My UNPOPULAR LGBT OPINIONS | Honest TRUTH | Kai Decadence
1 year ago by SexualityCritical to /s/LGBDropTheT from youtube.com
How gender critical women are seen (confessions of an ex-TRA)
1 year ago * by SexualityCritical to /s/GenderCritical from self.GenderCritical
This image is painful because of its uncompromising accuracy.Colonization
1 year ago by SexualityCritical to /s/LGBDropTheT from twitter.com
Trans-identified men way, WAY more likely to be rapists than even regular men
1 year ago by SexualityCritical to /s/GenderCritical from self.GenderCritical
Well, at least I fought for what was right.
1 year ago by SexualityCritical to /s/GenderCritical from i.imgur.com
Chris Chan (trans-identified male) admits to sexually assaulting his mother (read the comments to understand the background).
1 year ago by SexualityCritical to /s/GenderCritical from youtube.com
She's a hot gay man and she has the mullet to prove it. Eat her pussy you f@ggots. by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT
[–]SexualityCritical 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
She made threats? Damn...
I'm surprised Twitter even did ANYTHING, which it usually doesn't, especially considering the sheer amount of trans-identified men there who've admitted to raping lesbians, and also threatened to rape individual women.
Irrationalism's one hell of a fucking drug.Indoctrination / Doublethink
Trans YouTuber Chris Chan, 39, will be housed with women inmates by JasonNecks in GenderCritical
[–]SexualityCritical 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
WHAT THE FUCK?! So he can sexually abuse more women? He's a man who raped a woman. Clearly, it makes zero sense to place him in an environment where he has access to more women.
Disgusting and evil.
CHRIS CHAN: Mother Raping Psychos Are Not Women! EVER!
Gender dysphoria doesn't exist
1 year ago by SexualityCritical to /s/GCdebatesQT from self.GCdebatesQT
Don't worry about the Taliban ladies, just stop identifying as a woman by Chunkeeguy in GenderCritical
[–]SexualityCritical 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
Is this sub supporting imperialism? I'm not trying to be a fragile, generic leftist, but this is just absurd.
The US literally fought for twenty years. The Taliban was always winning. It was just a matter of time until Afghanistan was captured by the Taliban government. The American intervention did nothing except cost US taxpayers billions of dollars, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and was aware that the war was never supposed to end, which is why the US intentionally drew it out, to keep it going for as long as possible, so that capitalist companies could continue to profit off of it.
Victim blaming a child | TRAs think it's a kid's fault for looking in the direction of a TIM's genitalia
1 year ago by SexualityCritical to /s/GenderCritical from twitter.com
r/lgbt - "I am so sorry that lesbian you sprung a dick on when the clothes came off didn't validate you! How dare she!" by ThrowMeAway2879 in LGBDropTheT
[–]SexualityCritical 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
"I've identified as a trans man for the past two minutes! All the cis dudes are now legally required to stimulate my clit!"
1 year ago by SexualityCritical to /s/GenderCriticalGuys from youtube.com
Trans-identified men way, WAY more likely to be rapists than even regular men by SexualityCritical in GenderCritical
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
My UNPOPULAR LGBT OPINIONS | Honest TRUTH | Kai Decadence by SexualityCritical in LGBDropTheT
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
Kai's a legend! I got a huge shock when I saw that video in my recommendation feed!
Am I going crazy? (Poe's Law)
Less masculine men who are uncomfortable with their absence of manly qualities are on average more likely to commit physical assault, inflict injuries on others, and drive drunk (I was wondering what some radfem allies think of this).
1 year ago by SexualityCritical to /s/GenderCriticalGuys from sciencedaily.com
Less masculine men who are uncomfortable with their absence of manly qualities are on average more likely to commit physical assault, inflict injuries on others, and drink driving (I was wondering what some radfems think of this).
1 year ago by SexualityCritical to /s/GenderCritical from sciencedaily.com
Chris Chan (trans-identified male) admits to sexually assaulting his mother (read the comments to understand the background). by SexualityCritical in GenderCritical
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
Considering his hardcore autogynephilic tendencies, and the fact that he considers himself a lesbian, the state will probably side with him, putting more women in danger of being sexually victimised by him.
People will endlessly defend this monster and his crude attempt at identifying as a woman, no matter the level of sexual violence he inflicts. Despite THE FACT that the vast majority of TIMs are rapists, even more so than non-trans-identified men, with this sexual abuse being a surprise to no one, especially considering he groomed his poor mother for (possibly) multiple years, people don't see how this relates to maleness. Chris Chan transitioned because, A, people who were fucking with him egged him on, convincing him he was a woman, and, B, that he wanted to get ladies to suck his disgusting, nightmarish dick.
It makes sense to bring up the fact that Chris is male. Not only because men are more likely to commit acts of rape and sexual abuse, which is, at least in part, due to their inherent genetics (hence, the immense importance of biological sex over 'gender identity'), but, also, that Chris Chan is the definition of a socialised male socialised into maleness. He's, throughout his life, exhibited every awful trait that no woman would ever want to see, would fear to see, in their boy. He reeks of maleness to the most disgusting of degrees.
This image is painful because of its uncompromising accuracy. by SexualityCritical in LGBDropTheT
Yeap. That's what the numbers read.
Same-sex sexual desire as the natural, but not actualised, default (criticism of sexuality)
1 year ago * by SexualityCritical to /s/GCdebatesQT from self.GCdebatesQT
Well, at least I fought for what was right. by SexualityCritical in GenderCritical
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
A bit of a misunderstanding. That reply was from me. They banned me because I pointed out earlier that men in women's prisons would increase the chances of rape being committed, leading to more victimisations, male sex offenders molesting women at higher rates.
Sexual etymology: the origins of contemporary female linguistics
I think you're correct. It's just the case that 58.9% is an increase from 16.8% of 250%, which is how I arrived at that conclusion. Though, I suppose that's, perhaps, not the accurate statistical result.
What Is a Woman? by purrvana in GenderCritical
[–]SexualityCritical 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
Exactly! Why claim that trans-identified men are women when there's apparently no definition of a woman?
But, also, even among those who reject gender ideology, there is still a bit of a problem when it arrives to defining what a woman is. See, 'female' and 'male' are indeed real and biological, but people often point to the wrong things which they perceive to be sex (i.e., phenotype and sex chromosomes). Really, what a woman is, is an adult human female who has an absence of the SRY gene, while a man is an adult human male who possesses the SRY gene.
What's the general consensus on sexuality being a choice?
Just received my first mega ban from a Reddit sub because of My GC views by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical
To be fair, a lot of the older goths in the scene would be more likely to hold gender critical views. Perhaps, some of such views aren't all too gender critical, and more 'outdated' (i.e., conservative transphobia). But, regardless, you can be gender critical and goth. A lot of the old goths in the musical scene would probably be disgusted at the immoral behaviour of TRAs and trans-identified individuals. Interviewing them would be pretty incredible.
Whatever you do, Kai, I'm always keen to watch :)
Star Wars store- latest “It’s Ma’am” type video. by woodrup in GenderCritical
[–]SexualityCritical 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
The man's a hero. He's like a downtown Clint Eastwood.
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
That's correct. I pointed out that sending Chris-Chan to a female only prison (well, it's not really 'female only' when TIMs are sent, are they?) would increase the chances of him committing rape, and that his sexual orientation didn't really matter that much, as lesbians should be sent to female only prisons, and exclusively same-sex attracted TIMs should still be in male only prison facilities.
