The first class of individuals I intellectually "stared at" was transsexuals, or whatever overly inclusive name they've adopted. Basically, I refer to guys who get their member chopped off and women who grow beards. If there is a stranger phenomenon than that, I can't imagine it. I always enjoy watching documentaries about these people because they sort of fascinate me. This gender confusion likely resides in the brain, so we do have a rational explanation for this odd behavior. But still, it's just so strange to me. It's not exactly wrong, but seeing it gives me a visceral reaction.
Fortunately though, I've never actually met a tranny. Never in my entire life have I encountered someone of this sort. Seriously, out of the tens of thousands of people I've met in various locations, not one person was a transgender loon. Yet if one closely follows leftist media, one would think that trannies are everywhere - how else can we explain the perpetual grousing about "insensitivity"? A recent controversy involved the New York Times discussing tranny anger over the new ABC comedy Work It:
The series "Work It" that debuted last week portrays two men who dress as women to land jobs in a tough economy. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said it was offensive to transgenders because it makes fun of the idea of men wearing women's clothes.Feministing then got mad because NYT referred to them as "transgenders" instead of "transgendered persons." Seriously. Anyone else thinking that all these complaints come from third-party rabble-rousers looking to use transgenderism as a proxy cause to normalize their own degeneracy?
Related, the liberal media assuredly grossly overestimates the number of trannies, not to mention gays and lesbians, that even exist. Think about it - LGBT comprise maybe 5% of the population; yet we're to believe, as the "gay homophobe" cultural archetype implies, that gays are in every family, every circle of friends, every church, every school, and every community. But based on the likely accurate 5% figure, there just aren't enough gays to go around.
Gays have equal numbers to comparative populations such as Asians and Jews and one notes there are plenty of families, communities, circles of friends, churches, schools, and communities with absolutely zero Asian and Jewish people. Granted these groups do congregate in certain regions of the country, but even spread out, they still wouldn't comprise more than a token few in almost entirely homogeneous communities. So why then does media champion the notion that gays, multiple gays to be exact, inexorably reside in every military unit, football team, and small rural town? Given their relatively low numbers, it's simply inconceivable that anything more than one gay person, on average, would live in a given town or fight in a large section of the military. Yet if you turn on The Real World or Glee, gays seemingly abound in all facets of life. Once more, media presents a decidedly specious conception of society.
[Disclaimer: I don't really care about gays - as Lady Gaga said, "they're born that way." But don't shove it down my throat or harangue me for finding gayness mildly disgusting.]
62 comments:
Random Insight "The paleo diet has ruined my ability to enjoy desert, like milkshakes, cake, ice cream, etc."
This really is taking things too far. Unless you're a professional athlete on a scientific dirt, you should be able to enjoy tasty food as ling as you're sound I enjoy all of those things, plus chocolate, pasta and bread.
Fortunately in my case, I'm revolted by things that really are junk food: candy bars, syrup-based fast food mistakes, etc.
Though on occasion on a whim I'll indulge in a big fat fast food burger.
"Unless you're a professional athlete on a scientific diet, you should be able to enjoy tasty food as long as you're sound on fundamentals."
Gays growing up in small-town America will naturally gravitate to large cities where they can pursue their lifestyle amongst others of their ilk, and the anonymity that comes with big city life allows for more freedom to experiment. For them, the possibilities of big city life are fabulous.
From the lack of anonymity, people in small towns will always be more judgmental about lifestyle choices. So if media creators portray deviant lifestyles as healthy, natural and normal in small town settings, the hope is to render such judgments toothless, or better still, rendering those who judge as the true deviants.
The paleo diet has ruined my ability to enjoy desert, like milkshakes, cake, ice cream, etc.
Me, too. Sorta. I never had much of a sweet-tooth, but I do miss my sourdough French bread and my Belgian ale.
Going paleo, I mostly miss pasta. But spaghetti sauce over grilled veggies isn't so bad.
Why is it that men who want to cut off their own penises are OK, but people who want to cut off their legs or arms are psychologically damaged?
Witness this disorder: Body Integrity Identity Disorder - from an article on the topic,
"We’ve heard a lot about “cutters” and other people who feel compulsions to hurt themselves. But there’s an extra, extreme level above that: Body Integrity Identity Disorder.
BIID‘s somewhat cryptic name belies a strange affliction—its sufferers feel that their normal bodies are wrong, and that they were born to be paraplegic or handicapped. The compulsion is so strong that some with the disorder try—and succeed—at amputating their own limbs."
If one thing can be treated as a brain-based, psychological disease/disorder, why can't the other? I met a tranny once, in NYC. A lot of my friends were involved in theatre so meeting gays and gender confused people happened more often than usual. The tranny was a male-to-female and a weird, scary dude. Still had his goods and facial hair but was on hormones. The voice was like that of a 12 year old boy. The breast implants looked like two softballs stuck on a piece of plywood. Just weird, and he thought he was the most beautiful thing out there.
One, you're not the only one with visceral reactions to this. Mine are decidedly negative. I try to be at least civil enough to ignore and retreat ASAP when confronted with any oddity. And your point about the number of gays being overstated is salient. Trannies are an even smaller portion of the population; if any of us "cisgendered" persons ever encounters a trannie, it's a rare day.
It's all about location.
If you're in Manhattan, San Francisco, West LA or Miami Beach, you're going to come across gays and trannies much more often than you will anywhere else. And because our media/entertainment industries tend to be focused in Manhattan and LA, they present the picture that is, in part, reality already to them (i.e., gays and trannies are around in some numbers), and, in part, a projection/condemnation of the rest of the country's supposed "bigotry" about this. But, if you don't live in these areas, surely there are a trace amount of these sorts of people around, but nothing noticeable or obvious, precisely because these people tend to congregate in the aforementioned places, among a few others, to a huge degree.
This is totally a regional thing. I grew up in New York City--in the eighties, back when it was dangerous--and I used to see these people all the time. I used to joke with my dad about Greenwich Village, and we even had a code word for gays.
I actually take the intermediate view--it's definitely biological, but it's an illness. Probably the testosterone receptors in the brain don't work and the brain doesn't get masculinized, so the person winds up with a female brain in a male body, which is extremely disturbing for all concerned.
In a fairer world, we'd do research into a cure, they'd stop having the desire to dress in women's clothing and be comfortable in their own skin, and everyone else wouldn't have to look at it. The irony is that the political agenda here winds up hurting everyone, even the people it's supposed to help.
Seriously, out of the tens of thousands of people I've met in various locations, not one person was a transgender loon.
Unless they happened to be passing, One.
One, I gotta tell you, if you really want to prove you are serious about saying things that aren't politically correct to say, start poking holes in the 'born gay' theology.
If you worship at the altar of political correctness, don't go there, but look at the data if you are interested. This is a national survey of more than 100,000 people, so the data set is large and it is national.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf
For one thing, your numbers are way off. In recent surveys show 1.1% of women and 1.7% of men identified as gay, which is a far cry from 5%.
For another thing, the proportion identifying as gay from 2002 to 2007 was actually dropping for both men and women, which you would not expect since acceptance has dramatically increased. Maybe it is not a hot new fad anymore, I don't know.
A third thing I notice is that women seem to start out identifying as gay much more often in youth (teens and early twenties) and then the numbers plummet by the late thirties.
If homosexuality was inborn, people would not be changing their minds all the time and switching teams. According to the data, switching teams is not some rare phenomenon. It is the norm, apparently.
But if you need to keep this blog politically correct, I understand. Do what you've got to do.
I actually take the intermediate view--it's definitely biological, but it's an illness.
If you're talking about transgenderism, then it's, perhaps surprisngly, still officially considered to be a psychological disorder, although the lobby wants to change that the same way they did with homosexuality.
Born that way? I wonder.
Flirtations with lesbianism are very common, indeed rampant among young women at hipster colleges for example. It is, after all, the height of coolness and achieves status. And physically it is much less traumatic for a woman to have sex with another woman than it is for a man to take a stuphing in the cornhole.
Also, to be a pitcher and not a catcher, men have to get a stiffy. You can't fake that. So if the sight of another dude's brown eye makes you wanna puke, you can't "pretend" to be gay and slip him the bone.
So yes, "temporary" lesbianism is a significant phenomenon.
As for born or not, I really don't know. But I do know that a gay "lifestyle" can be exceptionally appealing to men, assuming you can make yourself feel physically attracted to another man. Think about it. The pickup scene is easy as pie. You don't even have to learn game. You can walk into any gay bar and score, no matter what the hell you look like. Anonymous sex is the order of the day. "Turning gay" is a great way for a beta man who can't score with women to easily get a blow job any time he wants one (close your eyes and think of England).
It also appeals to flamboyant personality types (obviously). But if you want to go around being swishy and NOT be gay, then you have a problem. Where do you fit in?
The other thing about homosexual relationships is that they have conveniently settled on roles where it is common for there to be a pitcher and a catcher. This means that someone who really isn't turned on by men -- can't get a boner -- can nevertheless still participate in gay sex by being a catcher. So they can readily sublimate their physical feelings for whatever emotional reasons and just put up with it. This "division of labor," if you will, to me suggests it was deliberately developed to allow men who are not actually gay (attracted to men physically) to nevertheless fit in with gay society because they like it for other reasons (fashion, style, artiness, emotional support, whatever).
And also, lots of girls dabble in girl-on-girl sex because it turns men on and makes them hotter to men. So yes, while there seem to be lots of hot young girls into girl-on-girl action, very few long term lesbian couples are attractive women. Which suggests a possibly hormonal causality, but I've gone on long enough already.
damn you guys are mean
"Think about it - LGBT comprise maybe 5% of the population; yet we're to believe, as the "gay homophobe" cultural archetype implies, that gays are in every family, every circle of friends, every school, and every community."
"it's simply inconceivable that anything more than one gay person, on average, would live in a given town or fight in a large section of the military"
Yikes, no wonder Chuck is complaining about 'Lazy HBD', it doesn't look like you thought this through at all. Taking 'gay' in this post to mean 'LGB' and assuming the 'T' is rather negligible (this might be wrong), your 'inconceivability' would be entirely plausible since your average town, school, community or 'large section' of the military is bigger than 20 people, and 5% of the population would be 1 in 20. I would agree it is MUCH tougher to say this about families and friends, not only because of the smaller group sizes, but because this behavior is more common in certain families (it is partially genetic after all) and most people don't choose friends randomly. Still, the % of families and circles of friends at or over 20 people could be reasonably high.
Not every gay person moves to big cities either right away (teenage years anyone?) and I'm not going to speculate on different rates of enlistment for gays in the military.
They tend to congregate in the larger urban areas. What kills me are the tall guys trying to pass themselves off as female and thinking they're fooling everyone. Guys who are 6'3" walking around in high heels and puffed up hair making them look to be 7 ft tall, with large hands and prominent Adam's apples just don't cut it.
One guy I talked to said that when he was taking dance class lessons they had another student like that whose hands were as big as some football player. But everybody pretended not to know a thing and just carried on as if there was nothing out of the ordinary. Since they trade off dance partners he ended up being in a position of being forced to dance with this character a few times. It freaked him out but he didn't know how to get out of it without making a scene. Not what he thought he was signing up for, I guess.
Something is off with your math One. If 5% of people are LGBT, then your typical town of 2000 should have 100 of them. Of course, I realize they tend to gravitate to the big cities, but still, I think every town must still have more than a few.
You can walk into any gay bar and score, no matter what the hell you look like.
I've heard that old gay dudes don't score much. Apparently it's all about "hotness" (i.e., youth and physical fitness, hence all the bodybuilding and dieting and plastic surgery homosexual men go in for).
Guys who are 6'3" walking around in high heels and puffed up hair making them look to be 7 ft tall, with large hands and prominent Adam's apples just don't cut it.
I once saw a tranny who looked like a 6'8" anorexic Wayne Gretzky in drag try to flirt with a couple of fat, balding construction workers. Pretty damn funny!
The tranny thing is definitely a disorder. Mike Bailey, a researcher at Northwestern, has studied trannies pretty extensively and is convinced that most trannies are either (1) gay guys who are uncomfortable being both male and gay or (2) "autogynephilic" people who suffer from a psychological illness according to which their sexuality revolves around being turned on by themselves as women. I think, if I'm remembering correctly, he thinks that most of them are type (1). His prescription is that young gay males who are acting effeminate and seem like they might be trannies should be encouraged to be more male in behavior and accept their gayness -- in other words, they should be funneled into being gay males, not trannies. And for group (2), he thinks they are deeply disordered and that their disorder should not be catered to (by means of, e.g., surgeries, hormones and so on).
-----
There's also a huge difference between situational lesbianism (LUGs or "political lesbians" or "divorced and sick of men lesbians" and so on), on the one hand, and 100% lesbian-only women. The latter group is truly tiny, whereas the former is quite substantial. This is because, as stated, women can have pretty much the same sex with women as they do with men -- the oral sex most women prefer for orgasms anyway, and wiht sex toys and so on, penetrative sex as well. For men, it's very different because at least one guy has to be willing to be penetrated sexually orally and/or anally, which is hugely submissive and unmasculine and quite divorced from any kind of male heterosexuality (yes, I know some wierd straight guys like being "pegged" by women with sex toys, but most of these guys are probably, truth be told, at least borderline homo). For the gay "tops" it can be a kind of opportunism (as mentioned, much easier to get sex than from women), but for the gay "bottoms" it's pretty much an entirely different sexuality -- that just isn't the case for women engaged in lesbian sex.
"His prescription is that young gay males who are acting effeminate and seem like they might be trannies should be encouraged to be more male in behavior and accept their gayness -- in other words, they should be funneled into being gay males, not trannies."
As I recall, Bailey's taken some SEVERE heat from the trans lobby--didn't they try to get him fired?
Also, I've seen this argument before--there was a book, 'Androphilia', suggesting that gay men should be traditionally masculine. I don't find it completely unconvincing--the ancient Greeks seemed to deal with the problem well enough. Gay men were allowed to do the gay thing, but also had to marry a wife and raise kids so the polis wouldn't be short warriors.
These people live in big urban locales and they encounter many gays, lesbians and trannies when in reality they're only 1-5% of the total human population. 0% is too low, 10% is a bad common error and 30-40% is exagerrated (a poll was out and people believed that LGBT was 30-40% of the populace). Pretty much the only thing that they have right is that male homosexuality is less malleable than female homosexuality. Besides that their SWPL liberal cries, such "homophobe is secretly gay!", "we're everywhere!" and "ohhh! the homophobia!", is bogus.
yes, I know some wierd straight guys like being "pegged" by women with sex toys, but most of these guys are probably, truth be told, at least borderline homo
Completely agreed. I've read about these weird characters and sooner or later they end up being "pegged" with males and like it too. On a whole I hate and reject anal thought (top or bottom). Our society is truly degenerate. It worships a filthy hole where feces comes out and condemns the vagina that has the beauty of creating life (e.g. abortions, childlessness, recreative sex, the pill). What gives? I blame it all on the feminists. Up is down and down is up to these creatures. Sickos.
Also, I've seen this argument before--there was a book, 'Androphilia', suggesting that gay men should be traditionally masculine. I don't find it completely unconvincing--the ancient Greeks seemed to deal with the problem well enough. Gay men were allowed to do the gay thing, but also had to marry a wife and raise kids so the polis wouldn't be short warriors.
Modern homosexuality is very different from ancient 'homosexuality'. Back then they didn't believe in forming a homosexual identity, they could have a family with the opposite sex and biological children, didn't lobby for "gayness!" and so forth. When people compare Ancient Greek, Roman, Japanese, Muslim and even Christian "homosexuality" to the modern homosexuality I'll be ripping my hairs out.
And I mean that with all seriousness. I disagree when people place ancient 'homosexuality' and modern homosexuality as one and the same.
Late one night on Polk Street in San Francisco, I ran into a guy I'd played ball with 20 yrs. earlier. As we're reminiscing, a tranny walks by and my friend goes, "Damn, she look just like Janet Jackson!"
Yeah, the trannies hate Bailey but his research seems credible. That's why they hate him.
The old Greek and Roman scene was not "gay" as a form of identity, but was rather sexual opportunism and make dominance expressed sexually (age dominance in Greek pederasty and paterfamilias dominance in adult Roman citizens penetrating their male slaves). These guys had sex with women as a given. The sex with men was always expressing power differentials and was recreational in that it could not lead to issue. It was always considered unacceptable and degenerate for an adult make who was not a slave to be penetrated sexually by another male.
Whoops, yes the math is way off. But even at 1%, the number would still be 5 out of a school of 500, which seems a little more in line (about one per grade).
In making the argument I did, you can't consider that gays congregate in big cities because that wouldn't apply to kids and one presumes (well if the biological argument is true) that gayness would be uniform amongst children.
But my general point remains that the media does make gayness seem much more prevalent than it is. For example, Glee has had I think 5 gay characters on the show out of 15 or so and The Real World usually has at least 2 gays out of 7 cast members, not to mention that their dating shows (does MTV still have those?) were probably about 25% gay. And True Life is also really gay too, probably about 25% as well.
not a hacker said...
"Late one night on Polk Street in San Francisco, I...."
What were you doing on Polk Street late at night, hacky?
The trans phenomenon is mostly a tragic mistake for the trans themselves.
I am a man who would probably rate my attractiveness as a 5 or 6 in hard honesty. Thankful my wife loves me for other reasons.
Trying to pass as a woman, I would rate as a 1 or 2 out of 10, and this is before taking into account that most people would never be attracted to a transgendered person under any circumstances.
The point being, I think that going trans would instantly take your level of game down many notches. The universe of people who would even consider going out with you after that is very small I think.
Think about how schools are screwing with kids when they say that your gender is whatever you want it to be in your heart. If a kid takes the bait, they will wind up at the very bottom of the sexual totem pole.
Occasionally you bring up some good points and you provide some balance of coverage of the various happenings in the world but this latest post of yours reveals yourself to nothing but a bully and a jerk.
Re "not a hacker" and the comment "Damn she(the tranny)looks just like Janet Jackson." My dear fellow,I am not sure what the point of this fascinating slice of your Oh-So-Exciting-And-Well-Lived-Life is.Was your friend gay? Did he want to fuck the tranny? Did you end the friendship right then and there;or did you begin to see him in a new way,and take your friendship to a new level?? Is it somehow remarkable that a tranny should resemble Janet Jackson? I,sir,am lost. Nomesayne?
Homos should be irritated with being lumped togther with a bunch of even way-more screwed up transsexuals.
"What were you doing on Polk street..." Indeed.Nomesayne?
I went to a rural high school of 400 kids. To the best of my knowledge only one kid was truly gay, but his homosexuality certainly seemed to be innate. He had been a "sissy boy" as long as anyone could remember, just preferred the company of girls. Definitely not a kid trying to be sophisticated or making a lifestyle choice,I am sure that like the rest of us he had never heard of a homosexual lifestyle. Bashing or mistreating a kid like that, which we did, is just as cruel as picking on a cripple or a blind person.
I accept everyone for who they are.
A lot of the times who they are is a person I hate.
And I accept that.
First, note how often say, Robert Smigel (Triumph the Insult Comic Dog, SNL's "Gary and Ace, the Ambiguously Gay Duo") and South Park and Leno (Ross the Gay Intern) and others go to Gays for jokes. Because people find gays ridiculous. Hilarious. Funny. As in laughed at, like Snooki, not with.
So there is that.
But secondly, women love the gays. They do, Sailer had some chick on his site vehemently defending gays wrt Jerry Sandusky. My guess is that most women find gays useful allies in their jihad against Beta Males, and also probably wish most men were either uber-Alpha assholes exciting desire or gay.
Gays punch far, FAR above their demographic weight because of White women as their champions and advocates.
BTW look at all the attention on Chaz Bono. Part of it is the extremely unhealthy appetite for freakshows among the female audience that eats up "Dancing With the Stars" and such. It used to be men who would watch the three headed snake or two-headed chicken at freak shows. Now it is women watching human freaks on reality TV.
More confirmation of OneSTDV's view that lack of marriage/family makes modern 20-30 something women nuts.
Here's what I say about the bullying accusations... that's just a false tactic to stifle dissent.
The real bullying is by people who propagate a false doctrine on kids that gender isn't a physical reality and that its all whatever they want it to be.
Those people are the ones who screw these people up more than a little teasing.
You read about young children getting 'sex change' operations, as if young children could actually legally give informed consent to their own permanent sterilization. These abusive doctors will eventually be destroyed by lawsuits when some of their former patients change their minds in adulthood, but that may take awhile.
If these kids encountered even one person in their young lives who was a truth teller and not a SWPL enabler, those kids might not end up permanently sterilized before even reaching puberty, let alone adulthood.
The media does the same thing with Blacks. They make up 10% of the population but the media makes it seem like they're at least 50% of the population. It really annoys me how many blacks I'm forced to watch every time I turn on the tv or watch a movie.
I've met one man-to-woman tranny. No idea what surgery had been done, but he was a tall, broad-shouldered guy with a deep voice -- not a good candidate for making an attractive woman. Even in heels, he walked like a linebacker. Basically, he looked like a Monty Python member playing a woman. Of course, since he didn't look or sound like a woman *at all*, he overcompensated by wearing a lot of makeup and furs, which only made the whole effect weirder.
Once, on leaving a party, he told me to "be a good boy," and without thinking I said, "you too," to which he replied, "I'll be a good *girl*." Whatever. He complained to a friend of mine that people kept forgetting to refer to him with feminine pronouns. Well, dude, that's because you *seem* male! You can wear a sign around your neck that says WOMAN, but if your size and looks and voice and body language and probably scent are screaming MAN, they're going to forget their PC manners now and then. Besides, what really decides whether you're male or female: some bolt-on parts, or the chromosomes that run every single cell in your body? Cut off all the parts you want, you can't get rid of that Y. Something tells me your DNA will have the last laugh.
The funny thing was, the person I knew him through belonged to this very liberal church that he joined (the kind that's so liberal they don't like to be called a "church"). They *loved* it when he joined, and fawned all over him, and congratulated themselves on how open-minded they were. They just knew those nasty "conservative" churches would never allow someone like that in (which isn't true, at least of the Catholic Church, but anyway). The only way he could have been more perfect would be if he'd been black too. Within several months, they were discussing whether to kick him out, when he saved them the trouble by leaving to start his own church. Seems he turned out to be a total narcissist who made everything about himself and messed with people's minds. Gosh, you don't say!
I actually had a lot of sympathy for the guy, because obviously your life has to seem pretty horrible if you think *that* is the best way to fix it. That's like, "Well, killing myself seems like the easy way out, so I'll do this instead." But I also knew he had to be a basket case, so when they all carefully called him her and insisted there was nothing weird about it at all, I just kept my mouth shut and waited for reality to hit them.
Re: Bailey
How does he account for the phenomenon of trannies who, by changing their sex, effectively turn themselves into homosexuals?
Ie, heterosexual men who feel that they were actually meant to be female lesbians!
My impression is that these are not uncommon.
I wonder when Glee or some other organ of the media industrial complex is going to start pushing tranny acceptance. Lady Gaga's appearance in drag at some music awards show last year wasn't well received. I think trannys are simply too aberrant, too downright repulsive, or just comical, for the mainstream to accept. Woman aren't keen to share the restroom with them either, which creates problems over tranny acceptance.
Whiskey ~ So are you going to publish The Protocols of the Council of Beta Male Hating Amazonian Elders of Gynon any time soon?
Homos should be irritated with being lumped togther with a bunch of even way-more screwed up transsexuals.
Not really. It's the LGBT community remember. They're all part of the same strange family.
Will the Left move on to championing chidl molsrts a generation from now? Don't count it out. Their present position on homosexuality would have been unthinkably repellent 80 years ago too.
1st-grade math . . .
According to the 2010 US Census, 3 percent of San Francisco households self-identified as "same-sex married couples or partnerships."
Here's the link
Either the gay population is much smaller than estimated or most gays shun monogamous relationships.
It's now reached the point that a seven-year-old transgendered boy has been accepted into Girl Guides. Taking it one thousand steps too far perhaps?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/teen-calls-for-girl-scout-cookie-boycott-over-transgender-policy/article2299566/
As far as my opinion, I think transgendered people are born with a disposition. They could be born with, or develop a brain of the opposite sex, which, makes them lean towards the other sex's behaviour. Most cultures have examples. Indian culture has a whole caste of men who mutilate their genitals and live like women.
Statistically, it's abnormal, but I don't think it is harmful if handled correctly. But, to go and say that a transgendered male is the same as a female is like saying I could put a saddle on a greate dane and call it a horse. They're not women, they're a different kind of man - even when surgically altered.
How does he account for the phenomenon of trannies who, by changing their sex, effectively turn themselves into homosexuals?
I've read about several of these cases, and find them mind-boggling. Warren Beatty's kid Kathlyn now calls "himself" Stephen and claims to be a gay man! Why on earth would a female attracted to men want to be a gay man instead?
Either the gay population is much smaller than estimated or most gays shun monogamous relationships.
The population is quite small. Even San Francisco is only about 15% gay. LA and NY are only 5 to 6% gay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_village#Top_LGBT_populations_in_U.S._cities_and_states
The issue of course is the rest of us being forced to not only tolerate them, but to celebrate them in school curriculums etc. They're becoming a protected special class, demanding equal time when they're a very small percentage of the population. I'm quite annoyed at their cause being in my face all the time, and they're only going to get worse.
But, to go and say that a transgendered male is the same as a female is like saying I could put a saddle on a greate dane and call it a horse. They're not women, they're a different kind of man - even when surgically altered.
I read an article at Feministing that aggressively criticized any straight person who would refuse to date a trannie. The author said this was a bigoted position because trannies were 100% male/female and thus should be considered that way by potential romantic interests.
Even the commenters at Feministing found this wrong.
And here's an article from the HuffPo about a male-to-female tranny who told her lover and the lover didn't care!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-mock/transgender-coming-out_b_1146414.html
I agree with the commenter who said gays and lesbos shouldn't be so chummy with trannies. It's one thing to like homosex, it's another to chop off your dick.
Seems to me a gay man and lesbian should be able to hook up - just reverse the roles.
One, this may be the post you were referring to:
http://community.feministing.com/2010/07/18/i-wouldnt-fuck-a-trans-person/
The author is really a train wreck, scolding a woman for admitting she is uninterested in sex with women.
Essentially, this person is saying “I like chocolate (penis) and I have no interest in trying strawberry (vagina), even though I have never tried it – I am certain that I won’t like strawberry.”
Their first mistake is assuming that trans men are strawberry, when in actual fact, they are more like mocha. The person above has never tried mocha, and is confident that mocha tastes like strawberry.
Uh, whatever, pal. And sorry, you'll never look, taste smell like or be a woman, so no thanks.
One, this may be the post you were referring to:
http://community.feministing.com/2010/07/18/i-wouldnt-fuck-a-trans-person/
From the paradigm of insane leftism, she actually does make a good point. If trannies are men or women just like any other man or woman, then refusing to date them is akin to transphobia. Especially if we account for the advances in surgery which can make a pole into a very realistic looking hole.
All the other stuff you speak of, such as female pheromones, gait, etc, are not valid in the insane leftism paradigm. So an insane leftist can't actually appeal to those characteristics because insane leftists don't believe they exist.
And what about pedophilia and homosexuality.
Yeah, there's a legal difference, a moral difference for sure, but mention to anyone that there's a biological similarity between the two --men chosing unproductive, "sterile" persons as mating partners--and your listener gasps.
One is called a pathological paraphilia, the other is now called "normal sexual variation."
They must have a similar basis.
"For men, it's very different because at least one guy has to be willing to be penetrated sexually orally and/or anally, which is hugely submissive and unmasculine and quite divorced from any kind of male heterosexuality "
As I understand it, anal sex among gay men, at least Western gay men, didn't become popular at all until gay lib, late 60s, early 70s.
Supposedly, most gay men indulged in frottage with one another previous to that.
"For men, it's very different because at least one guy has to be willing to be penetrated sexually orally and/or anally, which is hugely submissive and unmasculine and quite divorced from any kind of male heterosexuality "
As I understand it, anal sex among gay men, at least Western gay men, didn't become popular at all until gay lib, late 60s, early 70s.
Supposedly, most gay men indulged in frottage with one another previous to that.
I think I speak for everyone in thanking for providing that necessary information :)
I disagree. Liking homosex is not better than chopping off one's dick. Male and female homosexuals alike are cut off from the natural heterosexual order.
