I'm for whatever floats a person's boat in their private life. I just don't like it when their private life gets forced on everyone to accept this as "normal". I canceled my playboy subscription when they started putting trannies in there.
I don’t really pay attention to it either, until I see an article like this, and then it’s a “WTF” moment. Yeah, they can run their stupid pageant however they like, but they will never convince me that a man can turn into a woman.
It's just change, and a lot of people don't like change. The fact that Ms. Nevada is trans doesn't affect me at all. So, unless you're looking for grist for your outrage mill, then I'm not sure why anyone would clutch their pearls over this.
When I was a kid, pot was evil and a guaranteed gateway to "hard drugs". Now it's not evil (except to the Federal government) and no longer considered a gateway drug. Also, the thought that gays could marry was laughable. Now it's completely legal and most people don't even talk about it anymore.
The day every progressive on earth admits that Rachael Dolzeal can identify as black I will consider accepting that people can identify with a different gender. No such thing as a trans male, not even frankentstein and no such thing as a trans female, not even nancy pelosi.
It's change, but it's not "just" change. It's extreme leftists trying to impose on society the view that so called progressive ideology is more important that biological reality.
I'm sure they knew she was going to win once she was allowed to enter. Otherwise, everyone involved with the pageant would have been accused of being racist homophobes.
Doc ... That's a nice partisan talking point, but it's really just that. A partisan talking point about a thing I suspect you just don't like.
On the subject of normalization, another topic that comes up here frequently is the legalization or decriminalization of sex work. But, whenever anyone here posts about a legislator wanting to legalize prostitution, it's predominantly to cheers, fist pumps, and ticker-tape parades. Even though there remains a *large* chunk of the public who is vehemently against the idea of legal sex work and thinks that every whore and pervert in that world should be in jail.
To a lot of people, strip clubs are filled with filthy deviants even *before* someone fills them in about extras. And they believe that all strip clubs should be shut down.
I'm sure that those people don't love "being forced" to accept the concept of legal sex work, but we largely don't care about them or their beliefs. They're backwards puritans and they just don't understand, etc., etc., etc. I also don't see a lot of people here posting about forced "extreme" leftist ideologies when it comes to legal sex work, even though the vast majority of the legislators proposing legalization are Democrats (except for the odd libertarian).
Funny how that works...
Personal opinion, this is a package deal. The evolution of people normalizing and legalizing sex work goes hand-in-hand with people over time not getting their knickers in a knot over gays, gay marriage, trans people, non-binary people, etc. It's all tied into sex and gender, and it's not like ordering off of a Chinese menu, again, in my opinion.
If you don't want to get arrested or in trouble for fucking a stripper (OTC or ITC), then you might need to live with Miss Nevada being trans. Which shouldn't be too hard. Because one of those two things directly affects a lot of the people who post here, while the other one completely doesn't.
CMI: Legalizing sex work is not equivalent to normalizing transsexuals. And it has nothing to do with partisan talking points. Personally, I don’t care what anyone does sexually to get their rocks off, as long as it’s consensual and in private (or if not private, only in front of consenting viewers). But transsexual/homosexual activity is by definition not normal. Most people don’t engage in it. Therefore, it’s not normal behavior. That doesn’t mean it’s by definition bad or evil. That’s a value judgment.
Heterosexual sex is normal. That’s what most people engage do. Whether sex outside of marriage or paid sex is bad or evil is a value judgment, but doesn’t change the fact that heterosexual sex is normal, because that’s what most people do, or at least what most people want to do.
My personal opinion is that no sex act between consenting adults should be illegal. I also agree that gay/trans people shouldn’t be subject to irrational discrimination. But segregating certain activities by sex is not irrational discrimination. Men and women have physical differences. That’s a fact.
If you want to include trans “women” in your beauty pageant, who am I to say you can’t? But the message is that trans “women” should be accepted as women, just like all the other women in the pageant. They are not and never will be. That is not objective reality, and progressive messaging will not change that fact.
There's a huge number of people who do not think it's normal for a guy to pay a woman to go into a glorified broom closet to have her rub her ass, boobies, and vagina on his hard dick (and we're not even getting into LDK and extras...). And though that behavior is a function of heterosexuality, not only is it abnormal to them, they believe to their core that it's aberrant, sick behavior. And it should *all* be made illegal, not legalized or normalized.
"But transsexual/homosexual activity is by definition not normal. Most people don’t engage in it. Therefore, it’s not normal behavior."
Most people don't engage in the activities that are talked about, normalized, and even glorified on this site continuously. TUSCL is a smaller niche within a niche, because most guys who go to strip clubs regularly don't write reviews or send each other links to the best lapdance pants. By your parameters, what we do and talk about here should be rejected by any right-minded person.
I would argue that being in a minority population does not automatically equal abnormality or earn condecension. I say this as someone who has been with good friends and family who have stated that anyone with habits like ours has an extreme mental illness, shouldn't be trusted, and should probably be locked up. Those are weird, awkward moments for me. As I'm sure it's a weird, awkward moment for a closeted gay person to hear someone they love say that all faggots are pedophiles, etc., etc.
"But the message is that trans 'women' should be accepted as women, just like all the other women in the pageant. They are not and never will be."
And by normalizing/legalizing sex work the goal (or message) is that the sex workers are not evil, filthy whores. The message is that sex workers are just that ... workers doing a job. And, conversely, people on the customer side are no longer thought of horrible deviants, but as people who want to pay for a legal service with another consenting adult. That's going to take a while, as we're seeing with the normalization other forms of sex- and gender-related outlooks that give a lot of TUSCL guys the fits.
I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but I'm willing to bet money I don't have that there's a big overlap between the people who don't accept 'trans women' as 'real women' and people who will never accept what we talk about here as anything but sinful and sick.
As to "They are not and never will be." Yeah ... I'm pretty sure you don't get to make that call. And neither do I.
CMI: "I would argue that being in a minority population does not automatically equal abnormality." You can argue that, but you would be wrong. Look up the definition of normal.
" . . . or earn condecension." I agree, but you are mixing apples and oranges. Most people don't have cancer, so by definition, having cancer is not normal and therefor abnormal. But that doesn't mean people with cancer should be subject to condescension. You are mixing objective facts with opinions and value judgments.
