The level of coping and mental gymnastics that these freak shows are doing. because the majority of sane people find them absolutely disgusting. And you can’t make people like what they don’t want.
"Transphobia" ia almost always used when someone stands up for women or children, does not aqcuiesce to everything a gender liar demands, and/or simply tells te truth. So, decency, backbone, and honesty, qualities to which we should all aspire.
I can guarantee no man, or woman, was ever attracted to me because of my gender identity, since, like most people, I don't have one.
Their delusion truly knows no bounds. And like Karen pointed out, it’s so funny how they pretend anything and anyone can be a woman, yet by virtue of identifying as trans and trying to “become” women they’re confirming that they know exactly what and who women are, lol. Otherwise, what are you even trying to become? How do you know what you’re trying to become and mimic?
The stupidity is so mind numbing to me. 🤦🏾♀️
Also, their obsession with attracting men. Laverne Cox has been going off about some “straight” conservative white man he allegedly had a fling with a few years ago. And he is so giddy and excited to share it with everyone. It’s like the pinnacle of validation for him or something. I use the word straight very loosely, because assuming it’s true (which who knows, he could be lying) then that man obviously wasn’t straight, he was a DL gay man using him for sex like most of the situations with trans identified males. But they get so so sooo excited for the validation, it’s equal parts pathetic, weird and sad.
I mean, I think that some of these DL men are literally gay, some have always had a curiosity about "chicks w/ dicks" but claim to ordinarily be straight (so, bi or very deeply closeted) or they belong to a newer subcategory of men who have had their sexuality ruined by porn use. That'd be the same group as your casual woman "stranglers", etc.
There was this man I knew when I was in California for about 6 years. He was an online friend for quite a few years before I met him in person. I lived in his house and worked as a live-in assistant. He was not trans or gay or anything, but he was addicted to porn and was kind of a pervert in some ways. I'm pretty sure that he was/is also a narcissist. I saw one time that he had all these pictures on a laptop, of naked women with GIANT dicks photoshopped in the pictures. They had to have been photoshopped, because for one thing, these were actual women, and not troons. And for another thing, the dicks were two or three times larger than a normal dick.
Yeah...the dudes into troons are called GAMPS - gynandromorphiles. They're attracted to feminized males. The straighter ones are attracted to 'femininity' - they're aroused by the stereotypes that women act out, not necessarily to the woman herself. Since women usually act out femininity, these dudes usually end up w/ women but if a troon comes along.....
I think about this video by A Slightly Twisted Female. She made a video on Homosexuals Transsexuals, in this case it was Blaire White she talked about: https://youtu.be/bmB-3oO0LWA?si=Qt1nrJwaPGp9CmSF
The thing about this is that they wanna be treated like women, we all know this, especially in romantic relationships. Most weren’t popular amongst gay men and they use trooning out as a dating strategy. Troons say it straight out their mouth that they envy women and want to be desired my males the way women are. I advise you search on the subreddit R/Striaghtransgirls, it’s all in your face on there. And yes you’re right, having a “straight” male be attracted to them is the ultimate validation like how AGPs want lesbians to date them. It’s the ultimate validation if a homosexual woman likes your “Girl penis”, right? That must mean you’re a real woman!!!
Regarding Cox (puns write themselves)....he's a gay black man who had an affair with a gay/bi-sexual white man. This, in itself, is in no way original or even interesting if you live in a town with more that 5,000 people. It might be gossip-worthy for about 10 minutes if you live in a smaller town, but with the weather trying to kill us every single day in every single way, the activities of two odd-ball men probably would raise more than one or two eyebrows.
"Bioessentialism" is my favourite made up Gendie Loon term, honestly. I think they mean to say "incontrovertible reality" but can't actually bring themselves to due to being so thoroughly brainwashed and inculcated against recognising the blindingly obvious.
The vast majority of Redditors? Yes, I agree! It's virtually all virginal basement-dwelling men over there nowadays, is it not? Certainly there are very, very few women with active accounts from what I've seen.
Largely because too many people don't realize that category names are simply abstractions, just labels for entities that share the defining trait with other entities. You might take a gander at my argument on that point over at Reddit:
QUOTE:
But I think you're barking up the wrong tree with your "bioessentialism" -- though you're in good company since many "philosophers" have been going off into those weeds for 2500 years. Largely because you and they don't realize that "male" and "female" aren't identities; they're simply labels for transitory reproductive abilities. And the "essential" requirement to qualify as members of those categories is to have ovaries or testicles, functional ones for the purists. But that is the same way that the "essential" requirement to qualify as a teenager is to be 13 to 19 – no “age-essentialism” involved at all.
