Today I learned that it’s “insidious” to be not attracted to someone.
Not to mention “icky” and “kind of violent.” Maybe they think they’ll pass on the male-like sense of entitlement alone, and the their intended partners will let the plumbing slide?
Heterosexuals bullying homosexuals into having sex with them is one of the most irritating aspects of the trans movement. If this is what it means to be a progressive/liberal/leftist going forward then I renounce it all. Time to go back to square one.
Tangentially related but probably the last conversation I had with an online friend who turned out to be a massive TRA involved me suggesting to him that his bisexuality made it hard for him to understand the nature of what I joking called “us monosexuals”. He said of course he understood it, it was just like his preference for non smokers, and with that I bowed out of his life…
The mainstream (former) gay rights orgs have basically adopted the beliefs of the conversation therapists of the 90s & 00s. Sexual orientation is malleable, it can be reconditioned like any sexual preference, it’s not meaningfully innate. It’s the result of upbringing.
I think it makes logical sense if you reject the idea that sexual orientation is based on material characteristics. From a certain point of view it is unfortunate that most people exclude half the human population from their dating pools based on superficial characteristics like whether they have a penis or a vagina.
We are generally taught that we shouldn’t reject people based on their looks, that doing so is shallow, but it tended to go without saying that sexual orientation is the exception. It seems like there’s now a whole generation of people who have internalised the idea that sexual orientation isn’t an exception or rather sexual orientation has been redefined to be about a persons gender identity with all connection to physical characteristics dropped because it’s considered shallow to limit your dating pool based on such things.
Superficial characteristics, Vanity? We aren’t talking about friendship here, we’re talking about sex. Most people don’t really choose to exclude an entire sex, they just don’t have a sexual response to that type of people. And most of them aren’t going to fake it.
This girl is upset because when she goes on an app for gay men to hook up with each other sexually they don’t want her. They want a man. The idea that they are somehow obligated to pretend to have a sexual response to her is bizarre and twisted and, as some have pointed out above, the same old forced gay conversion in a new outfit.
I would phrase the problem differently – there’s a fair part of a generation so alienated from their own sexual feelings that they are easily swayed by theoretical intellectual constructions and fantasies of gender. They get mad when they encounter people (e.g. gay men who know they’re gay) who don’t buy into all that. Because they’re so deep in denial about their own sexuality they are unable to understand people who aren’t.
This is what happens when kids spend puberty behind a keyboard.
Just a pedantic nitpick. ;-) The penis could be called superficial, because it is seen on the surface, but not the vagina. That is enclosed within the body. The vulva is superficial. These, of course, only count if we are talking about surface; if we talk about superficial as meaning shallow and trivial, as in unimportant, I think biologically none of them fit.
Whether we like to admit it or not, we all exclude people from our dating pool based on certain attributes. I, for instance, do not like southern accents and probably could not date someone with that accent. I also tend to exclude people who smell bad or who vote for Trump.
None of us exclude half the world’s population; we all exclude much more than that. We try to pretend looks don’t matter, but of course they due, although most people would say ‘it’s not her looks, it’s her personality I like’.
And bullying homosexuals is exactly what it is when trans identified individuals try to insist lesbians or gay men have sex with them or be branded a bigot.
Reminds me of the observation that men fear rejection while women fear being raped and murdered. One of those things is “kind of violent”, the other isn’t.
“Superficial characteristics, Vanity? We aren’t talking about friendship here, we’re talking about sex. Most people don’t really choose to exclude an entire sex, they just don’t have a sexual response to that type of people. And most of them aren’t going to fake it.”
I know sexual orientation isn’t a choice, I was trying to put things in the other sides terms as best I could.
“I would phrase the problem differently – there’s a fair part of a generation so alienated from their own sexual feelings that they are easily swayed by theoretical intellectual constructions and fantasies of gender.”
Yeah, that’s what I meant. They’re so detached from the materiality of sexed attraction that they think what matters is entirely about what’s on the inside.
Edit: repost because the quotes didn’t appear properly. Is it two with the quote in the middle?
“Whether we like to admit it or not, we all exclude people from our dating pool based on certain attributes. I, for instance, do not like southern accents and probably could not date someone with that accent. I also tend to exclude people who smell bad or who vote for Trump.”