Some more ridiculous "Brain Sex" argument by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical
[–]SexualityCritical 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
Do update when you can! I'm loving this rebuttal!
Gender dysphoria doesn't exist by SexualityCritical in GCdebatesQT
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
I was referring to gender dysphoria, and not claiming that no trans-identified individuals existed before 1970. Yes, I'm well aware of the German institute, and of Hirschfeld.
Would you like to explain what the Hijra? I mean, if you so certainly, definitely, absolutely understand them, what their 'gender identity' means, please, explain what it is, and what a 'third gender' is. If you can't explain it, you can't use it to advocate anything.
All mental illnesses are medical, or else what's being referred to is not a mental illness.
You don't need a brain scan to recognise that someone has depression, but we absolutely needed brain scans in order to determine that depression was a valid, scientific phenomenon, and not made up, so we could separate it from 'long lasting sadness.' People often, correctly, state: 'Sadness is a feeling. Depression is a mental illness.' The two are separate because one is genetic, while the other, largely, isn't.
I don't really understand your last comment. You might want to rephrase it.
Treating femininity with objectivity
Formerly asexual-identified, now androphilia-orientated and gender critical
1 year ago by SexualityCritical to /s/SuperGay from self.SuperGay
I'm so glad you're speaking up about what you believe in Kai!
Just in case you wanna know, I'm 'SunnyScientism' on Reddit. I asked you recently about that whole goth rock project thing.
I've created an account here, being inspired by you, including many others. Gonna start speaking my mind on gender critical topics. It's a horrible thing what the goth sub did, but you yourself knew it was coming sooner or later. The truth is, TRA rhetoric is extremely repetitive, and almost all the time there's no arguments whatsoever. TRAs just say the same thing over and over again, with no variance. Reading that post they made on you is, in educational terms, indistinguishable from not having read the post. Nothing new has been said. It's the same old grossly offensive appropriation of intersex struggles always used.
As Loutrotte has typed: '"YoU'rE eItHeR bOrN a FeMaLe Or A mAlE, XX or XY", while conveniently forgetting intersex people born with different chromosomes combinations).'
Firstly, it doesn't make any sense as to why this would be applied to trans-identified women or trans-identified men, since they virtually always possess either XY or XX sex chromosomes, and with more people coming out as trans-identified nowadays, even less intersex people are included within such social demographics. Additionally, someone with XX or XY chromosomes is either male or female, due to possessing, or not possessing, the SRY gene. If someone has the SRY gene, they're male. If they don't, largely or entirely absent of it, they're female. Is this TRA making such a comment implying that, by birth, some trans-identified people are neither male or female, in terms of sex? What the fuck? Why'd they transition, anyway, if they were that close? An intersex individual is either male or female, and they can never, ever change that. And there's nothing wrong with them being male or female and not having all the genetic components commonly associated with their sex, the same way there's no reason for a 'feminine man' or 'masculine woman' to change their sex because they're different from most people. It's just absurd, misogynistic nonsense that spews from the mouths of TRAs.
I hope you're doing well mentally, Kai. I really hope, one day, you make that video on gender criticism. Thank you for actually believing in something, something which is the truth, no matter how many TRAs it enrages.
Two dudes fighting by [deleted] in GenderCritical
[–]SexualityCritical 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 10 months ago (0 children)
Yeah, we essentially have three misogynistic men throwing temper tantrums at one another over the supposedly correct degree of misogyny that should ideally be utilised by TRAs. I think, however, that despite the ugliness inherent to such a scenario, it's honestly perfectly symbolic of what the online left represents in contemporary times: a woman-hating, abuse praising, fetishistic, creepy combustion of all the worst elements of modern political discourse.
I don't actually know if Natalie and Vaush will debate one another, but there's really no point. Both are delusional, refusing to allow women the freedom to define themselves in terms of biological sex. I have no remorse for anyone involved.
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
No, it's from me.
Am I going crazy? (Poe's Law) by SexualityCritical in GenderCritical
Well... this has become more relevant than ever.
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
How am I misusing the term 'genetics'?
My UNPOPULAR LGBT OPINIONS | Honest TRUTH | Kai Decadence by SexualityCritical in GenderCritical
Looking forward to it, Kai!
Yeah, he is!
1 year ago by SexualityCritical to /s/SuperGay from youtube.com
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
Your comment isn't a helpful comment. It's not adding anything to anything. I would advise at least attempting to rebut any of what I've stated.
'Research shows that the hippocampus is smaller in some depressed people. For example, in one fMRI study published in The Journal of Neuroscience, investigators studied 24 women who had a history of depression. On average, the hippocampus was 9% to 13% smaller in depressed women compared with those who were not depressed. The more bouts of depression a woman had, the smaller the hippocampus.'
Bruh, your own study seems to disprove what you've been saying (though, I must admit, the sample size was pretty small, unfortunately). Additionally, the article you referenced literally showed which exact areas of the brain were affected by depression, meaning that it can, accurately, be neurologically examined.
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
Depression is subject to heredity. Those with biological relatives and siblings who have depression are multiple times more likely than the general public to develop depression themselves. To be precise, they're 400% to 500% more likely to have the depression disorder.
When examining the human genome, it has been found that a variety of genetic factors are directly responsible for an outburst of depression within an individual. Individual genes alone exist, more prominently than any other reason, to incite depression.
So, yes, depression is genetic. Just because you don't know, that doesn't mean such genetics don't exist.
I don't disagree with this assessment.
When was Lili Elbe diagnosed with gender dysphoria? Also, I never said there were, literally speaking, zero trans-identified people prior to the 1970s, but that it hadn't taken off until that general date. Before the 1970s, when sex roles had become more nuanced, trans-identified individuals were hidden, an underground phenomenon, and there were almost none of them to begin with.
Depression is genetic. That's the general consensus within medical communities and institutions.
You seem to have contradicted yourself consistently here. First, you state that nobody is stating that there's a biological difference between 'pre' and 'post' fucked, and then, you yourself, go on to state that there is a way to biologically determine whether or not someone has had sexual intercourse.
Firstly, outside of yourself, people have been, and are claiming, that there exists a genetic difference between those who've had sex and those who haven't, in the context of what's known as 'virginity tests.' See, since no one can actually test if someone's a virgin or not, it cannot be biologically recognised, a pseudo-scientific practise has historically, and presently, all unfortunately, been put in place. It never should have, to any degree, since it's a form of sexual assault, and oftentimes rape. It is sticking one's hand, usually two fingers, into a vagina, to see if the hymen has been torn (this is a misconception. Upon engaging in sex, the hymen is not torn, or damaged in any way. Additionally, for when hymens are actually injured, it doesn't have anything to do with sex). Hymens also heal over time, so even if it was injured during past penetrative experiences, it most likely isn't what it used to be upon the vaginal examination. And, to top it all off, PIV isn't the only form of sexual intercourse among opposite-sex sexual partners, as anal sex, finger based sex, and oral sex also exist.
In one study, looking at both rape victims and virgins, the group who haven't engaged in any form of sex (their word of mouth only), 32% of such a group had torn hymens. Likewise, 32% of the non-virgin group, who were all rape victims, had genital injuries. However, it appears that those who've had sex were less likely to have torn hymens, as this, the 32%, refers to all genital injuries, which implies that torn hymens are found in less than 32% of non-virginal patients.
