From one community in particular
Trans person explains why you are required to want to have sex with trans people.
So, how did we get here? How did not wanting to have sex with human beings from one community in particular become a legitimate preference?
By “one community in particular” they mean trans people. “Community” can mean anything though. It can mean “particularly smelly unwashed unsavory people.” It can mean rapists, murderers, Trump fans, anything. I think we should be free to not want to have sex with Trump fans or rapists. Hauling in the sacred word “community” doesn’t change that.
The othering of transgender people in sexual contexts is not only in the context of dating or intimacy. It’s systemic and as such it bleeds into most interactions and environments — dating and sex is no exception.
So we’re not only not allowed to have sexual preferences, we’re also not allowed to have social preferences? We can’t just like people we like and leave the others behind?
Ah well. Reading ahead it gets even more boring, too boring to argue with. What an arid pointless empty little world this person lives in, obsessing over being trans and daydreaming about forcing everyone to center trans people, and leaving everything else there is to think about unexplored.
And I have no interest in having sex with people significantly younger than myself! What have I just confessed to?
But seriously… We feature the extreme cases here on B&W but isn’t there a “silent majority” of trans people who just want to carry on with their normal, quiet lives (dare I say it, like normal people)? The ones I’ve encountered have been like that for the most part. We apparently can’t make the “one community in particular” pay attention to us, but maybe they need to step up and police their own? The ones who discredit them as a whole?
Trying to argue someone into having sex with you… is such a turn off, ya know?
I know one of Adelaide’s most staunch supporters of ‘alternate lifestyles’ – gay, lesbian, bi, trans, kink, crossdressing, drag and on and on, and has been an event organiser and pride parade participant for at least 15 years – and even he considers TRAs barmy. It helps that he has a background in professional sport and so knows very well that male and female bodies are on different physical levels. I hang out with him and his trans and gay friends without issue, and none of them are silly enough to think a woman needs to fuck a trans woman just to make him feel included, or that sports performance is equal.
Even so, if he said so on twitter (not that he has), the twitter mob would never tolerate dissent from amongst the community. He will be branded a transphobe by people that haven’t the faintest idea about him. I’ve seen non-asian american twitter warriorz chastise the Japanese government for funding a Japanese tourism and cultural outreach which involved inviting people to a museum of Japanese history, with kimonos for people to wear. The twitter morons said that the Japanese were appropriating Japanese culture!
The noisy ones just don’t care, and will argue for the sake of argument no matter how stupid their stance is. The whole thing proceeds on faith and narcissism.
Back in the somewhat wild years of my youth, I had numerous lovers; all of them female. Trans types were around, but not so organised and vocal as today. But if any of them had invited me to share whatever night-time furniture they had, they would have been politely invited to piss off. That was an act of blatant discrimination on my part, for which today I could possibly be reported to some Authority or other. So I am very concerned lest this truth get out.
Please for Christ’s sake keep it within the B&W community,.
Demandy, rapey narcissists are not desirable people to include in a social circle. I’ve pruned a lot of high maintenance people out of my life, and been happier since.
You want to have a friend, be a friend.
This is a legitimate preference because choosing who you want to have sex with is a legitimate preference. I don’t want to have sex with women. No one questions that as a legitimate preference. I don’t want to have sex with married men. That is a legitimate preference. In fact, I don’t want to have sex with anyone who is not my husband, because he is the one I am interested in. I am excluding more than 7 billion people of all ages, sizes, sexes, ethnicities, and whatever other community they might happen to be in. That is a legitimate preference.
At the point where it was not a legitimate preference, it was because women were considered the property of men, and men got to decide who had access to her body. I refuse to go back to that time. (I guess if we did I’d be okay because most men don’t want a 61 year old overweight snarky otter for their partner.) No woman should be required to have sex with anyone she does not wish to have sex with (same with men; they should have the right to choose). Any group excluded from any woman’s (or man’s) group of potential sex partner is a legitimate preference, even if some of us might find it bigoted.
That is part of having bodily autonomy.
If I were to be guilted into sex to fulfill social justice goals, I’m sure that it would not be enjoyable. Performance would also be an issue. I read that essay earlier, and on a scale of seductive writing, it’s lower than an Ayn Rand sex scene. Or worse, a sex scene in a self-published novel.
Sex with someone like this would be drudgery.
