Super Straight - a new sexuality???

[dowie]

Apparently this was started on TikTok by some 16 year old kid:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1367092072428224513

Kinda logical but badly stated - he's shouldn't have conflated gender or said "real woman" as that could be taken to be transphobic, but he's essentially saying that IF "straight" (as a sexuality) includes attraction to both (in the case of men) biological women and trans-women then as he's just attracted to biological women then he's defining a new sexuality of "super straight".

Perhaps better illustrated by this diagram from the relevant, newly created Reddit sub-reddit/forum thingie:

Fair enough right - there are loads of genders and sexualities created all the time, we're taught that all genders and sexualities are valid etc.. and to be kind etc... so this newly created sexuality should be welcome.....

... or perhaps not - check out the #superstraight hasthag on twitter - TRA and woke types are going nuts over it - for example see the ratio on this tweet:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368003836863000576

Amusingly though the gender-critical LGB community seems to have fully embraced it, as quickly as "SuperStraight" has been created so have "SuperLesbian", "SuperGay" and "SuperBi"...

The subreddit thing is just pure parody right now - talk of people "transplaining" the super community, or complaints about "trancels" who won't accept no for an cancer from supers... and of course "SERFs" who seek to exclude the super community from LGBTQ...

https://www.reddit.com/r/SuperStraight/

But on a more serious note, Lesbians have been dealing with this stuff from trans women wanting them to take suck some "girly" **** etc.. for years or claiming that if they can take a strap on they can take a real girl's **** etc... now the issue is getting a load more attention and for most people, it isn't really "gender identity" they're attracted to, but if the insistence is that "straight" means an attraction to "women" based on gender identity then making a new sexuality of "super straight" seem logically sound in response. It seems to me that the notion that this concept itself is "transphobic" because it excludes trans people is like saying that gay men are "misogynistic" because they exclude women.

What say you GD - if you're a straight man do you include (male) trans-women in the subset of people you're attracted to? If you're a gay man do you include (female) trans-men?

 

[dowie]

Who cares? You’re attracted to who you’re attracted to. It’s the bigots that think there is something wrong with that that we should be challenging.

this seems like a simple case of trying to sow division even more.

The division is already there tbh... from a straight perspective people perhaps don't care so much I guess, it's less likely to affect straight guys - lesbians on the other hand who maybe want dating apps or club nights where they can meet other (female) lesbians or feminist women who want spaces for females find themselves regularly faced with males identifying as women so for them it is a much bigger issue - thus they're quite vocal about it on social media:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1368030216480718848

 

[dowie]

Wait, so if I point out someone and say “that’s not a real woman” then that makes me transphobic?

What a joke. An absolute joke. Someone stop the planet because I want to get off.

Absolutely it would - it could easily see you getting banned from various social media companies, in the UK it can lead to the police paying you a visit for a non-crime hate incident and it could lead to you losing your job.

See for example this guy who was critical of how "gender" is used currently:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/feb/14/transgender-tweet-police-acted-unlawfully

Police officers unlawfully interfered with a man’s right to freedom of expression by turning up at his place of work to speak to him about allegedly “transphobic” tweets, the high court has ruled.

Harry Miller, a former police officer who founded the campaign group Fair Cop, said the actions of Humberside police had a “substantial chilling effect” on his right to free speech.

Miller, 54, from Lincolnshire, said an officer told him he had not committed a crime, but that his tweeting was being recorded as a “hate incident”.
[...]
Miller posted a number of tweets between November 2018 and January 2019 which he said formed part of the debate about proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

The tweets included: “I was assigned Mammal at Birth, but my orientation is Fish. Don’t mis species me.” Miller also tweeted: “Transwomen are women. Anyone know where this new biological classification was first proposed and adopted?”.

This is flawed, you either believe the fantasy that a man pretending to be a women is actually a woman or vice versa or you don't, if you are attracted to women but not to men pretending to be women then you do not accept their fantasy

It isn't flawed, it's consistent with current queer theory etc.. if you accept gender and sex are separate things then clearly for some people sex is important to their sexuality not just gender identity or attempts to mimic the opposite sex. So this position accepts that "trans women are women" and goes along with the Trans rights argument that sucking girly **** is still straight if you're a guy etc.. and makes an argument that there are clearly straight (or lesbian) people not into that ergo a different sexuality definition can be created for them.

