Men's IssuesVICE - "The Straight Men Who Have Sex with Trans Women" (i.e, gay men who lie to themselves)

submitted by BEB from vice.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I would love to have your hypothetical machine, that would be a lot of fun to do science with. I'm going first, by the way. You also know something about aetiology. This makes me happy.

You're saying that the only thing that matters for labeling sexual orientation is the "who:" men, women, or both as erotic targets. This works wonders if everyone all shared the same, universal "how," I think we can agree on that. Of course, the overwhelming majority of people do have that same "how," it's sex, and this makes it a useful model, one that works a great deal of the time, where the only variability, the only details, needed to be understood is hetero, homo, or bisexual. When faced with atypical sexuality, however, I feel it falls down.

Yes, I am trying to incorporate the concept of "how" into sexual orientation. Aetiology is interesting, but I'm more concerned with the particular activities here. (Let me just break with the conversation for a minute and consider a hypothetical scenario between me and another agent.) A completely valid criticism of my doing so is along the lines of: "Stop trying to redefine the definition of sexual orientation to include weird, freaky fetishes." Paraphilias. With the unspoken consequence that a paraphilia belongs in LGBTQ+, and should be regarded, in all contexts, as being the same thing as LGB. I am not trying to make this implicit claim, and I don't want that outcome either. I do regard AGP, and depending on the individual, its consequent pseudobisexuality as being the same quality of thing as LGB sexual orientation, yet holistically much different than your run-of-the-mill LGB person. If, however, someone insists that autogynephilic pseudobisexuality is bisexuality, then they have backdoored paraphilias into LGB and have ended up done the very thing that I am accused of trying to do, because of the reductionist model they are using. "How" matters.

There are other paraphilias that do not revolve around sex, whatsoever. Pants-on sexual gratification, as it were. Sex can be incorporated in a paraphilic act, yes, and it often depends on the participants relative interests in sex, or the paraphilia. Sometimes the paraphilic interest is all they have and the maleness or femaleness of the person isn't often a criteria. Sex can sometimes be the vehicle for a paraphilia, but the interest in sex is not the thing-in-and-of-itself.

In some fashion, we can attempt to "other" paraphilias and consider them different than the normal sexual interests, putting them into distinct groups, but still regarding them of having the same quality. I think there is a reasonable way to go about doing this, but if we insist on just seeing the world in terms of the "who," giving the "who" all the gravitas, then you're going to inadvertently scoop paraphilias up largely into the bisexual and asexual categories, and give them a home in LGBTQ+.

The gay rights movement wasn't/isn't about tying people up and beating them for sexual gratification. I would endeavor to keep it that way, but overly simplistic categorization of sexuality could cause trouble in this regard. If paraphilic interests become more prevalent, then expect to be overrun. Right now, they're still a minority. However, the social landscape is ever-changing, and the people who are out there already may just come calling. Which isn't me trying to deprive them of a social movement, they just need to have their own.

I know this smacks of pinkhairsexual rhetoric, trying to change the definitions, invent new words, but sometimes you have to beat people at their own game.

I see your definition of orientation, but what's your rationale with regards to the outcome of regarding things as sexual orientations?

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You're saying that the only thing that matters for labeling sexual orientation is the "who:" men, women, or both as erotic targets.

My position is that the sexual targets being male/female is the only thing that matters for labeling sexual orientation as it refers to the sex orientation. It’s the same way the color of a thing is the only thing that matters for labeling the color of it. This thing could have other properties that are far more important than the color but those properties are still not relevant for the color labeling. Therefor other properties of sexuality can indeed be very important but it’s not relevant for the sexual orientation classification. If we lack terminology for other important properties of sexuality then we can make new terms for those without redefining important terms for other things.

