Gender Identity in Modern Ireland (Mod warnings and Threadbanned Users in OP)

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You did not make reference to the definition there. You added your own details such as “finding out” and “continuing to feel”.

The definition makes no reference to these so you are not actually using the definition. You are using your own interpretation of the definition.

Can you prove that a man who finds a trans women attractive wIthout knowing she is trans is. It gay or bisexual only making reference to the definition and not adding your own concepts?

You are clutching at straws here.

If someone dished up a lasagna to a vegetarian, and had presented it as completely meat free and the vegetarian ate it under the impression that the dish was suitable for a vegetarian, the person is hardly no longer a vegetarian as they were only going on the information they had.

If they knowingly ate meat, they would no longer be a vegetarian.

If a man found a trans woman attractive purely because he was under the impression that it was a biological woman, he could hardly be accused of being homosexual/bisexual because to the best of his knowledge, he was attracted to a biological woman.

If they knowingly had an attraction to a biological man, they are not heterosexual.

_Godot_

Being trans isn't a silly whim.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are clutching at straws here.

If someone dished up a lasagna to a vegetarian, and had presented it as completely meat free and the vegetarian ate it under the impression that the dish was suitable for a vegetarian, the person is hardly no longer a vegetarian as they were only going on the information they had.

If they knowingly ate meat, they would no longer be a vegetarian.

If a man found a trans woman attractive purely because he was under the impression that it was a biological woman, he could hardly be accused of being homosexual/bisexual because to the best of his knowledge, he was attracted to a biological woman.

If they knowingly had an attraction to a biological man, they are not heterosexual.

It’s not clutching at straws to demonstrate that someone who criticises others heavily for not using the “definition” is actually unable to stick to the definition themselves.

Again, you are unable to stick to the definition. You need to make use of an analogy to prove your point.

So you are not sticking to the definition you are giving it your own interpretation.

If you stopped criticising others for their interpretations of definitions I would have no issue with you having your own interpretation of bisexual/straight/gay. You’re perfectly entitled to do so.

But that’s not what you do. You claim to be sticking to the definition while adding in extra concepts and analogies.

ChickenDish

_Godot_ wrote: »

Being trans isn't a silly whim.

Identifying as trans, gay, heterosexual or asexual isn't the same as identifying as non binary for instance. Someone isn't going to
Start demanding you start calling them gay because they are gay, I personally just accept people for their sexual preference or lack of. I don't have to acknowledge your trans when you speak, I simply accept it - a trans person isn't going to demand i recognise they are trans.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s not clutching at straws to demonstrate that someone who criticises others heavily for not using the “definition” is actually unable to stick to the definition themselves.

Again, you are unable to stick to the definition. You need to make use of an analogy to prove your point.

So you are not sticking to the definition you are giving it your own interpretation.

If you stopped criticising others for their interpretations of definitions I would have no issue with you having your own interpretation of bisexual/straight/gay. You’re perfectly entitled to do so.

But that’s not what you do. You claim to be sticking to the definition while adding in extra concepts and analogies.

I am sticking to the definition. A man who is attracted to what they to the best of their knowledge is a woman is heterosexual. If it turns out that it is in fact a biological male, and he is still attracted to them, he is homosexual/bisexual

Trans people present themselves as the opposite sex. If they appear to be biologically female and a man finds them attractive, they are attracted to what they believe is a woman. That's certainly not an attraction to the same sex.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are clutching at straws here.

…

If they knowingly had an attraction to a biological man, they are not heterosexual.