This is a horrible anti-trans piece of work.

There is a deeply unpleasant number of groups on social media that frame themselves as being pro LGB. However, the obsession that they have with trans issues is worrying. A lot of them seem to be perpetuated by those that are comfortable in life and who seem obsessed with the issue and frame it as 'won't someone think of X' (where X is anything other than treating trans people with respect). A lot of arguments are simply re-hashed from the criticisms that gay men and woman faced in the past.

I'd rather we live in a society where we treat everyone with respect. Live the life the way you want, but intentionally going out there to make someone's life more more difficult is horrible and not the behaviour we should accept in a civilised society.

How is it ant-trans or making things more difficult? Surely it makes things easier to have these things clearly defined - there is no confusion needed if a lesbian is a "super lesbian" then a trans person knows they're not interested in "girly ****" they want lady bits only...

The whole thing is entirely consistent with current queer theory/gender ideology. No one has any right to tell people they should be attracted to or sleep with people from some group they're not interested in - that's not too different to say gay conversion therapy.

The reason LGB groups exist is because people (primarily Lesbians) have been on the receiving end of pressure/gaslighting from trans-women for years - this notion of a "cotton ceiling" etc.. and that they're somehow not progressive or woke/LGBT enough if they won't also date a trans-woman or that it is transphobic to not want to when in reality that argument is like saying a gay person is misogynistic for not wanting to date women.

 

[dowie]

You're either male or female, there is no "but", you either believe the fantasy or you don't, so a man who pretends to be a woman is either a woman or a man, it's flawed on the premise that you can believe someone with a penis can be a woman but isn't a woman when it comes to having sex, it's a complete contradiction

That isn't a flaw inherent to this "super" concept though, it isn't necessarily a flaw in itself either - the ideology of separating gender and sex can be logically consistent, you've not highlighted a "flaw" per se but rather you've articulated some disagreement - you disagree with the idea of separating the concept of gender identity and sex, that's fine too.

The point is that this new argument is consistent with the ideology TRAs subscribe to - if you're going to call it flawed then you need to show where it is flawed, disagreeing with this gender ideology isn't demonstrating that this new "sexuality" is flawed.

My opinion remains that trying to enforce binary positions onto a spectrum will never work.

So do you identify as bi/pan and/or take the poison that everyone is bi or pan but to different %s or different placers on some spectrum?

 

[dowie]

It is interesting to research though. Science definitely sees a spectrum beyond genitalia, where folk can present the opposite XX/XY/X that you would expect. I think sex education in schools being so poor for so long has led to everyone seeing the idea as in direct conflict with their own personal beliefs of gender.

That's called intersex and is often used by woke types to try and make more general arguments about trans people, something intersex people get a bit annoyed by as their situation is a bit different from the vast majority of trans people who are female XXs or male XYs with no DSD issues but simply identify as a different gender identity. It would have been covered in Biology GCSE for anyone paying attention in class.

Sex, as defined by gametes, is binary.

Sex, as defined by some combination of primary and secondary characteristics, is bimodal but on a spectrum with some small number of cases falling in between.

The latter case is sometimes misrepresented and used by TRAs to try and negate sex being relevant at all here, in reality, the bimodal distribution would be discrete, not continuous and contain two large spikes where the vast majority of the population fall into and some very small ones. TRAs will try to distort this by showing something making to two bell curves or similar.

 

[dowie]

It's flawed because being straight means you're attracted to the opposite sex, gender is irrelevant in sexual preference so you either buy in the whole fantasy and ignore the dongle or you don't, there's no super straight it's a retarded concept

It doesn't here though that is the point - this sexuality is based on the premise that straight doesn't mean that and that sex is important to sexuality. You're welcome to accept a different definition or premise, that doesn't make this concept flawed - it is logically consistent - you haven't actually shown a flaw - you're just asserting that you prefer some different premise.

