Several interesting blog posts on transgender-ness; I was particularly interested in the first, a guest post.  

I have a burning psychological need for the statement “I am a man” to be true, so it would be nice if it weren’t meaningless. It would also be nice if it weren’t immutably false.

Author doesn't have an answer, but does seem willing to frame the questions.

--

Later in the page I came across the phrase "the cotton ceiling," and googled it.

Cotton ceiling is the tendency of trans women to be excluded from the higher echelons of (cis-dominated) women's and queer spaces — specifically within the porn industry... [link]

where "cotton" refers to underwear, or, rather, what's in it.

And from another source:

Basically, it means that cis queer women will be friends with us and talk day and night about trans rights and ending transmisogyny, but will still not consider us viable sexual partners. [link]

Found some real rage on this issue:  someone angry at "cisbians saying 'I'm just not attracted to penises'...it's because you're a sad little transmisogynist and you deserve to have your teeth beaten in."  

No real conclusion here yet, at least, not one the parties can agree on.

Views: 187

Replies to This Discussion

Interesting that you brought this up. I just heard of the "cotton ceiling" yesterday. MtF trannies are pissed off that lesbians don't want to have sex with 'chicks' with dicks. They find it 'transphobic', discriminatory, and believe that it invalidates their womanhood (which is already on shaky ground). Feminists are pissed off that MtF trannies are trying to use a SJW guilt trip and namecalling to force lesbians to have sex with men against their will.

What to do when the dual mythologies of 'transphobia' and 'rape culture' collide. What an absurd shit-show.

There is a fundamental philosophical schism between the feminists and the trannies that is starting to get louder, and very well could burn this whole 'intersectional' SJW nonsense to the ground. There were even some vocal radical feminists that joined-up with conservatives on the 'bathroom bill' push.

Modern progressive and radical feminism, at its core, claims that men and women are mentally and emotionally identical at birth and that social pressure ultimately separates the genders into masculine and feminine. They believe gender is a social construct. They believe that biological sex is static, and that women are discriminated against simply because of their biology. They believe that biological women need special protection from biological men, who are raised to be domineering and aggressive ... and to subjugate women.

Tranny philosophy, at its core, claims that gender is ingrained at birth -- by way of a 'male brain' or a 'female brain'. They believe that gender is a core trait of birth, not a social construct, and, after they 'transition' they tend to embrace the very stereotypical masculinity and femininity that feminists claim is a 'social construct. They believe biological sex is irrelevant, and that there exists such a thing as "a woman with a penis" or "a man who menstruates and gives birth" -- science be damned. Thus, while they may agree that women need special protection from men ... they believe they belong on the other side of that protection. They're not men. They're women with penises. So, women don't need protection from them.

There is simply no "intersectionality" between those philosophies. They are diametrically opposed. Mutually assured destruction, hopefully ... and maybe they'll bring the whole house of cards down in the process.

JB

This reminds of me of something I've encountered among gay men.  If you go on a dating site or hook-up app such as Grindr, you will see a lot of profiles that will explicitly exclude certain types of guys, such as Black men, Asians, "femmes," etc.  Which, I've heard, is racist or otherwise discriminatory.  I don't understand that, though, because how does one control who they are attracted to?  I've never heard anyone call gay men sexist for refusing to date women (it wouldn't surprise me to find an article saying just that at Salon or something, but it's not a mainstream position either way).  As silly as the antics of radical feminists often seem, the notion that lesbians ought to sleep with women who have (or had) male parts out of some sense of political correctness is even sillier.  

"If you go on a dating site or hook-up app such as Grindr, you will see a lot of profiles that will explicitly exclude certain types of guys, such as Black men, Asians, "femmes," etc.  Which, I've heard, is racist or otherwise discriminatory"

It is racist and discriminatory. There's no question about that. You're excluding people based on their race. That's the very definition of racist discrimination. The real question is whether or not, in that specific context, that racist discrimination is wrong.

Dating is inherently discriminatory. That's the whole purpose. To discriminate. To choose. To weed-out people you don't like for any and every reason. I'd hate to see the trainwreck of a life that nondiscriminatory dating would create.

Sex discrimination is usually the starting point, which I figure does hurt trannies ... because, "neither", "both", or "horribly confused" probably aren't sought after all that often. Beyond that -- people discriminate on age, height, weight, race, skin-tone, disability, orientation, hairstyle, religion, boob size, intelligence, wealth, earning potential, hygiene, education, political ideology, waist-to-hip ratio, parental marital status, fashion sense ... essentially everything.

In this case ... it's better to aim for 'discriminating taste' than 'nondiscriminatory'. Be as discriminatory as possible.

JB

Technically true, but beside the point: the clear implication is that the racism, in this instance, is wrong.  Which it's not; dating someone you're not attracted to out of some sense of social justice or whatever doesn't seem like a healthy relationship, and it's definitely not fair to the other person if they don't know what the deal is.  