I think you misunderstand the concept of sexual orientation. Bradley Cooper is a ride IMO (though I’m aware plenty of people may disagree), and I’m heterosexual. In my youth men were sexually attractive, and as I got older, I was sexually attracted to women. I’m still straight and not once have I ever questioned my sexuality, I haven’t needed to, because I wasn’t uncomfortable with the idea of my sexual orientation being whatever it is. It’s apparently common enough in adolescence to experience sexual attraction to people of the same sex, then later to be attracted to people of the opposite sex -

Sexual Orientation Trajectories Based on Sexual Attractions, Partners, and Identity: A Longitudinal Investigation From Adolescence Through Young Adulthood Using a U.S. Representative Sample


It hadn’t really been observed before recent times, primarily because before recent times, any sexual orientation other than heterosexual was considered an abomination which indicated that the person was mentally ill. Neither homosexuality nor being transgender is actually anything new though. Even Freud as wrong as he was about everything else, acknowledged that people who did not conform to gender stereotypes or stereotypes of sexual orientation were not mentally ill. He was a complete arsehole, but he wasn’t a complete idiot -


Freud was also at odds with 19th-century “third sex theory,” an alternative view of homosexuality that hypothesized a gay man had a woman’s spirit trapped in his body and that lesbians had men’s spirits trapped in theirs—and that such a condition was normal for them!

In the early 20th century, the leading proponent of third sex theory was Magnus Hirschfeld, an openly “homosexual” psychiatrist who led the German homophile (gay rights) movement in Freud’s time (Lauritsen and Thorstad, 1974). Hirschfeld was an early member of the psychoanalytic movement, but an early dropout as well. Freud was famously known to detest defectors.

After he left, Freud wrote to Carl Jung (who would later become a defector himself), “Magnus Hirschfeld has left our ranks in Berlin. No great loss, he is a flabby, unappetizing fellow, absolutely incapable of learning anything. Of course, he takes your remark at the Congress as a pretext; homosexual touchiness. Not worth a tear (Freud, 1911).

Hirschfeld’s departure, however, eventually led Freud to more openly criticize third sex theories, although he did so without mentioning Hirschfeld by name. In other words, Freud opposing “any attempt at separating off homosexuals from the rest of mankind as a group of special character” is a put-down of a central belief of Hirschfeld’s German homophile movement: that “homosexuals” are a third sex.

By 1920, however, Freud was more contemptuous. In Psychogenesis, he writes: “ ... homosexual men have experienced a specially strong fixation on their mother ... in addition to their manifest homosexuality, a very considerable measure of latent or unconscious homosexuality can be detected in all normal people. If these findings are taken into account, then, clearly, the supposition that nature in a freakish mood created a ‘third sex’ falls to the ground.”


Was Freud “Gay-Friendly?"


Hirschfields opinions regarding homosexuality at the time were regarded in a similar fashion to the way some people regard the idea of people being transgender today. For some people their “concerns” are politically motivated attempts to create a moral panic that people who are transgender are trying to turn young girls into transgender men (although there is no evidence whatsoever to support their theories, much like it was then regarding homosexuality) -


Hirschfeld's position, that homosexuality was normal and natural, made him a highly controversial figure at the time, involving him in vigorous debates with other academics, who regarded homosexuality as unnatural and wrong. One of Hirschfeld's leading critics was Austrian Baron Christian von Ehrenfels, who advocated radical changes to society and sexuality to combat the supposed "Yellow Peril", and saw Hirschfeld's theories as a challenge to his view of sexuality. Ehrenfels argued that there were a few "biologically degenerate" homosexuals who lured otherwise "healthy boys" into their lifestyle, making homosexuality into a choice and a wrong one at that time.


Magnus Hirschfeld


It’s an all too familiar theme throughout human history of anyone who doesn’t conform to other people’s world views being portrayed as being a danger to children, preying on people’s ignorance and fears for their own children.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am sticking to the definition. A man who is attracted to what they to the best of their knowledge is a woman is heterosexual. If it turns out that it is in fact a biological male, and he is still attracted to them, he is homosexual/bisexual

Trans people present themselves as the opposite sex. If they appear to be biologically female and a man finds them attractive, they are attracted to what they believe is a woman. That's certainly not an attraction to the same sex.

