Labels and LGBT

Caracus2k · 4 Jul 2019 at 12:25

cheesyboy said:
On the occasions you want to get technical (not when you're just conversationally referring to a person), then "biological male/female" covers it, surely?

"looking for cis-female" or, probably more appropriately "biological female" as you make it clear that you set your preferences based on their junk, I'd imagine that male-presenting is ok.

If you did a poll of the population of the UK I would suggest most wouldn't even not what you were on about of you used the term 'cis'

Why do I need to preface woman with biological when to almost everyone woman already means a human born with female genetalia?

That's what woman and man mean to almost everyone people born biologically female and male respectivily.

Is it a good idea for a majority to kowtow to the feelings of a minority?

If Billy wants to wear a dress and this doesn't interfere with their job then I am fine with that.

If they want to change their name to Barbara ill call them by their preferred name.

But if they want me to say that they are female then that's not going to happen.

I'm not going to erase the meaningful distinction society sometimes needs to make between women ane men to satisfy the feelings of a few people some of whom I beleive to be operating under the effect of narcissistic personality disorders.

cheesyboy said:
I'd imagine that male-presenting is ok.

I dont want a 'female presenting' person if I am wanting a woman (ie a human with a natural vagina) any more then I would want a cubic zirconia and some fools gold if I went into the jeweller and paid for a diamond ring set in gold for a partner.

MookJong · 4 Jul 2019 at 12:36

Ever since gay marriage became legal the whole movement seems to have nothing legitimate to say and instead has gone very freakish in nature. I would say it is in it's death throws really, I mean it in pop culture terms it has jumped the shark.

GGizmo · 4 Jul 2019 at 12:38

What is the difference between a cis man, and a cis male? These two are listed as different genders. How are they different?

edscdk · 4 Jul 2019 at 12:39

Delvis said:
And what is normal?

Are you saying a man who is attracted to men it's not normal?

I think normal would be defined as a majority, so that would be not normal by definition?

cheesyboy · 4 Jul 2019 at 12:42

Caracus2k said:
I dont want a 'female presenting' person if I am wanting a woman (ie a human with a natural vagina) any more then I would want a cubic zirconia and some fools gold if I went into the jeweller and paid for a diamond ring set in gold for a partner.

I said male-presenting. i.e. "a human with a natural vagina" who presents male

vanillaface · 4 Jul 2019 at 12:43

edscdk said:
I think normal would be defined as a majority, so that would be not normal by definition?

Normal isn't necessarily defined by a majority.

Caracus2k · 4 Jul 2019 at 12:50

cheesyboy said:
I said male-presenting. i.e. "a human with a natural vagina" who presents male

Yes I know what you said but but as I am a (biological) heterosexual man the corollary proposition for me would be 'female presenting'.

I imagine the first date with my now wife may have gone somewhat differently if she had found out that the 'male' should thought she was meeting was a human with a vagina.

Terminal_Boy · 4 Jul 2019 at 12:50

Diddums said:
I prefer your mum.

PM a full body photo over and I’ll see if she’s interned.

cheesyboy · 4 Jul 2019 at 12:53

Caracus2k said:
Yes I know what you said but but as I am a (biological) heterosexual man the corollary proposition for me would be 'female presenting'.

Well, no, because you've stated very strongly your belief in biological sex being the defacto 'truth' of a person. It follows that, when i build your hypothetical dating profile, I assume your preferences follow that logic. Hence why I suggested you'd probably want to remain open to male-presenting biological females.

SexyGreyFox · 4 Jul 2019 at 12:57

Just to show which side I'm on, for the last 47 years (since I was about 14), I had worked out that there wasn't just two sexes but loads in between.
That was my belief until decades later when they called it gender but still this is something I'd worked out nearly 50 years ago because of people around me and people watching.
I now have a transgender drummer in my band plus a transgender family member so this topic is close to me and I'm 100% on their side and totally understand what they're going through.