"As to "They are not and never will be." Yeah ... I'm pretty sure you don't get to make that call." Yes, I am pretty sure I can make that call, because I can distinguish between objective reality versus opinions and feelings. Except in the case hermaphroditism, an exceedingly rare medical condition, people are either male or female. They are not going to change sex no matter how much they want to, how they dress, and no matter how many parts a surgeon might chop off or add.
doctorevil do you consider being a Republican as being abnormal, after all the majority of people in this country are not Republican based on recent national elections? Does that mean that Republicans should keep their abnormal activities behind closed doors so as not to "impose on society" their so called conservative ideology?
whodey, when you think about it, Democrats are also in the minority as there is a good percentage of the population that does not identity to either party. So by that definition, both are abnormal and should keep their opinions to themselves. I am OK with that.
Whodey: Your "questions" are idiotic, but I'll play along, much as I would humor a mentally disabled child. I believe recent data show that most voters identify not as Republicans or Democrats, but independent, as do I, so yes, by definition, both Democrats and Republicans could be considered "abnormal," but a better term would be "not normal" as abnormal often has a negative connotation, although the literal meaning of the word does not necessarily include that connotation. As far as keeping their "abnormal activities behind closed doors," to compare sex acts, which most people agree should be kept behind closed door, with political activity, which by definition includes public discourse, is just dumb.
I could care less about beauty pageants, they're free to do whatever they please. But according to PsychologyToday.com, 3% of straight men would date a trans woman. Playboy, Victoria's Secret, Sports Illustrated, and now Miss America, are not conducting smart business.
My two cents, transgenderism is a mental illness called gender identity disorder, no different than any other delusion about one's state of being like the Cotard delusion.
Whatever they "feel like," biology is a tyrant. Their DNA is going to fight those cross-sex hormones and surgery every second, it's going to treat a trans woman's vagina as a gaping wound and try to close it. That vagina won't feel sexual pleasure in the same way as a born woman's.
Separating the concept of "sex" and "gender" makes for a distinction without a difference. Why should we care about the plight of "women," when one can change gender identity at will?
Trans women deserve all the compassion in the world. It's a tough existence. But pretending we have some social obligation to treat them exactly like cis women (including through sexual desire, dating, and sex) is delusional. Biology doesn't give a shit about conforming to 2021 bien-pensant ideals.
If Nevada feels it is best represented by a trans female, more power to them. Best of luck to her. The only two things that bother me about trans are xy athletes competing against xx athletes (I can't see how this is not an unfair advantage) and life long gender decisions being made in grade school. At 6 years old, I thought girls had cooties. Glad I wasn't locked into that.
^ Your version of human rights seems to be giving some humans more rights than others,
I don’t believe anyone should be hating on anyone nor should anyone be excluded from normal activities, but we don’t need to create special opportunities for deviations from the norm, if you want to be treated as equal you need to be equal.
Does that mean that the new Miss Nevada still has manly bits and won, or used to be 100% dude but now has mostly lady bits? Ever since people could just swap clothes and be considered trans I lost track of what to call something other than hetero or bi. Then there's non-binary, which is it's own thing that my variety of mandatory training can't seem to agree on.
@wallanon,
Not sure but if it wants to be treated like a lady it should be a lady, I don’t think you can truly surgically change only superficially you can change the appearance but I doubt the DNA is altered
Giving people equal rights isn't giving them special privileges. But it does infringe on the special privileges historically afforded to hetero white men. What you mean to say is you don't want your hetero white male privilege attacked.
@call.me.ishmael you are kicking ass here. That's pry the best argument I've seen on this silly site - we are engaged in a so called "abnormal" activity as SC regulars, so how could you judge trans people for doing whatever they want.
Don't impose your moral compass on others, let other people do what they want and if that passes you off that's your issue.
I will say, trans athletes are a bit of a different argument. Nobody cares who wears a dress, but testosterone is a hell of a hormone and anyone who has gone through puberty as a male is at a significant competitive advantage
^im not judging anyone, I’m saying it’s a simple thing just because someone wants to be a dog doesn’t make them a dog, trans folk are no different, they should have the same rights as you and me, not additional rights because it’s their choice to be different.
Icee talks out of both ends saying they should be accorded full rights for their gender, but take a trans athlete like Bruce Jenner for example should he/she be competing with female swimmers if so then you are giving it rights that we don’t have. Shouldn’t athletes be able to compete against other athletes in the same class, if you force them to compete with surgically altered humans say that have bionic arms and legs why is that any different from surgically altered men that look like women or vice versa
@25, athletes are a different matter. Going through male puberty produces physiological changes that no amount of estrogen can undo.
I asked about dating. This is a top LGBTQ paper that says, in so many words, that refusing to date trans people is transphobic. I will not date trans people, and don't give a shit what label they put on me.
^ I hear ya buddy I don’t hate anyone, but by the same token I am under no obligation to date anyone just because they think I have to prove that I’m not a whatever the insult in vogue this week is.
I maintain that these poor folks that are uncomfortable with their assigned gender, have the right just lake anyone else to get surgically altered, that right is available to anyone living in these United States, still it doesn’t alter the fundamental facts of their birth, either as a male or a female and until somebody is able to change the laws of nature that will completely override any surgeries to the contrary.
My point is that Bruce/Caitlin can claim whatever gender he likes, he still fathered those two girls as far as I’m concerned he’s a male, permanently altered perhaps but still a male.
Equal rights means either affording them the rights of their described gender. Or actually creating a real 3rd gender category.
A 3rd gender category would be fair for athletes.
There are claims that taking hormones for a long enough period make a trans person physically equal to their described sex . But I don't know much about that. If it's true then fine I guess.
Dating has to do with sexuality. Even if they're post op. The desire to have kids. I wouldn't call not dating them transphobic.
"It may only be a matter of time b/f trannies force themselves into strip clubs"
What would make you think there aren't already trans people working as strippers? Part of the issue here is that not every tranny is Bruce Jenner in lipstick. And if you're Hugh Grant you wouldn't care anyway.
