What are some humane ways to euthanize a pet at home without a gun? by Herpa_Derpa_Island in AskSaidIt

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

"Not kick much."

Who's benefit is this for, again? You, or them?

"How do same-sex attracted children work? That seems dodgy." and more - r/transgenderUK ponders the existence of same-sex attraction by reluctant_commenter in LGBDropTheT

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

Same-sex attracted children aren't exactly a thing.

Yes, and no. If it's born-this-way, then the outcome was fixed, long ago. The desire may not quite be apparent until later, of course. Counter-example, are opposite-sex attracted children a thing? That's a more neutral way to put it, no? You talk about a clear, dividing line, and for the sake of propriety, we all know what that is. Yet, can children not have a fondness for a particular sex, for a peer? Romantic love, of sorts? In Canada, and the USA, this is a rather absurd idea, but other cultures seem to have taken notice of it.

But, if we consider fixedness at an early age, then it opens us up to rather hitherto, unexamined, and undesirable concepts. The idea that adult sexuality is fixed in childhood removes the concept of volition, and thus we cannot disparage those who have objectionable desires.

What are some humane ways to euthanize a pet at home without a gun? by Herpa_Derpa_Island in AskSaidIt

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

JFC y'all need Jesus.

Let me expand on that. I'm a sexual sadist, and you all make me sick with your perverted ways to "peacefully" euthanize a beloved pet. One part ignorance, one part cruelty. Just as guilty, either way. I'm not going to feed you some trite line about consenting adult partners, which is a hard and fast rule for me, but we're not talking about people, least of all killing them, are we?

I and my partners do what we do because it brings us joy. Mis-wiring, in the brain, shall we say, but I guarantee you, no animal is as such.

What are some humane ways to euthanize a pet at home without a gun? by Herpa_Derpa_Island in AskSaidIt

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

Mammalian response to excess CO2 is not a pleasant way to go. It's not actually a deprivation of oxygen that causes autonomic arousal, it's an excess of CO2. Could we please curtail the sadism via ignorance?

Their understanding of human sexuality really is deep by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

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

It just demonstrates that young people are being exposed to topics before they are quite ready for them. The Internet. That's all.

The horrible assumptions and baggage going into that phase of life, brief as it may be; is quite formative.

Can someone explain what Kiwi Farms was? by HiddenFox in AskSaidIt

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

Some of the usual stuff you see on here, about how the Jews control the world, casual homophobia, etc. Didn't seem to much be a point of conflict for them, and wasn't related to the purpose of the site. Not a place for the easily offended. That sort of stuff was just "there." Think like 4chan banter.

Diligent archivists.

KF may have smelled of shit, but so were the people they focused on. Seemed to target the most egregious bad actors on the internet. They didn't have it out for just your random person.

Who are the demographic of men who are into TIMs? by HelloMomo in LGBDropTheT

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

Are their husbands GAMP-type bi men, or more typical bi or gay men?

It's an outstanding question. Fa'afafine are not permitted to marry.

some people do have a very strong seemingly innate and inborn preference for masculinity or femininity.

Which really fouls up the traditional concept of _sex_ual orientation. Male/female; masc/femme. The latter is based on?

And I'm just really perplexed by how someone could have such an innate reaction to something that is culturally constructed.

Erotic learning. Some people are obviously capable of it, but we don't know how many, or why. The latex fetishist can't be born with an idea, buried in the back of their mind, about another person wearing latex clothing. They have to learn it.

AGP are seeking sexual validation first, not necessarily social validation as we all assumed. by aHobbitsTale in LGB_Discussions

[–]aHobbitsTale[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think every heterosexual transsexual knows that people generally understand when they see them, that they generally want to be treated "as a woman" (what they really mean is in a "feminine" manner, but their ideas of femininity are warped and they are really just experiencing a masculine form of masochism) sexually.