All straight men are sexually attracted to and by femininity. That's why women learned to perform and exaggerate femininity, because it has utility in attracting a mate.
What men will say in public and what men will do in private are two entirely different things.
What this special one and all his buddies mean here, is when they post on some digital meat market like Tinder of Bumble that they are Trans. The vast majority of men will "Swipe Left" and why wouldn't they when they have an entire smorgasbord of available "meat" to fuck!
The vast majority of women who stumble upon their dating app profiles are swiping left too, and doing so doubly quickly.
There are so many of these odious men on so-called "W4W" dating apps nowadays that many of us have simply given up on them altogether.
Nevermind - they've still got each other, unless of course *they* happen to be vile bioessentialists themselves, which I regret to say is almost certainly the case. Hypocrites!
Hypocrites maybe but I wouldn't blame them, I mean I would never date a trans man!
The reality of how straight men respond when they are told this in real life rather than by some digital profile is very different.
I have been with my husband for 34 years so granted I'm a little out of practice when it comes to dating. However before I was with my husband I dated men who were unaware of the fact I was transsexual (DATED not had sex with). Before things became intimate I had to have "the talk". Not that I had that many but not one man ever said "no thanks that's not for me". Now, a couple of them had an existential breakdown the day after worried they were gay for having been attracted to me despite what I looked like. But not one of them ever got up and left.
Those men and my husband are not homosexuals, yes the act is homosexual but they are not. I know what a gay man is, I am one.
“Those men and my husband are not homosexuals, yes the act is homosexual but they are not. I know what a gay man is, I am one.”
Your declaration still seems disingenuous, and your further explanation inadvertently emphasizes why.
It's peculiar how you, a homosexual man who attempts to present as a woman, can infer that men attracted to you—including your husband—aren't homosexual, even after they've learned you're male. By definition, homosexuality is attraction to the same sex, and heterosexuality is attraction to the opposite sex. Your own account of men having an "existential breakdown" worrying they were gay directly undermines your claim; it precisely demonstrates that their attraction did challenge their straight identity. Their choice to stay doesn't alter the nature of that attraction, which is fundamentally directed towards a male.
Furthermore, admitting the "act" with you is homosexual, but then claiming the men themselves aren't, remains quite contradictory. This becomes even more striking when you state that you, a homosexual man, would never date a trans man. This particular preference of yours profoundly emphasizes the specific, non-heterosexual nature of the attraction demonstrated by the men you're involved with, as it underscores that their attraction is to you, a male, regardless of your presentation.
Unless you're directly stating these men are bisexual or another form of non-heterosexual, their sustained attraction to a male—even one who attempts to present as female—fundamentally contradicts the idea of them being strictly heterosexual.
Whether I'm a woman is irrelevant to the definitions of sexual orientation. In fact, your question inadvertently highlights the very point I'm making: you seem focused on gender presentation and how it might influence attraction, yet you're unwilling to apply the same logical categorization to the men attracted to you, even after they know your male sex. This is precisely where the disingenuous contradiction lies.
You are 100% right in everything you said here. It's a mystery and disappointment to me how many women IN HERE interact with this guy as if he's a woman, or some kind of ally (not while he's cross-naming himself in here and cross-dressing irl) as if we women want to know the sick proclivities of deranged men, and who LIKED his absurd comment in here proclaiming that women LEARNED TO PERFORM femininity because that's what men like. And not the other way around: women are feminine and men are attracted to us, young, old, thick, thin, bottom heavy, top heavy, long hair, short hair, pretty face, character face: all of us are feminine! What he said is WOMAN HATING/INCEL talk: women PERFORM for men after we LEARNED how to from their responses. Like we are not complementary sexes in the same species, but little more than parasites living at the pleasure of the males of the species. He's like every other TRA MRA out there polluting Twitter and other platforms I have heard about (Reddit--never gone there myself). So, I am grateful that at least one other woman (or man) in here has called him out on his delusional thinking. "Are you a woman?" he challenged you... unbelievable. It's okay to be discerning, Women; it's okay--it's essential to say, "Hey, stop gaslighting us, and if you don't, we will shun you." I went round and round with him months ago before he finally confessed he is a man. He did not want to, it took too much time out of my day to press him to admit it, but it's important. Here we are in Karen Davis' substack being gaslit by some guy that he's a girl named Amanda. Some would call it cognitive dissonance going on in here, TERFs passing him the sugar like he's not Dylan Mulvaney spitting in everyone's soup.
Perhaps you could explain why gay men aren't falling all over themselves to date "trans women"? I mean after all they are male! According to your logic that is all that's required for same sex attraction.
