TDT 4: What the $#@! is a "womxn", anyways?

[Des-Bal]

Thanks, but can we please not. This is gonna get ugly. Besides I'm pretty sure discussion of zoophilia is quite the taboo on NSG.

Totally not interested in discussing zoophilia or pedophilia, the point was that the definition is over-inclusive and to go more in depth on either of those categories would be wildly uncalled for.

I don't think it's going to get ugly at all, I am 40% sure that we can discuss the interplay of gender and sexuality and how that effects transgender people without anyone being shot. I don't think the exchange of ideas is an ugly thing.

[Hediacrana]

Might I instead suggest that the distinction between fetish and sexuality be discussed in a separate thread?

[Cekoviu]

Except that's not how it works in practice. Immediate sexual attraction is based on gender presentation, not the sex of a person. And I don't see how a definition including "exclusive" would be unusable.

I disagree, attraction is based on the sex or at least the apparent sex, the latter can be effected by gender presentation but that's not really the decider. Supposing Jason Momoa wore a skirt, used female pronouns, and did traditionally feminine things. A man who saw a picture of that six and a half foot tall pile of muscle and testerone and was aroused would be experiencing a homosexual attraction.

If that's what you think gender presentation is, you need to get out more.

You can't really have "exclusive" work when people are attracted to so many things and nothing at all uggesting people can only be attrated to one. With non-binary genders and non-gender categories you're not going to have any ability to categorize anything. A man attracted exclusively to robots is a robosexual, if it's exclusively male robots its homorobosexual if it's human women but male robots it's hetero homorobosexual. Unless of course being interested in both humans and robot means it's not exclusive and isn't a sexuality which would probably be hard to break to bisexuals.

Categorical hierarchies consist of a fractal structure with more categorical hierarchies all the way down, i.e., something can be an exclusive category containing multiple subcategories which have subcategories themselves. Because language works the same way, the hierarchies can at least theoretically be expressed using language.

I don't think there's really much more to discuss here, to be honest.

[Cappuccina]

Thanks, but can we please not. This is gonna get ugly. Besides I'm pretty sure discussion of zoophilia is quite the taboo on NSG.

Totally not interested in discussing zoophilia or pedophilia, the point was that the definition is over-inclusive and to go more in depth on either of those categories would be wildly uncalled for.

I don't think it's going to get ugly at all, I am 40% sure that we can discuss the interplay of gender and sexuality and how that effects transgender people without anyone being shot. I don't think the exchange of ideas is an ugly thing.

It's not the exchange of ideas I'm trying to avoid, but the rampage of snark and veiled insults that are sure to ensue.

Might I instead suggest that the distinction between fetish and sexuality be discussed in a separate thread?

I agree.

[Grenartia]

I love arguing with TERFs cause they always are so obsessed with trying to misgender me that they always gender me correctly. And then when I tell them I am actually trans masc they call me a lesbian, and then I tell them that I'm not attracted to women. It is always just a circle of them trying to insult me and me having to tell them, whoops, wrong insult.

TERFs hurt themselves in their confusion! Its super effective!

I love arguing with TERFs cause they always are so obsessed with trying to misgender me that they always gender me correctly. And then when I tell them I am actually trans masc they call me a lesbian, and then I tell them that I'm not attracted to women. It is always just a circle of them trying to insult me and me having to tell them, whoops, wrong insult.

Most trans mascs and men I came across were either gay, bi, pan, or ace, and gay and ace trans men are obviously not attracted to women. Het trans men are not lesbians, they're straight men. It's erasure at its finest in many cases.

95% of the time, trans guys seem to be gay or ace, IME.

I don't see how, pan is literally everything.

Pansexual means you're attracted to all genders, but not everything that exists.

This. I'm not into kids or furry, thanks (obviously, there's a world of difference of acceptability for those, but still).

What if my kink is being freshly baked?

Then we're confiscating your oven immediately, because fun is not allowed here.

That's everything that needs to be said. I don't understand what else she want the term to describe.