The study: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.jcfm.2006.02.006
Virginity tests are sexual assault, because even though patients can say yes, that doesn't mean they've consented. It is still sexual assault, as the patient, whether or not they've actually had sex, has zero enthusiasm for the procedure, and are only doing it because there's the slim chance the state may prosecute their rapist, if they've been found out to have been screwed. Aside from the state never imprisoning rapists, there's also the reality that, A, virginity tests are pseudo-scientific, and, B, it's still sexual assault, further fuelling the flames of pure evil. Women and girls don't consent to have their vaginas touched, a lot of the time penetrated by a hand, or two fingers, and just do it because that's what physicians have ordered. And girls can never consent to sexual activity, anyway, regardless of contextual circumstances. This is why virginity tests should always be illegal.
I never claimed that a psychological difference between those who've had sex and those who haven't doesn't persist in individuals, on an individual, purely culturally woven level. This is an irrelevant 'point' if you to bring up, as it suggests I don't understand the psychological agony individuals experience as a result of being raped. I clearly do understand this. I understand that alternative mental states are brought about as a means of horrific, non-consensual sexual experiences. However, the differences in question can only be socially recognised, and only if rape victims are honest about their tragic experiences. Biologically, there's nothing different between a rape victim and someone who isn't a victim of rape. If we could actually know for sure if someone had been raped, through biology, we'd know, since biology would be there. As long as it doesn't involve sexual assault, as in the case of the 'two finger' system, it could be a helpful way of getting rapists imprisoned. It's a shame, though, since there is no biological difference. It can't be recognised.
You don't need sex in order to get pregnant. Pregnant simply occurs when a vagina arrives into contact with sperm. Someone could just masturbate onto a leaf, and then hand that leaf to a female individual, for her to pour the sperm into her vaginal opening. It doesn't require PIV, just masturbation. And, even then, not always masturbation, as people can cum as a result of experiencing wet dreams. So, it doesn't even require anyone to touch themselves.
The injuries both children and adults have endured from sex, including rape, are injured which can be discovered upon them without such sex, and oftentimes rape, having occurred. People have injuries in every place on their body, and none of it requires that they engage in sexual acts. People can have injuries on their anus from causes other than sex. The same with literally any body part.
STDs can be acquired outside of sexual acts (contrary to what the name indicates). They can be transmitted via needles, sharing certain hygiene products, transfusions of blood, consuming contaminated food, and the non-sexual touching of skin between individuals.
My comments on depression are that of what medical professionals believe. While it's true that depression is often caused by environmental factors in a person's life, the curing of depression is more often caused by genetic alternations to a person's biological system, or the passing of time, as opposed to any environmental life changes. Depression is, in its essence, literally defined by an absence of a person's ability to experience happiness, even while faced with things they love, while committing themselves to things they'll hope will make them happier. That sounds entirely genetic to me.
What sort of mental illnesses can't be located in the brain? I mean, you could name some. But, I believe they're either found within a person's neurology, or, they're not mental illnesses at all. I don't believe something should be called an 'illness' unless there exists some sort of medical basis to it.
As stated, while doctors and general physicians might sometimes refer to gender dysphoria diagnoses as 'medical,' there is never the claim from them that a diagnosis involves looking at, A, neurology, or, B, discovering some type of gene, or genetic arrangement, which testifies to the existence of dysphoria. So, in a sense, it's never claimed to be a scientific process. Gender dysphoria doesn't exist, is my claim, in the identical sense to how virginity doesn't exist. I've already explained this part.
I mean, if someone sends me the study, I can look at it.
However, even though I can't confirm this as a fact right now (due to not looking at the study), I presume what it's saying, and it's projecting hard, that what one identifies as dysphoria causes one's brain to look different temporarily, but it's, in fact, not dysphoria, and just correlates with those who say they have gender dysphoria.
'We have evidence from at least the late 19th and early 20th century of people who wanted to medically transition.'
1: Citation needed (such as names, at least. I can research them from there on). 2: The existence (which hasn't been proven) of trans-identified people doesn't mean the existence of gender dysphoria. There wasn't a gender dysphoria diagnosis until, to my knowledge, 2011.
'It may or may not be genetic.'
This is an anti-scientific claim. Depression has long been understood to be virtually entirely genetic.
What kind of mental illness is environmentally produced and sustained? If it is, it's not a mental illness, since there's nothing biological about it.
Same-sex sexual desire as the natural, but not actualised, default (criticism of sexuality) by SexualityCritical in GCdebatesQT
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
Done! Thank you for asking.
Of course the answer is no. I never argued for that.
I'm saying that since people do indeed have the choice, opposite-sex sexual and romantic relationships don't appear to make as much sense as same-sex alternatives. People would be better searching for partnerships with those sharing their genotype.
I hear this sentiment over and over again. It appears everyone's replying with the same general statement, 'You can't choose your sexuality. Yes, bisexual people exist, but they're still attracted to both sexes.'
See, I don't understand what's being said here. There are a variety of sexual things which a person can do, which are all actions. If one sits still, and never moves, they won't experience sexuality. If one grows up in an isolated chamber, and has no contact with anyone else, they'll never develop any kind of sexual feelings. Sexuality exists solely in a social context.
Having sex with another person of any sex requires a social environment. Sexual intercourse, after all, is a social act, not a private one. It involves two or more individuals in order to commence. If sexual intercourse is not a choice, it is rape. That's the only possible thing it can be. Masturbation is, however, a private act, as it almost always involves just one person. But, it is, too, a choice. If not, it is rape as well. Sexual fantasies, since they are internal, inside oneself, and not external, outside of oneself, are a private act, and can, unlike masturbation and sex, exist only as a private act. Anyone can fantasize about whichever sex they want. All their sexual fantasies could be about men, or all of them could be about women. And, as for consumption of erotica or pornography, it can be a social act, but also a private act. Regardless, unless one is being forced to look at sexual imagery, which is a form of sexual abuse, it is a choice.
So, how is sexuality not a choice? Well, according to those criticising political lesbianism and its familiarities, it's because people claiming they can be attracted to both sexes are, in fact, bisexual, and that, as a fact also, not everyone is bisexual. Now, I disagree with this notion. I don't consider sexuality to be real, a scientific phenomenon, but something society has made up. However, putting that aside for now, anyway, citing bisexuality here is a logical fallacy.
There is a difference between potentiality and actuality. Potentiality refers to the possibility of something occurring, that it might occur, and not that it has occurred (it hasn't occurred, at least yet). Actuality, in contrast, refers to something which is either happening currently, ongoing, or has happened, that it has, indeed, been actualised. My claim is that anyone can be sexually attracted exclusively to either one. Anyone can. Their love of a sex, in romantic and sexual terms, exists due to ideology. Clearly, no one thinks, 'Through an objective analysis, I find this sex repulsive, but nonetheless can't help myself from being attracted to them.' That makes no sense, and is a clear-cut contradiction. It is saying one's mind has been made up, that a sex is unattractive to them, but, simultaneously, they can't help being sexually attracted to them.
Just because someone can be sexually attracted to both sexes doesn't mean they are. They can still choose to be exclusively interested in one sex. Anyone can do this. It's not just something 'bisexual' people can do.
Treating femininity with objectivity by SexualityCritical in GenderCritical
Thank you! Will look!