You’re not. The definition makes no mention of “best of their knowledge” or “belief”. You are adding that because it aligns with your opinion. But it’s not the definition.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think you misunderstand the concept of sexual orientation. Bradley Cooper is a ride IMO (though I’m aware plenty of people may disagree), and I’m heterosexual. In my youth men were sexually attractive, and as I got older, I was sexually attracted to women. I’m still straight and not once have I ever questioned my sexuality, I haven’t needed to, because I wasn’t uncomfortable with the idea of my sexual orientation being whatever it is. It’s apparently common enough in adolescence to experience sexual attraction to people of the same sex, then later to be attracted to people of the opposite sex -

Sexual Orientation Trajectories Based on Sexual Attractions, Partners, and Identity: A Longitudinal Investigation From Adolescence Through Young Adulthood Using a U.S. Representative Sample


It hadn’t really been observed before recent times, primarily because before recent times, any sexual orientation other than heterosexual was considered an abomination which indicated that the person was mentally ill. Neither homosexuality nor being transgender is actually anything new though. Even Freud as wrong as he was about everything else, acknowledged that people who did not conform to gender stereotypes or stereotypes of sexual orientation were not mentally ill. He was a complete arsehole, but he wasn’t a complete idiot -


Freud was also at odds with 19th-century “third sex theory,” an alternative view of homosexuality that hypothesized a gay man had a woman’s spirit trapped in his body and that lesbians had men’s spirits trapped in theirs—and that such a condition was normal for them!

In the early 20th century, the leading proponent of third sex theory was Magnus Hirschfeld, an openly “homosexual” psychiatrist who led the German homophile (gay rights) movement in Freud’s time (Lauritsen and Thorstad, 1974). Hirschfeld was an early member of the psychoanalytic movement, but an early dropout as well. Freud was famously known to detest defectors.

After he left, Freud wrote to Carl Jung (who would later become a defector himself), “Magnus Hirschfeld has left our ranks in Berlin. No great loss, he is a flabby, unappetizing fellow, absolutely incapable of learning anything. Of course, he takes your remark at the Congress as a pretext; homosexual touchiness. Not worth a tear (Freud, 1911).

Hirschfeld’s departure, however, eventually led Freud to more openly criticize third sex theories, although he did so without mentioning Hirschfeld by name. In other words, Freud opposing “any attempt at separating off homosexuals from the rest of mankind as a group of special character” is a put-down of a central belief of Hirschfeld’s German homophile movement: that “homosexuals” are a third sex.

By 1920, however, Freud was more contemptuous. In Psychogenesis, he writes: “ ... homosexual men have experienced a specially strong fixation on their mother ... in addition to their manifest homosexuality, a very considerable measure of latent or unconscious homosexuality can be detected in all normal people. If these findings are taken into account, then, clearly, the supposition that nature in a freakish mood created a ‘third sex’ falls to the ground.”


Was Freud “Gay-Friendly?"


Hirschfields opinions regarding homosexuality at the time were regarded in a similar fashion to the way some people regard the idea of people being transgender today. For some people their “concerns” are politically motivated attempts to create a moral panic that people who are transgender are trying to turn young girls into transgender men (although there is no evidence whatsoever to support their theories, much like it was then regarding homosexuality) -


Hirschfeld's position, that homosexuality was normal and natural, made him a highly controversial figure at the time, involving him in vigorous debates with other academics, who regarded homosexuality as unnatural and wrong. One of Hirschfeld's leading critics was Austrian Baron Christian von Ehrenfels, who advocated radical changes to society and sexuality to combat the supposed "Yellow Peril", and saw Hirschfeld's theories as a challenge to his view of sexuality. Ehrenfels argued that there were a few "biologically degenerate" homosexuals who lured otherwise "healthy boys" into their lifestyle, making homosexuality into a choice and a wrong one at that time.


