J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

LLMMLL

AllForIt wrote: »

I find it hard to believe anyone would pass up a shag even if they were racist. Especially gay men. I personally find gay male Asians to be more on the effeminate side than most for whatever reason that is and that would not be my cup of tea. Not because they are physically from Asia or not the same nationality as I.

However I have learned certainly as far as dating apps are concerned not to say what your're not into, and that's one thing I would agree with LLMMLL on. Recently I said on my Grindr profile 'I'm into most types of guys except skinny'. Shortly after skimming though some profiles an extremely skinny guy said on his profile "...yeah and I'm skinny so tough luck all you skinny haters'. So even on non-race issues it seems people are hyper sensitive these days. I'll just ignore the ppl I'm not interested in from now on.


Although LLMMLL says 'I'm not forcing you to sleep with someone you don't want' the discourse around this arose by transgender activists saying that gay men discriminate against transgender men. As I said I find it hard to believe a gay man would pass up a shag - for any other reason than they're not sexually attracted to them. And I'm afraid it's not just about private parts. Sexual attraction begins at the skin level I believe ,and then there's pheromones as well. Men smell like men, women smell like women. We wear scents that reflect that. My mums perfume would not suit me and my Dads musky cologne would not suit my mom. So I would shag a man who lost his dick in an accident because he still looks and smells like a man but I would not get the vibe I'm looking from a transgender man for the reasons I've outlined. Whether that vibe can be created artificially though hormone replacement I don't know but I doubt it.

I'll leave you with a line from The Science of the Lambs - "I can smell your c*nt". I'm sure he could too.

This actually sums up the dodgy generalisations perfectly.

You believe Asian gay men are effeminate. You have summed up an entire subsection of gay men based on their race and assigned a label to them (effeminate) which you obviously believe is negative.

You believe a trans man would not smell the way you want them to smell (oddly like your father)...... Based on...... What exactly?

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

I see what you are saying, and it is correct. But I think what LLMMLL is saying is far more than that. LLMMLL has already stated that transwomen are women and also FEMALE. This is belief in an act of biological transubstantiation. This transubstantiation would mean that the genitalia the transwoman, or female, possess are now female genitalia. (Note 95% of TW do not have SRS).

LLMMLL says repeatedly they do not dictate people's sexual preferences. By their reasoning a hetero man may say I do not date men and that is not phobic. A gay man may say I do not date women and that is not phobic. However a heterosexual man or a homosexual woman who says off the bat I do not date Transwomen is transphobic, in LLMMLL's view, because they have not accepted the biological transmutation of the gender identification which has now factually rendered the transwoman a female. Thus those expressing such a preference are being discriminatory at the starting gun. They are supposed to wait and see if they happen to like the transwoman, which includes accepting that the transwoman is a de facto female, and then accept that it is not a matter of the genitalia being relevant, but the person to whom they are attached - refer to LLMMLL's post where as a gay person he says he does not discriminate interest-wise between (albeit anonymous) penises and vaginas, it depends on the person to whom they are attached. I can extrapolate from that that LLMMLL will put such a theology into real world practice and not discriminate between genitalia - but only if the person in question is trans identifying.


The transphobia arises from others, in LLMMLL's worldview, because of how that transgender person IDENTIFIES. Identification is LLMMLL's only scientific and preliminary requirement to factual transmutation of reality. Therefore we get the comparison with racial preference - the act of gender identification has created an unquestionable immutable quality of biological sex (ie Transwomen are female) which like the immutable quality of race cannot publicly be discriminated against because we have moved past that time. In LLMMLL's world view.

Nah a lot of stuff wrong about what I'm saying here.

First of all you can drop the biological transubstantiation line. I don't believe it. I believe trans women are women. Not that they turn into women.

Secondly you keep saying things like "they are supposed to" as if I'm telling people what to do. Why do you feel the need to purposely misrepresent me?

In fact the idea that I'm telling people "they are supposed to.wait and see if they like the person" regardless of genitalia is patently untrue. I've repeatedly said that a person is fully entitled to rule out someone based on their genitalia.