Using infertility as an excuse to include men into the category is so ridiculous because being infertile for part of our lifetimes is a characteristic of females, who are also infertile before puberty. Males are fertile from puberty until the end of their lives. Normal, healthy adult years not being fertile any more is a characteristic of WOMEN.
The reason that the majority of disagreement with troons comes from straight men isn't because most people get along with them. It's because straight men are their primary targets of obsession, their secondary targets are women, sometimes for sex, but mostly to for competitive imitation ( and it's not a form of imitation that most women find i n any way flattering).
It's disturbing how transformers want to propagandized themselves sexually conquering heterosexual Men. The only thing M2F transformers do is rape, deceive and lie....occasionally they deceive a young heterosexual man who successfully kills them.
I recently worked with a man who impersonates a woman. I will call him Louis.
Louis is a gay man as he was asking for advice as to how to go about dating a man who had lied to him (the lie? that man was a father of one and he had not told Louis).
Louis used to go on about how emotionally immature men were and how men were useless etc, etc, etc.
Louis was quite antagonistic to other men. I wonder what about him (Louis) disgusts him (Louis) that prompted him to impersonate a woman (he has been taking hormones for about 2 years or so). It does not matter how dainty he is, he still has male facial features and the Adam's apple.
Apparently nobody else at the office noticed Louis is "trans."
Funny how another of my ex coworkers called herself nonbinary and was planning on taking hormones. She did not notice Louis was trans.
To be fair, Louis is shorter than I am (I am 5'7) and quite dainty...even his hands looked like mine. However, if you started at him for a bit, you would notice the adam's apple and the voice.
Oh, fair enough. The shorter these guys are, the more likely they are to be confused for women - obviously. Still, you would think that the voice would be a dead give away, especially if he puts on a breathy and affected "femme voice".
I find them like listening to nails down a chalkboard, personally.
Y'all might have some interest in a comment I just left over there (as Tillerman482) -- not yet deleted, so get a screenshot if you want one for posterity ...
QUOTE:
Since the UK Supreme Court, in the For Women Scotland case, has ruled that women are, apparently, of the female "biological sex" -- and transwomen aren't -- you might take a look at exactly how biology defines the terms "male" and "female":
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes; Jussi Lehtonen, Geoff A. Parker; Oxford Academic; Molecular Human Reproduction, Volume 20, Issue 12, December 2014"
Technically speaking -- at least among biologists worth their salt -- to be a female is to have functional ovaries, and to be a male is to have functional testicles, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless.
Not a popular opinion, particularly among the distaff side since they lose their "female membership cards" at the onset of menopause. Why having ovaries or testicles is maybe a more useful criterion. But as far as biology is concerned, those ARE the definitions.
But I think you're barking up the wrong tree with your "bioessentialism" -- though you're in good company since many "philosophers" have been going off into those weeds for 2500 years. Largely because you and they don't realize that "male" and "female" aren't identities; they're simply labels for transitory reproductive abilities. And the "essential" requirement to qualify as members of those categories is to have ovaries or testicles, functional ones for the purists. But that is the same way that the "essential" requirement to qualify as a teenager is to be 13 to 19 -- no "age-essentialism" involved at all.
What type of gametes your body produces does not imply your genitalia are functional. Men don't stop being men because they are sterile or impotent nor do women stop being women because of menopause. Nor do boys and girls stop being boys and girls because they are not sexually mature. At least with women, menopause is a necessary evolutionary phenomenon that ensures healthier births and a support network.
Based on the pseudoscience that "Steersman" wrote it's safe to believe two possibilities:
Steersman is a transformer and/or Steersman is a trolling bot living in the basement, not getting any sunlight and refuses to takes his mental medication because the stupid shit 💩he wrote is stinking through the screen.
Just the facts ma'am, just the facts. You might try getting your head out of your nether regions and do some reading and thinking with it. This article in Aeon Magazine might be a good start:
"Sex is real; Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other"
> "What type of gametes your body produces does not imply your genitalia are functional."
"genitalia" is generally not the same as "gonads". Women are generally "better designed" in that case since their gonads are inside the body cavity whereas those of men are left hanging out in the breeze:
But it's the "type of gametes your body POTENTIALLY produces". If those gonads are not actually producing any "reproductive cells" -- the phrase used in Trump's EO on "biological truth" -- then they are, by definition, not functional. The same way that a mechanical "clock" that's missing its mainspring is not functional.
> "Men don't stop being men because they are sterile or impotent nor do women stop being women because of menopause. Nor do boys and girls stop being boys and girls because they are not sexually mature."
Depends greatly on how you define "man", "woman", "boy", and "girl". If they're joined at the hip with the "biological sexes" (male and female) -- as the UK Supreme Court put it -- then the question, as that Reddit post underlined it, is what it takes to qualify as male and female in the first place. And the biological definitions say that it's a matter of having FUNCTIONAL gonads-- why the prepubescent are technically sexless.