I've heard of attraction to robots. Idk.

*incoherent beeping*

You remind me of someone. Did you use to work for the robot police? Have you been the victim of an unfortunate crushing accident?

Are you speaking of our lord and savior Wall-E?

Nah, its a Questionable Content reference.

No, I've spoken to someone who was specifically attracted exclusively to robots, not humans.

That literally makes zero sense. I'd still say that's a fetish, not a sexuality.

Sure, but that doesn't make it less valid.

I’ve always been of the opinion that broad statements regarding nonbinary folks are difficult to make. I always frame it like this: Binary trans folks are physics, nonbinary folks are quantum. Different rules, almost. With genderqueer folks—folks who are consistently neither male nor female—I think sexuality is in sort of a flux. A man in love with a consistantly femme enby would probably read as straight, while a man in love with a consistantly masc enby would probably read as gay, even if both enbies in fact identify as agender and merely present leaning one direction or the other rather than completely neutral. Given that I’m not aware of any sexuality orientation specifically directed at nonbinary people, I think most binary people who’re in love with a nonbinary person are either bi, pan, or straight/gay with an exception made for this specific case. With genderfluid and bigender folks who only have male and female gender identities/aspects of their identity, I’d define their lover as bi, while genderfluid and bi/pan/etcgender folks with any identities distinct from male and female would probably have to be pan/omni. As far as nonbinary people’s sexualities in relative to other lovers, it’s similarly kinda a semantics thing as far as I can tell. A genderfluid person in love with a binary person would probably be either be bi or pan from what I’ve seen, but if said genderfluid person was attracted only to one gender, you’ve got the choice between flip-flopping between saying gay and straight based on their current gender, or saying something like male/female-attracted. Bigender and pangender folks, being simultaneously multiple genders at once, kinda seem forced to be either bi or pan unless you wanna break the gender-space continuum and watch sexuality-time collapse in on itself(don’t get any ideas you cheeky aces). Nonbinary folks outside of the binary with a singular form(agender, demi, etc) seem to be bi and pan in general, but if they’re attracted to only one gender it seems to me that male/female-attracted makes the most sense, while straight and gay are used for purposes of simplicity or just because they feel like it.

That’s just my theorising on the quantum world of nonbinary folks, as I’m just a common ol’ binary lady

Gender and sexualities are overlapping spectra of infinite variation. Being femme and a demigirl, it has changed my perspective on attraction to women and nonbinary people. But I like to say if you're into me, you're not straight, and that I am gay for everyone, even they are meant to be jokes not serious statements.

I mean, we already knew I was gay for you.

That literally makes zero sense. I'd still say that's a fetish, not a sexuality.

If you're exclusively attracted to a specific class of things and/or beings, it is a sexuality. A fetish is an add-on to a sexuality, such as being attracted to women [sexuality] and particularly women with large feet [fetish].

I don't think being into robots/dronification is a sexuality unto itself.

Oof. I hope HRT doesn't do that to me. There are times when I get a bit down and I don't know why. If I were on HRT would I be crying at those times? Idk. To what extent did you feel these feelings before HRT?

I can't speak for DI, but sometimes I'll be really cheerful and perhaps even laughing, then just suddenly start welling up. With that as the baseline, I'm sure you can imagine what it's like when I'm sad. (Funnily enough, my eyes started watering slightly as I wrote this, with literally no prompting.)

That sounds like a much healthier rage fantasy.

I guess, but it's also indicative of how much of a pushover I am, since I only actually tell people when I'm mad at them in my fantasies. That's not very healthy either, although it's definitely less intense than murder fantasies by a huge amount.

I like to think I've got a healthy middle ground. I'm like that meme where the guy asks if the dog bites, and the dogs owner says "No, but he can hurt you in other ways".

You cried at Thanos' chin?

Oof. I hope HRT doesn't do that to me. There are times when I get a bit down and I don't know why. If I were on HRT would I be crying at those times? Idk. To what extent did you feel these feelings before HRT?

