It's not gay, it's a woman's penis!

[dowie]

Stuff like this does make you wonder about "hate crime" stats - are hate crimes really on the increase or has reporting and investigating crimes (and non crimes) as "hate crimes" just become more popular:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10162480/police-transgender-woman-investigate-porn/

COPS are investigating a "hate crime" after a transgender woman was turned down for a porn role "because she has a penis".

Ria Cooper, 25, who became Britain's youngest trans person when she transitioned 10 years ago, says an anonymous photographer messaged her saying he wanted them to have sex on camera and sell the resulting porno.

But when he found out Ria still has male reproductive organs he immediately retracted the offer.

In messages exchanged over WhatsApp, the photographer claimed he couldn't work with her because "she has a ****".

I guess that is the logical conclusion of the absolutist position on trans people right - she is a real womxn, therefore a straight guy should have no problems with her... if he were to have sex with her then it is just straight sex and to claim otherwise or to state there is any difference is "transphobic" and a hate crime...

So does anyone on here think that a straight guy who had sex with a trans woman is just regular straight sex as per any other woman?

 

[dowie]

Reminders me of this....

That did inspire the thread title.

 

[dowie]

People actually believe this stuff though:

 

[dowie]

That depends on what has changed, i.e. what the "trans" part is. If they've changed sex, then they're female and so it would be straight sex. If they've "changed" gender, then they're male and so it would be gay sex.

At what point do you consider someone to have changed sex - is this a hypothetical based on medical technology improving in future to incorporate advanced gene editing etc.. and much more advanced surgery?

Or can it be more of a tokenistic change - for example someone having their penis surgically removed and an open wound left in it's place as a pretend vagina etc..?

Or likewise a fake penis made of some of their skin from elsewhere on their body etc. added onto them in order to become a man.

 

[dowie]

The question is how close is close enough?

Yup it is a bit of an open question tbh.. and perhaps somewhat subjective -IMO currently I'd say it is sort of queer in any combination of "sex" change at the moment. Some people might just go for the hormone treatment and perhaps breasts, some might remove testes etc.. but those won't fit your requirements of a sex change unless they went the extra step - I'd not personally view someone whose gone a step further and had their penis removed and an open wound/constructed "vagina" left in its place to have really changed sex, especially as the sexual organ is more of a poor imitation - so I'd see it as being a bit queer too tbh...

 

[dowie]

Trans logic #1 is, a trans woman is a woman. If you don't agree you are transphobic (this appears to be the default and accepted norm nowadays). Seems harmless enough but it is a bit of a gotcha as it leads to trans logic #2

The next stop in trans logic is if the trans woman is a woman (which you've agreed too), and you refuse to date them because of that alone you are breaking rule #1, you dont really believe a trans woman is a woman, so you're transphobic.

Penis you say, as per logic #1 if a trans woman is a woman then their penis is a womans penis, otherwise you are breaking rule 1 and you are a transphobe again.

Yup - the crazy arguments, though clearly crazy are logical and internally consistent if you accept the initial axioms.

While lots of people will out of politeness say "yes, trans women are real women" they don't really mean to pretend that there should be no differences at all but if you absolutely accept that trans women are real women then you can get very distorted perspectives very quickly.

Straight sex is between a man and a woman - therefore having sex with a trans woman is straight sex.

Women come in all shapes and sizes, some women are naturally more gifted at sport... a woman with a **** and balls is just another type of woman, no different to say a woman who is naturally taller etc.. its just another variation.

etc...

This works for other ideologies too where people take absolutist positions or start with things that must be accepted to be the truth etc.. like religion. Which is then how you get very irrational behaviour from large groups... like riots starting because someone in Denmark drew a cartoon, people trying to ban a monty python movie etc...

 

[dowie]

I'm pretty sure as I said earlier in thread, sleeping with someone who has XY when you also have XY chromosomes pretty much makes you gay.

I aint hating..... people can do what they like....

I think the exception to that is perhaps intersex people with complete androgen insensitivity i.e.where you'd not even know as they still develop as female but with internal testes that have no effect and normal looking "boobs and vagine". Physically, on the outside, they're basically no different at all to a regular woman except they can't reproduce.

Once you start getting into partial sensitivity then you get more like Caster "it's a man baby" Semenya. She's a bit more than a butch woman and is rather masculine in appearance for good reason - unsurprisingly, though identifying as female, she is a "lesbian". I think you'd have to be a little bit queer to want to...

XY people with complete AIS could in theory be very attractive - they'd have good odds of being tall, having good skin, well defined cheekbones etc.. which is why there are often rumours about plenty of models/actresses who don't have kids etc..

 

[dowie]

LOL my Zimbabwean mate once told me that there was previously no word for "gay" in his language and they had to invent one more recently. It seems the perception sometimes is that homosexuality is the white man's invention.

 

[dowie]

Welp, just got CC'ed in on an email from one of the suppliers I've worked with. Apparently they are not allowed to list their products within the NHS as "mens" or "ladies" style (already colour neutral) because a man might not have a tackle or a lady might. The product needs to fit close to the skin (in contact with) to be effective so they're having to re-brand as "avec winky" and "sans winky" to not offend. The label of the patient seems far more important than treating the patient for their long term condition.

That just seems so ridiculous...

Like a regular/biological woman often wouldn't have an issue buying "mens" products - plenty of girls like "mens" razors (cheaper), will buy(or steal) a "boyfriend" t-shirt to wear in bed, will perhaps wear mens watches (actress Helen Mirren is quite into her watches apparently and buys mens ones) etc...

Why is is such a big deal for say a trans-man to buy "women hygiene products" - they might have gender dysphoria but they don't need to be treated with kid gloves, they know full well they've got woman bits etc.. it isn't something we should bend over backwards to avoid highlighting or reminding them of and we don't need to cater to any decisions by pretending otherwise.