Magnus Hirschfeld


It’s an all too familiar theme throughout human history of anyone who doesn’t conform to other people’s world views being portrayed as being a danger to children, preying on people’s ignorance and fears for their own children.

Acknowledging someone is attractive and BEING sexually attracted to them are different things. I have stated that plenty of times.

I'm not confusing anything.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with my posts.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You’re not. The definition makes no mention of “best of their knowledge” or “belief”. You are adding that because it aligns with your opinion. But it’s not the definition.

Lol.

Heterosexual people are sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

That's the definition.

I stand by that

Trans people portray themselves as the opposite sex. It would be absolutely dishonest to deny that in fringe cases it would be difficult to identify their biological gender.

If a man finds a trans woman attractive purely because of the convincingly female characteristics they display, it would be disingenuous to label them as homosexual/bisexual as the attractiveness is based on finding the opposite sex attractive.

We are going around in circles.

I have a question for you:

Is it your position that you can be heterosexual and have a sexual attraction towards someone who is the same biological sex as you?

If so, then what makes it different than bisexuality or homosexuality?

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Acknowledging someone is attractive and BEING sexually attracted to them are different things. I have stated that plenty of times.

I'm not confusing anything.

I’m not sure I could clear up your confusion without being crude. I know what I meant though

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The rest of your post has nothing to do with my posts.

The rest of my post has everything to do with your posts - you willingly disregard anyone’s opinion which doesn’t align with your own world views even though they know more about themselves than you do. You’ll continue to tell them they’re wrong and you’re right. It’s one way to alleviate cognitive dissonance, I guess. Whatever works for you and all that. The only saving grace really is that you’re not actually harming anyone, whereas it is undeniable that other people are actively engaging in perpetuating harm and discrimination and prejudice against people who don’t conform to their world views.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Lol.

Heterosexual people are sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

That's the definition.

I stand by that

Trans people portray themselves as the opposite sex. It would be absolutely dishonest to deny that in fringe cases it would be difficult to identify their biological gender.

If a man finds a trans woman attractive purely because of the convincingly female characteristics they display, it would be disingenuous to label them as homosexual/bisexual as the attractiveness is based on finding the opposite sex attractive.

We are going around in circles.

I have a question for you:

Is it your position that you can be heterosexual and have a sexual attraction towards someone who is the same biological sex as you?

If so, then what makes it different than bisexuality or homosexuality?

You have now added “convincing female characteristics” to your assessment of whether a male is straight bi or gay. Definition makes no mention of that. Again you are not sticking to the definition. Don’t you just hate it when people can’t stick to definitions?

Yes I absolutely believe you can be attracted to someone with the same chromosomes as you and still be straight.

The words gay straight and bi or homosexual heterosexual and bisexual are handy but simplistic tools to describe the incredibly complex phenomenon of human sexuality.

Straight men who are into trans women in my experience find stereotypical feminine appearances attractive and either don’t care about dicks or are into dicks. The ones who are into dicks are not into cis men and would have zero interest or attraction to cis men.

The definition doesn’t even go near to discussing this complexity. Which is why you have to add your own spin on it instead of accepting that it just doesn’t cover, nor was it intended to cover these complex desires.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not sure I could clear up your confusion without being crude. I know what I meant though





The rest of my post has everything to do with your posts - you willingly disregard anyone’s opinion which doesn’t align with your own world views even though they know more about themselves than you do. You’ll continue to tell them they’re wrong and you’re right. It’s one way to alleviate cognitive dissonance, I guess. Whatever works for you and all that. The only saving grace really is that you’re not actually harming anyone, whereas it is undeniable that other people are actively engaging in perpetuating harm and discrimination and prejudice against people who don’t conform to their world views.

I respectfully disagree.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You have now added “convincing female characteristics” to your assessment of whether a male is straight bi or gay. Definition makes no mention of that. Again you are not sticking to the definition. Don’t you just hate it when people can’t stick to definitions?

Yes I absolutely believe you can be attracted to someone with the same chromosomes as you and still be straight.

