ColonizationHow can I date and find a boyfriend if I am a gay transgender man who doesn't pass...

submitted by ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah from (imgur.com)

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (18 children)

[removed]

    [–][deleted] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

    Straight females only need to do the bare minimum effort of opening their legs and straight men would be queuing to get a piece of her pussy but yet they decide to chase after men who aren't attracted to them. Goes to show equally disgustingly fetishistic and homophobic women are, yet radfems deny this ever happens

    This may very well be the most disturbing thing I've ever seen someone say in our sub. It's so disgusting and disconnected from reality, I can't even formulate a response.

    It's right up there with "LGB Alliance are pedophiiles".

    Well done in earning your ban this time, I guess.

    [–][deleted]  (16 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]reluctant_commenter 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

      That guy was suggesting that "all women are fetishistic and homophobic," which is bullshit and an overly broad generalization. Do you honestly think that's a reasonable statement to make? As a counterexample, there are a lot of women on this sub who aren't homophobic or fetishistic...

      [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

      Not sure what the user before you said, they deleted their comments and account before I got here.

      People are focusing on the "fetishistic and homophobic women" statement ... maybe it's because you and the other user who deleted their account/comments were the only ones to speak up. I couldn't even formulate a response when I saw it, at least the two of you did, so thank you.

      That statement was a part of the problem, as well as bringing RadFems into the conversation for literally no reason. Sound familiar to anyone?

      It's interesting to me that no one is thinking twice about "straight females only need to do the bare minimum effort of opening their legs and straight men would be queuing to get a piece of her pussy but yet they decide to chase after men who aren't attracted to them". It's stereotyping men as sex-crazed opportunists, and women as only validated by being fucktoys.

      Imagine if someone came into our sub and said:

      bi males only need to do the bare minimum effort of opening their legs and gay men would be queuing to get a piece of his bussy but yet they decide to chase after women who aren't attracted to them

      Change the sexualities around to one of LGB, and there would be a riot about homophobia/biphobia, and how wrong it is to make such broad, sweeping statements. If it's not OK to generalize LGB like that, it's also not OK to generalize straight people either.

      [–]reluctant_commenter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      That statement was a part of the problem, as well as bringing RadFems into the conversation for literally no reason. Sound familiar to anyone?

      I think the guy I was replying to didn't realize that there is a troll on this sub who keeps making accounts like this, so out of context, they probably thought a ban for a comment was unreasonable. I think that's where the confusion came from.

      It's interesting to me that no one is thinking twice about

      I did actually think about it and it bothered me, lol. But I wasn't quite sure how to address it, so I just picked a different broad generalization to start with. I grew up hearing a lot of sexist comments like that myself, so I sometimes find it hard to articulate what specifically is logically unreasonable about them when I see them.

      Change the sexualities around to one of LGB, and there would be a riot about homophobia/biphobia, and how wrong it is to make such broad, sweeping statements. If it's not OK to generalize LGB like that, it's also not OK to generalize straight people either.

      Completely agree.

      [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      I think the guy I was replying to didn't realize that there is a troll on this sub who keeps making accounts like this, so out of context, they probably thought a ban for a comment was unreasonable.

      That *could* be true.

      Or it could be yet one more new alt account intended to stir up negativity and divisiveness, but when regular real people had answers and opinions, gave up on that new persona since it wasn't getting anywhere.

      I mean, it was a brand new user and you responded in a reasonable way, and then they deleted everything ... even their own account.

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

      Maybe he didn’t mean it they way it’s been interpreted sometimes we type quicker than we think or accidentally omit a word. I think maybe a chat to the person rather than block. Just gives a bad impression.

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

      I do think the comment should have been removed per the rules. But I hear you; I'm not sure if you are aware, but there is a troll who has made tons of accounts and keeps harassing this sub; that comment sounded suspiciously like that troll, so that might've been why the account got banned.

      [–]stunaep 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

      Goes to show equally disgustingly fetishistic and homophobic women are

      "all women are fetishistic and homophobic,"

      Does not compute.

      [–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

      Goes to show equally disgustingly fetishistic and homophobic women are

      That, my friend, is called a "broad generalization" and that statement does imply that women, generally speaking, are "fetishistic and homophobic" by nature. Which does technically allow for exceptions but it IS, in fact, stereotyping and applying a generalization to all women.

      The sidebar says don't make broad generalizations. That's one of them. I'm calling it out, because it's bullshit.

      Does that make a little more sense?

      [–]stunaep 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      It is not bullshit lmao. Most males are that way as well so there is no reason to take offense. If there are zero generalizations allowed how are we supposed to think? I guess all trans people can't be excluded from LGB because that is a generalization then, right?

      [–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      I guess all trans people can't be excluded from LGB because that is a generalization then, right?

      That's not a "broad generalization," that's a boundary. Stating, "Hey, we think that LGB people should be able to have our own groups that aren't centered around trans issues" makes no assumptions or judgments about the characteristics of the people involved; it is simply expression of a desire (and a reasonable one at that!).

      A "broad generalization" is a statement about the fundamental characteristics of a group and this type of all-or-nothing, "black and white thinking" statement statements is not conducive to critical thinking. It's commonly described as a cognitive distortion (see the "overgeneralization" section). People don't have to use cognitive distortions in order to be able to think!

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

      https://researchtopractice.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/the-importance-of-generalizations-in-social-studies/

      [–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

      That article supports my point. (Not sure if you linked it with the goal of rebuttal, or if you were just linking it because it's relevant.) It provides some guidelines about what sort of generalizations ought to be made, because not all generalizations are made the same; some are accurate, and some are not! Again-- I'm talking about "broad generalizations," that is, overly broad generalizations.

      Note that the article distinguishes between context-specific facts and context-generalizable concepts:

      The authors suggest that a critical component to understanding the need for generalizations is the ability to discern between fact and concept.

      When someone takes a fact that's time-bounded or location-bounded and suggests that it applies everywhere, that's an example of an overly-broad generalization.