Nearly 1 in 10 teens identify as gender-diverse in Pittsburgh study by BEB in GenderCritical
[–]SexualityCritical 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
That's the thing, and it's the reason that transgender-identification ideology is so immensely harmful and hurtful. Every person is different, and people know this to the extent that it goes without saying. Of course not everyone follows the same sex roles. To imply that cisgender-identified individuals fit perfectly into these totalitarian, patriarchal boxes is to imply that the boxes possess, to one degree or another, some naturalistic basis, that they follow performativity on the basis of DNA. This is entirely incorrect. Gender has no science. Science knows no such thing as 'gender.' What exists, instead, is the reality that women and men, girls and boys, behave as they do because society forces them to do so, that they're not permitted to express their true selves.
But, in rejecting social constructs, an example being femininity, femaleness and maleness are not lost, but rather identified. To be female means to belong to the female sex, and the same for males. Whether TRAs realise it or otherwise, every single act of freedom is a rejection, a condemnation, of gender ideology, of the gendered process.
By the standards of gender ideologues, women and girls didn't exist until only a few thousand years ago, since femininity had yet been invented. 'Female clothing' didn't even exist. All these products, constructs, are extremely recent in the grand scheme of human history.
Formerly asexual-identified, now androphilia-orientated and gender critical by SexualityCritical in SuperGay
I really appreciate the suggestion. That said, many people have criticised dating apps, and the like, for the fact that, very often, you don't really know a person until you meet them in person. Part of me wants a man in my life, but at the same time, you never really know how genuine someone is. I'm not just talking about political ideology, but more generally, broadly, the type of guy I'd be meeting. Are they who they say they are? Are they everything I wanted, or compatible enough with my own essence?
Regardless, I do respect the recommendation. A lot of dating does indeed exist online, where people meet others through social networks like Grinder. But while things are at first fun and games, eventually someone either wants to visit their lover or live with them. It's a big deal, and I don't ever want to approach matters from a less than mature standpoint.
Argument with a trans-medicalist TRA (reposted)
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
Still no argument from you...
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
'Researchers have found no evidence that the gene alters the impact stress has on depression.'
This is referring to one (as in, a singular) gene people, researchers and scientists, thought was the cause of stress and/or depression. Dispelling that myth, it's not attempting to say that depression doesn't have heredity-orientated roots. It's not saying what you're claiming.
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
The Hijra referred to, and refers to today in South Asia, to men who don't fit the stereotypical roles associated with their sex. But, in truth, they were still considered men, because the people of India did, and do, recognise biological sex, which they recognise is what makes someone female or male.
It wasn't until the 1970s that trans-identification began to any even microscopically noticeable degree.
Yes, I know about such people. But, they didn't have gender dysphoria (and nobody can have it anyway, but there wasn't even the claim that they did). And, also, that the transgender phenomenon wasn't a real, properly understood, prevalent thing until the 1970s. Trans-identified people though they were all alone.
What? What's wrong with that statement? I just accurately described how pregnancy can, and does, occur without sexual intercourse, or any sexual touching.
'I'm not aware that people who believe in virginity tests think it does.'
That, right there, is your fault, not mine whatsoever. People who believe in the supposed validity of virginity tests literally believe this, though.
No, because what you're referring to than is not a mental illness at all. What do you think 'illness' means?
'A mental illness is a disorder diagnosed by a medical professional that significantly interferes with an individual's cognitive, emotional or social abilities.'
It can only ever refer to something which is genetic, either entirely or almost entirely. A mental illness is a disorder, and it is always neurological.
I know what genetic means. I know what biology is. Depression is genetic, or else what's being referred to as depression is just intense sadness, or long lasting waves of sadness.
I don't know why you took my 'involving sexual assault' comment out of context. I presume it was an accident? I doubt you'd be deliberately disingenuous. I stated that any system, which could figure out if someone has been raped, or even more specifically, raped by a certain individual under legal suspicion, that doesn't involve sexual assault, would be a good invention. Obviously, all rape involves sexual assault. I don't really know how you misread my written sentiment, but whatever. You, also, appear to have misunderstood my first statement. I never claimed that rape doesn't create physical injuries for the victim, or that there aren't material scars which have manifested onto the bodies of the victims of sexual violence. Women and men can, and do, have injured genitalia from being raped. Now, the thing is, this is what I was saying, a person can have all these injuries, can have sustained them, from non-sexual activities. Anyone can be injured in an identical way, so there's no method of discovering they've been raped, or have had sexual intercourse. Again, there are zero genetic differences between virgins and non-virgins. Whether one has had sex or not, it cannot be biologically recognised. No technology can scan for this, nor can it be visually determined.
'I simply said that over the course history..." You appear to have cut yourself off here. I believe you were attempting to say something more? Well, anyway, since someone doesn't need to have sex in order to get pregnant, there is no physical evidence which can be pointed to, to show if someone has experienced sexual intercourse, or who has endured any level of sexual touching.
"Pregnant simply occurs when a vagina arrives into contact with sperm," LOL, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about." Yet... you said, "In an era of IUI, IVF & turkey baster babies, who on earth would make such a silly claim?" What? I'm not really sure what you were trying to say here.
'If the hippocampus is smaller in depressed people, it could just as easily be an effect of depression, rather than a cause.'
This would still mean depression is genetic, or else this brain area would not be affected. Also, it was your study, not mine, and it didn't even agree with you. It's still, even with the lackluster sample size, most likely, statistically, that is, the case that the brain is functioning differently when it comes to those with depression. Depression is persistent, what prevents happiness, and is ongoing and continuous, unlike mere sadness. Depression is genetic because if it's not, there's no such thing as depression. What you're referring to, then, is just sadness. Depression should be understood as a disease.
Again, you've made no argument. You claim I'm trolling, while also refusing to engage with any of my ideas. Again, the article you yourself cited does not agree with your beliefs.
Sorry I didn't reply to this comment ages ago. It's a really sweet comment! Thank you!
I try not to worry myself about gender, and all that, but I've had romantic fantasies about being with a good men for years now. In fact, I remember when I was 14 years old (I'm 20 now), I felt this painful lust to be with someone, but never had the opportunity to. Even if I were to get my life together in all aspects one can - economically, emotionally, productively, territorially - the issue stems from my inability to trust men (as I can't trust women also). I don't really one's partner needs to agree with them on everything in order for the relationship to work. However, consider that when one dares to question gender ideology, even politely, due to the overwhelming political correctness in the atmosphere, people go ballistic.
TRAs are utterly crazy, and they're not just a fringe minority, they appear to be the majority of pro-trans types. It's really the case that if I were to get close and intimate to a guy, when he finds out I'm not onboard with transgender politics, and rejecting its influence is something I actually care about, is a part of my life, he'll abandon me. He will discontinue everything we've built up, because he believes defending sex offenders and male misogynists, and wanting to delude women with internalised misogyny into believing their men, is more important than continuing something special and sweet. And it's really, really sad that this is the case.
At the end of the day, I don't really know what I want. I want a man, but I don't want to commit. Selfish of me? Absolutely! But reasonable, nonetheless, because I don't want to be wasting any guy's time, nor my own time. I'm just trying to maximise my happiness, as all human beings attempt to do. This is why I like the idea of getting with someone and than later mutually breaking up, like a limited time spent dating before returning to being single. I don't know; it sounds nice. Get the relationship we both wanted, but without all the unfun strings attached. But, again, it's all so very complicated.
[–]SexualityCritical[S] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
What are you talking about? A tear to one's hymen is a genetic occurrence. People who claim virginity tests work claim that there's genetic differences between virgins and non-virgins.
Ovarit account recovery, or invite code?
What's the general consensus on sexuality being a choice? by SexualityCritical in GenderCritical
I'm saying it's, on average, more rational for women to be exclusively sexually interested in women, if they're interested in any sex at all, just as it's more healthy for men to be exclusively sexually interested in men.
The studies were measuring arousal via vaginal lubrication. So, yes, we're both thinking of the same studies. Now, I'm a man, and no man has a vagina. So, I don't quite know how this stuff works. But, based upon your description, it does sound rather weird and sketchy to claim that a woman could die as a result of not lubricating while being raped. The body does not recognise sex, as virginity is a social construct, so the only way this could be is if an object - a penetrative one; maybe a penis, but not having to be - enters into her vaginal area, and she fails to lubricate while this is happening. If so, it would be the case that many women, who have broken vaginas, possibly a result of female genital mutilation, die masturbating, placing penis shaped objects into their genitalia, and failing to lubricate. I'm sorry. I don't mean to come off as insensitive. It's just that I've literally never heard of this before.
So, you're saying that for a women to be sexually arousal, it can only be measured through clit simulation? That her clitoris has enlarged? I don't know if any studies exist for that, but the belief that clitoris or penis movement stems from sexual arousal is actually pseudo-science. The reason I brought it up in the first place, mentioning those studies, was because if people did consider that sexuality, sexual arousal, it would mean that anyone can choose their sexuality.
Firstly, why do you think that women were suddenly lubricated after viewing sexual imagery? Clearly, women are only a microscopic fraction of the time vaginally lubricated. I highly doubt it was a coincidence.
Secondly, a person cannot get an erection, or a stimulated clitoris, without fetishistic thinking. If I look at a woman, even a conventionally attractive woman, even a woman I consider attractive, even a woman I consider attractive that is performing erotic acts, or is naked, I cannot get an erection. My genitalia does not move at all, but sits still. There is no enlargement of my penis or bass, and the same goes for any woman, as she, even if she calls herself a lesbian, will not feel anything, or vagina won't move, if there's no fetishistic thoughts involved. When I think about a man, or whenever I have in the past thought about a woman, I cannot receive an erection without focusing on specific things, which are super specific, in order for my genitals to harden. Hence, why simply looking at pictures of women, for lesbians, isn't arousing. It is having certain, particularistic thoughts about such women that gets them off.
You can do this with a lamp. At first glance, there is nothing inherently sexual about a lamp. But, the identical sentiment can be expressed about human beings. Human beings are not inherently sexual. They can reproduce, sure, but reproduction isn't always viewed as erotic. What is and isn't erotic is determined by society, by culture. Socialisation causes one to view certain actions, objects, and behaviours as sexual, while not viewing other things as sexual. Hence, why it's the case that for some people feet are sexual, and they can sexually get off to feet, can climax with either a penis and balls or vagina. However, for the same people, viewing people without clothes on isn't sexual. And it's not innately sexual. Nudity is just nudity. We all have private parts. Heaps of classical art depicting people women wasn't painted for the sake of erotica arousal, nor did the painters even have in their minds the idea that should depictions are sexual. Additionally, people don't view such paintings as sexual, and don't get off to them. The status of 'sexualness' is socially constructed. Thus, the brain, and the genitals by extension, cannot recognise something as sexual in itself, but only in relation to culture. If you were to have certain thoughts about a lamp, no matter how ordinary that lamp looked, one would be able to climax. It's not the case that certain people don't possess the genes to do such a thing. Anyone can do such a thing. It's just the case that some people know how to climax to certain objects, and others simply don't. For a lot of people, if they were stuck in a room with nothing but a lamp for the rest of their lives, they would eventually figure out how to successfully, and easily, masturbate and ejaculate to the lamp.
Do you get what I'm saying?
I don't ever want to erase lesbians, what being a lesbian means. That's what TRAs are doing. I'm simply saying that if any woman wishes to be a lesbian, decides to choose such a path, she can be one. The reason the term 'gay' for me makes more sense than 'bisexual' is because I don't like women sexually. That is a choice I've made. Anyone can climax to anything. I've just chosen to only get hard to guys and masturbate to images and videos of men. I've touched myself to drawings of women in the past. I didn't like it for a moment, for even though I was able to get erect, I was unhappy the whole time, and felt very gross afterwards. That was entirely due to my ideological beliefs. It was bad for my mental health, but liking men is good for my mental health. My experiences aren't the same for everyone, though. I just speak for myself. If a woman doesn't like being sexually orientated toward men, she doesn't have to be. This is what lesbian feminists are critiquing when they critique compulsory heterosexuality.
I'm not saying sexual reproduction doesn't exist. But, you see, people in this very thread stated, correctly, that sexuality isn't defined by sexual intercourse, but rather by arousal and attraction. Clearly, if sexuality was sex, sexuality would be a choice, since people choose which sex to be with erotically.
When I spoke of 'unwanted arousal,' what was being referred to was thoughts which contradict an individual's ideology. They don't want to be attracted to women/men, and, therefore, find distress in their genital movement (also, I mean, pedophilia is a shameful, depraved thing, so of course it causes mental issues. But, one can stop being a podophile, since sexual orientation is a choice). However, there are two things worth noting here.
First, genitals hardening or opening up doesn't imply arousal, since one literally doesn't enjoy what's happening, hates such activity, and is, in fact, distressed by it. But, additionally, erect genitalia is inherently uncomfortable. Why do you think people (often) masturbate? To get rid of that undesirable feeling.
Second, someone who likes the same sex - in this case, political lesbians - is someone who's gay/lesbian. They gravitate toward sexual material featuring the sex they want eroticised. If a woman calls herself a lesbian, doesn't partner with a man, likes the female form, she is, by all means, as created by all ideological intent, a lesbian.
I don't believe people have sexual dreams unless they actively engage themselves in sexual matters, whether through intercourse, pornography, or a variety of others fabrics which relate to eroticisation.
Cats fuck each other because of the sensual pleasure derived from it. But, I don't believe cats have a natural preference for having sex with cats only of one sex. Considering how widespread, in a variety of animal species, having sex with both sexes of a species is, it would be reasonable to assert that sexual arousal plays no role in it. When genitals make contact with one another, or when genitals make connect with a butt or a piece of flesh, usually a penis involved, ejaculation occurs from physical contact alone (sooner or later).
I would hold up both fingers, but I'm only actually upholding up the finger on my right hand, since I have no ideological interest in being sexually attracted to women. I am not sexually attracted to women, but only to men. However, I can be sexually attracted to women, for it would be a choice, and a choice I could make at any moment. Anyone's genitalia can move about as a result of viewing something which has culturally been fetishized.
Well, the definition has sort of been modified over the years. Today, it's understood by some that a 'fetish' refers to viewing anything, with a sexual lens, as a sexual thing, as a means to getting off to it.
I want to clarify, I'm not a woman (as you said, saying I was a 'radical lesbian'). I'm a man. Sorry if that made things weird. Clearly, I am opposed to the fetishisation of lesbianism, or any objectification of women. I am a man with only androphilic fantasies. Elsewhere in this thread, I've stated I'm a man, so I never lied.
To address your claim, you are saying that there are two types of women who go by the lesbian label: 'real lesbians,' who are lesbians because they feel sexual attraction exclusively to women, and fake lesbians ('political lesbians'), who are not lesbians because they're either bisexual or heterosexual, not exclusively sexually attracted to women.
So, the problem here is that sexual attraction needs to be defined. Do you think any woman who wants to be a lesbian is not a lesbian? We're not talking about, for instance, sex or race here. Someone cannot become a woman simply because they say they are. Being a woman is not an identity. Someone cannot become native American simply because they claim they are. Obviously, these things are not choices. But sexuality isn't something you can touch, something material. Sexuality is abstract, invisible, and not someone that can be detected within a person. If someone doesn't tell you they're gay, how do you know? Well, you simply don't, since all sexuality has arrived to mean is self-identification.
A political lesbian is no different from a supposedly real lesbian.
That's part of the reason I'm exclusively androphilic, yes.
You might say you don't like what you like because of political reasons, but there is a preference, set of preferences, you hold which derive from your own individual opinions. It is like liking art, or films, or sort like that. Not like having taste buds.
'Said no actual lesbian ever.'
I've heard it be said before, but I think I should say it now. I think that, honestly, a lot of women who say they're radical feminists are really just gender critical liberal feminists. This criticism of compulsory heterosexuality - that one is, by genetics, forced to be heterosexual, which is what 'sexuality is not a choice' would imply - is entirely unique to radical feminism, or was anyway, as many MGTOW, pro-male types have also understood sexuality to be derived from political ideology.
Why do you think it's the case that most radical feminists aren't heterosexual-identified, but most women in general are? Clearly, ideology. I have no clue what this 'non-political lesbianism' is, as it implies that a woman's choices aren't based upon any reason, any logical sense, but are pointless, driven by hedonistic matters, or absent altogether of thought. It is, in essence, to divorce an entire person's journey from purpose, to state that there's no difference in quality, grounded by objectivity, between the romantic/sexual relationships which subsist between women and men and women and women.
Radical feminism has, for a long time, criticised heterosexuality as a political prison created as the norm by patriarchy to keep women in bondage with men. Prior to Christianity (there's nothing inherently wrong with Christianity or being a Christian, but more with how it's interpreted by reactionaries: i.e., the anti-gay sentiment), in the continent of Europe, sexual expressions between individuals of the same sex were not only socially acceptable, but normalised, and actually rather widespread. Heterosexuality exists because marriage exists. Heterosexuality exists because natalism and the family exist. Heterosexuality can only ever be political.
What genetic predispositions in question? The only way someone can be sexually attracted to someone or something legitimately, is if they admire something/someone from a (socially constructed) sexual perspective. Anyone can have such perspectives, as they relate to individual beliefs people hold.
I like guys because I relate to guys the best, since most of my friends were guys, and I was socialised in the male image. That socialisation is, of course, problematic, just as femininity is, but, ultimately, my reason for liking men sexually is because men have the same perception of sexual desire as other men, as opposed to the conflict of the male gaze meeting the female gaze.
You yourself said that if two women are in a romantic/sexual relationship with one another, they are lesbians. They can choose this path in their life because they can understand that members of the female sex cooperate better with one another, as opposed to with men.
What are you talking about? Literally anyone can masturbate to whichever sex they decide to in any given time, and climax. You can have sex with anyone who consents to it, of any sex. I'm not bisexual because I don't like women sexually. I choose to only be interested in men (for ideological reasons).
How are these things not a choice? What does it mean to not be physically able to be sexually attracted to someone?
Could it, alternatively, be said that you were heterosexual, but then you became homosexual? To clarify, I'm not saying you were ever straight, I'm just saying that if you considered yourself to be straight for any period of time, it's probably true if that was what you chose. I would argue that you could be heterosexual, any time you want, but that there's no incentive to want such a thing. See, it's all about ideology, because one can make arguments for a certain sexuality, they can say it's logical to be a lesbian over a heterosexual woman.
I agree that consent is the most important principle in all sexual matters, and in all of existence. Obviously. That even goes without saying (or, at least, should go without saying).
What you're saying, though, it's just not relevant to this discussion. I clearly care about sexuality being a choice because it permits women to leave abusive relationships with men and find women their own speed, and vice versa.
Animal species engage in opposite-sex intercourse as a means of reproduction, or, as a means of sensual pleasure. Let's say that an animal possesses no knowledge that their activities with another of a different sex will result in pregnancy, and, thus, the continuation of that animal's bloodline. Therefore, they are doing it exclusively for sensual, hedonistic pleasure, and don't care about procreation whatsoever. Additionally, they don't do it with an animal of the same sex because, of course, they don't believe in pregnancy. They have no clue it exists. As there are animals who willingly refrain from sex, I would say it is due to political ideology, that such mating occurs. They objectively, the animal, consider such actions to be of a positive nature.
I don't understand what makes these women bisexual when they've chosen to identify as lesbians, live only with a woman/women, and gravitate toward sexual situations and media featuring women and lesbians.
Yes, I'm aware that romantic relationships should actually be fulfilling. That doesn't relate to what I've been saying.
So, there's a lot to unpack here, with what you're remarking. I think you definitely believe you're not a lesbian for political purposes, but ultimately it should be addressed why the vast majority of radical feminists aren't heterosexual, but label themselves as either lesbians or bisexual women. Obviously, it's not a coincidence.
A woman have, at any time, with or without any certain genes (which don't even exist), leave her husband, find a girlfriend, have sex with her girlfriend, masturbate to gynophilic erotica, have her vagina open up when looking at aesthetically pleasing images of women, and draw and write about erotica featuring lesbian relationships. Is anything of this not a choice?
'She's actually bisexual, and just merely expresses herself in such a way as to appear as though she's a lesbian.'
I think the issue with this sentiment would be... well, that'd it make everyone bisexual, including asexual-identified people. The reason one's genitalia moves when looking at certain images, or having certain erotica thoughts, is because a certain, ultra-specific arrangements of things, that things are the way they are, conditionally, has been met, that it subsists in this state, causing the mind to activate movement within the genitals. Hence, why non-sexual seeming things (in relation to fetishes) turn people on, that their genitalia hardens or wets. It is not the case that anything, in all of existence, is inherently erotic, but rather that its status as erotically pleasing is socially woven, and, as a result, people react to such imagery with sexual excitement. What is, and isn't, sexual differs from culture to culture. A major example is movement and behaviour from women and feminine appearing people which society classifies as sexual, but when men and masculine appearing people do it, it's not considered sexual, not seen in such a manner.
In case you're wondering, I'm a man. A man with androphilic fantasies. Could I, if I wanted to, be a heterosexual man, gynophilic? Yes, of course I could. It's not even difficult, from a sensual perspective. But, from a logical perspective, it is extremely, extremely difficult. Because liking women, in my case, but not in everyone's case, is not logical, but illogical, it harms me psychologically. Hence, why I only masturbate to fantasies involving men, and read/watch erotica featuring male relationships. If I wanted to, I could read/watch gynophilic material, and also masturbate to female-centered fantasies. But, that's not me, for ideological reasons. Because I care about this thing called objectivity, because I know such thoughts make me feel bad, because women are already endlessly objectified (a lot of the time, against their will). Because I'm a man, and being of the male sex, desiring a population distinctly genetically different from myself just feels weird and unnatural.
If, in an alternate reality, men were the ones who were always sexualised and objectified, and never women, and I was a woman, it's possible I would've been gynophilic instead of androphilic. Currently, I live in a world where women are only ever sexualised and objectified, and I'm a man. So, it makes sense for me to be erotically interested and sexually attracted to masculine men, exclusively the male sex.
Literally any time I want, I can stop feeling things for men, quit liking them. Heck, straight women can, whenever they choose to.
A bunch of studies have found that lesbian-identified women are just as sexually turned on (measured by genital movement and eye dilation) as bisexual-identified and heterosexual-identified women by guy on guy porn, when they were test subjects watching such sexual activity. Sorry I can't find the study (I think I actually bookmarked it, but it's so far down my list of citations, I can't get it now), but if you look up similar things, you'll find it's accurate science. But, does this mean that such women were actually turned on by male on male action? It depends on the individual woman. A straight-identified woman may not like gay male porn, but a lesbian-identified woman may love it. Hence, why certain lesbians regularly watch gay male porn, or only ever watch it in terms of their erotic choices.
What I'm saying is that there's no actual genetic difference between women of any claimed sexual orientation. Straight-identified women can experience sensual movement in response to watching lesbian porn, and lesbian-identified women can feel the exact same way watching gay male porn. Likewise, it has been found, in a variety of academic studies (again, I've probably bookmarked them, but it's so far down that citations list), that straight-identified men are just as equally sexually moved, in terms of genitalia and eye dilation, as bisexual-identified and gay-identified men, when watching guy on guy pornography. But, this doesn't mean everyone who's been in these tests likes this erotic business equally.
Let's say that a woman is in the process of being raped, and though her rapist never touches her genitalia, her vagina nonetheless opens up. Does this mean she was sexually aroused? No! Absolutely not! There was zero, absolutely zero, sexual excitement derived from such an incident. She was not turned on, she was not sexually aroused or sexually attracted. She hated every moment of such torture and torment. If anything, her genitalia moving actually made far worse for her. Psychologically damaging, she was under the impression that she was 'sexually turned on,' and therefore must've somehow 'enjoyed' it. But, she didn't enjoy it. A lot of women, and a lot of men, experience genitalia movement, even when no touching has commenced, in response to incidents of sexual violence being committed against them. However, they hate this, and it instils an immense quantity of shame and guilt into them, self-hatred. The reason their genitalia did what it did was because the act being performed on them is considered sexual by society, and, therefore, subconsciously, someone's genitals move, but no sexual attraction is present whatsoever. Likewise, eye dilation occurs when someone checks out a painting, or looks at small-sized words. It's not inherently sexual, as nothing is. It doesn't, at all, imply sexual arousal. Nothing does. 'Sexual arousal' is just something society has made up.
Sexuality isn't like taste buds. I don't really like chocolate cake, because I don't tend to like sweet stuff. I'm a savoury person. But I actually have evidence for this, since taste buds objectively exist. No matter how hard I try, I can't make broccoli soup taste good. I can, however, direct my thoughts in such a way as to get, and maintain, an erection, and climax shortly afterwards as a result. This is something anyone can do.
I do apologise if some of the stuff I've mentioned about myself is rather graphic. I'm just describing in scientific terms the process of sexual arousal.
I'm saying that no genes exist which create sexuality. I'm saying people come to be sexual, based upon the social construct that is sexualness, through social engineering, through the various environments which shape and structure them to be the type of person that they are.
I've addressed this prior. I wasn't saying someone felt psychologically attacked because of anti-gay ideology, but because they themselves, on their own, not born out of any social conditioning, but born out of ideology, don't like their attraction. They're not anti-gay, they're just not interested in such lust.
I disagree entirely with pedophilia not being a choice. I cannot believe that any individual, at any point in history, has had sexual thoughts about children out of anything other than their own volition. If you can understand that sexuality is a choice, you can understand that pedophilia can vanish with the snap of one's fingers. It is a choice, an immoral and disgusting one, paedophiles make, to be paedophiles. There are no genetics testifying to the existence of pedophilia, treating it as a scientific property. It is just a choice depraved individuals mistakenly make.
Well, I should clarify on what I meant here.
Same-sex attracted people do, of course, experience psychological distress arising from anti-gay sentiment. And, obviously, this is bad, and shouldn't occur. What I'm talking about, however, is not this phenomenon, but the fact that if someone experiences sexual arousal, it might not at all be a positive thing for them. The claim that sexuality isn't a choice, it would mean that experience feelings one experiences, which they have no control over, wouldn't be derived from ideological beliefs, and, therefore, must be a distressing thing for the subject. It is quite possible that since one no has beliefs surrounding this sexual arousal, they might not like it, and might not want to engage it. This would imply that asexuality is something people cannot choose, that they are forced to be sexually aroused, and to be inherently sexual creatures. We're not talking about sexual intercourse, but merely sexual arousal.
What if someone never wants to look at erotica or pornography? What if they don't want to masturbate, or look at sexually exciting images? So, they, supposedly, have these genes residing inside of them, but they don't want to act on their attraction, not even privately. How are they sexual? Additionally, what if someone doesn't have the genes, but looks at erotica of one sex, and masturbates to that sex. Are they not sexual?
In relation to my genitalia movement comment, all sexual feelings are derived from having fetishes, whether consciously or otherwise. One can have an unconscious fetish, but it's still derived from societal phenomena, and doesn't exist due to any biology.
Absolutely correct! You nailed it.
I'll add on to it a bit. See, the sexual preferences human beings have, they hold on to them because of the social environments which surround them. For me, personally, I was drawn to the sexualisation men specifically because I was repulsed by the objectification of women. This has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with society. I could've chosen to be sexually interested in women in a society where neither women nor men are sexually objectified, or objectified to roughly equal degrees. My preferences are contextual, fashioned through the type of social organisation which subsists in the present day. Clearly, if men were always sexually objectified, and never were women, there'd be a far higher chance I'd gravitate toward women erotically.
I think radical lesbians (lesbians who are radical feminists, whether they consider themselves political lesbians or not) want to redefine both female sexuality and female sexualness. They, firstly, want to recognise that heterosexuality is a political institution, and not natural by any means. It is forced upon women (and men, as well) to force them to be together with men, to continue the family unit, and all the patriarchal social structures existent since the dawn of statehood. The sexualisation of women converts their status from humans to objects, and aids in dehumanising them, so that men have no worries in stripping them of their legal abilities. Through pornography, women are commodified further, to the point where they exist purely for the sake of erotical consumption, and not as human beings with any ounce of individualism.
Radical lesbians, they, secondly, want to cease the fetishization of lesbianism by both men and women, and to permit for all consensual sexual expressions, so that either sex can enjoy what they find erotically pleasing. Women are, from here on, not viewed as sexual properties, but human beings, who, when consenting with others (in a non-pornographic context), find freedom in their sexual experiences. Women who love women do so because they seek enjoyment and intimate connection, and not because of financial, cultural, and/or legal restraints.
It could be argued that in a post-patriarchal society, lesbianism would be far less necessary for women than it is today, since women, in this society, would be free to express themselves sexually, however they please, and women aren't over-sexualised. Women wouldn't become lesbians to try to distance themselves from men, since men no longer wield authority over them. Rather, lesbianism and heterosexuality, and, by extension, bisexuality, would just be relatively apolitical preferences, that are just expressed because they can be, as opposed to abiding by a certain set of ideological principles.