The words gay straight and bi or homosexual heterosexual and bisexual are handy but simplistic tools to describe the incredibly complex phenomenon of human sexuality.

Straight men who are into trans women in my experience find stereotypical feminine appearances attractive and either don’t care about dicks or are into dicks. The ones who are into dicks are not into cis men and would have zero interest or attraction to cis men.

The definition doesn’t even go near to discussing this complexity. Which is why you have to add your own spin on it instead of accepting that it just doesn’t cover, nor was it intended to cover these complex desires.

I respectfully disagree and don't think we will ever agree on this matter so I will leave you to it.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

you willingly disregard anyone’s opinion which doesn’t align with your own world views even though they know more about themselves than you do. You’ll continue to tell them they’re wrong and you’re right.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

Never change man

Necro

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I'm going to identify as a cow now. I'm going to live in a field and eat grass and fvck other cows.

You can't say anything or you're transphobic or whatever.

Threadbanned

Gentlemanne

Last few pages of this thread feeling like

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Never change man

Don't assume my gender

beakerjoe

I see Demi Lovato has just come out as non binary.

I dont understand non binary at all.

I will say one thing though, the girl has had a troubled life.

What do folks make of it?

Overheal

Not Ireland but topical https://www.mediaite.com/entertainment/boston-radio-host-storms-off-show-demi-lovato-non-binary/

I'm not sure what type of jokes he was making about Demi Lovato. That's not reported.

Oh, I see she's they're* being discussed, so definitely topical.

What do folks make of it?

Doesn't hurt me, let them have at it. I have a friend in my circle who came out as non binary, similarly jarring adjustment period because you think of them by their normally assumed gender, and that's something you'll know about them, but if they want to be known as they/them I don't see the issue, it just addresses an elephant in the room for someone who is nonbinary or trans in a way that doesn't rehash the entire saga every time they meet someone or have a conversation.

*that adjustment phase

B.A._Baracus

beakerjoe wrote: »

I see Demi Lovato has just come out as non binary.

I dont understand non binary at all.

I will say one thing though, the girl has had a troubled life.

What do folks make of it?

Load of bollocks to be honest. She's a celebrity and most people in the limelight will say mass to get any sort of publicity.

They are all 'woke' these days

Potential-Monke

I'll tell a story that basically confirms the dunnes posts. While living in another county for 9 years, I was often out on the lash. Because I was a Garda, most "pubs I couldn't really go to and enjoy, because there's always some cnut who recognises you and it's just not worth the hassle, so we used to go to the gay bar. Not a hope of the lads we'd be wrestling with arresting setting foot inside there, so all good. One night, while only on the second pint, I "observed" a lovely, fine, female figure from behind. TIcking all the boxes for me. Until she turned around and it was a man in drag or a trans man, don't know, don't really care. I was informed that she will trick any lad when viewed from behind (indeed, most my colleagues got caught by her). Up to when I found out she was a biological man, I was sexually attracted. Once I found out, I no longer had an interest. Because i'm not interested in or attracted to biological men.

She caught me twice more after that, and was getting better and better at it each time! Pretty sure she's made the full transition at this stage, but again, I don't care enough to find out, haven't seen her in 10 years or so. It's also why I'll probably be single for life, because I can't find myself in a situation like that, because I can't pull anyway. And asking a potential partner if they ever had a dick before is, i'm guessing, not the best chat up line, or indeed I wouldn't even know when to bring it up. If I had kissed someone I believed to be female and turned out to be male, I'd get sick. Because I personally find kissing far more intimate that anything else, and I never want to do it with a biological male, regardless of what surgery has been performed. I've tried the rest, I'll admit, but it wasn't for me. I tried it for gits and shiggles with a friend I had in school. It didn't last long, and we didn't kiss. We didn't do this because we were gay, but because we were horny and experimental. We both agreed being straight is better.