But, as a practical matter, a more useful definition might be, as I've argued, simply a matter of having either testicles or ovaries -- "of past, present, or future functionality" as UK biologist Emma Hilton once put it. Although, even under that looser definition, many of the intersex have no potential of ever producing either type of gamete so still qualify as sexless.
🙂 After I logged out last night I noticed that my comment was no longer visible so I assume it's been deleted and/or I've been banned, at least from that group. Why I took a screenshot not long after posting it -- for the sake of posterity. 🙂
But a classic echo chamber -- this doesn't seem to be visible unless one logs on, but the group subtitle was something about providing a "safe space" 🙄 for the transfeminine.
But what is particularly surprising there is the too common effort to deny or bastardize the standard biological definitions for the sexes. You might be "amused" to note that transwoman Riley Dennis is quite sure that being a female is simply a matter of best 3 out of 5 whereas the biological definitions make it a matter of a single trait -- i.e., to a first approximation, having ovaries. Which, of course, he will never have:
Rather disconcerting, and something of a black mark, that "Rational" Wiki endorses that antiscientific claptrap. But many other more ostensibly reputable sources -- like the biological journal Cell -- are in the same boat. ICYMI, my open letter to them in response to their article where they ask, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":
🙄 "produces gametes" -- having functional gonads -- IS what the biological definitions actually SAY. And that is the way reputable biologists -- not grifters and scientific illiterates like Colin Wright -- actually use the terms. Which means, no gametes coming off the production line then no sex category cards are issued.
For examples, US biologists Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers, though they both tend to talk out of both sides of their mouths:
JC: "Those 1/6000 individuals are intersexes, neither male nor female."
And a trio of German biologists writing in the reputable Wiley Online Library:
WOL: "For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."
If you want to grant sex category membership cards to people who don't have any gonads, or none that are currently working, then you need to come up with your own definitions. Although, in that case, it ain't biology.
But if you were really keen about doing that then you might consider promoting the (non-biological) definitions of a UK developmental biologist, Emma Hilton, "promulgated" in the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper, but hardly a peer-reviewed biological journal:
Hilton: "Sir, Further to the Lib Dem policy of self-identifying one’s gender, sexual reproduction in almost all higher species, including humans, proceeds via fusion of one small and one large gamete (anisogamy). 'Sex' refers to one of the two reproductive roles in this process. Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively. ...."
So, by her definitions, simply having, or having had, gonads of "past, present, or functionality" is sufficient to grant sex category membership cards.
Damn dude you really need to seek help and stop passing on twisted shit because their are vulnerable young folks listening, but until then I'm gonna verbally stomp the truth out of you. Your propaganadized days are over. And you won't be bothering the minds of Children either anymore
That definition -- produces sperm -- has been around, and accepted as the standard in biology, for at least 50 years, long before I showed up on the scene.
As for "STEERsman" -- sticks and stones. For one thing, I still have both nuts attached, though one is hanging a little lower than the other. And, more importantly, it's the English translation of the root for "cybernetics":
The level of coping and mental gymnastics that these freak shows are doing. because the majority of sane people find them absolutely disgusting. And you can’t make people like what they don’t want.
"Transphobia" ia almost always used when someone stands up for women or children, does not aqcuiesce to everything a gender liar demands, and/or simply tells te truth. So, decency, backbone, and honesty, qualities to which we should all aspire.
I can guarantee no man, or woman, was ever attracted to me because of my gender identity, since, like most people, I don't have one.
Their delusion truly knows no bounds. And like Karen pointed out, it’s so funny how they pretend anything and anyone can be a woman, yet by virtue of identifying as trans and trying to “become” women they’re confirming that they know exactly what and who women are, lol. Otherwise, what are you even trying to become? How do you know what you’re trying to become and mimic?
The stupidity is so mind numbing to me. 🤦🏾♀️
Also, their obsession with attracting men. Laverne Cox has been going off about some “straight” conservative white man he allegedly had a fling with a few years ago. And he is so giddy and excited to share it with everyone. It’s like the pinnacle of validation for him or something. I use the word straight very loosely, because assuming it’s true (which who knows, he could be lying) then that man obviously wasn’t straight, he was a DL gay man using him for sex like most of the situations with trans identified males. But they get so so sooo excited for the validation, it’s equal parts pathetic, weird and sad.
I mean, I think that some of these DL men are literally gay, some have always had a curiosity about "chicks w/ dicks" but claim to ordinarily be straight (so, bi or very deeply closeted) or they belong to a newer subcategory of men who have had their sexuality ruined by porn use. That'd be the same group as your casual woman "stranglers", etc.
