Current Events > Would you bang dis MtF trans?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yes, there are a lot of defects that may come about.

If you as a straight guy banged that, you're not straight for finding it attractive in the first place. She's made herself look so much like a man that I will not look twice at her just like o wouldn't look twice at a real guy.

Junk science ain't real science dude. The reason this has become a great debate has nothing to do with scientists deeply contemplating whether a dude is a chick.

AceOfSpades1206 posted...

No because you can clearly see in his face that he's a man and those hands definitely give it away as well.

Shempie.
---

Switch_Hitter posted...

Yes, there are a lot of defects that may come about.

If you as a straight guy banged that, you're not straight for finding it attractive in the first place. She's made herself look so much like a man that I will not look twice at her just like o wouldn't look twice at a real guy.

Junk science ain't real science dude. The reason this has become a great debate has nothing to do with scientists deeply contemplating whether a dude is a chick.

Ah yes, the far right anti-intellectualism that perpetrates the idea that "any science I dislike the sound of isn't real science". You do Pol Pot proud.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Switch_Hitter posted...

Yes, there are a lot of defects that may come about.

If you as a straight guy banged that, you're not straight for finding it attractive in the first place. She's made herself look so much like a man that I will not look twice at her just like o wouldn't look twice at a real guy.

Junk science ain't real science dude. The reason this has become a great debate has nothing to do with scientists deeply contemplating whether a dude is a chick.

Ah yes, the far right anti-intellectualism that perpetrates the idea that "any science I dislike the sound of isn't real science". You do Pol Pot proud.

Show me the science

Switch_Hitter posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Switch_Hitter posted...

Yes, there are a lot of defects that may come about.

If you as a straight guy banged that, you're not straight for finding it attractive in the first place. She's made herself look so much like a man that I will not look twice at her just like o wouldn't look twice at a real guy.

Junk science ain't real science dude. The reason this has become a great debate has nothing to do with scientists deeply contemplating whether a dude is a chick.

Ah yes, the far right anti-intellectualism that perpetrates the idea that "any science I dislike the sound of isn't real science". You do Pol Pot proud.

Show me the science

No reason to show a bigot like you anything but the wall.

You'll deny and fight against anything that goes against your beliefs regardless of the evidence.
---

Switch_Hitter posted...

Show me the science

How about you go looking for the science. It's amazing to me that you've come to an irrevocable conclusion on this entire issue and at the same time admit that you are ignorant of the science literature surrounding it. Can you imagine how this makes you look?

Here's one such study
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/30/10273.full

With an article that attempts to make sense of it
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/02/us/study-links-brain-to-transsexuality.html

And a professor of neurobiology and physiology explaining more of this
http://www.ozy.com/opinion/check-the-science-being-trans-is-not-a-choice/69726
---

I'll leave you with these words from Bertrand Russell, @Switch_Hitter:

"There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed; the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein's view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."
---

Oh I know the science already but I wanted you to be the one to post it.

So judging from the links you posted, a bunch of if if if if ifs, no proof of anything, equating the brain to a sexual organ, and a lack of repeated results is your evidence?

Well thank you for proving me right.

Switch_Hitter posted...

Oh I know the science already but I wanted you to be the one to post it.

So judging from the links you posted, a bunch of if if if if ifs, no proof of anything, equating the brain to a sexual organ, and a lack of repeated results is your evidence?

Well thank you for proving me right.

This does not prove you right at all. Read post #108 slowly and carefully.

You, as a layperson, have no business having a more fully formed opinion on this when after decades of research the experts are still unclear.
---

pinky0926 posted...

I'll leave you with these words from Bertrand Russell, @Switch_Hitter:

"There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed; the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein's view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."

I would agree if these "experts" nowadays weren't so politically motivared...

Switch_Hitter posted...

pinky0926 posted...

I'll leave you with these words from Bertrand Russell, @Switch_Hitter:

"There are matters about which those who have investigated them are agreed; the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration. There are other matters about which experts are not agreed. Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. Einstein's view as to the magnitude of the deflection of light by gravitation would have been rejected by all experts not many years ago, yet it proved to be right. Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."

I would agree if these "experts" nowadays weren't so politically motivared...

oh fuck off
---

Switch_Hitter posted...

I would agree if these "experts" nowadays weren't so politically motivared...

As if your views aren't politically motivated at all, you literally said "we need another rise of the far right" at post #88

lmao, gtfo
---

pinky0926 posted...

Switch_Hitter posted...

I would agree if these "experts" nowadays weren't so politically motivared...

As if your views aren't politically motivated at all, you literally said "we need another rise of the far right" at post #88

lmao, gtfo

My views are motivated by the facts. That's it.

It looks like you've got nothing else so I'll be making my exit.

Switch_Hitter posted...

My views are motivated by the facts. That's it.

It looks like you've got nothing else so I'll be making my exit.