It's interesting to watch the so called "transsexual rights" advocates twist in the wind on this. Everyone should treat transsexual "females" just like real females, and pretend they are a female if they are allowed to participate in a pageant. Except for sports. There should third "gender" for sports. Actually, there would need to two new sports "genders," one for F to M atheletes, and one for M to F, otherwise the F to M atheletes would never win. And they are just like real females, but I wouldn't date one, and certainly wouldn't have sex with one. Anymore footnotes we should add to "transsexual rights"?
Call.Me.Ishmael attempts to equate our fetish for strippers and extras to transgenderism, with regard to society's disdain for both of those behaviors.
The big difference he ignores is that we do our thing out of the public eye, and keep discussion of our activities within our "community."
We're not out there saying, "Hey we're all perverts, look at us and accept us for what we are. Treat us as normal or we'll label you a pervertaphobe."
No, we actually recognize that we are different from most, and perfectly content to keep it to ourselves. We don't go to work after a night of strip-clubbing and tell every coworker in the lunchroom all about it. We'd probably get fired if we did. But LGBTQ not only flaunts it in everybody's face, but we have to celebrate them or else, yeah, we'll probably get fired. See how this works?
the weekly amateur nights at the titty bar would be the only beauty pageant that would hold my attention.
regarding the ms nevada and usa pageants the owner(s) of them simply have no backbone. to allow a tran to compete in order to appease the petulant woke, a group that primarily seeks forced acceptance.
if the pageant owner is scared of losing sponsors then work harder and find other ones. if there's a sales dept in place who can't handle that then fire their asses and replace them with those that can.
if these pageant owners really strongly care theu gotta fight back. the pushback has to be stronger than the all out efforts of those that imposed their will. not doing so signals an ultimate fuck you to the followers and the girls that compete.
I have always accepted the mentally ill as equal and do with trans as well. Still unwilling to change society to cater to the weirdest among us. Scared of trannies lol? Just as scared as them as any other weirdo progressive: Not at all. Just call the mentally ill what they are. If you are born a guy, you are never a woman, always fucked up though, if you think you are.
Ben Shapiro asked a transsexual advocate on his show how old she (shim?) was, the reply was 20 something. Ben shot back, "why aren't you 60?" Uhhh, because I wasn't born 60 years ago. Can't you identify as 60 if you feel like it. Point being, a fake ID no more makes you a certain age than a surgical procedure and drugs makes you a certain sex.
Would you need titty implants to play in the WNBA? Some of those chicks are cute for being gigantic women n' all, but some of them are also straight woof.
Q. How do you get old white men to talk about women’s sports?
A. Bring up trans athletes.
Very few people give a shit about women’s sports. The comment section in every article about the women’s World Cup is filled with ‘they can’t beat the men.’ Nobody watches the WNBA or the women’s NCAA’s. Maybe some guys will watch the women’s finals of the majors in tennis or golf, but usually it’s just to see if they are hot. Nobody cares until … someone brings up trans athletes and then everyone is triggered and Republicans start passing legislation to stop the 1 trans athlete in their state from playing a HS sport.
Live and let live. Trans people aren’t threatening. Usually they need our protection from bigots and bullies.
Changing society in favor of a miniscule minority is what bigots and bullies do. Talking about men pretending to be women and cheating at sports is talking politics .. unless you're a fucking moron. Typical progressive: support trans and then use them in a slur....Democrats are mentally ill.
Doctorevil said "CMI: 'I would argue that being in a minority population does not automatically equal abnormality.' You can argue that, but you would be wrong. Look up the definition of normal."
Well ... if you want to parse grammar, I'm your huckleberry. I'm using 'normal' as an adjective here, as in "Conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that *which is considered* usual, typical, or routine." [Merriam-Webster; emphasis mine]. And what conforms to a standard or is usual, typical, or routine is a moving target with the passage of time and changing mindsets.
And, thank God, because it would be dreadful if our mindsets regarding race, gender, labor, and a host of other issues had been somehow frozen in the mid/late 1800s when it was normal to own other humans, legal to rape your wife, and considered good business to employ pre-teen children in factories.
And, as guys who walk in to buildings to pay for sexy fun time, it would be great to see the same 'normalization' applied to us in the adjective form as well. I look forward to a time when attitudes evolve to a point where we're not despicable sinners, low-grade rapists, or mentally ill.
Doctorevil said "Most people don't have cancer, so by definition, having cancer is not normal and therefor abnormal. But that doesn't mean people with cancer should be subject to condescension. You are mixing objective facts with opinions and value judgments."
Well, if you were looking to present yourself as remotely tolerant of transgenderism, then comparing their condition to cancer probably wasn't the way to go. And this is probably where I part company irreparably with a lot of people here. I don't see fluidity of gender as a sickness (either mental or physical). It is a condition I don't fully understand, because I've never experienced it, but that doesn't make me automatically catalog it as a sickness.
Because part of my life is deeply involved in the arts, I'm around a fair number of people who are openly trans, non-binary, gay, etc. That world is more tolerant towards all of those things. These are people who work jobs, pay bills, have responsibilities, much like anyone else. Some of them are great people; and others are absolute assholes. They're just people I know, and I neither pity nor praise them for being trans (or whatever).
Doctorevil said "Yes, I am pretty sure I can make that call, because I can distinguish between objective reality versus opinions and feelings."
Well, no, you can't make that call, except for yourself. The world can and will change around you without asking your permission. And I suspect that this is why there are so many rattling teacups in this thread. The foundation of outrage is, to some degree, fear. And your fear of what might be considered normal in 10 or so years won't stop that normalization from happening.
Doctorevil said "Except in the case hermaphroditism, an exceedingly rare medical condition, people are either male or female."
This is another area where I suspect I part company with a lot of folks on here. Gender is not solely a function of anatomy, there is a great deal of psychology, brain chemistry, and hormonal chemistry involved along with anatomy. And though anatomy is a big piece of that pie, it is not greater than the other pieces combined. So, no, I don't believe that gender is solely a function of your kibbles and bits.
The world can change and we can still consider the changes a fucked up loss for humanity. What's better for this country as an entity should never be based solely on one's experience. I don't care if people are trans, but I oppose changing society for them. I will tolerate, but no government is telling me what I have to believe.