So yeah, if someone turned around and told me my number 1, Emma Watson, was born male (she wasn't), I would no longer be attracted to her. Same with Mila Kunis, Emma Stone, etc.

Edit: I'll add, this is just me. Everyone is different. Thankfully.

One eyed Jack

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I'll tell a story that basically confirms the dunnes posts. While living in another county for 9 years, I was often out on the lash. Because I was a Garda, most "pubs I couldn't really go to and enjoy, because there's always some cnut who recognises you and it's just not worth the hassle, so we used to go to the gay bar. Not a hope of the lads we'd be wrestling with arresting setting foot inside there, so all good.

…

We both agreed being straight is better.

So yeah, if someone turned around and told me my number 1, Emma Watson, was born male (she wasn't), I would no longer be attracted to her. Same with Mila Kunis, Emma Stone, etc.

Edit: I'll add, this is just me. Everyone is different. Thankfully.

I’m not sure your story actually does confirm the dunnes posts? The dunnes idea is that having sex with someone of the same sex means the person’s sexual orientation is homosexual. Conflating turn-offs with sexual orientation is about the level of understanding of sexual orientation I’d expect of a teenager. Your story reminded me of when I was back in secondary school in the 90’s and lads would look at you sketchy if you didn’t want to get up to all sorts with Pamela Anderson, a woman who had so much plastic surgery that if she stood beside a radiator for longer than 10 minutes she would melt. According to the way some lads went on though, if a guy didn’t want to have sex with Ms. Anderson, they were gay, no ifs, ands or buts about it, they were gay and that was the end of it.

This obviously made no sense to me as I thought “I’m pretty sure it doesn’t work like that”, and it doesn’t, no more than finding out a woman is wearing a push-up bra and it turns out she’s flat-chested, or a woman in her 20’s who you’d expect to have pubes, turns out she doesn’t, or even as stupidly simple as finding out a woman doesn’t look the same without makeup is an instant turn-off for some people. They’re turn-offs - external characteristics completely unrelated to internal sexual orientation. Being instantly unattracted to an individual on any particular basis is neither a reflection nor an indication of anyone’s sexual orientation, nor is who they have or do not have sex with. Sexual orientation is far more complex and nuanced than that. In some cultures throughout history, and even today - “it’s not gay as long as you’re the giver and not the receiver” (among men at least, I’m not aware of an equivalent narrative which applies to women, possibly because nobody cares what women get up to tbh, it’s not as threatening to masculinity as homosexuality was thought of among men). That’s what drives narratives like “traps” and all the rest of it, it’s why I remember the film “The Crying Game” and the exploitation of that narrative in what was otherwise a shìte film which would have been easily and long forgotten had it not been for that particular scene which everyone remembers.

The whole concept of “natal” or “biological” this that and the other is such a blatant disregard IMO for science and logic, because it’s predicated upon the ever present fallacious argument that “natural is morally acceptable, and anything which goes against nature or the natural order is morally unacceptable”, an argument traditionally used to perpetuate ignorance and discrimination against anyone who didn’t behave according to the predominant social narrative of heterosexual behaviour. It’s now being used against people who are transgender. The idea of there being a biological basis for sexual orientation or gender identity is an attempt to suggest that because there is a biological basis for sexual orientation, being homosexual or being transgender is also natural and therefore that puts these phenomena in the “morally acceptable” category. I don’t imagine anyone who wasn’t convinced before, is ever likely to be convinced by that argument if I’m being honest. Efforts in science to determine “the gay gene” or a genetic basis for gender identity remind me of the conversation I had with my consultant when I had a hip replacement done - I asked them would having a hip replacement mean I could walk properly, their response? “Well if you weren’t running marathons before, you won’t be running marathons after!” They took what in my head was a fairly simple question, to it’s extreme, but it illustrated the reality that there are a far more complex set of processes involved in being able to run marathons than just a new artificial hip. A new hip didn’t make me question my identity, but I know that there are people who receive organ transplants and they avail of counselling services to come to terms with the idea of what to them is essentially a foreign body, it feels unnatural. It would take a special sort to point out the obvious to anyone that because they are no longer their natal selves, that their biology has completely changed, that it is some sort of moral failing on their part, because they had a choice as to whether or not they would avail of a procedure which could improve their quality of life. It would also IMO be morally unacceptable to permit in any society’s laws, discrimination against a person on that basis.