they have backdoored paraphilias into LGB

I personally don’t really care if paraphilic homosexuals/bisexuals are in the LGB per se as I don’t think LGB people are immune to having paraphilias or should be kicked out for having one. I am more concerned about the males and the male-attracted people who are backdoored into lesbian spaces. These people are often paraphilic but that’s not reason I am against their presence in lesbians spaces, it’s because they are not lesbians to begin with. Women who are exclusively attracted to females taking testosterone would be paraphilic women I don’t really mind in lesbian spaces as they are still lesbians (as not being attracted to males shows female sex specificity). I don’t think lesbian spaces should be about to lesbian paraphilias though or try to cater it.

yet holistically much different than your run-of-the-mill LGB person

You can specify what type of bisexual this person is or use other terms than sexual orientation to describe their sexuality.

There are other paraphilias that do not revolve around sex, whatsoever. Pants-on sexual gratification, as it were.

Pants-on sexual gratification with the use of another person is sex in my opinion. If the paraphilia doesn’t involve any males or females at all and the person doesn’t have any normophilic attractions to male/female people either then that person is asexual with a paraphilia.

Sometimes the paraphilic interest is all they have and the maleness or femaleness of the person isn't often a criteria.

Some bisexual people find both male and female bodies sexy, others say they don’t really care about the particularities of the bodies and find other criteria sexy so it’s not that unusual even for normophilic bisexual people to not have the maleness or femaleness of the person as a criteria either. For monosexuals though being of a particular sex is always a requirement, that's what makes them monosexual.

I can see your concern about LGB being made to be about parahilias though but I am personally not willing to sacrifice the definition of sexual orientation in order to prevent paraphilic groups wanting the LGB to be about their paraphilia. Because if we redefine homosexuality in such a way it allows the inclusion of opposite-sex attraction (paraphilic or not) then I consider “homosexual” groups useless either way as it no longer refer to homosexuals in the first place. So I would want a solution I can live with.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Because if we redefine homosexuality in such a way it allows the inclusion of opposite-sex attraction

Okay, we're having a major communication breakdown, because I never suggested this. I was trying to shore up homosexual such that it's only specifically the activity of sex with same sex people. I was trying to eliminate people from the definition of homosexual, but especially bisexual, that are engaging with their same sex because of a fetish. Not that they're homosexual and incidentally happen to have one, which I don't care about. Different directions.

If you want to think fetishes should count for LGB membership, well we've got the T, already, why just not keep that? Because the majority of trans women are motivated by autogynephilia, a paraphilia where a male is sexually and romantically interested in himself as a woman. It is in a sense, heterosexuality inverted onto the holder. It's an atypical sexuality. On the basis of this atypical sexuality, these men, and their supporters, consider them LGBT.

This isn't some hypothetical. This is real, today. We can piss and moan about how they're destroying women's everything. How nasty they are online. All true. But if you don't have the philosophical groundwork laid out for why we're kicking them out, not just because they're a right pain in the ass, then suffer the consequences of the next group.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I was trying to shore up homosexual such that it's only specifically the activity of sex with same sex people.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you want to define homosexuality so that paraphililic attractions isn’t part of the equation, no? The consequence is that it allows allows opposite-sex attracted people to be classified as homosexuals. So paraphilic lesbians who are exclusively attracted to female people but in a paraphilic way would be excluded from the lesbian category, instead paraphilic bisexual women where the opposite-sex attraction is paraphilic are included as paraphilic opposite-sex attraction here wouldn’t exclude anyone from being categorized as homosexual. The homosexual category wouldn’t be saved from paraphilic inclusion either way then, the only difference is whether these paraphilic people would be lesbian or bisexual. Personally I see including non-lesbians as lesbians are a bigger problem than including paraphilic people per se. In my experience paraphilic lesbians seem more likely to understand that their paraphilia makes them different from other lesbians and are less likely to expect normophilic lesbians to be like them while lesbian-identifying bisexuals (who may or may not be paraphilic) often do expect lesbians to share their bisexuality, aka think lesbians who aren’t male-attracted like them must be bigots.