You're also portraying ME saying my attractions do not exclusively depend on genitalia to be the application of a theology. You obviously want to say that you and your mates are just attracted to whoever youre attracted to but my attractions is not normal - it is "theological". I'm guessing it's because not only do you not find trans people attractive, you rule out that anybody could find them attractive unless they forced themselves to. Lovely.

Jimmy Twotimes

LLMMLL wrote: »

This actually sums up the dodgy generalisations perfectly.

You believe Asian gay men are effeminate. You have summed up an entire subsection of gay men based on their race and assigned a label to them (effeminate) which you obviously believe is negative.

You believe a trans man would not smell the way you want them to smell (oddly like your father)...... Based on...... What exactly?

That's funny cos Asian men might have a chance of 'passing'. You certainly don't.

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

First of all you can drop the biological transubstantiation line. I don't believe it. I believe trans women are women. Not that they turn into women.

What do you base that belief on?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's lovely thank you for the update. And again, I never said that not being into penises makes someone trabsphobic. What makes them trabsphobic is that they feel the need to come into a thread in trans rights and advertise that they don't find trans people attractive. It's clearly an attempt to dehumanise trans people.

First, this isn't a thread about Trans rights. Technically, it's about cancel culture, and issues that connect with Trans people. Secondly, nothing he said seeks to dehumanise trans people. Denying the claims/beliefs of being the same as natural women doesn't seek to dispute their humanity. It disputes a belief about gender and sex. That's it.

LLMMLL

suicide_circus wrote: »

What do you base that belief on?

Knowledge and experience.

suicide_circus

LLMMLL wrote: »

Knowledge and experience.

Faith.

Jimmy Twotimes

If trans'women' really are women then why can't I declare myself female and be allowed access to the female changing rooms?

And why do I have to bother with surgery? Afterall I'm a women.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

First, this isn't a thread about Trans rights. Technically, it's about cancel culture, and issues that connect with Trans people. Secondly, nothing he said seeks to dehumanise trans people. Denying the claims/beliefs of being the same as natural women doesn't seek to dispute their humanity. It disputes a belief about gender and sex. That's it.

This is definitely a thread about trans rights. The vast majority of the thread never mentions JK.

Also the poster in question did not say that trans women were not the same as "natural women" which I take to mean cis women. He said trans women aren't real women. I'm guessing you agree with that but it's still an important distinction to.make.

And lastly it's a bit of a slight of hand to say that "Denying the claims/beliefs of being the same as natural women doesn't seek to dispute their humanity." when I never claimed it did.

What I said was dehumanising was coming into a thread about trans rights simply to tell us all the fascinating fact that you would never sleep with a trans person. It reduces their struggle for rights to basically "whether some guy wants to shag them or not".

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

I believe trans women are women. Not that they turn into women. (Why?) Knowledge and experience.

First - can you clarify the difference between ''are women'' and ''become (turn into) women'' re trans identifying people. Do you mean from conception they are female? What happens if a transwomen de-transitions? What happens re non-binary people who may move between the genders?

Knowledge - what knowledge? how did it manifest? Is it based on research? Is it empirically repeatable? Is it objective or subjective? was it innate or acquired? Is it conditioning? etc

Experience - what experience? the experience of belief? Of seeing? Of being told/convinced? etc

Gervais08

suicide_circus wrote: »

What do you base that belief on?

I’m weaning myself of engaging with crazy but saw a mad post via your copy of it.

How can anyone believe that “transwomen are women” without believIng they “become women” in some way ????

They started out as biological men (and SPOILER ALERT....) will stay that way till they die.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

What I said was dehumanising was coming into a thread about trans rights simply to tell us all the fascinating fact that you would never sleep with a trans person. It reduces their struggle for rights to basically "whether some guy wants to shag them or not".

No it doesn't. I don't want to shag women. It does not reduce the struggle for rights or dehumanise one single woman that I say that publicly.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

No it doesn't. I don't want to shag women. It does not reduce the struggle for rights or dehumanise one single woman that I say that publicly.