There was this man I knew when I was in California for about 6 years. He was an online friend for quite a few years before I met him in person. I lived in his house and worked as a live-in assistant. He was not trans or gay or anything, but he was addicted to porn and was kind of a pervert in some ways. I'm pretty sure that he was/is also a narcissist. I saw one time that he had all these pictures on a laptop, of naked women with GIANT dicks photoshopped in the pictures. They had to have been photoshopped, because for one thing, these were actual women, and not troons. And for another thing, the dicks were two or three times larger than a normal dick.
Yeah....he's definitely a perv, probably a GAMP.
many GAMPs are gay the rest are BI.
Yeah...the dudes into troons are called GAMPS - gynandromorphiles. They're attracted to feminized males. The straighter ones are attracted to 'femininity' - they're aroused by the stereotypes that women act out, not necessarily to the woman herself. Since women usually act out femininity, these dudes usually end up w/ women but if a troon comes along.....
Someone who lies about their sex will lie about anything.If one of these men said 'good morning' to me I'd go straight back to bed.
I think about this video by A Slightly Twisted Female. She made a video on Homosexuals Transsexuals, in this case it was Blaire White she talked about: https://youtu.be/bmB-3oO0LWA?si=Qt1nrJwaPGp9CmSF
The thing about this is that they wanna be treated like women, we all know this, especially in romantic relationships. Most weren’t popular amongst gay men and they use trooning out as a dating strategy. Troons say it straight out their mouth that they envy women and want to be desired my males the way women are. I advise you search on the subreddit R/Striaghtransgirls, it’s all in your face on there. And yes you’re right, having a “straight” male be attracted to them is the ultimate validation like how AGPs want lesbians to date them. It’s the ultimate validation if a homosexual woman likes your “Girl penis”, right? That must mean you’re a real woman!!!
This also reminds of that conversation TS Maddison (huge ugly TIM) was claiming it’s not gay for males to like him. I’ll link that too. https://youtu.be/gHLcEAdv4SM?si=55mPhnZpYMokO-1L
It's really quite sad, isn't it?
Regarding Cox (puns write themselves)....he's a gay black man who had an affair with a gay/bi-sexual white man. This, in itself, is in no way original or even interesting if you live in a town with more that 5,000 people. It might be gossip-worthy for about 10 minutes if you live in a smaller town, but with the weather trying to kill us every single day in every single way, the activities of two odd-ball men probably would raise more than one or two eyebrows.
"Bioessentialism" is my favourite made up Gendie Loon term, honestly. I think they mean to say "incontrovertible reality" but can't actually bring themselves to due to being so thoroughly brainwashed and inculcated against recognising the blindingly obvious.
These people are wishful fantasists, they've never had a relationship with a man in their lives.
The vast majority of Redditors? Yes, I agree! It's virtually all virginal basement-dwelling men over there nowadays, is it not? Certainly there are very, very few women with active accounts from what I've seen.
Wikipedia: "Essentialism has been controversial from its beginning."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism
Largely because too many people don't realize that category names are simply abstractions, just labels for entities that share the defining trait with other entities. You might take a gander at my argument on that point over at Reddit:
QUOTE:
But I think you're barking up the wrong tree with your "bioessentialism" -- though you're in good company since many "philosophers" have been going off into those weeds for 2500 years. Largely because you and they don't realize that "male" and "female" aren't identities; they're simply labels for transitory reproductive abilities. And the "essential" requirement to qualify as members of those categories is to have ovaries or testicles, functional ones for the purists. But that is the same way that the "essential" requirement to qualify as a teenager is to be 13 to 19 – no “age-essentialism” involved at all.
UNQUOTE.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/1m7b3mo/is_bioessentialism_the_core_root_of_transphobia/?sort=new
Karen is always on point.
Total bollocks! (great when you say it! … from a Brit!
All straight men are sexually attracted to and by femininity. That's why women learned to perform and exaggerate femininity, because it has utility in attracting a mate.
What men will say in public and what men will do in private are two entirely different things.
What this special one and all his buddies mean here, is when they post on some digital meat market like Tinder of Bumble that they are Trans. The vast majority of men will "Swipe Left" and why wouldn't they when they have an entire smorgasbord of available "meat" to fuck!
The vast majority of women who stumble upon their dating app profiles are swiping left too, and doing so doubly quickly.
There are so many of these odious men on so-called "W4W" dating apps nowadays that many of us have simply given up on them altogether.
Nevermind - they've still got each other, unless of course *they* happen to be vile bioessentialists themselves, which I regret to say is almost certainly the case. Hypocrites!