Yes, but there are reasons that will generally get you chastised if said out loud and reasons that are considered acceptable. Bad smell would be acceptable to most people but I could see people questioning accent discrimination. Values would be acceptable, but flat out saying “I’d never date a Catholic, or a Conservative, or someone who likes the Star Wars Prequels” might get questioned. We’re allowed to have standards but voicing a lot of them openly might earn you a few funny looks even if when pressed most people will admit that you shouldn’t be forced to date people you don’t want to. A big one would be racial/ethic preferences in dating that hold quite strong for a lot of people but it’s not really considered appropriate to be honest about, it’s one of those “don’t ask, don’t tell” preferences that aren’t supposed to be talked about openly. The TQ movement pretty much treats having a genital preference (i.e. being actually gay or straight) the same has having a strong racial preference, as something that needs to be questioned and interrogated and hopefully, eventually worked trough and overcome. It’s the only moral path after all…
“None of us exclude half the world’s population; we all exclude much more than that. We try to pretend looks don’t matter, but of course they due, although most people would say ‘it’s not her looks, it’s her personality I like’.”
How many people could honestly say that they’d still want to be with their partner if one day that person woke up as the opposite sex? It’s probably more than zero but I suspect most of them would be lying. Sex is like the ultimate deal breaker for most people, and it’s so basic that most normal people don’t even need to acknowledge it.
The word “blockquote” goes between the angle brackets. The slash goes in the second one, the closing one. It goes before the word. All this is pretty easy to find via Google I think.
The word “blockquote” goes between the angle brackets. The slash goes in the second one, the closing one. It goes before the word. All this is pretty easy to find via Google I think.
Sorry about this, the places I do most of my quoting either have a button for it or just need the right brackets at each end.
I think that Papito has hit the nail on the head with this one.
This is what happens when kids spend puberty behind a keyboard.
I would actually go a step further with the young woman in the video, though, and suggest that she spent what should have been her puberty behind a keyboard, whilst her ‘non-affirmed’ peers got the chance to grow up, and what little experience of puberty she has is entirely theoretical and third-hand. If you ask a pre-pubescent child whether they’ll be able to fall in love with anyone at all when they grow up (provided they are ‘nice’ is usually the only caveat), and then ask the same child the same question when they have started to develop sexually, the answer will be almost always be different, and emphatic.
She can’t imagine how a gay man might be put off by a woman’s body, because she was never allowed to develop an adult sexuality of her own. She’s got enough self-awareness to realise that she prefers men to women, but can’t imagine the situation from another person’s point of view. She reminds me of thirteen-year-old girls fantasising about actors and singers, unable to imagine that the attraction isn’t – and can’t be – mutual.
I feel sorry for this young woman, who plainly isn’t the sharpest. No gay man is going to be deceived by her for a moment: high, smoothly curving forehead, curved eyebrows, full lips, rounded jawline, no visible adam’s apple. Taken all together, these are markers of a female physiognomy. Then there is her voice, which has a grating quality that I have learned to associate with women who have taken testosterone. The voice alone is a giveaway to anyone who has heard anything like it before.
As for her resentment that gay men aren’t sexually interested in her, I’m pretty sure the issue here is ‘validation’: if a gay man will have sex with her then she can convince herself that she really is a man. So when they reject her she feels it deeply.
See for instance:
‘All of the participants reflected on the sense of validation that having sex with a non-trans man could provide. Many suggested that this was particularly powerful for trans men in their early years of transition and that being sexual with a gay non-trans man could feel like the “ultimate affirmation” of one’s manhood.’ — There’s No Pamphlet for the Kind of Sex I Have: HIV-Related Risk Factors and Protective Behavior (2009)
Yes and by the same token if birds invited her to join them in a flight around the block that would feel like the ultimate affirmation of her birdness, but it ain’t gonna happen. Six impossible things before breakfast.
Were I a gambling man I’d easily put $100 that that is *exactly* what that is… “See, my transness is what defines me, how dare gay men be transphobic at me!”
“My partner can pass as cis…” well, so can you, love. That’s what we all keep saying, your inner thoughts about your identity have no effect on what anyone else sees when they look at you.
Not to mention “icky” and “kind of violent.” Maybe they think they’ll pass on the male-like sense of entitlement alone, and the their intended partners will let the plumbing slide?