Guh. I just don’t see how so many ostensibly pro-feminist types can’t see the direct correlation between the linked article and a typical incel rant. It’s all about the idea that being sexually desired by others is a ‘right’ you have, and that the denial of that right must be bigotry–that they somehow deserve ‘validation’ in this sphere (as in all others).
Mike @#8:
Oh, I dunno. You could always close your eyes and think of England.
As in:
“Aaah… England…
England..!!!!!
ENGLAND.!!!
ENG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/09/30/empire/
I knew it would be in there, so I went sifting for this dreck for it. Here it is:
Except for the surprising lack of dick, I guess.
One of the things I can’t help but wonder when I read this is what basis Ramses would have for knowing this. Ramses has never actually been a man having sex with another man. Everywhere this gay sex is involving Ramses, it’s one man short of gay sex. Wherever two fellows are having sex together, one of them isn’t Ramses.
I hope that Ramses has a happy and fulfilling sex life, however that may work (and it isn’t my business or interest). But Ramses isn’t a gay man. Ramses is a straight woman with self-perception problems and a history of self-mutilation. And she fetishizes gay men. Why are the trans, of both sexes, always fetishizing gay people?
So much blindness here. Here’s more:
There are particular, specific reasons that Ramses’ dates aren’t going to introduce her to their parents. They’re gay. Their parents are going to be wicked confused if they bring a female home. They might start to think they’re getting grandkids after all. Ignoring how the obvious fact she isn’t a man might play out with parents doesn’t speak to her insight.
One of the odd disconnects in this piece, as with a lot of TRA rhetoric, is how much they talk about genitals and porn. Fetish this, fetish that, porn category, bla bla. Have they ever considered that the look they get, or the questions they get, doesn’t mean someone has fetishized them, but just the opposite? That someone would like to know how to avoid an unpleasant surprise? That someone really isn’t into men, or women, or eunuchs?
But “No men” can be a preference. And “No women” can be a preference. And, also, “No eunuchs” can be a preference. This question isn’t asked because people find her especially titillating, just the opposite. It’s like the disappointment English people feel in America when they are served a glass of cider. It’s just apple juice.
That’s a feeling common to many people, and Ramses is entitled to it. But she don’t get to tell people they have to want her when they don’t. Her self-mutilation has made her less sexually functional than she were before, and she’s targeted a group of people that by definition don’t want her. That must be frustrating. But it’s not because they’re discriminating against her unfairly. It’s because they are gay, and she’s not a man. She’s said she loves men. Perhaps if she stopped fetishizing gay men, she could find a fellow who wants her.
The lack of self-awareness and theory of mind is somewhat telling, isn’t it? Why are they objecting to the sexual preferences of others who have the exact same sexual preference? She’s a mutilated heterosexual woman. She likes men, not other mutilated heterosexual women. So, how come it’s bigotted if the men she’s attracted to also don’t like mutilated heterosexual women, and are attracted to men exactly the same way she is? Why aren’t these mutilated heterosexual women dating one another, if they are ‘really’ gay men?
Well, tigger, it’s not because they have
counter-revolutionarytransphobic prejudices. It’s just sheer chance.From this article, there seems to be a contradictory catechism here:
If someone is not sexually attracted to transgender persons asserting they are the sex one is attracted to, then one is a transphobic bigot. But if one engages in sex with such persons, then one may well be a transphobic fetishist.
Self-mutilators and liars are unappealing as potential friends, much less partners.
From Ramses’ article:
Irony meter asplody.
Omar#10* Thinking of England.
I recall an episode in an account by Helen Thomas of her life with the poet Edward Thomas, who was killed in the First World War. As a small girl, she was walking down the Haymarket in London with her mother. Garishly dressed women were standing in doorways and on corners, peering here & there.
‘What are those women doing, Mummy?’ asked Helen.
‘They sleep with men’ was the short answer.
‘But why?’
‘All men are beasts, and so’s your father.’
Tim Harris #17 — Helen Thomas’s mother was unfortunate. It’s too bad she didn’t have a husband like Florence King’s grandfather. Whenever young Florence would ask her Granny a question regarding sexual matters, the answer was always the same:
(From Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady.)
Tim @ #17:
Biology dictates that male and female reproductive strategies will be different, both within species and across them. There was a time, unfortunately now passed, when knights-errant rode around the countryside slaying dragons and rescuing damsels in distress. But once all the damsels were rescued and dragons slain, it sort of went downhill from there.