1000% this.
Hypocrites maybe but I wouldn't blame them, I mean I would never date a trans man!
The reality of how straight men respond when they are told this in real life rather than by some digital profile is very different.
I have been with my husband for 34 years so granted I'm a little out of practice when it comes to dating. However before I was with my husband I dated men who were unaware of the fact I was transsexual (DATED not had sex with). Before things became intimate I had to have "the talk". Not that I had that many but not one man ever said "no thanks that's not for me". Now, a couple of them had an existential breakdown the day after worried they were gay for having been attracted to me despite what I looked like. But not one of them ever got up and left.
Those men and my husband are not homosexuals, yes the act is homosexual but they are not. I know what a gay man is, I am one.
“Those men and my husband are not homosexuals, yes the act is homosexual but they are not. I know what a gay man is, I am one.”
Your declaration still seems disingenuous, and your further explanation inadvertently emphasizes why.
It's peculiar how you, a homosexual man who attempts to present as a woman, can infer that men attracted to you—including your husband—aren't homosexual, even after they've learned you're male. By definition, homosexuality is attraction to the same sex, and heterosexuality is attraction to the opposite sex. Your own account of men having an "existential breakdown" worrying they were gay directly undermines your claim; it precisely demonstrates that their attraction did challenge their straight identity. Their choice to stay doesn't alter the nature of that attraction, which is fundamentally directed towards a male.
Furthermore, admitting the "act" with you is homosexual, but then claiming the men themselves aren't, remains quite contradictory. This becomes even more striking when you state that you, a homosexual man, would never date a trans man. This particular preference of yours profoundly emphasizes the specific, non-heterosexual nature of the attraction demonstrated by the men you're involved with, as it underscores that their attraction is to you, a male, regardless of your presentation.
Unless you're directly stating these men are bisexual or another form of non-heterosexual, their sustained attraction to a male—even one who attempts to present as female—fundamentally contradicts the idea of them being strictly heterosexual.
What? Are you a woman?
Whether I'm a woman is irrelevant to the definitions of sexual orientation. In fact, your question inadvertently highlights the very point I'm making: you seem focused on gender presentation and how it might influence attraction, yet you're unwilling to apply the same logical categorization to the men attracted to you, even after they know your male sex. This is precisely where the disingenuous contradiction lies.
You are 100% right in everything you said here. It's a mystery and disappointment to me how many women IN HERE interact with this guy as if he's a woman, or some kind of ally (not while he's cross-naming himself in here and cross-dressing irl) as if we women want to know the sick proclivities of deranged men, and who LIKED his absurd comment in here proclaiming that women LEARNED TO PERFORM femininity because that's what men like. And not the other way around: women are feminine and men are attracted to us, young, old, thick, thin, bottom heavy, top heavy, long hair, short hair, pretty face, character face: all of us are feminine! What he said is WOMAN HATING/INCEL talk: women PERFORM for men after we LEARNED how to from their responses. Like we are not complementary sexes in the same species, but little more than parasites living at the pleasure of the males of the species. He's like every other TRA MRA out there polluting Twitter and other platforms I have heard about (Reddit--never gone there myself). So, I am grateful that at least one other woman (or man) in here has called him out on his delusional thinking. "Are you a woman?" he challenged you... unbelievable. It's okay to be discerning, Women; it's okay--it's essential to say, "Hey, stop gaslighting us, and if you don't, we will shun you." I went round and round with him months ago before he finally confessed he is a man. He did not want to, it took too much time out of my day to press him to admit it, but it's important. Here we are in Karen Davis' substack being gaslit by some guy that he's a girl named Amanda. Some would call it cognitive dissonance going on in here, TERFs passing him the sugar like he's not Dylan Mulvaney spitting in everyone's soup.
Perhaps you could explain why gay men aren't falling all over themselves to date "trans women"? I mean after all they are male! According to your logic that is all that's required for same sex attraction.
Using infertility as an excuse to include men into the category is so ridiculous because being infertile for part of our lifetimes is a characteristic of females, who are also infertile before puberty. Males are fertile from puberty until the end of their lives. Normal, healthy adult years not being fertile any more is a characteristic of WOMEN.
The reason that the majority of disagreement with troons comes from straight men isn't because most people get along with them. It's because straight men are their primary targets of obsession, their secondary targets are women, sometimes for sex, but mostly to for competitive imitation ( and it's not a form of imitation that most women find i n any way flattering).
You're absolutely right 💯
totally agree with you
'Glorified cross dressers' is exactly what they are,transvestites with bells on.
'Transphobia' is like having an irrational fear of being trampled to death by a herd of unicorns.