That sounds like a much healthier rage fantasy.

Yes.

I also cried at that one episode of Futurama where Fry's dog waits for him ._.

The last time I cried, I was watching that...

Rest in peace, Seymour.

See there kinda falls my point. Like does pan cover my attraction to Garrus Vakerian?

Millions of people are attracted to Garrus Vakarian, including people of every sexual orientation label that includes being attracted to men. It's not specific to pansexual people. (I'm not attracted to Garrus since I'm only attracted to women. I am attracted to Tali'Zorah though, enough that I'm willing to give up playing as FemShep to romance her.)

Ok, but Liara.

See there kinda falls my point. Like does pan cover my attraction to Garrus Vakerian?

To be fair, Garrus is a very good boy.

[Grenartia]

Why don't you present that research but it would seem to imply that bestiality, pedophilia, and all other sorts of attractions. It also falls apart on it's face because of the word "exclusive."

Sexuality should be understood as the sex a person's attracted to, not the gender, species, or whether they fail to read captchas.

Except that's not how it works in practice. Immediate sexual attraction is based on gender presentation, not the sex of a person. And I don't see how a definition including "exclusive" would be unusable.

See, that's where you're wrong. I'm not attracted to ANYONE unless I look at their chromosomes through a microscope.

Might I instead suggest that the distinction between fetish and sexuality be discussed in a separate thread?

Actually, this would be the best course of action.

[Des-Bal]

If that's what you think gender presentation is, you need to get out more.

Categorical hierarchies consist of a fractal structure with more categorical hierarchies all the way down, i.e., something can be an exclusive category containing multiple subcategories which have subcategories themselves. Because language works the same way, the hierarchies can at least theoretically be expressed using language.

I don't think there's really much more to discuss here, to be honest.

Why don't you explain it and outline for where I've made my greivous errors? Raise an actual, specific, complaint and do some of the educating and discussing that compromise 2/3's of the thread's raison d'etre.

Your fractal sexualities make communication harder and serve to do very little to benefit anyone, note the starting point of this was a seminar on quantum sexuality.

How gender impacts a persons sexuality is to discuss.

Might I instead suggest that the distinction between fetish and sexuality be discussed in a separate thread?

If such a thread appeared I'd be happy to mosey on over.

[Cekoviu]

If that's what you think gender presentation is, you need to get out more.

Categorical hierarchies consist of a fractal structure with more categorical hierarchies all the way down, i.e., something can be an exclusive category containing multiple subcategories which have subcategories themselves. Because language works the same way, the hierarchies can at least theoretically be expressed using language.

I don't think there's really much more to discuss here, to be honest.

Why don't you explain it and outline for where I've made my greivous errors? Raise an actual, specific, complaint and do some of the educating and discussing that compromise 2/3's of the thread's raison d'etre.

Your fractal sexualities make communication harder and serve to do very little to benefit anyone, note the starting point of this was a seminar on quantum sexuality.

How gender impacts a persons sexuality is to discuss.

What impact would it make for me to describe gender presentation to you in detail so that you can comprehend the basic concepts underlying it? It won't make you care or change any of your views, and it doesn't benefit me at all, so no. I'm not here to be your tutor.

[The Rich Port]

Might I instead suggest that the distinction between fetish and sexuality be discussed in a separate thread?

Then they wouldn't be directly taking potshots at the dignity of transgender people with their nonsensical prattle.

[Cappuccina]

Except that's not how it works in practice. Immediate sexual attraction is based on gender presentation, not the sex of a person. And I don't see how a definition including "exclusive" would be unusable.

See, that's where you're wrong. I'm not attracted to ANYONE unless I look at their chromosomes through a microscope.

Might I instead suggest that the distinction between fetish and sexuality be discussed in a separate thread?

Actually, this would be the best course of action.

Tbh, we have to remember that the majority of the time gender expression matches sex... i.e cispeople. A straight person will be attracted to someone who is presenting masculinity( femininity for a man), as the individual will more likely than not be straight and male. LBGT people are a minority by a long shot.

