Problematic Stuff

[pErvinalia]

there is a point here - having a penis doesn't make one male anymore. Gender is fluid and a female body born person can be gender male. So, a gay "male" who won't date someone because they have a vagina is transphobic and misogynistic, because that vagina-possessor may be a male....

Is there any evidence that such gay people exist? Or is this just another made up horror by the conservative outrage brigade?

[JimC]

A Poe, I suspect...

[pErvinalia]

Almost certainly. But the outraged conservative brigade are so keyed up to take offence at this stuff that they automatically believe it. I bet 42 believes it.

[Tero]

For sure both boys and girls are having babies now, since gender is not connected to genitals. Since cloning is illegal, you can't give birth to your own clone yet.

[pErvinalia]

The North Koreans will be on to that soon enough. The cloning of the Kims.

[Forty Two]

there is a point here - having a penis doesn't make one male anymore. Gender is fluid and a female body born person can be gender male. So, a gay "male" who won't date someone because they have a vagina is transphobic and misogynistic, because that vagina-possessor may be a male....

Is there any evidence that such gay people exist? Or is this just another made up horror by the conservative outrage brigade?

Is there any evidence of gay people who don't date women? What are you asking for evidence of?

[Forty Two]

So gender is a 'life-style choice' then?

Sometimes I get the feeling you believe your own irony.

That is an interesting question, once again, these days. On the one hand, the argument is that people are born the way they are, and then another argument goes that people "identify" as male or female, and that male and female doesn't necessarily mean "male" or "female" in the traditional senses of the words. That is, male doesn't mean doing male things or acting male. You can say "i'm gender male," even while conforming to traditional female gender roles and norms. That kind of thing.

So, in a sense, we're supposed to understand that people choose their genders, if they even have one ,as some people say they are non-gendered, gender fluid or some other characterization. But in another sense we're supposed say that whatever gender a person chooses to identify themselves as is the gender they were born as.

[pErvinalia]

there is a point here - having a penis doesn't make one male anymore. Gender is fluid and a female body born person can be gender male. So, a gay "male" who won't date someone because they have a vagina is transphobic and misogynistic, because that vagina-possessor may be a male....

Is there any evidence that such gay people exist? Or is this just another made up horror by the conservative outrage brigade?

Is there any evidence of gay people who don't date women? What are you asking for evidence of?

I'm asking for evidence for what you suggested. That is, evidence for the idea that there are gay men who won't date transgendered men (ie, biological females who identify as males).

[Forty Two]

O.k., so you need evidence that there are gay men who won't date someone who has a vagina, but not a penis? That's the assertion in the image. I just want to be clear what proof you are looking for. The allegation was not about "gay men who won't date transgendered men." The allegation was about gay men not dating humans who have vaginas. Is that what you want proof for?

I suppose we could start with the assumption that gay men are as likely to date people with vaginas as they are to date people with penises. Do you think that's a safe assumption?

[pErvinalia]

Wtf is wrong with you? Are you on more drugs than usual these last two days? I just told you specifically what I want evidence for. A suggestion that YOU made.

[Forty Two]

Wtf is wrong with you? Are you on more drugs than usual these last two days? I just told you specifically what I want evidence for. A suggestion that YOU made.

The problem is, I did not make that suggestion. The suggestion I made concerned gay men not going for people with vaginas. If that's what you want evidence for, then I'd be happy to check on it for you. But, if you're asking for evidence for something else, you'll need to be more specific.

In any case, what if that evidence was not there? What would you conclude from the absence of that evidence?

[pErvinalia]

because that vagina-possessor may be a male....

i.e. a biological female who identifies as a male.

What if there was an absence of evidence? Then your conservative outrage would be irrational. Like virtually all conservative outrages...

[rainbow]

So gender is a 'life-style choice' then?

Sometimes I get the feeling you believe your own irony.

That is an interesting question, once again, these days. On the one hand, the argument is that people are born the way they are, and then another argument goes that people "identify" as male or female, and that male and female doesn't necessarily mean "male" or "female" in the traditional senses of the words. That is, male doesn't mean doing male things or acting male. You can say "i'm gender male," even while conforming to traditional female gender roles and norms. That kind of thing.

So, in a sense, we're supposed to understand that people choose their genders, if they even have one ,as some people say they are non-gendered, gender fluid or some other characterization. But in another sense we're supposed say that whatever gender a person chooses to identify themselves as is the gender they were born as.

The 'problem' is easily solved by allowing people to self-identify, and cope with it.

[Forty Two]

because that vagina-possessor may be a male....

i.e. a biological female who identifies as a male.

What if there was an absence of evidence? Then your conservative outrage would be irrational. Like virtually all conservative outrages...

I don't have any "outrage," and certainly not "conservative" outrage. As between me and you, you are the more conservative, let's get that straight right now.

Now, let's also get the assertion straight - what I commented on was someone else's question - why are there gay men who won't date a woman just because she has a vagina? I wrote that "there is a point here - having a penis doesn't make one male anymore. Gender is fluid and a female body born person can be gender male. So, a gay "male" who won't date someone because they have a vagina is transphobic and misogynistic, because that vagina-possessor may be a male...."

I made no assertion or contention that such people actually exist, nor did I express any outrage. All I said was that a gay "male" who won't date someone because they have a vagina is transphobic and misogynistic, because a vagina-possessor may be a male. My question relates to the concept of a gay male not dating someone because they have a vagina. It's not limited to "trans" people.

Since the word "gay" in reference to a male means a person who is sexually attracted to other males, then typically that has implied a penis possessor dating or attracted to other penis-possessors. The point of the observation in the image I posted is to show that today, however, we're told we can't say who is male or female because of their biology. So, a person with tits and a vagina and XX chromosomes doesn't mean the person is female. That person could well be male, and we only know whether the person is male or female by their own identification as such.

I think you missed the overall point. Instead, you're making the suggestion that there aren't gay men who determine who to date in part based on whether they have a penis. I think your question, and your implication, is silly, as the idea that gay males (with penises and xy chromosomes) date other males (with penises and xy chromosomes) and generally eschew vaginas and xx chromosomes, is rather uncontroversial.

[Forty Two]

So gender is a 'life-style choice' then?

Sometimes I get the feeling you believe your own irony.

That is an interesting question, once again, these days. On the one hand, the argument is that people are born the way they are, and then another argument goes that people "identify" as male or female, and that male and female doesn't necessarily mean "male" or "female" in the traditional senses of the words. That is, male doesn't mean doing male things or acting male. You can say "i'm gender male," even while conforming to traditional female gender roles and norms. That kind of thing.

So, in a sense, we're supposed to understand that people choose their genders, if they even have one ,as some people say they are non-gendered, gender fluid or some other characterization. But in another sense we're supposed say that whatever gender a person chooses to identify themselves as is the gender they were born as.

The 'problem' is easily solved by allowing people to self-identify, and cope with it.

I didn't say it was a "problem."