It would if you were using it to argue against their rights. For instance, say klaz who won't sleep with black women goes into a BLM thread and starts discussing that he's not attracted to black women and won't sleep with them. You seem to think that's some neutral action.

Airyfairy12

LLMMLL wrote: »

It would if you were using it to argue against their rights. For instance, say klaz who won't sleep with black women goes into a BLM thread and starts discussing that he's not attracted to black women. You seem to think that's some neutral action.

Thats entirely different as it's specific to the context. I would never go into a forum specifically for trans rights and randomly and out of context state that I dont want to sleep with them, I dont think anyone here on this thread would either.
It would be similar to going up to a random trans person on the street and randomly declaring that you don't find them sexually attractive.

LLMMLL

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Thats entirely different as it's specific to the context. I would never go into a forum specifically for trans rights and randomly and out of context state that I dont want to sleep with them, I dont think anyone here on this thread would either.
It would be similar to going up to a random trans person on the street and randomly declaring that you don't find them sexually attractive.

Well I wasn't the one who brought it up. It was someone arguing against trans rights. And now a lot of people are jumping in dying to tell us they would never sleep with a trans person. (because they wouldn't smell right and also Asian men are all effeminate by the way).

I'd be happy for everyone to agree they should keep their opinions on trans attractiveness to themselves and completely drop this topic. Somehow I don't think others will agree though.

raclle

I'm done with this thread.

Would like to say JKR doesn't deserve the vilification she is currently receiving.

LLMMLL your acting on the behalf of the trans community in this thread but are too blind and biased to understand what people are telling you

Airyfairy12

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well I wasn't the one who brought it up. It was someone arguing against trans rights. And now a lot of people are jumping in dying to tell us they would never sleep with a trans person. (because they wouldn't smell right and also Asian men are all effeminate by the way).

I'd be happy for everyone to agree they should keep their opinions on trans attractiveness to themselves and completely drop this topic. Somehow I don't think others will agree though.

Its not got anything to do with trans peoples sexual attractiveness as thats subjective. Lots of people dont find me attractive and thats their right, lots of people find trans people attractive that is equally their right.

This discussion was brought up after you mentioned how people who would not sleep with someone whose trans is transphobic for that reason. Its a ridiculous statement to make.

Im not arguing against trans rights, they have has much right to exist as anyone else and they have just as much right to health care, safety and well being.
The original argument was that there are large number of the trans community who are attempting to deny to rights to others, particularly women and anyone who disagrees with them is labelled a transphobe or in the case of women who disagree theyre called T.E.R.F's which is sexist in itself.

LLMMLL

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Its not got anything to do with trans peoples sexual attractiveness as thats subjective. Lots of people dont find me attractive and thats their right, lots of people find trans people attractive that is equally their right.

This discussion was brought up after you mentioned how people who would not sleep with someone whose trans is transphobic for that reason. Its a ridiculous statement to make.

Im not arguing against trans rights, they have has much right to exist as anyone else and they have just as much right to health care, safety and well being.
The original argument was that there are large number of the trans community who are attempting to deny to rights to others, particularly women and anyone who disagrees with them is labelled a transphobe or in the case of women who disagree theyre called T.E.R.F's which is sexist in itself.

Incorrect. This discussion started with hatrickpatrick not me.

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well I wasn't the one who brought it up. It was someone arguing against trans rights. And now a lot of people are jumping in dying to tell us they would never sleep with a trans person. (because they wouldn't smell right and also Asian men are all effeminate by the way).

I'd be happy for everyone to agree they should keep their opinions on trans attractiveness to themselves and completely drop this topic. Somehow I don't think others will agree though.

