sexual interest in common, they're not all the same.

Being same-sex-attracted used to be considered paraphilic, back in the DSM II days, but is now considered normophilic.

Yeah, but if you look at the vote, it wasn't a clean sweep in the APA. They kept ego-dystonic for a version or two to tide the "no" vote over. (You have a similar thing with the distinction in version 5 with paraphilia and paraphilic disorder.) They may have removed homosexuality in part because they realized they couldn't "treat" it, and that reflected poorly on their organization. They did recognize that stigmatization as a disorder was a source of harm, both for SSA people and people who wanted to point to the "good book" and point out it was a disorder.

"I would say if one could start from scratch, ignore all the history of removing homosexuality from the DSM, normal sexuality is whatever is related to reproduction. Now you have everything else. I would distinguish between behaviors which are anomalous and benign vs. those that are malignant. So homosexuality would be not normal but benign. Whereas something like serious dangerous sadism would be a malignant variation." - Blanchard https://www.vice.com/en/article/ypp93m/heres-how-the-guy-who-wrote-the-manual-on-sex-talks-about-sex

Other researchers share this opinion. Paraphrasing Cantor, he said that he would lump all non-procreative sexuality under the same umbrella, the exact same rights movement, including pedophilia. Just that some people get to practice their sexuality and others do not. Yeah, he really did say that. I should have bookmarked that, but I didn't dream it up. (I did mention absurdum earlier.) It is however, a solution, but one that'll never work in the real world. Maybe in the United Federation of Planets.

Normo vs para...

It's darn hard to come up with a taxonomy of what constitutes sex, and a logical argument as to why one type of sexual activity should be more important or "truer" than another, beyond procreation. It sounds easy right off the bat, but if you start out surveying people what acts constitute sex and which don't, you get wildly different answers. We can paint a general picture. Oral sex isn't procreative, but it is called oral sex.

Well, let's look at the definitions: "phenotypically normal" is the part that jumps out in regards to GAMP and relevance to the Blaire and Joey comments. And I think it's where the heart of all this disagreement about what is "bisexual" and what is not, lies.

Certainly. Also my comment about intersex, not that I'm trying to complicate things, which I do, just to perhaps re frame the issue to look at it another way.

RC, I'm glad you're here. I'm happy chatting with you about this stuff, but don't let me drive you crazy. Hang out with me and you'll learn about people getting off on door locking mechanisms. But this is like exactly my point. I don't know if other people here really truly understand how crazy human sexuality can be. It's nuts! If society understood how crazy sexuality can be, maybe they would twig that a man in a dress might just be getting off on that sort of thing, and not accept "woman trapped in a man's body."

Okay, now I KNOW I need to take a break. APPARENTLY there is a 10k character limit here. So I'm gonna go shave off some from quotes.

[–]ThismightMakeyoumad 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Love her

[–]latuspodSuper Straight 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This really seems to be about labels more than anything. And it is complicated by the fact that sexial orientation is a thing, and sexual preferences are another thing on top of that.

Is bisexuality anything that isn't 100 percent heterosexual or homosexual? That makes sense really. But sexual preferences make that increasingly complicated. It could be that men who are attracted to transwomen are bisexual, but not attracted to typical men at all, or it could be some internalized homophobia. Now I wouldn't call either of those things straight, but it makes sense that that person would want to identify as such.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Using her pronouns, no, I'm not shocked. (Nor am I going to train myself out of using the requested pronouns, certainly not for someone who makes a sincere effort to transition (yes, she talks about why she didn't get bottom surgery and her thoughts about it seem pretty rational); I live in a very woke place and am not interested in being abused should I slip up.) I've been watching her videos for at least a year now and this is right in line with her general sentiments.

In answer to your request to hear our opinions, mine begins and ends with this: Let's please not use "bisexual" on anything that isn't what the word means. Constantly muddying the waters for us just helps TRAs and hurts us, just like it hurts lesbians when "lesbian" is misused. A bisexual person isn't going to date a trans person; "bisexual people who are in the closet and don't have a paraphilia but date transgender people of the same sex" is not a thing. Let's please not make it one. That person is pansexual or something else.