The scientists here who are not ordinary pundits like myself, must surely be aware that if they’re hinging their arguments on science or there being (or not being) a purely biological, evolutionary imperative which explains sexual orientation or gender identity, must surely be aware of the concept of neuroplasticity and how the brain is not actually a fixed state, but is rather subject to change, throughout a person’s lifetime. It’s why the idea of a biological basis alone, to explain sexual orientation or gender identity, just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It’s why science is discovering that the nature vs. nurture arguments and the moral baggage predicated upon cultural and social attitudes, is fundamentally flawed. They’re simplistic explanations for the phenomena that really don’t go anywhere near explaining observed phenomena. The “born this way” narrative is as fundamentally flawed as the narrative that sexual orientation or gender identity is a choice that anyone actually has any conscious control over. If it were, then “reparative therapies” such as those which were common throughout history would show evidence that they are actually effective. Instead, they show no evidence whatsoever that they are actually effective, they simply show evidence of misery and discrimination and perpetuating prejudice against people in society because sexual orientation and gender identity are just not choices that people can consciously make or have any control over, nor are they entirely as a consequence of biology either -


I am gay – but I wasn’t born this way’


I’d also point out that the above article is quite different from Shiela Jeffreys ideas of political lesbianism. That was a feminist movement (unsurprisingly, a dismal failure), which tried to encourage women to reject men. It’s aims were entirely political, not unlike the way concepts like sexuality and gender identity have been hijacked by politically motivated sorts to suggest a moral failing in some way on the part of people they view as their political opponents or people who are opposed to their political beliefs which they aim to perpetuate in any given society at various times throughout human history.

Gentlemanne

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I'll tell a story that basically confirms the dunnes posts. While living in another county for 9 years, I was often out on the lash. Because I was a Garda, most "pubs I couldn't really go to and enjoy, because there's always some cnut who recognises you and it's just not worth the hassle, so we used to go to the gay bar. Not a hope of the lads we'd be wrestling with arresting setting foot inside there, so all good. One night, while only on the second pint, I "observed" a lovely, fine, female figure from behind. TIcking all the boxes for me. Until she turned around and it was a man in drag or a trans man, don't know, don't really care. I was informed that she will trick any lad when viewed from behind (indeed, most my colleagues got caught by her). Up to when I found out she was a biological man, I was sexually attracted. Once I found out, I no longer had an interest. Because i'm not interested in or attracted to biological men.

She caught me twice more after that, and was getting better and better at it each time! Pretty sure she's made the full transition at this stage, but again, I don't care enough to find out, haven't seen her in 10 years or so. It's also why I'll probably be single for life, because I can't find myself in a situation like that, because I can't pull anyway. And asking a potential partner if they ever had a dick before is, i'm guessing, not the best chat up line, or indeed I wouldn't even know when to bring it up. If I had kissed someone I believed to be female and turned out to be male, I'd get sick. Because I personally find kissing far more intimate that anything else, and I never want to do it with a biological male, regardless of what surgery has been performed. I've tried the rest, I'll admit, but it wasn't for me. I tried it for gits and shiggles with a friend I had in school. It didn't last long, and we didn't kiss. We didn't do this because we were gay, but because we were horny and experimental. We both agreed being straight is better.

So yeah, if someone turned around and told me my number 1, Emma Watson, was born male (she wasn't), I would no longer be attracted to her. Same with Mila Kunis, Emma Stone, etc.