Right out of the gate, we diverge. I don't think most people understand what they're being faced with. I could be wrong on this topic... But I would be so horribly surprised if the mainstream could take one casual glance, today, at an autogynephilic transexual and say: "ah, they just want to be what they desire." Terribly shocked, really, if this is what is going on. Perhaps the intuitive sense is there and everyone is terrified to say it? Or lacks the framework to articulate it? I would argue the latter, if anything. But I presuppose immense ignorance. Why should they care? Average people are getting on very well just doing average stuff and remaining willfully and blissfully ignorant about a great many things.

their ideas of femininity are warped and they are really just experiencing a masculine form of masochism) sexually.

Thank you for stating this as such... new perspective... I take this to mean that some men are masochists, and are looking for, or are compelled to a theme that appeals to them. Certainly, there are many varieties of masochism. The overall idea remains intact--I'll define it as disparities in interpersonal power, not pain, power, and humilitation as von Krafft-Ebing put it--but the activities that achieve this are numerous and sundry. There are disparities of interpersonal power between men and women, in the West, irrespective of transexualism.

And I would be even more shocked if people understood the phenomena as one pertaining to what you're proposing. It's almost incomprehensible for the average person, no? So, you and I have some degree of camaraderie here, because we don't accept the base-case. Though we may be at odds on some things. That's fine. We're working through them. Actually working on things... what a concept.

I don't understand what you mean when you use the term "sexual acceptance."

All things being equal, in a different post. That was my point. Phenotypically normal, adult, and consenting. Everything else remains the same.

There is a lot more to heterosexual transsexualism than fetishism. When we dismiss them all as "AGPs", that only hurts our cause and glosses over the deeper reasons heterosexuals transition, which are very different from the reasons homosexuals transition. AGP is a real phenomenon, but it's more of a way to describe a specific way in which the psychology and sexuality of biologically masculine people becomes warped during or before the transition process of heterosexual males. It isn't a stand-alone, weird, one-off fetish. I would say that all heterosexual transsexuals most likely have AGP, but a good portion of them likely acquire it after transition.

I'm struggling with this one.

There is a lot more to heterosexual transsexualism than fetishism.

Fetishism as evidenced and defined by a desire for female-typical clothing? (It's a rather historical look at it. The fetish-object?) No, they want the whole package. They want to be female. Physiologically, socially, anatomically, etc, and to each has different degrees of respective desire that also competes with plain heterosexual desire.

I sense a wish that you want to be able to fix them. I have nothing to offer you or any one else there. "Become." "Before." "Transition process." "Acquire it." They're stuck with it, as best as I can tell. It does not appear to be, to be volitional, and even if it was, self-directed. Men's desire for women, as an erotic locus, is quite grounded. It's just the subjectivity gets screwed up from time to time. Them... vs? me?

You don't need to know someone's sexual habits to know they're a homosexual.

Rather, it was their social habits that made it evident. But it wasn't their social habits that made it objectionable. Having a nice dinner out with another man makes it quite obvious. Even if I don't dress flamboyantly or have "the voice." Supposing for a minute that homosexuality didn't exist, I could have wonderful, intimate outings with men without anyone having a care, given that we both went back to our respective women-folk at the end of the day. This is a horrible blow to men as a class; terrified they will be judged as homosexual.

Also, I'm wondering why you decided to categorize all MTF trans as "AGPs". You somehow forgot homosexual transsexuals, you know, the reason why transsexuality exists in the first place. As a conversion tactic.

A necessary generalization for the sake of argument and prose. You clearly understand; I should be able to throw an abstract, yet grounded, concept or two at you. It's an interesting question though, if you accept that autogynephilia is an a-social, physiological phenomena. Which came first? Homosexuality or AGP? Probably the former, given our evolutionary biology, but it depends where you place the starting point to make historical meaning of it.