Because the majority of trans women are motivated by autogynephilia

And if they are male-attracted they would be bisexual or homosexual and if they are AGP and heterosexual then they aren’t LGB. I think male-attracted male AGPs can face same-sex discrimination due their same-sex attraction, someone who is against same-sex activities probably doesn’t care if the male-attracted males are AGP or not. But I understand you right you think it’s problematic to include male-attracted male AGPs in male bisexual groups, do you fear that they would make male bisexuality all about their AGP then?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Well yeah, AGP face discrimination. Really, they do deserve a great deal of scrutiny and social disapprobation they have been receiving, but they want to call this discrimination instead. AGP who are having sex with men face all sorts of issues. Their admirers face issues. No doubts about it. I've never suggested they should be chucked in the gulag or something, just for being AGP or GAMP. They have a right to self-determination so long as they're not stepping on any one else. But people, please, we're trying to have a society over here, and if you want to be a part of that, you have to tell us who you are.

I understand you right you think it’s problematic to include male-attracted male AGPs in male bisexual groups, do you fear that they would make male bisexuality all about their AGP then?

I think AGP have a propensity of making everything about themselves. Perhaps if they were (collectively) more humble, then I could see them getting along. They do have some overlap, at the end of the day, it is men having sex with men. What I would do for practicality is thematically group sexual minorities into their own rights movements, and nothing would prevent dual membership, necessarily, nor would these groups have to be at war with each other. I would say that plain LGB have a cohesive goal. That's one group. Identity-based paraphilias like AGP and autoanthromorphozoophilia, that's another group. The sadomasochists can go hang out over there, etc.

With regard to the rest of the topic, I'm afraid we're conceptualizing of motivations for paraphilia and normal sex so fundamentally differently that we can't resolve at this point.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Well yeah, AGP face discrimination.

I referred to same-sex discrimination same-sex attracted AGPs might face for being same-sex attracted, not scrutiny for being AGP as that’s irrelevant to the LGB.

I think we should be able to recognize that paraphilic people can be homosexual/bisexual without centering these paraphilic people, the same way we can recognize murderers can be homosexual/bisexual without centering these murderers. The existence of homosexual/bisexual murders doesn’t mean LGB must put effort on ending the “discrimination” murderers face for being murderers though as that’s irrelevant to the LGB, so it’s same with paraphilic homosexuals/bisexuals, if the discrimination they face isn’t tied to their same-sex attraction then that discrimination isn’t a case for the LGB. We also shouldn't inaccurately put paraphilic people in categories they don’t belong to so a heterosexual AAP female who calls herself a "gay man" shouldn’t be put in the LGB at all, as she is not same-sex attracted in the first place.

I think AGP have a propensity of making everything about themselves

My guess is that the male-attracted AGPs who are the most likely to make a group all about themselves are those who want to be validated as "women" so if we allowed them to be part of a “men loving men” group they wouldn’t be very motivated to make this group all about themselves as they would see the membership itself as invalidating to them (speculating of course).

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Well yeah, AGP face discrimination.

I referred to same-sex discrimination same-sex attracted AGPs might face for being same-sex attracted, not scrutiny for being AGP as that’s irrelevant to the LGB.

This is the point I'm trying to make. A man who likes other men because he's a man and he finds men sexually appealing is different than a man who has autogynephilia and is instead trying to engage in woman-typical behavior to satisfy the sexually gratifying abstract idea that he's a woman, by having sex with men. I don't have a personal problem with this behavior, beyond the public health issue largely revolving around HIV.

Can you reduce it just down to men having sex with men? Sure, you can, but that kind of reductionalism has consequences, which I'm sure you agree with. The real issue that we're trying to debate is what the outcome of these semantics are. It has impacts as to which rights movement people belong to, and how they're going to get along with the rest of the people who were already there and have a legitimate heritage with it. What sort of deleterious consequences exist to threaten the legacy of that rights movement, and perhaps move everyone back a step, or worse.