I don't think society changes at the behest of any one entity's influence in particular. It changes based on a wildly complex range of factors. The weather doesn't change based solely on wind speed, but wind speed is a single influence among many.
There's a (thankfully) diminishing number of people who still think that smoking pot is evil and automatically leads to hard drug use, but they are still out there and they still believe that legal pot will be our downfall. Though no one is going to change their mind, they will become fewer and more marginalized over time.
Ditto with gay marriage. Years ago, there was a massive uproar that allowing same-sex marriage would destroy the very fabric of society. That hasn't happened, but the marriage industry has been making some extra revenue. So, you don't hear as much of that uproar anymore, and those people will also become more marginalized over time.
My personal belief is that the same thing will happen as a growing number of people learn to accept and integrate with gender-fluid people. The transition will have rough patches, as occurs with any societal change, but I think the transition will occur. And, I'm hoping that the same might happen over time with respect to sex work. But I still believe it's a package deal.
CMI: If you consider using the standard dictionary definition of words to be “parsing grammar,” then so be it. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to have a rational discussion about anything without an agreement on what words mean and what are facts versus opinions and feelings. You want to use “progressive” Ministry of Truth made up definitions of sex and gender. OK, fine. I’ll stick with what my lying eyes show me.
So you don’t like the analogy to cancer, and that makes me intolerant? So change it to a sixth pinky toe, being 3-feet tall, or 7-feet tall, an IQ of 60, or an IQ of 160, or whatever. The point is that it is non-standard condition, which makes it not normal, and therefore abnormal. That doesn’t make people with these conditions automatically bad people. Some abnormalities are definitely good things. Having an IQ of 160 is good. Being 7-feet tall is not good if you want to be a fighter jet pilot and can’t fit into the cockpit. It would probably be considered good if you are a pro basketball player. But don’t try to convince me it’s a normal height, or that you are really 5’10” when the tape measure clearly shows something else.
One more thing. You recently posted some pics of a couple of very attractive women, or at least what to outward appearances seemed to be women. So you’re telling me that if it turned out they were actually transsexuals with male genitalia between their legs, you would have no problem engaging in sexual activity with them? To including orally servicing them? I mean, because that wouldn’t be sucking a guy’s cock, it would just be eating out a girl, right? Unless you answer yes, you are a hypocrite.
We were used to leaving the house unlocked all the time. We were used to everyone working. We were used to the idea that we were a melting pot. We were used to the idea that living off the work of others was shameful. We were used to the idea that society had laws everyone had to follow. Great country no longer.
^ According to a growing number of queer theorists, if you will not date or have sex with a trans individual, you are transphobic. Their words, not mine.
It makes most sense within the framework of gender identity disorder. Unlike homosexuals, it requires surgery and medications under a health insurance medical benefit. Just like other life-limiting conditions that don't believe they are a "disease," like Down syndrome or deafness. It doesn't mean they are bad people, or less than deserving of respect, or do not deserve treatment, it means they have a condition that limits their function in society. First line of therapy should be helping them integrate into society and ruling out other causes, before embarking on hormonal therapy that can cause sterility, severe osteoporosis, cardiovascular risk, and more, to say nothing of irreversible surgery.
I don't get being "gender fluid" except as a sign of being a psychologically confused individual. Their body doesn't undergo changes when they decide to present as one thing today and something else tomorrow. The usual arguments for transgender individuals being something else internally (which doesn't make sense as genes aren't switching) don't apply.
I also don't see how being mongers compares to this. I don't rationalize or pretend it's normal or moral, and if it were legal, frankly, it would lose some of the transgressive thrill.
The left has going from asking for "tolerance" to demanding full, unconditional celebration of others' life choices. I lose no sleep over society objecting to P4P.
Doctorevil said "If you consider using the standard dictionary definition of words to be “parsing grammar,” then so be it. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to have a rational discussion about anything without an agreement on what words mean and what are facts versus opinions and feelings. You want to use “progressive” Ministry of Truth made up definitions of sex and gender. OK, fine. I’ll stick with what my lying eyes show me."
I cited Merriam-Webster, which is not the Ministry of Truth (progressive or otherwise).
Doctorevil said "So you don’t like the analogy to cancer, and that makes me intolerant? So change it to a sixth pinky toe, being 3-feet tall, or 7-feet tall, an IQ of 60, or an IQ of 160, or whatever. The point is that it is non-standard condition, which makes it not normal, and therefore abnormal. That doesn’t make people with these conditions automatically bad people. Some abnormalities are definitely good things. Having an IQ of 160 is good. Being 7-feet tall is not good if you want to be a fighter jet pilot and can’t fit into the cockpit. It would probably be considered good if you are a pro basketball player. But don’t try to convince me it’s a normal height, or that you are really 5’10” when the tape measure clearly shows something else."
I'm saying that being trans isn't a sickness. Someone who is 7-feet tall may not work as a fighter pilot, but they can still function normally in society in countless other ways if they are allowed to. Nobody who is trans needs a ramp to get into the super market (or work in a super market). My argument is that a lot of the things that you want to see as black and white really aren't. I'm fine if you want to go on that way, but I don't agree.
Doctorevil said "You recently posted some pics of a couple of very attractive women, or at least what to outward appearances seemed to be women. So you’re telling me that if it turned out they were actually transsexuals with male genitalia between their legs, you would have no problem engaging in sexual activity with them? To including orally servicing them? I mean, because that wouldn’t be sucking a guy’s cock, it would just be eating out a girl, right? Unless you answer yes, you are a hypocrite."
Nah, that entire line of debate is just an attempt to falsely paint someone into a corner. My ability to accept someone else as normal does not mandate that they fall within my sexual preference. There are a number of physical attributes that might make me not want to have sex with someone, but I can still treat them like a regular human, or even as a friend, and not be a hypocrite.
But if you're on a strip club website where there's an acronym to cover blowing a load in your pants, numerous debates about the smartest way to fuck a complete stranger in a closet, or the best apps to use if you want to fuck that same stranger in a hotel room, and yet you're also clutching at your pearls over the degradation of society because Miss Nevada is trans ... well, I'm not sure you're approaching any definitions of either 'normality' or 'abnormality' with a great deal of objectivity.