If you want to analyze it, there are some bigger questions you could ask about this. Like whether you are truly un-attracted to a particular race or if you've simply been conditioned to react that way due to overt or subtle racism. There's a lot of stuff that can be explored with that topic.

For me, personally, I have a hard time understanding writing off and entire race because, having grown up in multicultural places and have traveled around the world, my opinion is that there are smokin' hot women of all kinds all over the world. IMO every race and ethnicity has its beauties and its mingers.

Well I am exclusively (sexually) attracted to a very specific type of guy, which happens to be the type of guy that pretty much describes every guy in the place I grew up (which happens to be almost entirely white).  So I think upbringing probably does have a lot to do with who you are attracted to, at least for some people.

For me, though, sexual attraction isn't a big thing.  I'm often drawn to people who I would never find sexually attractive, and I'm sometimes repelled by people I do find attractive.  In some cases, I end up finding myself attracted to people that normally aren't my type, for reasons other than their appearance.  On the other hand though, people of any race (or gender) can be pleasing to look at, even though I might not want to date them.

I'm not sure I buy the notion of subconscious racism.  If it's too subtle to notice, why does it even matter?  I can't control who I'm attracted to, and any attempt to do so, I suspect, would be as futile as trying to become straight.  Maybe I am racist in some subtle way that I don't realize, but even if I am, trying to do anything about that would result in thinking about race as an issue even more, which seems like a toxic mindset.  Obviously, it's an important issue and it needs to be thought about, but there's probably a point where thinking about it too much creates more harm than good by reinforcing the perceived differences between people of different races and keeping those differences alive in people's consciousnesses.  But that's the rational part of me talking, which my libido is most certainly not a part of.

This is an older post but reminds me of when I lived in Montreal for a summer. After it I've decided female beauty has no race. I saw hot women of all races on the streets of that town.

"Take me down to the transgender city, where the chicks have dicks and the guys have titties."

Seriously sex-confused people probably ought not be answering questions like this.  "Women with penises".  Good grief.

JB

I heard about this. I think it's best if I don't watch it. Lord help us.

This is a super interesting topic and reading through the posts I guess I didn't realize just how complicated the notion of sexuality has gotten. 

I personally believe you are born the way you are with a clear biological sexual preference.  Does not matter what category you fall into (gay, straight, trans etc...)  I think that preference is further nurtured by your surroundings and experiences as you mature.  

I also think that the politicized component of sexuality is muddying the already dirty waters of confusion for those who are on the fringes with their sexuality and biology.  So its easy to explain away sexual desires and biology with politically correct feminist symbolism. 

Humans are sexual creatures that need to have sex to reproduce.  We are driven to it as a mode of survival.  Those two truths are universal no matter where you are in the spectrum.  You biologically are what you are, you desire what you desire.  does classification really matter?

To the above point the same goes for specific categories and traits for the people you desire.  Simply saying you are attracted to a specific skin tone or race, or hair color or anything else does not make you a racist. 

Im really having a hard time understanding why this is so complicated, however I'm saying that as a straight biological male so I supposed that I can't really see it from any other perspective. 

RSS

Latest Activity

Jay D replied to J. Exalto's discussion Globalism in the group The Great Debate
"To be honest, if you can outsource all those things isnt that a sign of wealth?"
24 minutes ago
J. D. replied to Nature of a Man's discussion A bizarre dating trend I see
"I don't think I'm taking you too literally at all.  I think what you're driving at is that, to you, people seem more interested in finding a buddy of the opposite sex to hang out with more than setting out to find a romantic…"
25 minutes ago
Jay D replied to J. Exalto's discussion Globalism in the group The Great Debate
"For Chinas defense i have to say that intellectual property is a cultural manifestation of capitalism that is not part of Chinese culture. The idea that you can own a idea is quite strange if you think about and whie we have it to promote…"
27 minutes ago
Daniel Brown Potter updated their profile
33 minutes ago
Charles Dodd replied to Xenias Latin's discussion New Leadership Question
"Good point. Disciplining staff is perhaps more of a "management" issue rather than a leadership issue. As for some books on the subject that Xenias might purchase, I checked around under "management books" at Amazon. (One can…"
53 minutes ago
John Muir replied to Sir's discussion Killing weeds in the driveway
"I've used 4-year old roundup without noticing any potency decline"
1 hour ago
Nature of a Man replied to Nature of a Man's discussion A bizarre dating trend I see
"Well logistics, such as living many miles apart tend to complicate things a bit, but we're both clear with each other that we have a go-ahead to date other folks due to the unlikelihood of our paths crossing."
1 hour ago
Sir replied to Sir's discussion Killing weeds in the driveway
"Yeah, I did that in April, but didn't see any effect.  Does Roundup go bad in a year?"
1 hour ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service