A more plain example would be people who want to molest children, bolt themselves to LGBT, and subsequently destroy the whole enterprise. It is true that the majority of pedophilic men desire males, and if you reduce this down to same-sex attraction, and only treat that as the locus, you'll find yourself in a whole heap of trouble. Not that I want to lump AGP and child molestation into the same category, I think AGP can be ethically acted on, but you see the point.

That's an extreme example, but it is true of all sorts of paraphilias. If you want to reduce our entire rationales down to which sexes people are into with regards to their sex, and no other details, then you're potentially opening the floodgates. If that's what you want, then expect me to stand in your way.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

If you think we have a moral obligation to not include paraphilic people in the LGB then you should define homosexuality and bisexuality as exclusive to normophilic people, i.e, having a paraphilia should get a person excluded from the sexual orientation taxonomy altogether. I would respect that position for being coherent as that indeed would exclude all paraphilic people from the LGB. But here you seem argue it’s wrong to include paraphilic people, yet you don’t want to define sexual orientation as exclusive to normophilic people so in actuality you do want to include the paraphilic people, just in other categories by only counting their normophilic attractions in the taxonomy.

hat kind of reductionalism has consequences

And so does your reductionalism as we lose half of information if we can’t count the sex of the paraphilic attractions in the taxonomy. I am not against bisexual people refactoring bisexuality as they please, you do you. But when you want to redefine homosexuality then that negatively affects me and other homosexuals.

The main beneficiaries of your redefinition of homosexuality would be non-homosexual paraphilic people who would be miscategorized as homosexual as their opposite-sex attractions no longer excludes them if it’s paraphilic which might gratify the paraphilias themselves. Lesbian-identifying bisexual women with GAMP would find being miscategorized as lesbians validating to both their GAMP paraphilias and their male sexual partners. Lesbian-identifying bisexual women who have like role-playing lesbians who getting correctively raped by men due to submissive attraction to men would also find being miscategorized as lesbians as validating to their submissive kinks, this miscategorization would also gratify their male sexual partners who are into converting lesbians. The main losers of your redefinition would be the normophilic homosexuals as homosexuality would be redefined to a type of bisexuality by removing the monosexual requirement. If I have to be in the same category as male-attracted women even in the lesbian category I don’t see why we have a lesbian category at all, it would mainly be for those who have a kink for the label itself. We could just have one big joint lesbian/bisexual category then as there would be no real difference between bisexual and lesbian in this definition.

It is true that the majority of pedophilic men desire males

Is there a consensus that boys would get molested more than girls? Stats usually say girls get molested twice the male rate. Or do you mean the gay pedophiles are just better at controlling their desires than the straight pedophiles? Anyway, it’s not that unusual for a pedophile to only be into children of one sex, so why not call that sex specificity for what it is when it’s relevant? A straight pedophile is more specific than just pedophile and you are for specificity, no?

If you want to reduce our entire rationales down to which sexes people are into with regards to their sex

If you think bisexual is too big of a category then divide it to smaller categories. I am not against you being as granular as you want as long you don’t redefine homosexuality.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

homosexuality

People who desire only their same, age appropriate sex strictly on the basis of that sex and for the normal sex acts.

That's it. That's my definition of homosexuality. You're completely off the rails in your interpretation of my words, or you're deliberately trying to twist them.

Good day.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

People who desire only their same, age appropriate sex strictly on the basis of that sex and for the normal sex acts.

That is not the definition you have used in similar context as you think a man with GAMP can he heterosexual (which you have said elsewhere in this thread) which implies you think a woman with GAMP can be a lesbian unless you use a more sex specific definition for homosexuality than heterosexuality. Or maybe you have changed your stance since then, in that case I didn't know you had changed your stance on it.

EDIT: Or you mean this definition isn't meant to be exclusionary allowing this person to have a paraphilic opposite-sex attractions simultaneously and still be count as homosexual in this definition, then it leads to the problems I specified above.