The reason why local governments are thrilled to target strip clubs is because the vast majority of both liberal and conservative voters already believe that strip clubs are filled with horrible people. To them, every single person who posts to TUSCL is a deviant and a threat to society. Strip clubs are a popular political target because almost no one outside of a strip club will defend them.
The vast majority of people who would also be vehemently against the normalization of trans people would be equally or more outraged by pretty much everything that is considered normal on this website. And if you started to get into some of the material that is considered "funny" on TUSCL, then the outrage would shift to disgust.
CMI: I don’t have a problem with the dictionary definition of normal, including the entry you found in Merriam-Webster. Transsexual’s make up less than 1% of the population. That’s not normal by any definition that I have seen. The problem is the Ministry of Truth trying to define what is male and female contrary to objective reality.
“Nah, that entire line of debate is just an attempt to falsely paint someone into a corner. My ability to accept someone else as normal does not mandate that they fall within my sexual preference.”
Nope, it’s not. It’s you painting yourself into a corner. You already admitted the pictures you posted showed your preference in women. Now you are admitting that if you found out they had male genitals, they are no longer your preference. If transsexual women are women like any others, then it shouldn’t make any difference to you if they actually have male genitals. Yes, it’s hypocrisy, pure and simple.
People use normal and natural interchangeably. Normal is your perspective. I don't see trans people as abnormal at all; just unnatural. Neither good nor bad, just like the rest of us. Societies that succeed, do not succeed by focusing on the fringes. While our wokeness causes schools to teach left wing theories, other countries teach math and science. We are killing ourselves, which sadly is not unusual in the history of previously successful countries.
Doctorevil said "I don’t have a problem with the dictionary definition of normal, including the entry you found in Merriam-Webster. Transsexual’s make up less than 1% of the population. That’s not normal by any definition that I have seen. The problem is the Ministry of Truth trying to define what is male and female contrary to objective reality."
We are rapidly approaching a point where we are posting the same arguments back and forth at each other, and eventually we just have to disagree and move on. And that's fine. It's been a productive, civil debate. Perhaps someone should take a picture because that doesn't happen a lot here.
To me, being in a minority or a small population sample does not automatically preclude broad acceptance. Trans people, even if they are a small population, can be accepted and not worried about or fussed over. They're just people.
Doctorevil said "Nope, it’s not. It’s you painting yourself into a corner. You already admitted the pictures you posted showed your preference in women. Now you are admitting that if you found out they had male genitals, they are no longer your preference. If transsexual women are women like any others, then it shouldn’t make any difference to you if they actually have male genitals. Yes, it’s hypocrisy, pure and simple."
That's incorrect. Even the opinion piece that Tetradon posted noted that genital preferences does not equate to transphobia (in the opinion of that author; other writers in that field may disagree). I sexually disqualify and qualify women based on many factors, but I still treat them like regular people and think others should do so as well.
Arguing that anyone who accepts trans people as regular people simultaneously requires that they date and have sex with trans people is just trying to shame someone into sharing their opinion. I know men and women who don't (or very rarely) find black people sexually attractive, but based on the sum of their interactions with black people (including full acceptance of a black person marrying into their immediate family) I don't believe that they are bigots based on that sexual preference. I fully admit that others would disagree with me, but I can't do a lot about that. That's the view I hold.
I'm sure there are people out there, trans or otherwise, who would regard my preferences as transphobic. That's fine. I'll debate my point of view with them constructively and respectfully. If we still disagree at the end of that debate, that's also fine. Perhaps I also have views that will become marginalized with time. And perhaps that's for the best.
But I'm still not getting my knickers in a knot over Miss Nevada being trans.
@Ishmael, well said. I don't think you and I are completely aligned, but mostly.
I would point out from the article, though, the last line, direct quote: "Blanket refusals to even entertain the possibility of dating someone who is transgender is borne out of transphobia, just as “No Asians,” on gay dating apps is an expression of racism."
By their definition, most of us reading this are transphobic. I disagree.
And I also disagree. But that's an opinion piece by *one* author. It's not a research paper by multiple authors, and it's not a position paper issued by the National Grand Society of Trans People. And like all opinion pieces, there will be people (even from within that community) who will agree and disagree with it, or fall somewhere in the middle.
So, when you say "By their definition...", what I hope you mean is "By that author's definition...", because I don't think anyone appointed Brynn Tanehill to be the spokesperson for the worldwide trans community.
^ That's true, while there is no governing body with absolute authority, The Advocate is a leading queer paper, and has more influence in that community than our opinions.
I just try to be a good human being, and let the opinions fall where they may. I won't lose sleep over others' opinions of me.
81 comments
But the reality is that the pageant world is hot mess that I don't pay attention to until someone posts a link like this.
So ... meh.
Male
Female
X
When I was a kid, pot was evil and a guaranteed gateway to "hard drugs". Now it's not evil (except to the Federal government) and no longer considered a gateway drug. Also, the thought that gays could marry was laughable. Now it's completely legal and most people don't even talk about it anymore.
Things change. It's fine.
On the subject of normalization, another topic that comes up here frequently is the legalization or decriminalization of sex work. But, whenever anyone here posts about a legislator wanting to legalize prostitution, it's predominantly to cheers, fist pumps, and ticker-tape parades. Even though there remains a *large* chunk of the public who is vehemently against the idea of legal sex work and thinks that every whore and pervert in that world should be in jail.
To a lot of people, strip clubs are filled with filthy deviants even *before* someone fills them in about extras. And they believe that all strip clubs should be shut down.
I'm sure that those people don't love "being forced" to accept the concept of legal sex work, but we largely don't care about them or their beliefs. They're backwards puritans and they just don't understand, etc., etc., etc. I also don't see a lot of people here posting about forced "extreme" leftist ideologies when it comes to legal sex work, even though the vast majority of the legislators proposing legalization are Democrats (except for the odd libertarian).
Funny how that works...
Personal opinion, this is a package deal. The evolution of people normalizing and legalizing sex work goes hand-in-hand with people over time not getting their knickers in a knot over gays, gay marriage, trans people, non-binary people, etc. It's all tied into sex and gender, and it's not like ordering off of a Chinese menu, again, in my opinion.
