all 6 comments

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

emphasizes not what someone ISN'T attracted to,

You can pretty it up all you want to but the essential problem still remains.

We will pretend someone is a made up gender if it makes them feel good. We will not fuck them. And we shouldn't apologize for not wanting to fuck them.

[–]Intuit 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If a person is like most people, there is a small subset of people in the world that they would fuck, much smaller than all people with one of the two genital configurations. It's not like most people are candidates even if they are superstraight. The 'phobes act like only superstraights are selective about who they fuck.

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

You write good stuff, Intuit. Here's a popular Bob Marley song for you

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

Supersexuals are attracted to the biological sex of an individual [...]. This by nature excludes trans people

It doesn't even exclude trans people, it just classifies them as they are than what they would like to imagine they are. Reproduction is funny like that, based on what will actually make babies.

[–]Ambik 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Good stuff, but I would somewhat question that it's a "new sexuality". It's a "new sexuality" in the sense of the invented term.

However, isn't it just what heterosexual used to mean before (1) some people wanting to change the definition of sexual orientation away from sex and make it "gender" based instead, and (2) the push to make it a social convention that TWAW etc ?

Sexual attraction has ALWAYS been based on biological sex, and people always understood this until relatively recent confusion.

It's therefore funny to see people try to deny the legitimacy of "super" sexuality, when it was always the real thing.

The most common argument that I have noticed that it's a trans phobic movement, is the implication that trans-women are "less female". Or the original video that they aren't "real women to me". That's in tension with the idea of TWAW. So that's one line of argument that needs to be countered. I gave my own ideas on that in a different thread.

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

"Trans women are real women" is a slogan of empowerment for most people, but the TRAs are now pushing it as literal. Words and definitions don't matter to them. The word jujitsu they pull in a debate is Olympic gold level, and if they can't counter an argument, they can always play the Transphobe card. It's gaslighting on a whole other level.

A woman is an adult human female with the reproductive system of her birth sex. This isn't transphobic, it's objective reality based on biology & physiology.

Woman noun an adult female human being.

Female adjective Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

Biology isn't transphobic.