It's disturbing how transformers want to propagandized themselves sexually conquering heterosexual Men. The only thing M2F transformers do is rape, deceive and lie....occasionally they deceive a young heterosexual man who successfully kills them.
They should be outlawed ‼️
I recently worked with a man who impersonates a woman. I will call him Louis.
Louis is a gay man as he was asking for advice as to how to go about dating a man who had lied to him (the lie? that man was a father of one and he had not told Louis).
Louis used to go on about how emotionally immature men were and how men were useless etc, etc, etc.
Louis was quite antagonistic to other men. I wonder what about him (Louis) disgusts him (Louis) that prompted him to impersonate a woman (he has been taking hormones for about 2 years or so). It does not matter how dainty he is, he still has male facial features and the Adam's apple.
Apparently nobody else at the office noticed Louis is "trans."
Bullshit! They're deathly afraid of being ostracised and/or accused of "hatred", etc.
I truly think most of them did not know.
Funny how another of my ex coworkers called herself nonbinary and was planning on taking hormones. She did not notice Louis was trans.
To be fair, Louis is shorter than I am (I am 5'7) and quite dainty...even his hands looked like mine. However, if you started at him for a bit, you would notice the adam's apple and the voice.
He is just an effeminate gay guy.
Oh, fair enough. The shorter these guys are, the more likely they are to be confused for women - obviously. Still, you would think that the voice would be a dead give away, especially if he puts on a breathy and affected "femme voice".
I find them like listening to nails down a chalkboard, personally.
Y'all might have some interest in a comment I just left over there (as Tillerman482) -- not yet deleted, so get a screenshot if you want one for posterity ...
QUOTE:
Since the UK Supreme Court, in the For Women Scotland case, has ruled that women are, apparently, of the female "biological sex" -- and transwomen aren't -- you might take a look at exactly how biology defines the terms "male" and "female":
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes; Jussi Lehtonen, Geoff A. Parker; Oxford Academic; Molecular Human Reproduction, Volume 20, Issue 12, December 2014"
https://web.archive.org/web/20221214064356/https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990?login=false
Technically speaking -- at least among biologists worth their salt -- to be a female is to have functional ovaries, and to be a male is to have functional testicles, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless.
Not a popular opinion, particularly among the distaff side since they lose their "female membership cards" at the onset of menopause. Why having ovaries or testicles is maybe a more useful criterion. But as far as biology is concerned, those ARE the definitions.
But I think you're barking up the wrong tree with your "bioessentialism" -- though you're in good company since many "philosophers" have been going off into those weeds for 2500 years. Largely because you and they don't realize that "male" and "female" aren't identities; they're simply labels for transitory reproductive abilities. And the "essential" requirement to qualify as members of those categories is to have ovaries or testicles, functional ones for the purists. But that is the same way that the "essential" requirement to qualify as a teenager is to be 13 to 19 -- no "age-essentialism" involved at all.
HTH ...
UNQUOTE
https://www.reddit.com/r/MtF/comments/1m7b3mo/is_bioessentialism_the_core_root_of_transphobia/?sort=new
What type of gametes your body produces does not imply your genitalia are functional. Men don't stop being men because they are sterile or impotent nor do women stop being women because of menopause. Nor do boys and girls stop being boys and girls because they are not sexually mature. At least with women, menopause is a necessary evolutionary phenomenon that ensures healthier births and a support network.
Based on the pseudoscience that "Steersman" wrote it's safe to believe two possibilities:
Steersman is a transformer and/or Steersman is a trolling bot living in the basement, not getting any sunlight and refuses to takes his mental medication because the stupid shit 💩he wrote is stinking through the screen.
That was the dumbest, incorrect garbage ever
Just the facts ma'am, just the facts. You might try getting your head out of your nether regions and do some reading and thinking with it. This article in Aeon Magazine might be a good start:
"Sex is real; Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other"
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
> "What type of gametes your body produces does not imply your genitalia are functional."
"genitalia" is generally not the same as "gonads". Women are generally "better designed" in that case since their gonads are inside the body cavity whereas those of men are left hanging out in the breeze:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonad
But it's the "type of gametes your body POTENTIALLY produces". If those gonads are not actually producing any "reproductive cells" -- the phrase used in Trump's EO on "biological truth" -- then they are, by definition, not functional. The same way that a mechanical "clock" that's missing its mainspring is not functional.
> "Men don't stop being men because they are sterile or impotent nor do women stop being women because of menopause. Nor do boys and girls stop being boys and girls because they are not sexually mature."
Depends greatly on how you define "man", "woman", "boy", and "girl". If they're joined at the hip with the "biological sexes" (male and female) -- as the UK Supreme Court put it -- then the question, as that Reddit post underlined it, is what it takes to qualify as male and female in the first place. And the biological definitions say that it's a matter of having FUNCTIONAL gonads-- why the prepubescent are technically sexless.