I ordered a hot dog at a diner and just got a bun. When I complained they said I was, like, icky and insidious.
lol
Heterosexuals bullying homosexuals into having sex with them is one of the most irritating aspects of the trans movement. If this is what it means to be a progressive/liberal/leftist going forward then I renounce it all. Time to go back to square one.
Tangentially related but probably the last conversation I had with an online friend who turned out to be a massive TRA involved me suggesting to him that his bisexuality made it hard for him to understand the nature of what I joking called “us monosexuals”. He said of course he understood it, it was just like his preference for non smokers, and with that I bowed out of his life…
The mainstream (former) gay rights orgs have basically adopted the beliefs of the conversation therapists of the 90s & 00s. Sexual orientation is malleable, it can be reconditioned like any sexual preference, it’s not meaningfully innate. It’s the result of upbringing.
Comedy gold.
“As soon as you realize he doesn’t have a penis, you don’t actually want him.”
How can this poor woman be so deluded that she is at all surprised by this? Also, she should do stand-up comedy.
@Papito
I think it makes logical sense if you reject the idea that sexual orientation is based on material characteristics. From a certain point of view it is unfortunate that most people exclude half the human population from their dating pools based on superficial characteristics like whether they have a penis or a vagina.
We are generally taught that we shouldn’t reject people based on their looks, that doing so is shallow, but it tended to go without saying that sexual orientation is the exception. It seems like there’s now a whole generation of people who have internalised the idea that sexual orientation isn’t an exception or rather sexual orientation has been redefined to be about a persons gender identity with all connection to physical characteristics dropped because it’s considered shallow to limit your dating pool based on such things.
Superficial characteristics, Vanity? We aren’t talking about friendship here, we’re talking about sex. Most people don’t really choose to exclude an entire sex, they just don’t have a sexual response to that type of people. And most of them aren’t going to fake it.
This girl is upset because when she goes on an app for gay men to hook up with each other sexually they don’t want her. They want a man. The idea that they are somehow obligated to pretend to have a sexual response to her is bizarre and twisted and, as some have pointed out above, the same old forced gay conversion in a new outfit.
I would phrase the problem differently – there’s a fair part of a generation so alienated from their own sexual feelings that they are easily swayed by theoretical intellectual constructions and fantasies of gender. They get mad when they encounter people (e.g. gay men who know they’re gay) who don’t buy into all that. Because they’re so deep in denial about their own sexuality they are unable to understand people who aren’t.
This is what happens when kids spend puberty behind a keyboard.
Just a pedantic nitpick. ;-) The penis could be called superficial, because it is seen on the surface, but not the vagina. That is enclosed within the body. The vulva is superficial. These, of course, only count if we are talking about surface; if we talk about superficial as meaning shallow and trivial, as in unimportant, I think biologically none of them fit.
Whether we like to admit it or not, we all exclude people from our dating pool based on certain attributes. I, for instance, do not like southern accents and probably could not date someone with that accent. I also tend to exclude people who smell bad or who vote for Trump.
None of us exclude half the world’s population; we all exclude much more than that. We try to pretend looks don’t matter, but of course they due, although most people would say ‘it’s not her looks, it’s her personality I like’.
And bullying homosexuals is exactly what it is when trans identified individuals try to insist lesbians or gay men have sex with them or be branded a bigot.
“It feels kind of violent”
Reminds me of the observation that men fear rejection while women fear being raped and murdered. One of those things is “kind of violent”, the other isn’t.
Papito
“Superficial characteristics, Vanity? We aren’t talking about friendship here, we’re talking about sex. Most people don’t really choose to exclude an entire sex, they just don’t have a sexual response to that type of people. And most of them aren’t going to fake it.”
I know sexual orientation isn’t a choice, I was trying to put things in the other sides terms as best I could.
“I would phrase the problem differently – there’s a fair part of a generation so alienated from their own sexual feelings that they are easily swayed by theoretical intellectual constructions and fantasies of gender.”
Yeah, that’s what I meant. They’re so detached from the materiality of sexed attraction that they think what matters is entirely about what’s on the inside.
Edit: repost because the quotes didn’t appear properly. Is it two with the quote in the middle?
iknklast
“Whether we like to admit it or not, we all exclude people from our dating pool based on certain attributes. I, for instance, do not like southern accents and probably could not date someone with that accent. I also tend to exclude people who smell bad or who vote for Trump.”