If you don't want to get arrested or in trouble for fucking a stripper (OTC or ITC), then you might need to live with Miss Nevada being trans. Which shouldn't be too hard. Because one of those two things directly affects a lot of the people who post here, while the other one completely doesn't.
Heterosexual sex is normal. That’s what most people engage do. Whether sex outside of marriage or paid sex is bad or evil is a value judgment, but doesn’t change the fact that heterosexual sex is normal, because that’s what most people do, or at least what most people want to do.
My personal opinion is that no sex act between consenting adults should be illegal. I also agree that gay/trans people shouldn’t be subject to irrational discrimination. But segregating certain activities by sex is not irrational discrimination. Men and women have physical differences. That’s a fact.
If you want to include trans “women” in your beauty pageant, who am I to say you can’t? But the message is that trans “women” should be accepted as women, just like all the other women in the pageant. They are not and never will be. That is not objective reality, and progressive messaging will not change that fact.
😂😂😂
There's a huge number of people who do not think it's normal for a guy to pay a woman to go into a glorified broom closet to have her rub her ass, boobies, and vagina on his hard dick (and we're not even getting into LDK and extras...). And though that behavior is a function of heterosexuality, not only is it abnormal to them, they believe to their core that it's aberrant, sick behavior. And it should *all* be made illegal, not legalized or normalized.
"But transsexual/homosexual activity is by definition not normal. Most people don’t engage in it. Therefore, it’s not normal behavior."
Most people don't engage in the activities that are talked about, normalized, and even glorified on this site continuously. TUSCL is a smaller niche within a niche, because most guys who go to strip clubs regularly don't write reviews or send each other links to the best lapdance pants. By your parameters, what we do and talk about here should be rejected by any right-minded person.
I would argue that being in a minority population does not automatically equal abnormality or earn condecension. I say this as someone who has been with good friends and family who have stated that anyone with habits like ours has an extreme mental illness, shouldn't be trusted, and should probably be locked up. Those are weird, awkward moments for me. As I'm sure it's a weird, awkward moment for a closeted gay person to hear someone they love say that all faggots are pedophiles, etc., etc.
"But the message is that trans 'women' should be accepted as women, just like all the other women in the pageant. They are not and never will be."
And by normalizing/legalizing sex work the goal (or message) is that the sex workers are not evil, filthy whores. The message is that sex workers are just that ... workers doing a job. And, conversely, people on the customer side are no longer thought of horrible deviants, but as people who want to pay for a legal service with another consenting adult. That's going to take a while, as we're seeing with the normalization other forms of sex- and gender-related outlooks that give a lot of TUSCL guys the fits.
I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but I'm willing to bet money I don't have that there's a big overlap between the people who don't accept 'trans women' as 'real women' and people who will never accept what we talk about here as anything but sinful and sick.
As to "They are not and never will be." Yeah ... I'm pretty sure you don't get to make that call. And neither do I.
" . . . or earn condecension." I agree, but you are mixing apples and oranges. Most people don't have cancer, so by definition, having cancer is not normal and therefor abnormal. But that doesn't mean people with cancer should be subject to condescension. You are mixing objective facts with opinions and value judgments.
"As to "They are not and never will be." Yeah ... I'm pretty sure you don't get to make that call." Yes, I am pretty sure I can make that call, because I can distinguish between objective reality versus opinions and feelings. Except in the case hermaphroditism, an exceedingly rare medical condition, people are either male or female. They are not going to change sex no matter how much they want to, how they dress, and no matter how many parts a surgeon might chop off or add.
Beauty pageants are political showcases. From that standpoint I commend her.
My two cents, transgenderism is a mental illness called gender identity disorder, no different than any other delusion about one's state of being like the Cotard delusion.
Whatever they "feel like," biology is a tyrant. Their DNA is going to fight those cross-sex hormones and surgery every second, it's going to treat a trans woman's vagina as a gaping wound and try to close it. That vagina won't feel sexual pleasure in the same way as a born woman's.
Separating the concept of "sex" and "gender" makes for a distinction without a difference. Why should we care about the plight of "women," when one can change gender identity at will?
Trans women deserve all the compassion in the world. It's a tough existence. But pretending we have some social obligation to treat them exactly like cis women (including through sexual desire, dating, and sex) is delusional. Biology doesn't give a shit about conforming to 2021 bien-pensant ideals.
I don’t believe anyone should be hating on anyone nor should anyone be excluded from normal activities, but we don’t need to create special opportunities for deviations from the norm, if you want to be treated as equal you need to be equal.
Not sure but if it wants to be treated like a lady it should be a lady, I don’t think you can truly surgically change only superficially you can change the appearance but I doubt the DNA is altered
Don't impose your moral compass on others, let other people do what they want and if that passes you off that's your issue.
I will say, trans athletes are a bit of a different argument. Nobody cares who wears a dress, but testosterone is a hell of a hormone and anyone who has gone through puberty as a male is at a significant competitive advantage
Do you consider that "full rights"?
I asked about dating. This is a top LGBTQ paper that says, in so many words, that refusing to date trans people is transphobic. I will not date trans people, and don't give a shit what label they put on me.
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2019…
I maintain that these poor folks that are uncomfortable with their assigned gender, have the right just lake anyone else to get surgically altered, that right is available to anyone living in these United States, still it doesn’t alter the fundamental facts of their birth, either as a male or a female and until somebody is able to change the laws of nature that will completely override any surgeries to the contrary.
A 3rd gender category would be fair for athletes.
There are claims that taking hormones for a long enough period make a trans person physically equal to their described sex . But I don't know much about that. If it's true then fine I guess.
Dating has to do with sexuality. Even if they're post op. The desire to have kids. I wouldn't call not dating them transphobic.
You would be considered a bigot in much of the queer community.
What would make you think there aren't already trans people working as strippers? Part of the issue here is that not every tranny is Bruce Jenner in lipstick. And if you're Hugh Grant you wouldn't care anyway.
Putting them in mena prisons. Using men's restrooms etc are problematic. Let them function as women in society. Thats the basis of it.
Gay prisoners tend to circulate in gen pop. Their "services" are in demand and sometimes handsomely paid.
The big difference he ignores is that we do our thing out of the public eye, and keep discussion of our activities within our "community."