Experts after 40 years scientific research: We're not sure but it looks like this topic is way more complicated and less certain that we first thought
You after 5 minutes and no research: Look I'm just telling you the facts, it's just common sense

lmao gtfo
---

It's hard to believe those child bearing hips can't actually bear a child.

Switch_Hitter posted...

no proof of anything

There's no proof of anything in science. Funny that proof only becomes the standard in politically motivated topics, when a cumulation of evidence is all that's required for any other endevour in science.
---

If's, and's, or's, but's, may's, could's.

This is the language of science, always uncertain. Don't take the inherent uncertainty of science as evidence that some conclusion is unfounded.
---

Live and let live, but this idea that you're a problem if you don't want to have sex with a trans individual is nonsense. If you want to be a boy be a boy, if you want to be a girl be a girl, if you want to be something in between be something in between, but no one is obligated to want any sort of relationship with you. There is a very small subset of people who think that you HAVE to be open to being with a trans individual, but it's a problem that needs to be addressed if we're going to go forward.
---

justaguy3492 posted...

Live and let live, but this idea that you're a problem if you don't want to have sex with a trans individual is nonsense. If you want to be a boy be a boy, if you want to be a girl be a girl, if you want to be something in between be something in between, but no one is obligated to want any sort of relationship with you. There is a very small subset of people who think that you HAVE to be open to being with a trans individual, but it's a problem that needs to be addressed if we're going to go forward.

The entire point is that, for the large majority of individuals that hold that sentiment, it's because they don't actually view the transperson as their identified gender. You can pretend like ignoring their existence makes you accepting, but it doesn't.
---

COVxy posted...

The entire point is that, for the large majority of individuals that hold that sentiment, it's because they don't actually view the transperson as their identified gender. You can pretend like ignoring their existence makes you accepting, but it doesn't.

If someone wants me to use a particular pronoun, I have no issues with that, but if you are telling me that I have to consider a trans individual when I'm out in the dating world then that's absolutely ridiculous. Sexual attraction isn't something that anyone is entitled to.
---

Nobody is saying anyone is entitled to sexual attraction.
---

Callixtus posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Callixtus posted...

No thanks. I prefer women that haven't been pumped full of hormones with bolt-on tits and have knockoff vaginas.

What about if the person was a woman from birth with tits and a natural vagina but a low, manly voice, lots of body hair and a thick beard, who considers herself male?

Hot

Fair enough.
---

COVxy posted...

Nobody is saying anyone is entitled to sexual attraction.

COVxy posted...

The entire point is that, for the large majority of individuals that hold that sentiment, it's because they don't actually view the transperson as their identified gender. You can pretend like ignoring their existence makes you accepting, but it doesn't.

Then I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
---

Mostly for lack of trying, I'd say. What has made you confused?
---

justaguy3492 posted...

Then I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I think the point he's making is that simply not being attracted to someone is different than discriminating on the basis that you don't feel they're a "real" woman.
---

COVxy posted...

justaguy3492 posted...

Live and let live, but this idea that you're a problem if you don't want to have sex with a trans individual is nonsense. If you want to be a boy be a boy, if you want to be a girl be a girl, if you want to be something in between be something in between, but no one is obligated to want any sort of relationship with you. There is a very small subset of people who think that you HAVE to be open to being with a trans individual, but it's a problem that needs to be addressed if we're going to go forward.

The entire point is that, for the large majority of individuals that hold that sentiment, it's because they don't actually view the transperson as their identified gender. You can pretend like ignoring their existence makes you accepting, but it doesn't.

There's a huge difference between intentionally misgendering a transgendered person in an everyday setting and not wanting to enter a romantic relationship because they were born male even if they identify as female.

Screaming it's bigotry doesn't make it so in every case unless well, that is the case. Perhaps not generalizing the entire human race to playcate one demographic would help.
---

Switch_Hitter posted...

Oh I know the science already but I wanted you to be the one to post it.

So judging from the links you posted, a bunch of if if if if ifs, no proof of anything, equating the brain to a sexual organ, and a lack of repeated results is your evidence?

Well thank you for proving me right.

If the brain isn't a sexual organ, how do you explain hypnosis/mental-induced orgasms?
---

thanosibe posted...

There's a huge difference between intentionally misgendering a transgendered person in an everyday setting and not wanting to enter a romantic relationship because they were born male even if they identify as female.

The whole "I'm totally accepting of transpeople, they can be who they want to be, but I wouldn't date them because that's totally gay" thing defeats itself, and everyone can see it except those motivated to hold the same view and appear virtuous.

I'd be more comfortable with you just admitting that you don't view transpeople as their identified gender. It would make it seem less like you're assuming I'm a moron.
---

COVxy posted...

The whole "I'm totally accepting of transpeople, they can be who they want to be, but I wouldn't date them because that's totally gay" thing defeats itself, and everyone can see it except those motivated to hold the same view and appear virtuous.