Yes, but there are reasons that will generally get you chastised if said out loud and reasons that are considered acceptable. Bad smell would be acceptable to most people but I could see people questioning accent discrimination. Values would be acceptable, but flat out saying “I’d never date a Catholic, or a Conservative, or someone who likes the Star Wars Prequels” might get questioned. We’re allowed to have standards but voicing a lot of them openly might earn you a few funny looks even if when pressed most people will admit that you shouldn’t be forced to date people you don’t want to. A big one would be racial/ethic preferences in dating that hold quite strong for a lot of people but it’s not really considered appropriate to be honest about, it’s one of those “don’t ask, don’t tell” preferences that aren’t supposed to be talked about openly. The TQ movement pretty much treats having a genital preference (i.e. being actually gay or straight) the same has having a strong racial preference, as something that needs to be questioned and interrogated and hopefully, eventually worked trough and overcome. It’s the only moral path after all…
“None of us exclude half the world’s population; we all exclude much more than that. We try to pretend looks don’t matter, but of course they due, although most people would say ‘it’s not her looks, it’s her personality I like’.”
How many people could honestly say that they’d still want to be with their partner if one day that person woke up as the opposite sex? It’s probably more than zero but I suspect most of them would be lying. Sex is like the ultimate deal breaker for most people, and it’s so basic that most normal people don’t even need to acknowledge it.
VanitysFiend: What you’re looking for is the <blockquote> element.
(Also, I really miss the preview button.)
</VanitysFiend: What you’re looking for is the
The word “blockquote” goes between the angle brackets. The slash goes in the second one, the closing one. It goes before the word. All this is pretty easy to find via Google I think.
Well I’ve made some progress, not sure how though…
Sorry about this, the places I do most of my quoting either have a button for it or just need the right brackets at each end.
Woo! Got it!
I think that Papito has hit the nail on the head with this one.
I would actually go a step further with the young woman in the video, though, and suggest that she spent what should have been her puberty behind a keyboard, whilst her ‘non-affirmed’ peers got the chance to grow up, and what little experience of puberty she has is entirely theoretical and third-hand. If you ask a pre-pubescent child whether they’ll be able to fall in love with anyone at all when they grow up (provided they are ‘nice’ is usually the only caveat), and then ask the same child the same question when they have started to develop sexually, the answer will be almost always be different, and emphatic.
She can’t imagine how a gay man might be put off by a woman’s body, because she was never allowed to develop an adult sexuality of her own. She’s got enough self-awareness to realise that she prefers men to women, but can’t imagine the situation from another person’s point of view. She reminds me of thirteen-year-old girls fantasising about actors and singers, unable to imagine that the attraction isn’t – and can’t be – mutual.
What the hell is that earring? An empty hormone medicine bottle?
I feel sorry for this young woman, who plainly isn’t the sharpest. No gay man is going to be deceived by her for a moment: high, smoothly curving forehead, curved eyebrows, full lips, rounded jawline, no visible adam’s apple. Taken all together, these are markers of a female physiognomy. Then there is her voice, which has a grating quality that I have learned to associate with women who have taken testosterone. The voice alone is a giveaway to anyone who has heard anything like it before.
As for her resentment that gay men aren’t sexually interested in her, I’m pretty sure the issue here is ‘validation’: if a gay man will have sex with her then she can convince herself that she really is a man. So when they reject her she feels it deeply.
See for instance:
Yes and by the same token if birds invited her to join them in a flight around the block that would feel like the ultimate affirmation of her birdness, but it ain’t gonna happen. Six impossible things before breakfast.
Vanity’s Fiend @ 17 – high five!
@James #19:
Were I a gambling man I’d easily put $100 that that is *exactly* what that is… “See, my transness is what defines me, how dare gay men be transphobic at me!”
“Sex = validation” is a theme for translesbians, too. And of course, for one other group–Elliot Rodger was big on the idea.
This guy seems to be clear headed at least on the trans issue
https://markhumphrys.com/trans.html
and here he makes a point I hadn’t seen elsewhere
https://markhumphrys.com/trans.html#super
which is basically where the person who made that twitter comment goes wrong.
“My partner can pass as cis…” well, so can you, love. That’s what we all keep saying, your inner thoughts about your identity have no effect on what anyone else sees when they look at you.