However the other day I accidentally clicked on a David Icke video, I know David weirdo Icke but I thought I'd give it a minute and I sat here nodding in agreement.
I don't know what his full agenda for the video is but I certainly agree with the "how we are being made to be criminals" comments.
I think it's worth 5 minutes:

Randomface74 · 4 Jul 2019 at 13:05

Yep, it's people telling other people what they can or can't think.
You can dress like a woman if you want, but you don't have the right to tell me I have to belive you're a woman.

vanillaface · 4 Jul 2019 at 13:12

billysielu said:
Yep, it's people telling other people what they can or can't think.
You can dress like a woman if you want, but you don't have the right to tell me I have to belive you're a woman.

And yet the police are visiting the homes of people who are resisting being told what to [pretend to] believe.

One day, I hope that it is lawful to visit the criminals who oppress us, and deal with them in an appropriate and lawful manner.

Caracus2k · 4 Jul 2019 at 13:18

cheesyboy said:
Well, no, because you've stated very strongly your belief in biological sex being the defacto 'truth' of a person. It follows that, when i build your hypothetical dating profile, I assume your preferences follow that logic. Hence why I suggested you'd probably want to remain open to male-presenting biological females.

Well you would be wrong.

I would not want a male presenting partner and I most definetly want a female presenting man either.

I would want a woman (a human with a natural vagina) who presented socially in line with thier sex.

Biological sex is the defacto truth of a person's sex not their personal identity so that a strawman

Caracus2k · 4 Jul 2019 at 13:24

SexyGreyFox said:
Just to show which side I'm on, for the last 47 years (since I was about 14), I had worked out that there wasn't just two sexes but loads in between.

There are only two sexes and a very small amount of people with chromosonal and or hormonal disorders.

You have fallen prey of the deliberate conflation of sex and personal identity expression.

FoxEye · 4 Jul 2019 at 14:11

billysielu said:
Yep, it's people telling other people what they can or can't think.
You can dress like a woman if you want, but you don't have the right to tell me I have to belive you're a woman.

But that's the thing.

What is "dressing like a woman"? That has varied over many millennia and was very different in historic times to today.

Dress like you. Dress like you want. The more we push people into conforming with norms, the more people feel pressured to "transition" (ie butcher themselves) so they can just do and be who they want to be.

vanillaface · 4 Jul 2019 at 14:18

FoxEye said:
But that's the thing.

What is "dressing like a woman"? That has varied over many millennia and was very different in historic times to today.

Dress like you. Dress like you want. The more we push people into conforming with norms, the more people feel pressured to "transition" (ie butcher themselves) so they can just do and be who they want to be.

There are societal norms in place for a reason.
People in society are not there to be forced to deal with other people's fetishes.
We cannot have a high trust society in which men are walking round engaging their fetish by looking like a woman.

If a man wishes to engage in drag, then he should go to a designated place for this purpose, and should not inflict his unfortunate perversion on the wider society.

MikeTheNative · 4 Jul 2019 at 14:46

Societal norms are in place as that's is what the norm is currently. These evolve and change over time, a hundred years ago people where outraged that women were showing more skin than just their ankles.

Nitefly · 4 Jul 2019 at 14:50

FoxEye said:
But that's the thing.

What is "dressing like a woman"? That has varied over many millennia and was very different in historic times to today.

Dress like you. Dress like you want. The more we push people into conforming with norms, the more people feel pressured to "transition" (ie butcher themselves) so they can just do and be who they want to be.

I largely agree, although if people want to do that to themselves then so be it (I think ‘butchering’ is a bit strong).

vanillaface · 4 Jul 2019 at 14:50

MikeTheNative said:
Societal norms are in place as that's is what the norm is currently. These evolve and change over time, a hundred years ago people where outraged that women were showing more skin than just their ankles.

There's evolution, of course, but it doesn't mean that everything is all right, even if it hasn't been done yet.

vanillaface · 4 Jul 2019 at 14:53

Nitefly said:
I largely agree, although if people want to do that to themselves then so be it (I think ‘butchering’ is a bit strong).

Go and take a look at the videos and pictures of the operations and aftermaths. "Butchering" is quite a good word to describe it.
Don't read though about the orange hairy build up which forms inside the fake vagina or how the hole heals up if it isn't kept open with a *****-like object.