Not accepting a premise doesn't make the arguments derived from a premise flawed themselves.

 

[dowie]

I think you mean I'm welcome to accept the definition that has been that definition since the first definition was made on what defines sexual preference

If you like, doesn't change the argument.

 

[dowie]

Cool; I've always wanted to be super-something. Will this be an option on the Census?

Can be:

 

[dowie]

whats your religion ?

Jedi Knight

(note the previous post isn't my census form, it's just an image I pulled from some Twitter thread)

 

[dowie]

I find it very amusing reading the comments on that twitter post. It's full of LGBTQ+ people saying they don't accept this guy's preference/identity.

Similar effect as the "It's OK to be white" thing... that had people raging - but if you're objecting to a simple statement that being white is OK or that being attracted to a member of the opposite sex rather than a broader attraction to gender then it highlights some of these takes as being farcical.

 

[dowie]

Can you identify as a man and a woman cohabiting in the same body?

Could probably fall under non-binary or indeed two-spirit as mentioned above (though I'm not sure if two-spirit was meant to be more of a third gender thing - typically native American men who were effeminate).

 

[dowie]

Nope, sex is binary, apart from a tiny, tiny, tiny number of people who are medically intersex.

Gender is a social construct that is largely "putting people in boxes". I.e. a boy should play football and build tree houses; a girl should be interested in makeup and Barbie dolls.

As a result, you can pretty much have as many genders as you can care about (or not), but there are only two sexes, really.

I stuck an explanation earlier in the thread that I think sums this up and deals with the "sex is on a spectrum" angle that people try to make due to the existence of intersex - they leverage their presence in order to try and put forth some sort of continuous distribution when in reality it's a rather limited discrete one:

That's called intersex and is often used by woke types to try and make more general arguments about trans people, something intersex people get a bit annoyed by as their situation is a bit different from the vast majority of trans people who are female XXs or male XYs with no DSD issues but simply identify as a different gender identity. It would have been covered in Biology GCSE for anyone paying attention in class.

Sex, as defined by gametes, is binary.

Sex, as defined by some combination of primary and secondary characteristics, is bimodal but on a spectrum with some small number of cases falling in between.

The latter case is sometimes misrepresented and used by TRAs to try and negate sex being relevant at all here, in reality, the bimodal distribution would be discrete, not continuous and contain two large spikes where the vast majority of the population fall into and some very small ones. TRAs will try to distort this by showing something making to two bell curves or similar.

 

[dowie]

I remember being sent a screenshot of a facebook conversation of this on Whatsapp and it had me giggling for a week

It's this one I think:

This is the problem with some of these slogans (see also "defund the police" or "believe all women" - highlighted this in SC earlier but some people don't quite grasp this) lots of people actually do mean them literally - so something like "trans women are women" is taken completely at face value by the more vocal activists leading to internally consistent but utterly bizarre takes like the above. Other well-meaning people who want to be "allies", or simply signal virtue etc.. will go along with such slogans but don't necessarily mean them to be quite so absolute.

 

[dowie]

These are the exact kinds of people that apparently talked rubbish about me for turning down someone based on them having a penis.

Why do you all care so much what these clearly troubled and confused outliers think? They are a tiny majority and have very little power. Most of them are severely mentally ill and thrive off the attention you are all giving them by engaging and trying to debate their utter nonsense.

Again I say, this is a problem none of you transphobes are ever ever going to have. I’m the only one here who has even come close to it being an issue and I laughed it off and nothing came of it.

What's transphobic about criticising the exact same thing you just criticised yourself?

I think you vastly underestimate this ideology re: not having any power - just look at the court case earlier today re: the ONS and the census or look at what has happened in the US with women's sports etc.. or just in general in the west with access to women's spaces etc..

Isn't this diagram incomplete, shouldn't there be more permutations like a man that only fancies trans women and stuff like that? I jest but I do actually have an acquaintance who shacked up with a trans model, and has spent a lot of time in Thailand...

AFAIK that is considered "problematic" and fetishising them or something.