The sexes do have different smells. And pheromones are a big scientific thing. They are detectable by the human olfactory sense, they act like hormones outside of the body. They are a vital part of human evolution re sexual selection and bonding and child-parent bonding.
Asian people tend to be shorter, and more fine boned. In South Asia the mean height of men is 163 cm, while in Northern Europe it is 177- 180cm. That 15cm is a big difference. If someone's preference is for big bear like men then the shorter more delicately formed Asian may appear more feminine to their aesthetic. Many of the men in Kerala for example, where I have some experience, are incredibly beautiful looking - not handsome in a burly beefy way but actually beautiful in a feminine way. Long eyelashes, almond-shaped eyes, very curving lips. If I say that some of the lesbians I know are quite manly is that a problem for you. They are butch, it is a legitimate thing. They call themselves butch. A gay man can find a prospective male lover to be too effeminate and that is a thing too. Preferring masculine - behaving partners is a thing I believe on gay dating sites. Some prefer more effeminate partners. That is a thing too. I spent a long taxi ride with a work colleague while they unloaded emotionally to me about their partner being too effeminate and passive when it came to sex. It is a thing. He did not like it, or so I gathered. I do not find effeminate display in men to be sexy. Endearing perhaps, cute, sweet, but not sexy. I like masculine. I am pretty sure the same preference is allowed for gay men.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

The sexes do have different smells. And pheromones are a big scientific thing. They are detectable by the human olfactory sense, they act like hormones outside of the body. They are a vital part of human evolution re sexual selection and bonding and child-parent bonding.
Asian people tend to be shorter, and more fine boned. In South Asia the mean height of men is 163 cm, while in Northern Europe it is 177- 180cm. That 15cm is a big difference. If someone's preference is for big bear like men then the shorter more delicately formed Asian may appear more feminine to their aesthetic. Many of the men in Kerala for example, where I have some experience, are incredibly beautiful looking - not handsome in a burly beefy way but actually beautiful in a feminine way. Long eyelashes, almond-shaped eyes, very curving lips. If I say that some of the lesbians I know are quite manly is that a problem for you. They are butch, it is a legitimate thing. They call themselves butch. A gay man can find a prospective male lover to be too effeminate and that is a thing too. Preferring masculine - behaving partners is a thing I believe on gay dating sites. Some prefer more effeminate partners. That is a thing too. I spent a long taxi ride with a work colleague while they unloaded emotionally to me about their partner being too effeminate and passive when it came to sex. It is a thing. He did not like it, or so I gathered. I do not find effeminate display in men to be sexy. Endearing perhaps, cute, sweet, but not sexy. I like masculine. I am pretty sure the same preference is allowed for gay men.

Wow this sounds like an 19th century gentleman explorer. "the Savage natives had a thick bone structure and an undeniable virility. The womenfolk were much pleased with their animal prowess".

Gruffalux

LLMMLL wrote: »

Wow this sounds like an 19th century gentleman explorer. "the Savage natives had a thick bone structure and an undeniable virility. The womenfolk were much pleased with their animal prowess".

Oh FFS! That is a disgusting remark. In your world we would all go around supposedly hardly noticing that people have different coloured hair, skin, different heights, and even blooming different genitalia. We would be the transhuman Borg for which you seem to unconsciously pine.
There are differences in appearance between people, not just within countries but between places on earth. Real differences. People in Bolivia look completely different than people in Ireland. To try and impugn racist superiority on someone noticing those natural facts is very low. But not beneath you, obviously.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

This is definitely a thread about trans rights. The vast majority of the thread never mentions JK.

What did I say? I said the thread was about cancel culture and issues related to trans people. That's far more accurate than your assertion that this is about trans rights.. which it's not.

Also the poster in question did not say that trans women were not the same as "natural women" which I take to mean cis women. He said trans women aren't real women. I'm guessing you agree with that but it's still an important distinction to.make.

I refuse to use this cis BS. It's a distinction that is worthless considering it doesn't counter what I said.

And lastly it's a bit of a slight of hand to say that "Denying the claims/beliefs of being the same as natural women doesn't seek to dispute their humanity." when I never claimed it did.

What I said was dehumanising was coming into a thread about trans rights simply to tell us all the fascinating fact that you would never sleep with a trans person. It reduces their struggle for rights to basically "whether some guy wants to shag them or not".

"It's clearly an attempt to dehumanise trans people."

An attempt to dehumanise trans people.. which shows intent.. to dehumanise trans people, because he refused to accept their belief that they're "real" women. There's no slight of hand going on there. Your phrasing is inaccurate and designed to project something that is really negative.. which what he did, wasn't.