We're not out there saying, "Hey we're all perverts, look at us and accept us for what we are. Treat us as normal or we'll label you a pervertaphobe."
No, we actually recognize that we are different from most, and perfectly content to keep it to ourselves. We don't go to work after a night of strip-clubbing and tell every coworker in the lunchroom all about it. We'd probably get fired if we did. But LGBTQ not only flaunts it in everybody's face, but we have to celebrate them or else, yeah, we'll probably get fired. See how this works?
regarding the ms nevada and usa pageants the owner(s) of them simply have no backbone. to allow a tran to compete in order to appease the petulant woke, a group that primarily seeks forced acceptance.
if the pageant owner is scared of losing sponsors then work harder and find other ones. if there's a sales dept in place who can't handle that then fire their asses and replace them with those that can.
if these pageant owners really strongly care theu gotta fight back. the pushback has to be stronger than the all out efforts of those that imposed their will. not doing so signals an ultimate fuck you to the followers and the girls that compete.
If you're that scared that one day you might get turned on by a shemale and worry about women really being women. Then the problem is yours......
A. Bring up trans athletes.
Very few people give a shit about women’s sports. The comment section in every article about the women’s World Cup is filled with ‘they can’t beat the men.’ Nobody watches the WNBA or the women’s NCAA’s. Maybe some guys will watch the women’s finals of the majors in tennis or golf, but usually it’s just to see if they are hot. Nobody cares until … someone brings up trans athletes and then everyone is triggered and Republicans start passing legislation to stop the 1 trans athlete in their state from playing a HS sport.
Live and let live. Trans people aren’t threatening. Usually they need our protection from bigots and bullies.
Its in your previous post
...
Well ... if you want to parse grammar, I'm your huckleberry. I'm using 'normal' as an adjective here, as in "Conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern : characterized by that *which is considered* usual, typical, or routine." [Merriam-Webster; emphasis mine]. And what conforms to a standard or is usual, typical, or routine is a moving target with the passage of time and changing mindsets.
And, thank God, because it would be dreadful if our mindsets regarding race, gender, labor, and a host of other issues had been somehow frozen in the mid/late 1800s when it was normal to own other humans, legal to rape your wife, and considered good business to employ pre-teen children in factories.
And, as guys who walk in to buildings to pay for sexy fun time, it would be great to see the same 'normalization' applied to us in the adjective form as well. I look forward to a time when attitudes evolve to a point where we're not despicable sinners, low-grade rapists, or mentally ill.
Doctorevil said "Most people don't have cancer, so by definition, having cancer is not normal and therefor abnormal. But that doesn't mean people with cancer should be subject to condescension. You are mixing objective facts with opinions and value judgments."
Well, if you were looking to present yourself as remotely tolerant of transgenderism, then comparing their condition to cancer probably wasn't the way to go. And this is probably where I part company irreparably with a lot of people here. I don't see fluidity of gender as a sickness (either mental or physical). It is a condition I don't fully understand, because I've never experienced it, but that doesn't make me automatically catalog it as a sickness.
Because part of my life is deeply involved in the arts, I'm around a fair number of people who are openly trans, non-binary, gay, etc. That world is more tolerant towards all of those things. These are people who work jobs, pay bills, have responsibilities, much like anyone else. Some of them are great people; and others are absolute assholes. They're just people I know, and I neither pity nor praise them for being trans (or whatever).
Doctorevil said "Yes, I am pretty sure I can make that call, because I can distinguish between objective reality versus opinions and feelings."
Well, no, you can't make that call, except for yourself. The world can and will change around you without asking your permission. And I suspect that this is why there are so many rattling teacups in this thread. The foundation of outrage is, to some degree, fear. And your fear of what might be considered normal in 10 or so years won't stop that normalization from happening.
Doctorevil said "Except in the case hermaphroditism, an exceedingly rare medical condition, people are either male or female."
This is another area where I suspect I part company with a lot of folks on here. Gender is not solely a function of anatomy, there is a great deal of psychology, brain chemistry, and hormonal chemistry involved along with anatomy. And though anatomy is a big piece of that pie, it is not greater than the other pieces combined. So, no, I don't believe that gender is solely a function of your kibbles and bits.
There's a (thankfully) diminishing number of people who still think that smoking pot is evil and automatically leads to hard drug use, but they are still out there and they still believe that legal pot will be our downfall. Though no one is going to change their mind, they will become fewer and more marginalized over time.
Ditto with gay marriage. Years ago, there was a massive uproar that allowing same-sex marriage would destroy the very fabric of society. That hasn't happened, but the marriage industry has been making some extra revenue. So, you don't hear as much of that uproar anymore, and those people will also become more marginalized over time.
My personal belief is that the same thing will happen as a growing number of people learn to accept and integrate with gender-fluid people. The transition will have rough patches, as occurs with any societal change, but I think the transition will occur. And, I'm hoping that the same might happen over time with respect to sex work. But I still believe it's a package deal.
So you don’t like the analogy to cancer, and that makes me intolerant? So change it to a sixth pinky toe, being 3-feet tall, or 7-feet tall, an IQ of 60, or an IQ of 160, or whatever. The point is that it is non-standard condition, which makes it not normal, and therefore abnormal. That doesn’t make people with these conditions automatically bad people. Some abnormalities are definitely good things. Having an IQ of 160 is good. Being 7-feet tall is not good if you want to be a fighter jet pilot and can’t fit into the cockpit. It would probably be considered good if you are a pro basketball player. But don’t try to convince me it’s a normal height, or that you are really 5’10” when the tape measure clearly shows something else.
One more thing. You recently posted some pics of a couple of very attractive women, or at least what to outward appearances seemed to be women. So you’re telling me that if it turned out they were actually transsexuals with male genitalia between their legs, you would have no problem engaging in sexual activity with them? To including orally servicing them? I mean, because that wouldn’t be sucking a guy’s cock, it would just be eating out a girl, right? Unless you answer yes, you are a hypocrite.
It makes most sense within the framework of gender identity disorder. Unlike homosexuals, it requires surgery and medications under a health insurance medical benefit. Just like other life-limiting conditions that don't believe they are a "disease," like Down syndrome or deafness. It doesn't mean they are bad people, or less than deserving of respect, or do not deserve treatment, it means they have a condition that limits their function in society. First line of therapy should be helping them integrate into society and ruling out other causes, before embarking on hormonal therapy that can cause sterility, severe osteoporosis, cardiovascular risk, and more, to say nothing of irreversible surgery.