 

[dowie]

I think you are buying into media hype and are worried/scared about something that will never affect you.

You just do you, and let other people get on with what ever they want to get on with.

Thanks for that armchair Freud, if you don't want to discuss the topic then go post in one of the other many threads on here.

You haven't addressed the point though - why is it transphobic to make the same criticism you've made? Is that an admission that you're a transphobe and you think others are if they put across similar criticism?

You seem to be keen on projection but not very good at putting forth a coherent point, rather you just descend into almost comical rants.

 

[dowie]

Me having a preference for who and what I’m attracted to is very much not the same as the transphobic bile spouted itt.

So you can't answer - you quote my post referring to "you transphobes" but you're seemingly unable to substantiate the claim - go ahead, quote where I've posted some transphobic bile?

 

[dowie]

Someone I know insisted this whole thing was inherently transphobic! They were adamant that because some trans people can pass then, provided they've transitioned/are taking hormones then straight men fancy *all* women and just have some bigotry or issue to get over when they find out there is peen involved.

Essentially his argument is that you can fancy someone, fall in love with them and (traditionally) even marry them before you actually get them into bed and naked - which is true.

His "proof" was to show some images of trans people and see if you can tell which are trans or not, rate which are more attractive etc...

He thought this was checkmate.... that he had some brilliant argument.

He didn't - I'd already accepted that some trans women could pass, especially when coated in makeup and you're only seeing a still photo and you could have an initial attraction to them without knowing... (realistically though, in real life and seeing them talk, the size of their hands, their shoulders etc.. even if they pass well in a photo most of them won't pass well, in reality, but meh..) he then insisted again that this was all that mattered.

So I said I reckon we can do a similar test - plenty of girls can look older without makeup - if I show you a bunch of pictures of females you need to rank them in terms of attractiveness, if you pick the underage girls then by your own logic, you're a paedophile!

He got angry - supposedly that isn't the same, yet it's the same logic - clearly, the initial attraction isn't all that matters here - once the makeup is removed and other factors considered then that can change things considerably - straight men tend to want (developed) females, not male trans women with penises and fake boobs or females that aren't quite there yet but have stuffed tissues into their bra and coated themselves in makeup etc..

What's the sexuality of someone who only like the opposite sex (man - woman / woman - man) and only of the same race? (black - black / white / white)
Super duper straight?

Personally I like women of all races and have been in relationships with black / mixed and differing religions. However I have friends who only like women of their race and friends who like women who are not thier race. e.g. White friends who only like white women, white friend only like asian women, black friend only likes white women

There aren't any existing sexualities defined by race AFAIK

 

[dowie]

Would explain the obsession some posters have in here with other peoples genitals.

Says the top poster in this thread and the guy guaranteed to pop up and start ranting at everyone whenever this topic comes up:

 

[dowie]

Point out all the genital obsessed weirdos is not being obsessed with genitals, at most you could accuse me of being obsessed with laughing at you all.

OK, so where is the transphobia? You didn't answer last time - presumably because you couldn't?

 

[dowie]

I think I remember him admitting to being a rent boy a couple of years back?

Yup remembered something like that too - quick search with user name an "sex worker" reveals posts in a prostitution thread - granted he's seemingly servicing women not men... though he is apparently tax dodging too:

Well I don't put the vast majority of my money into a bank account and my property is bought and paid for out right.

Why should I pay more than the absolute minimum I can get away with when I am persecuted for the living I make in society? I can't take out a mortgage, get a loan to finance a car or set up loads of lovely simple direct debits, I am punished for my life style and on that principle will not pay income tax, as I do not gain the benefits fully legal work gets.

If other tax payers have a problem with it, they can start campaigning for sex workers rights and vote correctly for parties with progressive and intelligent evidence based policies on these issues instead of just looking down upon sex workers.

I think that's a bit suspect, you can still set up a ltd company and pay tax and AFAIK various sex workers do indeed do that.

In the context of this thread, it certainly explains why he'd be much more likely than most to be propositioned by trans women, it doesn't explain why he gets so aggro and/or frequently can't put forth an argument to back his assertions.