LLMMLL

Gruffalox wrote: »

Oh FFS! That is a disgusting remark. In your world we would all go around supposedly hardly noticing that people have different coloured hair, skin, different heights, and even blooming different genitalia. We would be the transhuman Borg for which you seem to unconsciously pine.
There are differences in appearance between people, not just within countries but between places on earth. Real differences. People in Bolivia look completely different than people in Ireland. To try and impugn racist superiority on someone noticing those natural facts is very low. But not beneath you, obviously.

Oh sure people tend to look different in different parts of the world but I don't try and justify a theory of effeminacy based on this. Others do ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What did I say? I said the thread was about cancel culture and issues related to trans people. That's far more accurate than your assertion that this is about trans rights.. which it's not.



I refuse to use this cis BS. It's a distinction that is worthless considering it doesn't counter what I said.



"It's clearly an attempt to dehumanise trans people."

An attempt to dehumanise trans people.. which shows intent.. to dehumanise trans people, because he refused to accept their belief that they're "real" women. There's no slight of hand going on there. Your phrasing is inaccurate and designed to project something that is really negative.. which what he did, wasn't.

The only reason to come into a thread about trans rights and state that you would never sleep with them is to dehumanise them. The intent is clear.

Sittingpretty

LLMMLL wrote: »

Wow this sounds like an 19th century gentleman explorer. "the Savage natives had a thick bone structure and an undeniable virility. The womenfolk were much pleased with their animal prowess".

That’s quite the reach, even for you.

LLMMLL

Well all it's been fun but when we get to racial theories of emmefinacy I've reached my limit.

Gonna give this thread a break until some new material arises. Have fun!

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

The only reason to come into a thread about transferring rights and state that you would never sleep with them is to dehumanise them. The intent is clear.

Any thread about Trans people will have discussions about sex, and the preference of people regarding sex with Trans people.

Why? Because there have been reports of Trans people getting offended by people refusing them (many of which were posted to this thread). For example, The case of Trans people declaring that lesbians are transphobic because they won't have sex with "a woman" with a penis,. A heterosexual male who declares his own preference on a thread related to Trans people (not trans rights) isn't dehumanising anyone. His opinion doesn't remove any essence of being human, or respect that a trans person has as a person...

Gervais08

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What did I say? I said the thread was about cancel culture and issues related to trans people. That's far more accurate than your assertion that this is about trans rights.. which it's not.



I refuse to use this cis BS. It's a distinction that is worthless considering it doesn't counter what I said.



"It's clearly an attempt to dehumanise trans people."

An attempt to dehumanise trans people.. which shows intent.. to dehumanise trans people, because he refused to accept their belief that they're "real" women. There's no slight of hand going on there. Your phrasing is inaccurate and designed to project something that is really negative.. which what he did, wasn't.

Why do people insist on using “cis” than many, myself included, find offensive and yet get their knickers in a knot over pointing out a millennia old fact that a creature whether primate, mammal, amphibian whatever with a penis is male?

Gervais08

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Any thread about Trans people will have discussions about sex, and the preference of people regarding sex with Trans people.

Why? Because there have been reports of Trans people getting offended by people refusing them (many of which were posted to this thread). For example, The case of Trans people declaring that lesbians are transphobic because they won't have sex with "a woman" with a penis,. A heterosexual male who declares his own preference on a thread related to Trans people (not trans rights) isn't dehumanising anyone. His opinion doesn't remove any essence of being human, or respect that a trans person has as a person...

As I said yesterday “cotton ceiling” - borderline rape and certainly f***ing creepy.

Gervais08

Gervais08 wrote: »

Why do people insist on using “cis” than many, myself included, find offensive and yet get their knickers in a knot over pointing out a millennia old fact that a creature whether primate, mammal, amphibian whatever with a penis is male?

Tolerance is only something they (and their cause) should receive. It's a crusade. You're a heathen and your opinions are of no value, because you're wrong. Which is why they don't need to extend any tolerance to you or the majority who (thankfully) don't think like them. Hence you're a phobic or ist of some kind.

We live in a world of very convenient double standards and willful ignorance.