I don't get being "gender fluid" except as a sign of being a psychologically confused individual. Their body doesn't undergo changes when they decide to present as one thing today and something else tomorrow. The usual arguments for transgender individuals being something else internally (which doesn't make sense as genes aren't switching) don't apply.
I also don't see how being mongers compares to this. I don't rationalize or pretend it's normal or moral, and if it were legal, frankly, it would lose some of the transgressive thrill.
The left has going from asking for "tolerance" to demanding full, unconditional celebration of others' life choices. I lose no sleep over society objecting to P4P.
I cited Merriam-Webster, which is not the Ministry of Truth (progressive or otherwise).
Doctorevil said "So you don’t like the analogy to cancer, and that makes me intolerant? So change it to a sixth pinky toe, being 3-feet tall, or 7-feet tall, an IQ of 60, or an IQ of 160, or whatever. The point is that it is non-standard condition, which makes it not normal, and therefore abnormal. That doesn’t make people with these conditions automatically bad people. Some abnormalities are definitely good things. Having an IQ of 160 is good. Being 7-feet tall is not good if you want to be a fighter jet pilot and can’t fit into the cockpit. It would probably be considered good if you are a pro basketball player. But don’t try to convince me it’s a normal height, or that you are really 5’10” when the tape measure clearly shows something else."
I'm saying that being trans isn't a sickness. Someone who is 7-feet tall may not work as a fighter pilot, but they can still function normally in society in countless other ways if they are allowed to. Nobody who is trans needs a ramp to get into the super market (or work in a super market). My argument is that a lot of the things that you want to see as black and white really aren't. I'm fine if you want to go on that way, but I don't agree.
Doctorevil said "You recently posted some pics of a couple of very attractive women, or at least what to outward appearances seemed to be women. So you’re telling me that if it turned out they were actually transsexuals with male genitalia between their legs, you would have no problem engaging in sexual activity with them? To including orally servicing them? I mean, because that wouldn’t be sucking a guy’s cock, it would just be eating out a girl, right? Unless you answer yes, you are a hypocrite."
Nah, that entire line of debate is just an attempt to falsely paint someone into a corner. My ability to accept someone else as normal does not mandate that they fall within my sexual preference. There are a number of physical attributes that might make me not want to have sex with someone, but I can still treat them like a regular human, or even as a friend, and not be a hypocrite.
But if you're on a strip club website where there's an acronym to cover blowing a load in your pants, numerous debates about the smartest way to fuck a complete stranger in a closet, or the best apps to use if you want to fuck that same stranger in a hotel room, and yet you're also clutching at your pearls over the degradation of society because Miss Nevada is trans ... well, I'm not sure you're approaching any definitions of either 'normality' or 'abnormality' with a great deal of objectivity.
The reason why local governments are thrilled to target strip clubs is because the vast majority of both liberal and conservative voters already believe that strip clubs are filled with horrible people. To them, every single person who posts to TUSCL is a deviant and a threat to society. Strip clubs are a popular political target because almost no one outside of a strip club will defend them.
The vast majority of people who would also be vehemently against the normalization of trans people would be equally or more outraged by pretty much everything that is considered normal on this website. And if you started to get into some of the material that is considered "funny" on TUSCL, then the outrage would shift to disgust.
“Nah, that entire line of debate is just an attempt to falsely paint someone into a corner. My ability to accept someone else as normal does not mandate that they fall within my sexual preference.”
Nope, it’s not. It’s you painting yourself into a corner. You already admitted the pictures you posted showed your preference in women. Now you are admitting that if you found out they had male genitals, they are no longer your preference. If transsexual women are women like any others, then it shouldn’t make any difference to you if they actually have male genitals. Yes, it’s hypocrisy, pure and simple.
We are rapidly approaching a point where we are posting the same arguments back and forth at each other, and eventually we just have to disagree and move on. And that's fine. It's been a productive, civil debate. Perhaps someone should take a picture because that doesn't happen a lot here.
To me, being in a minority or a small population sample does not automatically preclude broad acceptance. Trans people, even if they are a small population, can be accepted and not worried about or fussed over. They're just people.
Doctorevil said "Nope, it’s not. It’s you painting yourself into a corner. You already admitted the pictures you posted showed your preference in women. Now you are admitting that if you found out they had male genitals, they are no longer your preference. If transsexual women are women like any others, then it shouldn’t make any difference to you if they actually have male genitals. Yes, it’s hypocrisy, pure and simple."
That's incorrect. Even the opinion piece that Tetradon posted noted that genital preferences does not equate to transphobia (in the opinion of that author; other writers in that field may disagree). I sexually disqualify and qualify women based on many factors, but I still treat them like regular people and think others should do so as well.
Arguing that anyone who accepts trans people as regular people simultaneously requires that they date and have sex with trans people is just trying to shame someone into sharing their opinion. I know men and women who don't (or very rarely) find black people sexually attractive, but based on the sum of their interactions with black people (including full acceptance of a black person marrying into their immediate family) I don't believe that they are bigots based on that sexual preference. I fully admit that others would disagree with me, but I can't do a lot about that. That's the view I hold.
I'm sure there are people out there, trans or otherwise, who would regard my preferences as transphobic. That's fine. I'll debate my point of view with them constructively and respectfully. If we still disagree at the end of that debate, that's also fine. Perhaps I also have views that will become marginalized with time. And perhaps that's for the best.
But I'm still not getting my knickers in a knot over Miss Nevada being trans.
I would point out from the article, though, the last line, direct quote: "Blanket refusals to even entertain the possibility of dating someone who is transgender is borne out of transphobia, just as “No Asians,” on gay dating apps is an expression of racism."
By their definition, most of us reading this are transphobic. I disagree.
So, when you say "By their definition...", what I hope you mean is "By that author's definition...", because I don't think anyone appointed Brynn Tanehill to be the spokesperson for the worldwide trans community.
I just try to be a good human being, and let the opinions fall where they may. I won't lose sleep over others' opinions of me.