Edit: I'll add, this is just me. Everyone is different. Thankfully.

This sounds like a very serious hangup..

For your sake, from my experience with knowing transgender people, this is not something you should worry about. Its vanishingly rare that you'll meet a woman who is trans, has fully transitioned, has had that particular surgery, and is also private about her status to someone she plans to be intimate with. It's a division of a subsection of a tiny minority.

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

This sounds like a very serious hangup..

For your sake, from my experience with knowing transgender people, this is not something you should worry about. Its vanishingly rare that you'll meet a woman who is trans, has fully transitioned, has had that particular surgery, and is also private about her status to someone she plans to be intimate with. It's a division of a subsection of a tiny minority.

I agree it's definitely very very rare. I got caught up in a rabbit hole discussion about exceptionally fringe cases of fringe cases.

From my experience of knowing trans people, it's rare to not be able to tell their biological sex.

I don't think it sounds like a hangup at all and I agree. It's very easy to find stereotypical female traits attractive but then lose the attraction immediately when finding out that they belong to a biological man.

Gentlemanne

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree it's definitely very very rare. I got caught up in a rabbit hole discussion about exceptionally fringe cases of fringe cases.

From my experience of knowing trans people, it's rare to not be able to tell their biological sex.

I don't think it sounds like a hangup at all and I agree. It's very easy to find stereotypical female traits attractive but then lose the attraction immediately when finding out that they belong to a biological man.

Not what I said and not true

And I don't want to go further into what could be a personal issue for potential-Monke, but I would absolutely call it a hangup to describe feeling like you will never be in a relationship again because there's a possibility of encountering a trans person.

Gentlemanne

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Not what I said and not true

And I don't want to go further into what could be a personal issue for potential-Monke, but I would absolutely call it a hangup to describe feeling like you will never be in a relationship again because there's a possibility of encountering a trans person.

From my reading he cannot find himself in that situatiom because he cannot pull, not because he is afraid of encountering a trans woman.
On that latter issue he says it would be awkward to ask re genitals as it does not seem like a polite chat up line.
Neither of these statements are a problem for a trans woman from PM. The hang up concerns personal confidence, nothing to do with trans or not, and the reluctance to ask is his due consideration of what is politeness.

beakerjoe

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Load of bollocks to be honest. She's a celebrity and most people in the limelight will say mass to get any sort of publicity.

They are all 'woke' these days

I believe shes a highly troubled soul, and yes my first thoughts were "this is attention seeking".

I personally dont understand Non-binary. I see it as more being awkward than anything. But they arent bothering anyone, though I imagine they will feign outrage when someone refers to them as a she/he.

I get Trans, I gets Gay, Bi.....etc, but I dont get non binary.

Girly Gal

beakerjoe wrote: »

I believe shes a highly troubled soul, and yes my first thoughts were "this is attention seeking".

I personally dont understand Non-binary. I see it as more being awkward than anything. But they arent bothering anyone, though I imagine they will feign outrage when someone refers to them as a she/he.

I get Trans, I gets Gay, Bi.....etc, but I dont get non binary.

Agree, regarding Demi Lovato, also don't get non binary, what do people mean when they say they are non binary?

beakerjoe

Girly Gal wrote: »

Agree, regarding Demi Lovato, also don't get non binary, what do people mean when they say they are non binary?

From reading the article, its they dont identify as either male or female and feel for "fluid". I may be wrong, but shes a female who doesnt feel like a female or male, she feels like both.

I dont get it. Id like to talk to someone who is non-binary to pick their brains.

Girly Gal

beakerjoe wrote: »

From reading the article, its they dont identify as either male or female and feel for "fluid". I may be wrong, but shes a female who doesnt feel like a female or male, she feels like both.

I dont get it. Id like to talk to someone who is non-binary to pick their brains.

How does she know what feeling male feels like, is it a case that she at times she likes doing stereotypical males things and because of this she thinks she's non binary?