Ancient Greece

I consider this one to be hotly contested, and I think the particulars are lost to time. I don't think we can derive modern conclusions from it. I would rather like to, say, investigate the sexual behavior of Afghanistan, for instance, with regards to older and younger men, permit the euphemism. It seems rather obvious to me about Greece, that the social hierarchy and the sexual hierarchy were relatively tied together. A male citizen, the top class, could loose said class by being a receptive anal partner. I would rather avoid ascribing facts of sexual desire. In modernity, the laws in Saudi Arabia pertaining to the death penalty with regards to homosexual behavior are defined insofar as who was the top, who was the bottom, and what religion they respectively profess, for instance. The death penalty there, is also metered out differently if the crime was against the state, or against god. Firing squad, and beheading, respectively. They have unique meaning-making.

actual homosexual males were picked out by their femininity

I don't think we can't discern "actual homosexuals" across such time and place. Gay men today come in such variety. Some are effeminate, some are not. Ætiological differences, I think.

femininity in homosexual males and masculinity in homosexual females

I think the aetiological causes in homosexual women are fewer than that of men. Or, in other words, masculine women are more likely to be homosexual, but masculine men are more likely to be straight.

There's a reason children need to be taught to eat with a fork and knife and not off the floor with their hands.

Some cultures eat with their hands.

Your tone is odd, as if you believe "the AGPs" are somehow conspiring against... I guess straight/bihet women?

Given my retort, I think I could skip this one, but for completeness... No I think we just see AGP fundamentally differently, though we have the same word for something we've recognized as a phenomena. We both see it, but we understand it differently. It's not a grand conspiracy. It's a gestalt of individual desire. It's quite solipsistic.

How pathetic is it that LGBDropTheT is still private? by aHobbitsTale in LGB_Discussions

[–]aHobbitsTale[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you forgot about the existence of homosexuality.

I didn't, though. Men who desire men are possessed of a female-typical desire, (who desires masculine men, most frequently? Roughly half the population.) and women who desire women are possessed of a male-typical one (who desires feminine women most frequently? Again, about half of every person.) especially when you look only at the physiological aspects. Sure, there are higher-order effects. No doubt.

What it seems to imply is that there is absolutely zero difference between the sexuality of heterosexuals and homosexuals (of the same sex) other than the target. This is wrong.

This is my point, and I'll gladly entertain your take on it. In all seriousness, I think you can see where I'm coming at from this. Everything else is the same! The only variance is male/female, it's... It's just who you want to have sex with. Phenotypical, adult, consenting partners. The anatomy may differ, certainly, and the attendant activities thus differ, but the desire is one based on sex, sex matters. Top/bottom roles among men? What does that reflect?

Maybe you haven't seen much yaoi....

No, but there's something to be said about that, isn't there? Why is it constrained to artistic rendition? Art, literature, as opposed to the domain of the videographer? That has to be resolved.

Police remove lesbians from Pride march in Cardiff after confrontation. They were holding gender critical signs that upset the trains. One sign read: Lesbians don't like penises. That upset some troons with lady-cocks. No arrests were made. LGB drop the T is gaining in popularity around the globe by troontownblues in TumblrInAction

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

Given that the internet is about the only place that the biological realities of life don't matter

Transhumanism... Or we could even say the Internet is about the only place that reality does not matter. Case-in-point Zuckerberg's "metaverse." If one seeks to make an "alternate/virtual" reality, well, it's really quite there in the words, no?

the internet is the only place where trans women can get validation

The internet is the number one place for crafting any sort of persona, trans or not, irrespective of how that person actually is. They could be, wise, or likeable, or funny, etc. This isn't any different on mainstream social media. Perfectly heterosexual people are equally wrapped up in the internet's siren song, which is: to be anyone you want to be. See the trouble with that? There's some complicity with regards to trans there as well; I admonish everyone on that, because it derives from the mainstream.

So no matter where you go online there's going to be a much higher persistence of trans people than in real life

There are a few spots outside a trans convention where you can find an abundance of them. In my limited personal experience, it's in places dedicated to erotic phenomena. Sex shops, fetish clubs, BDSM "munches." etc. This mostly pertains to the common MTF type. FTMs, in my experience, are lacking from public or quasi-public places. Curious... worried... where are they? But I never get the intuitive sense that the MTF in these scenarios are comfortable. It strikes me that they're walking on eggshells, yet prepared to lash-out. They're seething, internally, but, it's not the Internet, and real social rules apply. Maybe it's just the exaggerated high-heels they're wearing without much experience, but no, I think... they're tying to have peace from without, as opposed to within. It's exhibitionist, but yet a cry for acceptance. I don't think they're getting it, never mind the more lax attitudes about well, everything in these sorts of places.

Lesbians... because they are only interested in females

Which invalidates the transsexuals' wish that they are female. Because lesbians are not into them, thus, not female. Lesbians don't like men. Lesbians don't like MTF trans, thus, not women.

Male-to-female transsexuals are generally not inviting the validation of men, because men are often not the object of desire (with the exception of behavioral homosexuality--because it is "women" who have sex with men.) Combine this with the co-option of LGB...TQ+ and the circuitous assumption that it's always been that way, as one, big happy family, it's understood as a betrayal--one of the worst offenses--that they are on high alert for.

Or, simply put, they seek sexual validation, not societal validation per say, but sexual validation. They're not getting it, and it's causing a huge ruckus.

Finally, I'll add, I don't think we're giving enough credence to sexual phenomena. You might not like them, but they are here, present, and they are compelling. Case in point?

How pathetic is it that LGBDropTheT is still private? by aHobbitsTale in LGB_Discussions

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

Are you saying straight dudes jerking to lesbian porn (or rather "lesbian porn", usually two straight girls directed by a straight guy to try not to cringe while barely touching each other) is not paraphilia, but straight chicks masturbating to gay porn (or rather "gay porn", usually some drawing of two males by a straight woman), is paraphilia? If so, what is the reason for the inconsistency? But again I could be wrong because I'm lost at "wrt."

No, it's a fair point, and you did perfectly note the inconsistency.

In short, yes. Which at first seems to be a rather indefensible thing to say. FF for men is "normal" (there are no penises...) and MM for women is paraphilia (there's at least two penises.) It only appears to be an unfair thing to say if you consider male and female sexuality to be equivalent. That men and women are possessed of the same sexual desire and nature? Right? It also depends on your personal take on the huge variety of paraphilia, since given as a singular category.

fake lesbians

Drowning in them, aren't we? AGP...

This is what I was hinting at, however. You've got a phrase for it, your words, and below I make a comment regarding "lesbian porn."

usually some drawing

You're making my point. Concepts vs reality. Porn vs the written word. I'm not here to say that concepts I would not like to realize are not intriguing, that I've never enjoyed some artistic renditions, I'm just quite curious why those things aren't realized on video.

straight dudes jerking to lesbian porn (or rather "lesbian porn", usually two straight girls directed by a straight guy to try not to cringe while barely touching each other)

In agreement. It's horribly off-putting, isn't it? And yet, it's published, because it suffices. Yet I've never seen a bit of (male-male) gay porn that I felt was inauthentic. Quite the opposite.

Biochemical dysphoria by NerveActive in TumblrInAction

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

to slink off and disappear into the crowd

They will, and they will succeed, with perhaps a few exceptions. I'm not out for a pound of flesh... And I have no expectations for justice... it was left behind, long ago. They would not have started down this path if they knew the eventuality that awaited their ideology. The damage can't be undone.

Best we can do is learn from this moment. Document it; as a warning to those that will follow. It's not much different than any other halcyon future anyone else has tried to usher in.

Transgender Ideology Is Riddled With Contradictions. Here Are the Big Ones. by jacques1102 in TumblrInAction

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

Adkins asserts that being transgender is not a mental disorder, but simply “a normal developmental variation.”

Normal, or rather, regular variations don't need treatment. I'll die on that hill. Thank you, very much. Juxtapose this by going back one hundred years in medical technology. Could we maintain that there are transsexuals that are of a "normal developmental variation," for which we did not yet have the requisite technology and thus refused for treatment? Not that the outcomes, today, are particularly pleasant. Of course, the counterexample to that thought process is all of modern medical technology that can say, save someone from brain cancer. It couldn't one hundred years ago. But that rather refutes the idea of "normal developmental variation." It's a matter of health and distress, no?

I've not yet come to a personal, satisfactory conclusion about what does and does not constitute mental disorder. It's a rather complex philosophical topic, in my mind. But one thing has always stood out for me: being in-touch with reality. There are other proposed criteria that, on their own, or in tandem, could constitute mental disorder, but I'm rather fond of this one. Or, in other words, schizophrenia with its delusions could never evade the definition. So that puts people--consider for the sake of argument just adults--with cross-sex wishes into one of two categories. Those that understand they are possessed of something atypical, and those that really do think they're "trapped in the wrong body." One constitutes mentally disordered, the other does not. Even though the aetiology may be the same.

A priori it strikes me as rather odd that we are just now, as a whole, becoming aware of this "normal developmental variation." Not that I can't trace various forms of transsexualism through a few centuries of history. It was just quite uncommon. Quite a change to become the zeitgeist--a proxy of the on-going "culture war."

The author is hitting on the recent methodology of trans activism--throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. It wasn't long ago that the postmodern claim in this camp--that sex isn't real--was quickly dashed. If sex isn't real, then what are you transitioning from and to? This incoherence was even too much for them. Or, perhaps, it was not pleasing.

Why accept transgender “reality,” but not trans-racial, trans-species, and trans-abled reality?

All very real phenomena. But, I think I digress is some regards, because I can empirically measure the aforementioned. And in some regards collect psychophysiological measurements. Transsexual, transracial, transpecies, and transabled. Real things, certainly, but I do reject the respective claims that person "really is who they say they are." I'll regard a person who desires to be an anthropomorphic animal as a person who wants to be an anthropomorphic animal. Not that they really are a wolf. Obviously.

I wouldn't even say this is a compromise. It's taking things as they are. I have no intent of ignoring and denying that people with authentic, life-long, cross-sex desire exist (not so far away in terms from plain-old heterosexuality; but we were talking about transexualism...) We can have transsexuals without the attendant demands that they really are the opposite sex, and we can reasonably accommodate them. Society thrives on polite fictions, but it will fail in unconditional fiction. (Because there are people possessed of atypical sexuality that results in these outcomes.) We don't tell schizophrenics that the voices in their heads are in fact, real. That would be doing them a terrible disservice. It's likewise not a kindness to participate in the lie that the transexual wants to tell themselves.

You've noticed the complete lack of solipsism. It's not just enough that the transexual believes. You have to profess your fealty as well.

Scientists are panicking because the Webb telescope seems to have disproved the Big Bang Theory pretty conclusively. by iamonlyoneman in funny

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

I've not read the link, but I will tell you that no true practitioner of the discipline of science is ever beset of panic because of new information that challenges their worldview. They welcome it.

It is only people with an agenda, a desire for hierarchy, or some pre-supposed outcome, that would be bothered by what the instrument reveals.

This is the difference between "the science" and Science. Scientific knowledge is always open to revision, by anybody.

How pathetic is it that LGBDropTheT is still private? by aHobbitsTale in LGB_Discussions

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

I disagree that "gold star" is meaningful as an identity for gay and bi men. That's all. I think your reply, by my experience, is an invention--one that is designed to satisfy women. As if men and women were equivalent in these topics. I don't think so.

I do take well your point about heterosexual or bisexual women with a lesbian identity, but I think that is readily juxtaposed with men who want to be "100% sure." And could one ever be 100% sure? (Reductio ad absurdum--has one met everyone of the opposite sex?) This is the constant anxiety that men who are fond of men face. And if we're being terribly honest, you see that anxiety playing out day-by-day. It's not just pure hedonism that motivates gay and bisexual men.

So we've come full-circle in some regards. Both for men, and for women.

The social disapprobation for men being fond of their own sex is vastly larger than that of women. By Western, heterosexual standards, women into women is "hot," and if you will excuse me for a moment, entirely heteronormative--for the enjoyment of men. (Touching on feminism there.) I don't think anyone has really evaluated men's interest in women-women relationships wrt. paraphilia as women's interest in male-male relationships as the same. But heck, new horizons. The latter being a recent topic of investigation. Both are porn categories--really, they are--and they may not be for the same reasons. But each taken on its own is rather telling.

I don't give a good god damn about what should be, and would rather concern myself with the way things are, and after which, we can sort out the morality, and moral hazards that follow. But I won't try and obscure anything that's topically relevant.

This is war. We are in a war. The physical battlefield is not where the war won. by In-the-clouds in propaganda

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

I enjoy the old Internet trope of "OP is a fag." Many a chuckle has been elucidated from me on its behalf... and I do have a fondness for my own sex.

Never mind how we're having a negligible squabble about something that is relatively speaking, unimportant. Homosexuality is the cause of the plight? I think not. Rather, it is the simple-minded sort that can be distracted by such a thing, while a multitude of actually important things transpire, unbeknownst to them, because of their hyper fixation on a trivial subject.

I don't think it's the WEF per-se that's the matter here. It's the fertile ground they've been enjoying. Perhaps they've cultivated it, drawing our collective attention to irrelevant topics.

So let me get this straight. I go to the grocery store and buy a lb. of ham wrapped in plastic, a loaf of bread in plastic, milk in a plastic jug, napkins wrapped in plastic, a salad in plastic, and they won't give me a plastic bag to carry it home because the plastic bag is bad for the environment? by Orangutan in politics

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

Yeah, but making the memory replaceable means adding a connector/socket. Thus, the size increases. This is entirely unacceptable for them trying to shave 0.1 mm of height off their devices year-over-year. The connector would be much more than this... Not that your average person much cares about 0.1 mm. Apple is beholden to their own idiocy. Of course, some people have the wherewithal to hand-solder BGA packages with a propane torch no sweat. Just saying.

But it's also true that semiconductors are advancing year-over-year, and yesterday's memory technology will not work with today's processors. Also, not having new memory to pair the new processors with means a performance degradation, or rather, not getting as much as you can. They work in tandem, and the transistor technology evolves in tandem. The concept of replacing components of a computer, tablet, or phone piecemeal is bonkers when you understand what's required to make that sort of thing happen. Significant performance penalty... for reasons pertaining to... that you can just do it? Why does the ability matter more than any other criteria? It does not, thus, nobody does it. Even though it is technically possible. And eventually technology will advance such that yesterday's "socketable" machine is now defunct, and everyone will be again, bitching about how it's not upgradable, repairable, and what-not.

But, it's all for what? So I can check my email that much faster? We've enjoyed immensely faster, every year, computing machinery for the masses... and all they do with it is look at porn, tell people to fuck off on Facebook, and buy meaningless shit from China's biggest online retailer.

That's not the end of the story for computing machinery, by any means, but in sheer volume, it's kind of a cesspool. And the audacity is to bitch about it. You're already living in the future.

How pathetic is it that LGBDropTheT is still private? by aHobbitsTale in LGB_Discussions

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

On second thought, what does being a gold-star lesbian have to do with it.?

Is there not such a thing as a gold-star gay? Such a term is not in common parlance, at all. Why not? Is there no such thing as a gold-star gay? Gold-star--look at the connotations of those words--is only applied to women. What fresh hell is this?

Just by the numbers, we must have gold-star gays. Yet, they're not flaunting it around.

If we could figure out that disparity, then I think we would all be better off.

A weird sort of social capital, really, what sex you have had sex with. Noun, verb.

Do men not much care? Likely. Do women afford more importance to these topics? Seems to be.

They're both subject to similar societal pressures to find the "right" sex, but yet only one seems to make a big fuss about it.

My intuition is thus: gay men comprise one class. Lesbian-identified women comprise at least two. Not every gay women cares about the label. Some do, some do not. No gay men care, whatsoever.

How pathetic is it that LGBDropTheT is still private? by aHobbitsTale in LGB_Discussions

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

I actually welcome the blatant homophobia, and what follows is my consideration of it.

It's a rare thing nowadays to find someone willing to voice their honest opinion. The Internet provides, and the Internet censors; more frequently. I also harbor nothing against a person experiencing what is often a visceral reaction. How could I say that homosexuality is innate, but simultaneously deny that someone else might have an innate, negative reaction to it? Innateness, of course, being the justification of the former, but not the latter. That's not a fair shake. I could also mention that heterosexual behavior can produce disapprobation, but the mechanism is justified differently. We don't let heterosexual couples have at it in the grocery store, right? Yet, the underlying mechanism--aimed at propriety--very well could be the same. I hold no double standard, and it is in this, that I think one can find common ground with the common sentiment on this site. Excesses, in any formulation, are subject to curtailment, no?

I don't think that the common Saidittor is necessarily concerning themselves with homosexuality. Rather, it is the unheard-of-here, now-common activist who is scrutinized--who wants to round up some, but not all, atypical formulations of sexuality into one big cohort--LGBTQ+--and have out their personal pathology with it. Trans of course being the hot topic. There is a curious calculus about who is included, and who is not. I'll posit that various formulations of human sexuality, uncommon as they may be, confound the popular initialism. Some are popular, others are not. What gets included, what gets excluded, and why? It is merely what is fashionable--be wary.

That trans is gay 2.0. That the constituent letters in the initialism are a "community." Nonesuch. That the Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Trans folk, nevermind what comes after the plus, all know each other, like each other, and share a common goal? Certainly not! That's not a definition of community.

More broadly, now.

Another reply indicated that... I shall provide an interpretation now--a person of the following constitution--proud, gold-star, lesbian, radfem--that thus a person so constituted could have badgered an entire philosophy into hiding? I didn't expect such cowardice. I'm ashamed on your behalf--myself being a person who is different; thought I shouldn't need mention it. Peace comes from within, not from without. I saw such strength just months ago, and now I can only formulate your objection to the trans phenomena as that of your own insecurity. Imagine achieving ones' own goals yet those that drive oneself further into isolation. This is my most important point--success means succession? You are not whole. You are shadows of what you could be. You are not you. Be more. Do more. Know more. Lead. I am thus here, and I am at peace with myself.

Can you not do the same? Can you not find it in yourself to be my bulwark? Can you not back me up?

My reaction follows:

Oh come off it. How many times have I thus heard that transsexualism has been decided in a smoke-filled backroom by men drinking expensive whiskey? If there is any patriarchal conspiracy, it is thus: men have put rather tasty morsels of food in glass jars with the lids on so tight that only males can extricate the contents. A rather simple, but effective conspiracy, if I were to engage in such a thing. Women, obviously, can be fascinated by a piece of ripe food.

I've never been invited to these meetings, I'll have you know. Perhaps I don't have sufficient misogyny, to deprive them of tasty foods, sans my testosterone-grown muscles.

When all else fails to make the math come out, that a conspiracy is required, I suggest that you don't have full grasp of the subject matter.

Wrote this on reddit, whole thread of people justifying failed antidepressants by [deleted] in whatever

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

Correct. Feature not bug. Late night hypothesis. Take with a grain of salt.

Wrote this on reddit, whole thread of people justifying failed antidepressants by [deleted] in whatever

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

What-if these drugs operated on an entirely different mechanism? This isn't to cast shade on their efficacy, because efficacy and mechanism are entirely different phenomena. What if the mechanism is an entirely sexual one? That the efficacy is one of pharmacologic detraction of sexual pursuit? As-if sexual pursuit only consisted of hedonistic pleasure, which is certainly a " side-effect." Perhaps a primary method of action. It is entirely naive to suggest that sexual desires are bereft of romantic and companionate aspect. What driving force motivates people in life? A desire for sexual, companionate, and romantic union? Such a thing, unsatisfied, could very well lead to an existential loss. Perhaps the side-effects are the primary mechanism?

Trans Girl Seethes on Twitter About Family Rejection. by [deleted] in TumblrInAction

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

If this isn't the saddest damn thing I've seen in a good, long while, I don't know what is.

Juxtapose the picture, infer an ideology--perhaps natural law?--and the trans ideology...

Yeah, that is actually what happiness looks like. A society centered around procreative sexuality. The mainstream. As if we could neglect ourselves as social creatures and pretend that we are a sort of solipsistic being. A tautology, perhaps: procreative sexuality--what it exists for. In many formations, sexuality can, infrequently, without necessary moral judgement from this author, go completely off the rails, but it is always a perversion of its intent. Moral judgement comes from harm, in a secular system. And, who, here, in this specific case, is experiencing harm? The happy people in the photo, who won't return a text? I think not. It's probably the moralist.

Yet, we have an angry detractor. A person who's sexuality, which can be reasonably assumed to be autogynephilic, who is thus shut-out from the mainstream. Because theirs, by no choice of their own, is atypical. Strictly to be morally understood in their manner of being; not action. (Choosing one's own desire is transhuman: volitional choice. One either likes carnitas tacos, or does not like carnitas tacos. One can lie, but the desire is either there or it is not. There is no fool but oneself. No day will soon come when we can rationally will ourselves into liking carnitas tacos. Just as no one day will soon come where one can will themselves into the first photo. It is a matter of chance.)

So, I ask you to put yourselves into the shoes of the detractor. I think they're misguided... Intuition reigns. But why, beyond superficiality?

One can like carnitas tacos, or they cannot. A man can desire women, or he cannot. A man can desire women, but himself as the object of his abstract desire, or he cannot--the former is a phenomena known as autogynephilia. Heterosexuality, reflected on the beholder. A hitherto, in the mainstream, unrecognized phenomena of human sexuality--a dimension of subjectivity. A cognitive dissonance that drives one crazy--strictly because it is not recognized. (Perhaps if we could call it as it is, then it would not have such magic prowess?)

I mention unrecognized, because these people are so wholly lost. They've been given a really short straw, in terms of sexual identity. Perhaps you could be upset that the classification is expanding--a fair concern--but if we cannot call things as they are, whether or not one approves? Such a thing is irrelevant in terms scientific taxonomies--and I would strongly argue that a simplification only leads to incoherence.

It is not going away any time soon, and thus, you must rationally engage with it.

Leave. Bisexuals. Alone. Sincerely, a lesbian ally by jay-day in LGBDropTheT

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

It could just be that what we're looking at is heterosexuality, autoheterosexuality, GAMP and... drum-roll please, autoGAMP. Perhaps? Why not autoGAMP?

Announcement from the LGN Management Team: Lesbian and Gay News is closing by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]aHobbitsTale 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Agree with /u/reluctant_commenter and /u/yousaythosethings

LGN was rife with authorship by radical feminists... generally the right ideas with regards to transgendersim, but for entirely perverted reasons.

What a thinly-veiled stab at LGB Alliance, if you can even call it that.

Have we not seen cooptation of the gay rights movement for transgenderism? Radical feminism/political lesbianism has no qualms commandeering lesbians for their own machinations. It's just the agenda, collateral damage be damned. Both have their narcissistic elements.

Meanwhile, everyone else is in quite the fervor such that they'll assimilate any half-baked concept to show each other that they have the "correct" luxury beliefs. Entirely unbeknownst to them is the internal strife amongst the groups.

All of this is an unmitigated disaster that I see no easy resolution to.

This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.

Perhaps, just that, that is the real radicalism: to thine own self be true.