If your claim is that, as it is, no one chooses, consciously, their sexuality, and lesbianism is a female sexuality, would this mean that political lesbianism is not real lesbianism? Glaringly, political lesbianism is conscious, the belief that women should be sexually and romantically involved with women as opposed to men, on the basis that women can never be free from patriarchy if they're involved with men on such intimate levels.
I consider myself to have consciously chosen his own sexual feelings. I chose, for a variety of ideological reasons, to be interested exclusively in men, in erotica, in romantic fiction, in my sexual fantasies, and as potential romantic partners. If it wasn't reasonable for me to do this, I wouldn't have done this. It is reason which drove me to like what I like, as I don't believe in liking something through a subjective lens, as to imply that objectivity is absent from the equation. Honestly, to claim one likes a movie, considers it good, for 'subjective reasons' is to reject reason in its entirety. The things we like, making us the things we are, indeed derive from logical sense, or, at least, an attempt at logical sense. If there were just some gene in me that made me exclusively like guys - which couldn't be the case, as I wasn't always sexually drawn to men (early childhood), and only became sexually interested as a result of environmental, social conditions - it makes I might as well not like guys, since there's nothing logical about it. In fact, if it cannot be justified by ideological means, this means that asexuality is the only path to sanity, and the sexuality I do experience is actually damaging, degrading, and harmful to my health.
Here's something to put into perspective (two things, actually). The critique of femininity which radical feminism articulates examines individual properties and phenomena tied to womanhood, but only in a socially constructed sense, possessing no real relation to the female sex, and understands these constructs to be extremely negative, impacting women and girls in the worst of manners. From an objective point of view - not adhering to the nonsense of 'it's empowering to individual women' - there can be claimed that a certain product or phenomenon is of an objectively poor quality, and should, thus, be rejected. For instance, high heels are terribly uncomfortably, and aren't suited for human feet, and are extremely hard to walk in. They can't be ran in, and they hurt one's feet after lengthy periods of wearing them. They were originally invented by men for men, because men wanted to look taller (male biological trait). Realising they were painful and inconvenient, men decided to push them onto the female sex, because it was a means for a husband to control his wife's footing (implying a power imbalance). When individual women say, 'High heels empower me,' this just means they're incorrect about a certain gendered property, not that such shoes are inherently empowering, since they're obviously not. Like criticising a bad film, criticising properties falling under the umbrella that is femininity is nothing except a testification to objective correctness. High heels are bad because high heels are bad. Bad both for women and men. Something is bad for someone even if they claim it's good for them.
Sexuality, if it's viewed as anything except a choice, is very similar to the un-feminist upholding of femininity. It is to separate sexual desire and sexual expression from objectivity, reason, and political ways to life. For a woman to be with a man on a sexual and/or romantic level, it is to be with someone who holds different sexual class interests, who's very likely to be incompatible with her autonomy and individualism. She can like whatever type of erotica she wants. But by doing so, she shouldn't deny it's a choice. It's formed based upon her own personal beliefs.
Take what TRAs say about gender and neurology. They peddle the pseudo-scientific notion of female and male brains (which don't exist), and use this myth to attempt to justify self-identification. However, even if women's and men's brains were wired differently, and it's not even that in actuality, this would merely imply a predisposition to gendered behaviour, but not an guaranteed execution of it. For instance, a woman with a 'male brain' may not perform 'male behaviour' at all, and might adopt femininity fully. What's being stated is not the execution of the abandonment of femininity, but rather merely being more likely to reject femininity than other women. So, it's meaningless, worthless. A woman, in this hypothetical situation, is literally no different from other women. Ultimately, when TRAs claim that supposed brain differences prove the existence of trans-identified people as valid, that there exits some science to it, they're just claiming that someone is female or male based solely upon sex stereotypes, which is a form of misogyny. They are claiming that one's predisposition to perform, or not perform, femininity makes one female or male. But, it's not only misogynistic, but also really unintellectual. It's like saying someone who smokes an immense quantity of cigarettes has cancer, even when they don't have cancer. Do they have a predisposition toward contracting cancer, due to their smoking habits? Definitely. But, they don't actually have cancer. A predisposition is obviously different from an actuality.
If someone were to possess a gene, or a bunch of genes, which contribute to sexuality - which don't exist, but exist here hypothetically for the sake of the explanation - this would mean they have a predisposition to being gay, or bisexual, or straight. It doesn't mean they actually are any of such things inherently, as no desire or behaviour, which is sexual, has been expressed. It can be expressed, but it doesn't have to, since such expressions are a choice individuals make, or don't make. No one has to masturbate, no one has to have sexual fantasies, no one has to read/watch erotica, or write/draw erotica, or have sexual intercourse with anyone of any biological sex. Someone possessing such supposed genes doesn't have to participate in any of this stuff, at all, in any time of their existence. Are they, however, still gay, or bisexual, or gay? This is strange. Someone could not possess any such genes, and still decide to masturbate to a certain sex, fantasise about being with that sex erotically, have sex with only one sex, and read/watch erotica featuring only one sex, and write/draw erotica featuring, again, the same sex.
So, tell me again, how is sexuality not a choice? And not just a choice, any old choice, but a beautiful choice at that?
Anyway, I really appreciate your input. I want to let everyone know, I want the absolute best for all lesbians and gay men. If you know something's good for you, then peruse and enjoy it. But, let it always be based upon reason. Don't follow what others are doing just because they're doing it in mass quantities. After all, this is a gender abolitionist community. As it's anti-conformity as it can get. I just want to let people know, they have the choice to be who they want to be. I can't stand the thought of someone telling another that one can't be a lesbian or a gay man because they don't possess genes which apparently exist. Sadly, when Sheila Jeffreys put forth the reality, in feminist theory, that sexuality was socially constructed, she was accused of claiming that straight women could be lesbians. A political lesbian is a lesbian. Sheila Jeffreys was right. A lesbian is nothing except political. If she really hated herself, she'd be heterosexual.
If this is true, the implication would be that asexuality is impossible for most people, that genes compel a person to experience sexual lust. This would, likewise, mean that someone's desires are divorced from ideology, that they have no beliefs about a certain sexualised thing/person, but rather that something biological automatically causes them to feel a certain way. If choice isn't involved in such experiences, sensual or internally artistic, it would mean that someone is frequently being psychologically attacked, that they feel the way they do due to their genetics compelling them to, even if they don't like it whatsoever. If they do like it, however, that can only be because of ideology. If someone doesn't like sexuality, their experiences of it must be truly horrific. Or, is it the case that they're not actually experiencing sexuality, or 'sexual arousal,' but, rather, their genitals are moving in accordance with a certain, specific, OCD fixing arrangement of things, which causes blood to be pumped to such genitals? The same reason any genital movement occurs in non-sexual scenarios.
So, I'm getting, from what you're saying, that anyone can have sex, but not everyone can experience attraction? If you could place your finger on it, what, precisely, is attraction (in sexual terms)? Is it erections or female equivalent? Is it admiring art or erotic depicting a certain sex in a sexual context? Is it reading/watching erotica?
It seems to me, nobody defines sexual attraction the same way. It's a bit of a vague abstraction as a result.
How gender critical women are seen (confessions of an ex-TRA) by SexualityCritical in GenderCritical
Yes. I don't believe any lesbianism isn't political.