But, as a practical matter, a more useful definition might be, as I've argued, simply a matter of having either testicles or ovaries -- "of past, present, or future functionality" as UK biologist Emma Hilton once put it. Although, even under that looser definition, many of the intersex have no potential of ever producing either type of gamete so still qualify as sexless.
Please stop with the "sexless" bullshit it's unreal...in every way and you know it‼️
Now please go take your medicine 💊
Been banned yet?
🙂 After I logged out last night I noticed that my comment was no longer visible so I assume it's been deleted and/or I've been banned, at least from that group. Why I took a screenshot not long after posting it -- for the sake of posterity. 🙂
But a classic echo chamber -- this doesn't seem to be visible unless one logs on, but the group subtitle was something about providing a "safe space" 🙄 for the transfeminine.
But what is particularly surprising there is the too common effort to deny or bastardize the standard biological definitions for the sexes. You might be "amused" to note that transwoman Riley Dennis is quite sure that being a female is simply a matter of best 3 out of 5 whereas the biological definitions make it a matter of a single trait -- i.e., to a first approximation, having ovaries. Which, of course, he will never have:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Riley_Dennis
Rather disconcerting, and something of a black mark, that "Rational" Wiki endorses that antiscientific claptrap. But many other more ostensibly reputable sources -- like the biological journal Cell -- are in the same boat. ICYMI, my open letter to them in response to their article where they ask, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-sex-a-useful-category
After reading that incorrect shit, it should be be taken down‼️
The pseudoscience on your reply is primarily based on one word "functioning"
As in "functioning ovaries' and "functioning testicles".
when ovaries are diseased as with cancer and removed via hysterectomy...she is still a female.
In the case of a removed testicle or even both testicle removed and he is a eunich...He is still male💎
🙄 "produces gametes" -- having functional gonads -- IS what the biological definitions actually SAY. And that is the way reputable biologists -- not grifters and scientific illiterates like Colin Wright -- actually use the terms. Which means, no gametes coming off the production line then no sex category cards are issued.
For examples, US biologists Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers, though they both tend to talk out of both sides of their mouths:
JC: "Those 1/6000 individuals are intersexes, neither male nor female."
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/06/04/sf-chronicle-sex-and-gender-are-not-binaries/#comment-2048737
PZM: “ ‘female’ is not applicable -- it refers to individuals that produce ova. By the technical definition, many cis women are not female.”
https://x.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342
And a trio of German biologists writing in the reputable Wiley Online Library:
WOL: "For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R
If you want to grant sex category membership cards to people who don't have any gonads, or none that are currently working, then you need to come up with your own definitions. Although, in that case, it ain't biology.
But if you were really keen about doing that then you might consider promoting the (non-biological) definitions of a UK developmental biologist, Emma Hilton, "promulgated" in the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper, but hardly a peer-reviewed biological journal:
Hilton: "Sir, Further to the Lib Dem policy of self-identifying one’s gender, sexual reproduction in almost all higher species, including humans, proceeds via fusion of one small and one large gamete (anisogamy). 'Sex' refers to one of the two reproductive roles in this process. Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively. ...."
https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
So, by her definitions, simply having, or having had, gonads of "past, present, or functionality" is sufficient to grant sex category membership cards.
STOP IT‼️
You have the gaul to come back and double-down on that crock of shit.
"US biologists Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers, though they both tend to talk out of both sides of their mouths"
You can pedal that unnatural untruthful propaganda to yourself.
Please don't write anything else to me
> "... unnatural untruthful propaganda"
🙄 That IS what reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries actually SAY.
Which you might understand if you were to get your fingers out of your ears, and stop saying, "nyah, nyah, can't hear you" ...
Get outta here‼️
The Encyclopedias you scratched bullshit notes in
Now I get why you call yourself Steersman.
STEER definitions:
An Ox or Bovine that is a castrated male.
🌰🌰
Damn dude you really need to seek help and stop passing on twisted shit because their are vulnerable young folks listening, but until then I'm gonna verbally stomp the truth out of you. Your propaganadized days are over. And you won't be bothering the minds of Children either anymore
LoL. You might try Googling "male definition" -- if you're capable of it. This is more or less what you'll see at the top from Oxford Languages:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
That definition -- produces sperm -- has been around, and accepted as the standard in biology, for at least 50 years, long before I showed up on the scene.
As for "STEERsman" -- sticks and stones. For one thing, I still have both nuts attached, though one is hanging a little lower than the other. And, more importantly, it's the English translation of the root for "cybernetics":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics