All Things Transgendered Thread

[Celery Man 21078]

I identify as 6'3".

[Kyle 207]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

My father in law spouts this same nonsense. He sees some grand cross generational conspiracy by leftists everywhere in the world. Where do you pick up this stuff?

Can you show me on the doll where he touched you?

[Kyle 207]

25 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I identify as 6'3".

Today, I identify as a black Muslim retarded lesbian on job applications and a 6'4", 200 lbs straight dude on Match. Call me Elizabeth Warren. Whatever works.

[Celery Man 21078]

you also identify as a conservative, which is equally fictional

[bad_teammate 13485]

I really dislike the whole, "Heh these regressives are secretly gay and that's why they hate gays!" as a piece of logic (even if it seems to be true a lot of the time) and I absolutely hate it as a counter-argument because of how it maintains homosexuality as some kind of insult/joke, but in the case of straight male hostility with regard to trans women, it's much easier to see where the fundamental anger of people like Spankytoes and Kyle come from.

They are straight men who are obviously terrified by the idea of being attracted to a trans woman. Their conception of themselves as straight men is fragile enough to allow trans women to rile them, not because they're secretly gay, but because they're dumb and scared in general.

Let's go back to this piece of insanity from Spankytoes...

I would consider the guy fucking a trans woman as either gay or bi, which is perfectly fine.

I responded by pointing out, rightly, that this was the logic of a 7th grade boy. Let me explain.

The obvious explanation is that trans women are women so a man being attracted to a trans woman is, by definition, straight.

BUT!

The womanhood of trans women is in question by some, so let's move on from the obvious answer and delve into the wounded and childlike psychology of the regressive manchild.

We can start with some inarguable observations:
- Gay men (i.e., men who claim and act on attraction to other men) are not attracted to trans women.
- The people who are attracted to trans women, knowing full well they are trans, identify as straight and act on attraction to non-trans women in other circumstances. They do not identify as gay and are not attracted to men.
- Human sexuality is complicated (calm down, little boys, relax. I'm not saying you're gay, just listen)

The first two points are obvious and, honestly, should pretty much answer the question for you, but you're very upset by this simple reasoning, and bullet #3 haunts you, so let's get into it.

You are offered a friendly blowjob by these four human beings whose sexual genetics you know ahead of time for some reason, and you must choose one:
a biological female who presents as female (A)
a biological male who presents as female (B)
a biological male who presents as male (C)
a biological female who presents as male (D)

It's not a trick. You know the biology before you click the link. Yet... you have reactions.

The blood in your veins answers honestly; it is your pathetic manchild brain that lies. That useless, bowling-ball smooth hunk of squishy matter is filled with terror even while your loins pull you inexorably towards the obvious answer.

I said that human sexuality is complicated, but on the actual surface level it's really not. The answer is obvious because of the presentation and the immediate reaction that presentation elicits. It's as simple as turning on a switch.

What IS complicated, however, is the language we use to describe these things and the social posturing we engage in as a response to our responses.

Let's move to the other side, past the meaningless (but fun) sexual interaction. Let's talk about love.

All right, now, buddy boy... which one of those do you want to build a life with? If you had to choose one of those four to marry and live with in a sexual or non-sexual (up to you) partnership, which do you choose? Which one would you most like to go about your day to day life with?

[safe sex 11924]

Boys are just ridiculous.

[Bama Chick 28596]

lol Yes, boys are a mess.

Men are quite nice.

The two have really separated themselves in this thread.

[Js1 87036]

Ooh tell me more about C and D.

Hello.

[troph 25100]

I’ll take B and C for possible bed mates. Thank you very much.

[ndawg 1242]

21 hours ago, Spankytoes said:

Effectively, you are recognizing my entire point: Sex is not political, it's biological. 

Telling someone they are proving your point is a dumb rhetorical tactic.

My position acknowledges the difference between sex and gender. Yours doesn't.

[bad_teammate 13485]

14 hours ago, Yuk said:

If only we had modern day nazis to determine if they were left or right wing.  I wonder if they'd name their rally "Unite the Left" or "Unite the Right".

Did you know that, in the Weimar Republic, political parties were literally sat from left to right in accordance with political views? The Communists were on the far left and the Nazis and Nationalists were on the far right. Also, the people who fought the rise of Naziism in the cities were workers and trade unionists aligned with the socialists and straight-up Communists.

It's basic history. But we're talking to extremely stupid people.

[bad_teammate 13485]

In a way, fighting the Nazis was kind of like touching them. And one man touching another man is gay. So... if you fought the Nazis you were actually a Nazi.

And gay.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Did you know that, in the Weimar Republic, political parties were literally sat from left to right in accordance with political views? The Communists were on the far left and the Nazis and Nationalists were on the far right. Also, the people who fought the rise of Naziism in the cities were workers and trade unionists aligned with the socialists and straight-up Communists.

It's basic history. But we're talking to extremely stupid people.

 

The left-right classification started in France after the Ancien Régime was toppled

Edited February 15, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan

[bad_teammate 13485]

5 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

The left-right classification started in France after the Ancien Régime was toppled

This is true. I did not mean to imply that it started in the Weimar Republic, simply that it was the case in the Weimar Republic. I apologize if it seemed I was implying that.

[Spankytoes 1748]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I really dislike the whole, "Heh these regressives are secretly gay and that's why they hate gays!" as a piece of logic (even if it seems to be true a lot of the time) and I absolutely hate it as a counter-argument because of how it maintains homosexuality as some kind of insult/joke, but in the case of straight male hostility with regard to trans women, it's much easier to see where the fundamental anger of people like Spankytoes and Kyle come from.

They are straight men who are obviously terrified by the idea of being attracted to a trans woman. Their conception of themselves as straight men is fragile enough to allow trans women to rile them, not because they're secretly gay, but because they're dumb and scared in general.

Let's go back to this piece of insanity from Spankytoes...

I would consider the guy fucking a trans woman as either gay or bi, which is perfectly fine.

I responded by pointing out, rightly, that this was the logic of a 7th grade boy. Let me explain.

The obvious explanation is that trans women are women so a man being attracted to a trans woman is, by definition, straight.

BUT!

The womanhood of trans women is in question by some, so let's move on from the obvious answer and delve into the wounded and childlike psychology of the regressive manchild.

We can start with some inarguable observations:
- Gay men (i.e., men who claim and act on attraction to other men) are not attracted to trans women.
- The people who are attracted to trans women, knowing full well they are trans, identify as straight and act on attraction to non-trans women in other circumstances. They do not identify as gay and are not attracted to men.
- Human sexuality is complicated (calm down, little boys, relax. I'm not saying you're gay, just listen)

The first two points are obvious and, honestly, should pretty much answer the question for you, but you're very upset by this simple reasoning, and bullet #3 haunts you, so let's get into it.

You are offered a friendly blowjob by these four human beings whose sexual genetics you know ahead of time for some reason, and you must choose one:
a biological female who presents as female (A)
a biological male who presents as female (B)
a biological male who presents as male (C)
a biological female who presents as male (D)

It's not a trick. You know the biology before you click the link. Yet... you have reactions.

The blood in your veins answers honestly; it is your pathetic manchild brain that lies. That useless, bowling-ball smooth hunk of squishy matter is filled with terror even while your loins pull you inexorably towards the obvious answer.

I said that human sexuality is complicated, but on the actual surface level it's really not. The answer is obvious because of the presentation and the immediate reaction that presentation elicits. It's as simple as turning on a switch.

What IS complicated, however, is the language we use to describe these things and the social posturing we engage in as a response to our responses.

Let's move to the other side, past the meaningless (but fun) sexual interaction. Let's talk about love.

All right, now, buddy boy... which one of those do you want to build a life with? If you had to choose one of those four to marry and live with in a sexual or non-sexual (up to you) partnership, which do you choose? Which one would you most like to go about your day to day life with?

I don’t have the time to lobby our positions on this issue today. Therefore, I’ll simply respond with the following:

First and foremost, drop the name calling, wild assumptions and labeling shit. It’s juvenile. Disagree with my positons or refute my arguments, but don’t question my intelligence or maturity based on our disagreement(s). I’ve been pretty respectful in my overall replies despite numerous attacks on my character. This is why many of those that share my view stay in the shadows rather than attempt to have dialogue lest they be “outed” as a homophobic, racist, sexist, unenlightened Trumptard. (I do not support Trump but do agree with some of his policies, as I am on record as saying) Let’s try to have a civil discourse without calling each other “doody-heads”. I realize that you get to reap the rep points, social cred and internet high fives as a moral victory and maybe you need that in your life. But it just shows that you are as closed minded as you purport me to be. I’ve made my agenda very clear: This is my stance, and if you would like to attempt to, convince me otherwise. While I may not always lay out the best argument, or convey my position clearly, I am at least willing to have the discussion. If you want true change, and people to listen to your point of view, don’t throw rocks at the posters willing to engage you. I don’t think that this is an unfair request.

Second, stop the political posturing. I am a straight male. It is not intolerant of me to not desire sexual or romantic relationships with someone I view as a member of my own sex. As evidenced by DD’s earlier statement, it’s also not intolerant to accept your view of a “woman” while not desiring a transgendered woman. The issue of tolerance is not black and white.  I have absolutely zero problem with gay people and I support their rights to be in a sexual or romantic relationship. The fact that I don’t want a sexual or romantic relationship with another man, or your definition of a woman, does not imply that I hate gay people or am intolerant of their lifestyle. Similarly, I reject your premise that a biological man can be a woman. This also has no bearing on my ability to accept them for their choices, treat them with respect or allow them to have dignity. I do not actively seek to deny them their ability to claim themselves as a woman. (Or man) What I discuss on a message board on a thread regarding the issue is much more candid conversation than I would have in person. But, if asked, I would be honest. If my rejection hurts someone’s feelings, so be it. Feelings are subjective, so are opinions. My view does not matter in their plight for acceptance in society. I would hope to get the view of someone, other than Tropheus, that this directly impacts rather than a Liberal vs. Conservative viewpoint. This shouldn’t be a political discussion.

Anyhow, I hope you find the moral superiority and/or pats on the back you are seeking. If you reread this thread in its entirety, from an objective stance, I think you’ll figure out where the intolerance of other people’s view really resides. It's not with me.

[Chrispy 132]

I keep seeing percentages being thrown around as if they’re not entirely subjective, which only seems to blur the line of demarcation between male and female. For instance, BT stated that a trans woman was, for all intents and purposes, 99.99% female in his estimation. Possibly if one were to rely solely on visuals, then this would almost certainly be true, but even a cursory glance under the surface would dispel such an illusion rather quickly. I’m interested on getting precise numbers of when the actual tipping point is reached. By that I mean, if one’s sex is an accumulation of traits (biological or learned), at what point on the spectrum does effeminate men end and actual women begin? One merely feeling that they’re projecting the requisite attributes to claim a sex is a position that shouldn’t be taken seriously by an objective observer. 

Given that we’re not discussing the altering of chromosomes or replacing entire reproductive systems, I’m genuinely curious if there’s any agreement that can actually become of this discussion. It’s very possible that medical breakthroughs in the future will render this discussion pointless, but that’s not within grasp at this moment. 

[bad_teammate 13485]

48 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Similarly, I reject your premise that a biological man can be a woman.

Literally the only substantive, on-topic sentence in that entire whining diatribe, so let's run with it.

It's interesting that you say "biological man" and then just "woman". It's almost as if you realize that the biological and social distinctions of "man" and "woman" matter.

I will directly and openly answer every question you ask, will you answer mine?

Question 1:
Given the choices in Post #308 (A, B, C, and D), which do you choose in each scenario?
Scenario 1: The casual BJ
Scenario 2: Long-term companion

"Question" 2:
Define, as specifically as you can, what "woman" means.

Please try to actually address the fullness of the term and the ways it is actually used in common speech. Of course you can talk science, but it is a word with many meanings and I would be interested to see your interpretation. You just wrote 7,000,000 words about how oppressed you are, surely you can spare a few dozen for substance.

And again, I invite your questions. Destroy me with logic. Expose my hypocritical snowflakery/latent homosexuality. Hurt me, daddy.

[bad_teammate 13485]

13 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I keep seeing percentages being thrown around as if they’re not entirely subjective, which only seems to blur the line of demarcation between male and female. For instance, BT stated that a trans woman was, for all intents and purposes, 99.99% female in his estimation.

Not really what I was saying. (I don't know what "99.99% female" means.)

"Unless something strange is happening, you don't actually know the genital/DNA situation of 99% of the people you deal with day-to-day."

"If the woman above is a woman in every sense that is meaningful to 99.99% of the world around her, what about this woman?"

This isn't really about percentage of being female, but how Spanky is ignoring what "woman" actually means in real life.

Quote

By that I mean, if one’s sex is an accumulation of traits (biological or learned), at what point on the spectrum does effeminate men end and actual women begin?

This is a good question. I like this question a lot. This is the type of question that could lead to real discussion. Thumbs up!

It really depends on how you define the terms. I know Spanky will get mad that I'm using "semantics", but the reality is that "men" and "women" are used in many different ways. One biological male will say to another, "BE A MAN!"

Obviously he's not saying, "HAVE MALE CHROMOSOMES!"

He's saying something very social; very behavioral. His young son is VERY interested in macrame and decoupage, so the father is demanding something of his son other than the demonstration of the proper alleles. He's telling the boy to act like a man, to put on the costume and garb (metaphorical) of a man. Shoulders back, chest up, stand up straight, hips tight when walking (NO SWISHING).

Play sports. Shoot guns. Chase girls.

BE A MAN

Yes?

So what's the dividing line between a man and a woman?

A few things...

#1 - Presentation
This is how we determine the gender of 99.9999% of the people around us. We think "WOMAN!" when we see certain shapes, features, clothes, and hairstyles. Same for man (see above).

#2 - Self-Identification
If in doubt, go with this. It's more respectful, simpler, and more socially accurate.

#3 - Biology
This isn't really relevant unless you're a doctor or sexual partner. In those cases, though, it matters a lot.

Quote

One merely feeling that they’re projecting the requisite attributes to claim a sex is a position that shouldn’t be taken seriously by an objective observer. 

The phrase in bold doesn't exist, though, it's not a real thing. It's just an attempt to say "me" in a way that seems intellectualized.

Quote

It’s very possible that medical breakthroughs in the future will render this discussion pointless, but that’s not within grasp at this moment. 

I don't think it will, because, to the people who are very upset by this, it's not actually about chromosomes.

[Spankytoes 1748]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Literally the only substantive, on-topic sentence in that entire whining diatribe, so let's run with it.

It's interesting that you say "biological man" and then just "woman". It's almost as if you realize that the biological and social distinctions of "man" and "woman" matter.

I will directly and openly answer every question you ask, will you answer mine?

Question 1:
Given the choices in Post #308 (A, B, C, and D), which do you choose in each scenario?
Scenario 1: The casual BJ
Scenario 2: Long-term companion

"Question" 2:
Define, as specifically as you can, what "woman" means.

Please try to actually address the fullness of the term and the ways it is actually used in common speech. Of course you can talk science, but it is a word with many meanings and I would be interested to see your interpretation. You just wrote 7,000,000 words about how oppressed you are, surely you can spare a few dozen for substance.

And again, I invite your questions. Destroy me with logic. Expose my hypocritical snowflakery/latent homosexuality. Hurt me, daddy.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are now willing to answer questions even though I have constantly been begging posters of the opposing viewpoint to do so for the past two days? Nah, I think I'm good. We're past that point now. Instead of engaging in rationale dialogue you chose to be a dick by lobbing insults and ended up exposing yourself as a pussy in the process. (No pun intended. Well, a little intended) If you were really interested in seeing my interpretation of anything, we would have had that discussion already. 

I can't destroy you with logic because your argument is devoid of it. I have facts and science on my side, you have feelings and social justice on yours. Kudos to you.

[bad_teammate 13485]

Just now, Spankytoes said:

So, if I understand you correctly, you are now willing to answer questions even though I have constantly been begging posters of the opposing viewpoint to do so for the past two days? Nah, I think I'm good.

Spankytoes Post #259, 22 hours ago - "Respect for answering questions honestly without posing another question to avoid answering mine."

I have answered every single question you have asked. I will keep doing it even though I know you won't answer mine, because you're both dishonest and dumb, using hurt feelings as a cover for your intellectual cowardice.

Quote

I have facts and science on my side, you have feelings and social justice on yours.

What science? The science of defining the word "woman"? What biologists are studying pronouns? What geneticists are studying what it means to be a "woman"? Name names. Show me the science. I'd love to see it.

[bad_teammate 13485]

Spanky is demonstrating an interesting phenomenon with right-wing guys who get all raged up watching Ben Shapiro or the like. They're obsessed with the idea of owning libs with facts. The dwarves and post-punk fail-dads constantly talk about how scared the libs and SJWs are of REAL FACT DEBATES.

It's like the guys who coach each other up about how tough they are and how all those other guys are just a bunch of punks. But then they go out to the bar and it's all, "HOLD ME BACK, BRO!" and "HE AIN'T EVEN WORTH IT, BRO!", because the reality is that they would get beaten up and their posturing amongst each other was the entire point to begin with.

I am here. I am a lib. I am an SJW.

Hit me with the facts.

Hit me with the science.

Destroy my snowflakery.

[Kyle 207]

This is what happens without bathroom legislation ... FAKE HATE CRIMES! LOL ... you can't make this shit up.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708821/Lawyer-two-black-Empire-extras-detained-Jussie-Smollett-attack-says-innocent.html

[ChickenSandwich 9926]

4 hours ago, Spankytoes said:

So, if I understand you correctly, you are now willing to answer questions even though I have constantly been begging posters of the opposing viewpoint to do so for the past two days? Nah, I think I'm good. We're past that point now. Instead of engaging in rationale dialogue you chose to be a dick by lobbing insults and ended up exposing yourself as a pussy in the process. (No pun intended. Well, a little intended) If you were really interested in seeing my interpretation of anything, we would have had that discussion already. 

I can't destroy you with logic because your argument is devoid of it. I have facts and science on my side, you have feelings and social justice on yours. Kudos to you.

Stop replying to Hugo bro. It’s not worth it. 

[bad_teammate 13485]

12 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Stop replying to Hugo bro. It’s not worth it. 

lol jesus

But then they go out to the bar and it's all, "HOLD ME BACK, BRO!" and "HE AIN'T EVEN WORTH IT, BRO!", because the reality is that they would get beaten up and their posturing amongst each other was the entire point to begin with.

[bad_teammate 13485]

I'm low-key disappointed that Spanky didn't answer my questions about the two scenarios because I'm dying for an excuse to write out some fantasy life with Option C in the woods in a rugged, remote cabin, where after two years of isolation our hands accidentally touch...

[Spankytoes 1748]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm low-key disappointed that Spanky didn't answer my questions about the two scenarios because I'm dying for an excuse to write out some fantasy life with Option C in the woods in a rugged, remote cabin, where after two years of isolation our hands accidentally touch...

Sorry to disappoint on a few fronts. For starters, I’m leaving for The Bahamas in less than 6 hours and I can guarantee you that our “discussion” won’t even enter my consciousness. This thread will invariably be at the bottom of the page before I would contribute any meaningful dialogue. Second, I don’t find gay relations/sex icky. You can describe your fantasy of an innocent touch leading to taking a dick to the back of the throat all you want and it won’t trigger me. If I can survive a gay roommate (In the Village People, no less) with thin walls for a year, I’m pretty sure that I can handle your proposed scenario. Your assumption of my right wing views is just that, a poor assumption. I’m pretty moderate both socially and politically and don’t tote a particular party line. Both Liberals and Conservatives are raging lunatics on certain issues so I’m not sequestered into any particular box either. Plus, I’m a staunch agnostic. So I don’t have the barrier of “sin” holding me back from rational thought.

But mostly, I don’t owe you a goddamn thing. I gave you plenty of opportunities to discuss this rationally and you chose to be a gaping pussy about it instead. You’re an insincere prick, so it's hardly worth my time to engage you any further. You have no interest in learning about the opposing point of view because you’ve already convinced yourself that you’re intellectually above it. Circle jerk about your “wokeness” with someone else.

[bad_teammate 13485]

Imagine being about to leave for the fucking Bahamas and the last thing you do is go online to yell at someone about how much you hate them.

holy shit lol

[Js1 87036]

11 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm low-key disappointed that Spanky didn't answer my questions about the two scenarios because I'm dying for an excuse to write out some fantasy life with Option C in the woods in a rugged, remote cabin, where after two years of isolation our hands accidentally touch...

Go on....

[scottsins 2040]

On 2/14/2019 at 6:02 PM, Kyle said:

I totally agree with you ... except your initial hyperbole. Most of that social media outrage is fake news. From Matthew Shephard to the Houston child killer, most of the shit wingnuts get worked up about turns out to be fake. Much like trannys getting arrested and attacked for using the ladies room. Totally bullshit emotional hysterics.

Now many times is your ignorant ass going to use that term for transgendered people?

[scottsins 2040]

18 hours ago, Kyle said:

This is what happens without bathroom legislation ... FAKE HATE CRIMES! LOL ... you can't make this shit up.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6708821/Lawyer-two-black-Empire-extras-detained-Jussie-Smollett-attack-says-innocent.html

Negged for off-topic trolling.

Oh, can one of our many college-educated posters tell me whether or not this is one of those trolls that are just supposed to put on ignore?

[bad_teammate 13485]

2 hours ago, scottsins said:

Now many times is your ignorant ass going to use that term for transgendered people?

He's got nothing to say that is meaningful and on topic, so he's going to act like a 12-year-old edgelord because that is literally where their mindset is.

[Alien Octopus 632]

XX XY

Start the discussion there.

Classifications and labels propel bigotry and hate.

Legislating ethics either in the name of God or in anyone’s narrow belief system only leads to more hate.

All citizens should be protected under the law. There are consequences for their choices as dictated by society regardless of what they beleive is just.

[safe sex 11924]

It isn't as simple as XX XY either. 

[Guest Lobo]

Aren't the Bahamas considered the more "trans-islands" of the whole Carribbean?  

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by Lobo

[bad_teammate 13485]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Is spanky the sex tourist guy that ghost of LL owned?

this thread was already weird and now it’s just creepy crappy. 7 pages of people yelling at each other about things that don’t matter to 99% of the demographic of this website. But getting twisted around axles about impractical things is what Surl threads do best

These things matter to a number of posters who are far better and more interesting than you, buckaroo.

[bad_teammate 13485]

1 hour ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Carry on, I won’t get in your penthouse forum posting way.

Ok, great.

After a few months of basic, surface-level conversation as we swing our axes, bare-chested in the alpine forest, Option C and I start talking about things a little more serious, a little more meaningful.

"Wow," Option C says, "I hadn't thought of it that way before."

Our eyes meet. An understanding passes between us in an instant, which sends my heart racing.

I look away as fast as I can, but I can feel his eyes burning into the back of my neck as I squeeze my sore deltoids together in preparation for the next swing.

*click here to read the rest of the story*

[Spankytoes 1748]

On 2/16/2019 at 8:14 AM, bad_teammate said:

Imagine being about to leave for the fucking Bahamas and the last thing you do is go online to yell at someone about how much you hate them.

holy shit lol

Just saw this.

1. I went for work;

2. If The Bahamas move the needle, you seriously need to travel more.

Lulz.

[Spankytoes 1748]

On 2/16/2019 at 5:25 PM, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Is spanky the sex tourist guy that ghost of LL owned?

No idea what you’re talking about. Neither does my wife of 20 years.

[bad_teammate 13485]

spanky isn't mad. this is funny. He's actually laughing

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

SIAP but this brought tears to my eyes. That there is a dad.