[–]AngryBi 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Thank you for saying that! I hate it that even here people think they can redefine bisexuality to mean something it doesn't. It's clear it's still not seen as real sexuality.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Not ceding one inch of ground on this (and the OP is not the enemy, incidentally, this is more for people still letting "bisexual" be subject to debate more broadly). If it's about whoever is the loudest wins, then we have to be loud enough to keep what's already ours. <3

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Using her pronouns, no, I'm not shocked.

Oh, that's totally fair. I just specified what I was going off of at the beginning of the post for context. I feel you @ living in an aggressively woke area and being afraid of slipping up.

A bisexual person isn't going to date a trans person; "bisexual people who are in the closet and don't have a paraphilia but date transgender people of the same sex" is not a thing.

Aren't there examples of this happening, though? I could have sworn someone posted about this recently, but maybe I am mixing things up. I have certainly heard of someone who is gay, not bisexual, avoiding internalized homophobia via identifying as trans or dating trans.

A bisexual person isn't going to date a trans person... That person is pansexual or something else.

I completely agree. However I have actually gotten shit for suggesting that before, on this subsaidit lol, so I was trying to phrase it in a way that would provoke discussion.

I have heard people go "if you have a fetish that makes you want to date only same-sex trans people then you're bisexual" and I just don't know if I agree with that, that seems like it's lumping together two very different things. u/GatitoMalo described it well in his comment.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have actually gotten shit for suggesting that before, on this subsaidit lol, so I was trying to phrase it in a way that would provoke discussion.

Please tag me and I'll come to your aid if this happens again! I'm serious. :-)

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

Well, maybe I am misinterpreting but honestly some of the other comments on this post seem at odds, for example:

https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7j14/blaire_white_says_in_video_supporting/sbo2

https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7j14/blaire_white_says_in_video_supporting/sbof

I think they are suggesting that the guy is bisexual and in denial, at least the first comment, and also that "attracted to women + transwomen-only male people" is a type of bisexuality.

edit: Also thank you for the offer! Will keep in mind :)

[–]HelloMomo 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

it doesn't make them bisexual, but they are not, clearly-- 110% percent straight.

If you define "bisexual" in the way that is popular right now (aka anyone who's even a tiny bit bi) then you have an awful lot of people with very different experiences categorized under the banner "bisexual". Which I would assume is difficult for bisexuals. Like how do you even build a community when "bi" can mean so many different things?

So if someone is technically bi, but not like... routinely bi, and they want to call themselves something else, I at least see where they're coming from. Not condemning or condoning it, but I'm just saying I get it. I think using the words heteroflexible and homoflexible more would be useful for clear communication in this case.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

And you know I <3 you I just can't stand watching "bisexual" be constantly changed from what it means. For any reason.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Aw, <3 you too 😊

Yeah that makes sense! To be honest, I feel like I sometimes see very different conceptualizations of "bisexual" even on this sub and it kinda confuses me, haha. I've thought about making a discussion post about it but that may likely piss off a bunch of people, and bisexuals get a lot of shit anyway so I wouldn't want it to turn into bi bashing.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Probably best not to stir that up just now, I agree; you've already been in the trenches a lot this week. I appreciate you trying to make sense of it. My position is unwavering, because that's the only thing that can preserve some sanity and safety for us.

[–]PeakingPeachEaterfemale♀ | detrans🦎 | eater of peaches 🍑 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

First, wanted to say the Kinsey Scale is outdated. They use terms like "incidentally homosexual" or "predominantly heterosexual", "non-sexual"(meaning asexual) along with "equally homosexual and heterosexual" without specifically saying BISEXUAL. Really all that graph means is this: Updated Kinsey Scale{except replace bisexual - mostly straight with bisexual preference to opposite sex and replace bisexual mostly gay with bisexual preference to same sex}.

Really, B.White's boyfriend/fiancé or whatever is bisexual who happens to have a fetish for transwomen(MtF).{His BF/fiancé already admits to watching a lot of transsexual porn...}

Most bisexuals aren't attracted to transexuals, it's just a small few. It's pretty much a preference or even a fetish...

Using terms like "pansexual" or "queer" is divisive and useless. They're basically bisexuals with a preference or fetish for transexuals and with a political agenda if they associate with TRAs.

Basically the equivalent of heterosexual people dating the opposite sex, but their partner and identifies as the opposite "gender"(ex. Straight man with transman{FtM}, the straight man is still into opposite sex because his GF is biologically a woman, it doesn't make him suddenly "gay". Some men like masculine women and some women like feminine men. It's all just preference) and vice-versa.

