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] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 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]  (10 children)

[deleted]

    [–]reluctant_commenter 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 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...

    [–]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.

    [–]stunaep 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    And hetero/bihet men and women have been this way since at least the beginning of written history. So it's not overly-broad.