[Tarsonis]

Except that's not how it works in practice. Immediate sexual attraction is based on gender presentation, not the sex of a person. And I don't see how a definition including "exclusive" would be unusable.

See, that's where you're wrong. I'm not attracted to ANYONE unless I look at their chromosomes through a microscope.

Nothing that inane but Des is correct. While allowing that gender presentation is a nuanced issue, sexual attraction is based the traits associated with biological sex, rather than strict gender presentation. I can only speak from personal anecdote but most mtf transpersons i've encountered were recognizable as such. Only once have I encountered someone who had transitioned so thoroughly it wasn't readily obvious, and after being informed they were trans, all semblance of attraction instantly evaporated.

[Cekoviu]

See, that's where you're wrong. I'm not attracted to ANYONE unless I look at their chromosomes through a microscope.

Nothing that inane but Des is correct. While allowing that gender presentation is a nuanced issue, sexual attraction is based the traits associated with biological sex, rather than strict gender presentation. I can only speak from personal anecdote but most mtf transpersons i've encountered were recognizable as such. Only once have I encountered someone who had transitioned so thoroughly it wasn't readily obvious, and after being informed they were trans, all semblance of attraction instantly evaporated.

You think that you only know trans women who look masculine because those are the only ones you recognize as trans. The majority of the trans people you've encountered pass and it's obnoxious that people still fall for this survivor bias bullshit.

[Des-Bal]

What impact would it make for me to describe gender presentation to you in detail so that you can comprehend the basic concepts underlying it? It won't make you care or change any of your views, and it doesn't benefit me at all, so no. I'm not here to be your tutor.

And here's the heart of the issue. Everyone's ignorant and of course you can't be bothered to explain anything. This is why, you should note, that people dismiss how much these terms matter and write them off as cultural shibboleths. That said- I went ahead and touched base with wikipedia and Sjwiki to operationalize a definition and make sure we were talking about the same thing. I am not inviting you to be my tutor, I'm offering you the chance to explain or acknowledge what really looks like pointless snipping.

[Cekoviu]

What impact would it make for me to describe gender presentation to you in detail so that you can comprehend the basic concepts underlying it? It won't make you care or change any of your views, and it doesn't benefit me at all, so no. I'm not here to be your tutor.

And here's the heart of the issue. Everyone's ignorant and of course you can't be bothered to explain anything. This is why, you should note, that people dismiss how much these terms matter and write them off as cultural shibboleths. That said- I went ahead and touched base with wikipedia and Sjwiki to operationalize a definition and make sure we were talking about the same thing. I am not inviting you to be my tutor, I'm offering you the chance to explain or acknowledge what really looks like pointless snipping.

You're sealioning and you're accusing me of pointless snipping? I'm tired of your fucking bullshit.

[Des-Bal]

You think that you only know trans women who look masculine because those are the only ones you recognize as trans. The majority of the trans people you've encountered pass and it's obnoxious that people still fall for this survivor bias bullshit.

I would like a source for most transgender people passing. I hear it a lot but I've never seen any indication it's true.

[Des-Bal]

You're sealioning and you're accusing me of pointless snipping? I'm tired of your fucking bullshit.

Whose sealioning? You said "that's not what that word means" and I asked what you thought it meant.

[Tarsonis]

See, that's where you're wrong. I'm not attracted to ANYONE unless I look at their chromosomes through a microscope.



Actually, this would be the best course of action.

Tbh, we have to remember that the majority of the time gender expression matches sex... i.e cispeople. A straight person will be attracted to someone who is presenting masculinity( femininity for a man), as the individual will more likely than not be straight and male. LBGT people are a minority by a long shot.

Only if they've transitioned so much that their body also presents as the opposite biological sex. For instance Emilia Clark fully dressed as John Snow parading around Time Square, I still find attractive. James Charles pronouncing around Coachella in female lingerie, I don't.