I thought up terms of such as TIBs(Trans Inclusive Bisexuals) who date...everyone and TEBs(Trans Exclusive Bisexuals), bisexuals who exclusively date ONLY transsexuals. Lol. But eh, idk if other terms are really necessary. Just call them TRA bisexuals and it's easier to tell the difference between them and us.

Or I guess now we have adopted #SuperBisexuals so they'll leave us alone.

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

I thought up terms of such as TIBs(Trans Inclusive Bisexuals) who date...everyone and TEBs(Trans Exclusive Bisexuals), bisexuals who exclusively date ONLY transsexuals.

Sure, why not? We're looking at real, distinct phenomena. It just becomes a semantic pain in the ass. Scientist me says have a word for every taxon. Societal me says lump 'em together if they have a significant experiential overlap receiving social disapprobation in the public sphere of life. Then I remember the trans activists being a right pain in the ass, and how some people are incapable of respecting boundaries even when they've got a few things in common.

Most bisexuals aren't attracted to transexuals, it's just a small few. It's pretty much a preference or even a fetish...

Are they bisexual-identified because they're into transsexuals? This is what I've seen. Usually heterosexual and gyneandromorphophilic men (they don't like cis men.) They say: well, I like women with vulvas. And I like women with penises. Women have vulvas. Men have penises. Thus, I must be bisexual! Or, at least they realize that they're not exclusively heterosexual, and thus you get a bisexual identification out of that.

A prolific participant here made note that in the case of bisexual men, it does not matter that they like women and they like men. In the eyes of society, it's the fact that if they like penises, just even in the slightest, then they must be gay. This is the landscape.

So, I revisited this mostly-dead thread today, kinda hoping /u/reluctant_commenter would have something for me (maybe this re-framing will help,) and I also have had some time to think about it since. I'm a bit perturbed that no one has pointed out how there isn't a consensus, and how that could be a problem. Do you really want to take on some paraphilias under LGB? T, in the case of AGP is a paraphilia. In some sense, paraphiles have already snuck in the back door. Also under "asexuality" as well--some asexual-identified people are exclusive paraphiles (who correctly surmise that since they are not interested in the sine qua non act of sex that they are different that het/homo/bisexuals, subsequently the asexual identification.) Gyneandromorphophilia is technically a paraphilia. Lots of people here are saying that's bisexual. Some dissent, but nobody's talking about that.

I'm not of the mindset that if somebody's sexuality is atypical, that they should be sent to the gulag. That's absurd. I firmly maintain that sexual interests are not volitional. It's just a question of whether or not they belong in LGB, or their own movement. T has bolted itself onto LGB successfully because of the overlap the two groups have, which is to say, something to do with sex, sexuality and discrimination. Weaponized empathy?

I made the point above that some paraphilic sexuality is going to look like bisexuality from the outside, and these people will be understood by laypersons to be bisexual, because they know het, homo, and bi, and that's it. People taking on partners of both sexes, because their sexuality is comprised predominantly by a paraphilia, such as sadomasochism, and they are thus less or not at all concerned with the sex of their partners. I say "not at all" in the same way you say "exclusive." Paraphiles must be understood on a spectrum, where as they exist between just a little paraphilic to exclusively paraphilic. Consequently these sorts of people are subject in the public sphere of their life to the same or similar prejudices as run-of-the-mill LGB folk. If two men go out to a romantic dinner together, what difference does it make if they're going to have sex later that night or flog each other instead?

Another way to frame this question is: would a man, who's only into trans women, who rejects trans ideology and understands they are gyneandromorphophilic, who's partner rejects trans ideology, and who realizes that they are Homosexual Transsexual, which is a mental disorder sometimes successfully treated via transitioning--would these people be welcome here? E.g. Joey and Blaire.

What exactly, is the outcome of the proclamations here that Joey is bisexual? Is it ignorance of paraphilias? It it the insistence of seeing the world as only gay, straight, or bisexual? The "how" matters, just as much as the "who," to really understand things. But is our society really concerned with the "how," or just the "who?" Is what happens in the bedroom irrelevant for LGB? Or is it who you're sitting down at dinner with, for all the world to see?

Am I weaponizing your empathy?