all 6 comments

[–]jet199 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They are completely delusional

[–]goonmessiah 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

How about, they just don’t look right.

Men pretending they’re female is just gross, it’s unsettling to look at them. Women pretending they’re men is pathetic.

[–]soundsituation 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

"Don't let them tell you they aren't attracted to you!"

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Something tells me they are used to taking with women who will go around the subject and give false flattery rather than men who will tell them to go fuck themselves with their largest dilater.

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

Wanting to be "normal" is playing the victim, but wailing about not being sexually attractive to everyone isn't?

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

How much is wrong with that? I doubt I could count it all.

If this is a method to invalidated when "superstraights play victim", how does it hold up? So, the first term that needs defining is victim, because I think we all agree well enough on what superstraight means. So, what ever we take to mean "victim", let's see how it fairs as we read on. Turns out, not very far in the question of being a victim is dropped quickly.

The method, which is not about inproper victimhood, continues "every argument they have" so, we are arguing. What are we arguing about? I'd rather know that than know what one side is arguing. When you only see one's sides set of responses to an argument, we do not know the other's side and we do not know what is at issue. Very often when seeing two sides arguing, no one including themselves know what they are arguing about, so this is not to be glossed over.

What is the argument about? Superstraights won't date or have sex with or be attracted to trans people seems to be what the argument is about, but groups do not date groups. This isn't some weird sorority/fraternity thing where if you're a member of some specific fraternity you're expected to date members of some other specific sorority, and that doesn't seem to be a rule for any such group anyway. Individuals date/have sex with/are attracted to individuals, so: an individual person won't date or have sex with or be attracted to a trans person because they are trans. What is to argue about?

Would you want to date/have sex with/be found attractive to someone who is not inclined to those things? How would that make sense? There's nothing to argue about. Well, the author of this method does think it can be argued. Why though? Why argue about this? The end of the first sentence seems to indicate that it is to put a -phobic or -ist label on the superstraight person. Is superstraight not a good enough label? The goal of this method is not to coax a superstraight person into date/sex/attraction, the only goal seems to be to label them with a preferred label. This is not an argument then. Maybe it is a method of categorization.

But, we started talking about not allowing superstraights to play victim and we've moved onto labeling them -phobic or -ist as if these are all-encompassing labels that can also not overlap.

The first "proof" really is the whole ball of wax, and carries with it assumptions both parties probably do not agree on. What is a woman? If the term has no real meaning, then why use it? If it does not have an agreed upon meaning, then using it only serves to mislead and confuse matters. What is a "woman with a penis" to someone who does not accept notions of gender when talking about sexuality?

The "arguments" against this get pushed back by the author as they have to state that genital preferences are OK but these are not sexual identities. It seems pretty controlling for someone to decide if someone else's preferences are "OK" or not, but maybe it's the times we live in. But, what are "sexual identities"? Male and Female are the two and only two sexes in our species, as they are the only two sexes involved in sexual reproduction. Sexes and "sexual identities" have little meaning outside of those contexts, except for the fact that we are a sexually dimorphic species. I guess the author wants to say "sexual orientation", but sex is tied to reproductive potential. It is not gender. The idea that a sexual orientation should have nothing to do with genitals and reproductive potential for all people is silly. It may not matter for some, but that is true of everything. Ask anyone "what do you want to eat tonight" and if you say "ha, trick question! I want to eat anything at all is the only acceptable answer", and see how far that gets you. So the first half of the first argument is silly.

The second half is irrelevant. Does the person have a penis or not? Also, a person who does not want to have sex with someone is not ruling out a relationship (pen pals seems safe, if using a po box). So this author is arguing against the idea that someone who doesn't want to have sex with a person with a penis by saying the person might not have one and we might not be talking about sex. Great, but that was the hypothetical posed by the author. It's one thing to set up a strawman to argue against, but when you miss the non-moving, softly stuffed, target: that's on you, author.

The second argument completely shits on the idea that people do in fact date people looking for "the one" they can marry, and break it off when that potential disappears for what ever reason. The second argument falls apart because it is treating people like stats, saying 100% of people don't feel this way (so what?) and also fails for equating not dating someone with not being attracted to them. There are plenty of people that are very attractive who should not be dated. One term is "whornado", because the havoc they can wreck on someone's life is akin to a tornado. Plenty of attractive guys are abusive of women, so they should not be dated. Few people can get through life thinking solely with their genitals without being miserable. The author should learn that lesson, I hope.

The third point also equates attraction with dating. You can find someone attractive, for a moment, on occasion, over a period of time, any or all of the above to varying degrees. When the author asks if you can identify a trans person 100% of the time, this is a silly bar to set. Correctly identifying many people at a glance or identifying a person over a long period of time are two different things. Which does the author mean? Also, it equates "passing" with "being". Are straight people, I'm sorry I mean superstraight because they've taken straight to mean attracted to gender not sex, only attracted to the opposite sex because of what they look like, or are things like pheromones involved? Also, are we to ignore the elephant in the room? What makes a person trans? What defines a man or a woman? Being trans says something potentially tangible about a person above and beyond the fact that they seem to think being a man or a woman is not tangible. One can think that, but not be trans. Being trans means you claim to be what you are apparently not on some level. Why? No one is allowed to find that "sus" at all, even with regard to dating them (or having a relationship, which in all cases is a level of intimacy on an emotional and social level beyond mere acquaintances)? It obviously is something the author does not agree with, because the author is not saying "wow, superstraight guys do not find all women attractive", but acknowledging the difference between transwomen and actual women. Otherwise, the argument would be about the fickleness and truly random nature of "superstraight" heterosexuality. It's not, and no amount of arguing can change that. Thank God.

(edited for clarity and to fix an error about the fact that someone claiming to be trans is probably tangibly different than that which they claim to be, while accepting the notion that a trans identity is meaningful requires us to think the categories of man and woman are not tangibly defined)