[Tarsonis]

Nothing that inane but Des is correct. While allowing that gender presentation is a nuanced issue, sexual attraction is based the traits associated with biological sex, rather than strict gender presentation. I can only speak from personal anecdote but most mtf transpersons i've encountered were recognizable as such. Only once have I encountered someone who had transitioned so thoroughly it wasn't readily obvious, and after being informed they were trans, all semblance of attraction instantly evaporated.

You think that you only know trans women who look masculine because those are the only ones you recognize as trans. The majority of the trans people you've encountered pass and it's obnoxious that people still fall for this survivor bias bullshit.

It's pretty obnoxious that the trans community tells me who I'm supposed to be attracted to.

[Cekoviu]

You think that you only know trans women who look masculine because those are the only ones you recognize as trans. The majority of the trans people you've encountered pass and it's obnoxious that people still fall for this survivor bias bullshit.

I would like a source for most transgender people passing. I hear it a lot but I've never seen any indication it's true.

Source = being an acquaintance of or at least vaguely knowing >50 trans people, ~75% of whom pass at least to the point of androgyny. You can't offer any sources to the contrary and I highly doubt that you could provide a stronger sample size than 50 with your clearly inadequate knowledge of trans issues.

[Cekoviu]

You think that you only know trans women who look masculine because those are the only ones you recognize as trans. The majority of the trans people you've encountered pass and it's obnoxious that people still fall for this survivor bias bullshit.

It's pretty obnoxious that the trans community tells me who I'm supposed to be attracted to.

I literally said nothing about who you are supposed to be attracted to, and I consider it a benefit that someone like you wouldn't try to pursue me due to my trans status. Don't put words in my mouth.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It's pretty obnoxious that the trans community tells me who I'm supposed to be attracted to.

I literally said nothing about who you are supposed to be attracted to, and I consider it a benefit that someone like you wouldn't try to pursue me due to my trans status. Don't put words in my mouth.

Okay, no need to throw shade. *clutches pearls* Let's keep it polite and wholesome.

[Cekoviu]

I literally said nothing about who you are supposed to be attracted to, and I consider it a benefit that someone like you wouldn't try to pursue me due to my trans status. Don't put words in my mouth.

Okay, no need to throw shade. *clutches pearls* Let's keep it polite and wholesome.

I'm not in the mood for polite or wholesome right now; quite the opposite.

[Cappuccina]

Tbh, we have to remember that the majority of the time gender expression matches sex... i.e cispeople. A straight person will be attracted to someone who is presenting masculinity( femininity for a man), as the individual will more likely than not be straight and male. LBGT people are a minority by a long shot.

Only if they've transitioned so much that their body also presents as the opposite biological sex. For instance Emilia Clark fully dressed as John Snow parading around Time Square, I still find attractive. James Charles pronouncing around Coachella in female lingerie, I don't.

Most trans people don't pass unfortunately. It's pretty difficult to even get HRT or SRS depending on where you live.

[Des-Bal]

Source = being an acquaintance of or at least vaguely knowing >50 trans people, ~75% of whom pass at least to the point of androgyny. You can't offer any sources to the contrary and I highly doubt that you could provide a stronger sample size than 50 with your clearly inadequate knowledge of trans issues.

I know over a million transgender people and less than 1% pass and if you know more I can think of a higher number and lower percentage hence the trouble with anectdotes. If there's no numbers there's no numbers.

What suggests my knowledge of trans issues is inadequate? What do I not seem to know or get?

[Cekoviu]

Only if they've transitioned so much that their body also presents as the opposite biological sex. For instance Emilia Clark fully dressed as John Snow parading around Time Square, I still find attractive. James Charles pronouncing around Coachella in female lingerie, I don't.

Most trans people don't pass unfortunately. It's pretty difficult to even get HRT or SRS depending on where you live.

SRS isn't really relevant to passing, because trans women can tuck and trans men can pack. HRT is definitely very useful, though, and perhaps if Tarsonis lives somewhere where HRT is difficult to access, their assumption is actually true.
However, it's not always required - I passed with just spironolactone, no HRT.