And when I mean natural heterosexual order I mean reproductive heterosexual sex. I'm not a fan of the liberal champion: recreational sex.
My dear fellow,I am not sure what the point of this fascinating slice of your Oh-So-Exciting-And-Well-Lived-Life is.Was your friend gay? Did he want to fuck the tranny? Did you end the friendship right then and there;or did you begin to see him in a new way,and take your friendship to a new level?? Is it somehow remarkable that a tranny should resemble Janet Jackson? I,sir,am lost. Nomesayne?
Sir, "nomesayne" is passe. Black people no longer use it. Instead, the current variant on the street is, "you feel me?" Also, it wasn't "she looks ..." Black people don't conjugate their verbs. Where are you from, Sheffield?
In any event, I sincerely apologize for boring you with my anecdote. To answer the first responder, I was at the corner of Polk and Larkin streets late at night because it is the most direct route between the Civic Center BART station (I had been in the East Bay) and the Marina district.
I have no idea if my friend was gay. As I said, I hadn't seen him for 20 years. I think you would have liked him. When I knew him, he simultaneously liked white people, and was obsessed by what he considered racism everywhere. You see, he thought he should have made the major leagues (after leading a minor league in home runs), despite being unable to hit a curve ball or run. He always called me "Sandy," somewhat overstating my talent as a lefthander.
I think it is remarkable that a tranny should resemble Janet Jackson. At least in SF, most resemble Manny Pacquiao.
Incidentally, that corner was interesting to me for another reason. There used to be a tranny bar there called "Motherlode," and our law office once had a client who didn't appreciate its character and boasted of the great BJ he received there one night. I didn't have the heart to break it to him. Years later, he was convicted of killing his wife and children.
I will endeavor to "get a life" as you suggest.
I grew up with a couple people who became transsexuals in West Philly. They are still in the old neighborhood and I see them and talk to them a couple times a year. It seems to me that transsexuals are more common in the Black community than the White one for whatever reason even our if rates of homosexuality are about the same.
And don't lump gays in with transsexuals. I know dozens of gays living in Philadelphia and none of them experience the same type of pathologies that transsexuals do. I am one of the biggest pro-gay people you will find in the HBD internet world but I think transsexualism comes from some deep dark mental illnesses. It's Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve not Adam and Eve/Steve to me. Transsexuals I know tend to live a very depressing life that is full of drugs, prostitution, and loneliness. It seems almost impossible for them to be happy. Due in no small part to the hormones they take to supress the natural testosterone. I do believe it is impossible to cheat gender and thereby it just isn't natural.
I knew a male to female transexual that was quite beautiful, one could never tell except the large hands. The gender identity was completely as a woman, and she was very intelligent and education. One comment summed it up "God played a joke on me" (being born male rather than female).
"I knew a male to female transexual that was quite beautiful, one could never tell except the large hands. The gender identity was completely as a woman, and she was very intelligent and education. One comment summed it up "God played a joke on me" (being born male rather than female)."
Is this a serious comment? Who couldn't tell? Leave aside for a moment the 10,000 subtle differences as expressed by an X-chromosome that covers 100 different genes.
The definition of gender is first of all about reproduction. That is what gender is about and what it means, biologically.
Saying someone is a woman and ignoring the whole reproductive thing, is like saying that these guys have achieved space flight:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9573163.stm
You can be a woman with many characteristics that are more commonly male -- leadership, aggressiveness, love of machines or something else and it is fine. Why would you mutilate your genitals because of that?
Alternatively, you could be a man who likes nurturing, fashion or cooking and it is cool. Why wreak you reproductive anatomy because you like things that many women like?
To me, mutilating anyone's genitals for any reason is medical malpractice because the doctor is violating the Hippocratic Oath (do no harm). Harm? How about permanent sterilization for starters? How about sexual organs that are no longer functional? [Yes, I know, someone will say that yes, they are functional but the best case is that they are less functional that the original.] That these doctors continue to have medical licenses is beyond me.
I'd say your 5% figure is too high. I have about 400 Facebook friends, which serves as a rough proxy of how many people I know. And I know about 8-10 homosexuals (of either sex). So, 2-2.5% seems more accurate to me.
Post a Comment