So you're saying that people should consider dating a trans person otherwise they're not accepting of trans people? This is where my confusion is coming in because you also said that sexual attraction isn't an entitlement. If I don't see a trans person as a potential partner you seem to think that I'm not fully accepting, and I don't think that's true.
---

justaguy3492 posted...

So you're saying that people should consider dating a trans person otherwise they're not accepting of trans people?

No, I'm saying if the underlying reason is that you don't really view them as their identified gender, then you are not accepting, pretty much by definition.

First, the implication of definitively swearing off an entire sector of the population has some implications. Mostly that you think some quality necessarily runs through all of them.

Now, with transpeople, there are valid reasons for it, such as wanting a child naturally. But if the reason is because you are heterosexual, it directly implies that you view that transwoman as something other than woman.
---

I view them as their indentified gender, but I just can't date someone who's sex wasn't always female. Something about that just turns me off.
---

Knickyankeefans posted...

I view them as their indentified gender, but I just can't date someone who's sex wasn't always female. Something about that just turns me off.

Why?
---

Idk man. My attraction just works that way. I don't treat them as any less of a person, or would treat them any differently. Just not sexually attracted to them
---

HaVeNII7 posted...

QueenCarly posted...

WalkingPlague posted...

Nope. Born a dude; its a dude and I'm not gay. I have nothing against trans or anything, but nah.

Clearly you do.

What? That doesn't mean he has anything against them. I feel the same way. If you're born a guy, I'm always going to view you as a guy. A girl is a girl.

I literally couldn't care less if you're trans. To me it's just a matter of fact. Dudes are dudes. You can be a dude who feels they are a girl, and that's 100% okay, but I'll always see you as a guy. You do you, but why do I need to play pretend too? And I honestly mean no offense by that.

I agree. I wouldnt as I dont sleep with guys

COVxy posted...

thanosibe posted...

There's a huge difference between intentionally misgendering a transgendered person in an everyday setting and not wanting to enter a romantic relationship because they were born male even if they identify as female.

The whole "I'm totally accepting of transpeople, they can be who they want to be, but I wouldn't date them because that's totally gay" thing defeats itself, and everyone can see it except those motivated to hold the same view and appear virtuous.

I'd be more comfortable with you just admitting that you don't view transpeople as their identified gender. It would make it seem less like you're assuming I'm a moron.

For one I didn't say it was gay. So let's not put words in my mouth.

If you are not attracted someone, you are not. Yes there are people who say that they wouldn't date a transgendered person out of bigotry. But you keep pretending and sweep all people under the same rug without knowing the context of individuals' situations.
---

I would
---

COVxy posted...

The whole "I'm totally accepting of transpeople, they can be who they want to be, but I wouldn't date them because that's totally gay" thing defeats itself, and everyone can see it except those motivated to hold the same view and appear virtuous.

"There's nothing gay about enjoying a nice feminine penis."
---

Duncanwii posted...

Callixtus posted...

No thanks. I prefer women that haven't been pumped full of hormones with bolt-on tits and have knockoff vaginas.

The breasts are grown naturally.

Lol. Those boobs were not grown naturally
---

bobaban posted...

HaVeNII7 posted...

QueenCarly posted...

WalkingPlague posted...

Nope. Born a dude; its a dude and I'm not gay. I have nothing against trans or anything, but nah.

Clearly you do.

What? That doesn't mean he has anything against them. I feel the same way. If you're born a guy, I'm always going to view you as a guy. A girl is a girl.

I literally couldn't care less if you're trans. To me it's just a matter of fact. Dudes are dudes. You can be a dude who feels they are a girl, and that's 100% okay, but I'll always see you as a guy. You do you, but why do I need to play pretend too? And I honestly mean no offense by that.

I agree. I wouldnt as I dont sleep with guys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYIc0IT3kw
---

That's a Brazilian model, and she's not transgender.
---

No IMO
---

COVxy posted...

thanosibe posted...

There's a huge difference between intentionally misgendering a transgendered person in an everyday setting and not wanting to enter a romantic relationship because they were born male even if they identify as female.

The whole "I'm totally accepting of transpeople, they can be who they want to be, but I wouldn't date them because that's totally gay" thing defeats itself, and everyone can see it except those motivated to hold the same view and appear virtuous.

I'd be more comfortable with you just admitting that you don't view transpeople as their identified gender. It would make it seem less like you're assuming I'm a moron.

Don't think shaming people into banging transgenders is a winning position for you.
---

The Admiral posted...

COVxy posted...

thanosibe posted...

There's a huge difference between intentionally misgendering a transgendered person in an everyday setting and not wanting to enter a romantic relationship because they were born male even if they identify as female.

The whole "I'm totally accepting of transpeople, they can be who they want to be, but I wouldn't date them because that's totally gay" thing defeats itself, and everyone can see it except those motivated to hold the same view and appear virtuous.

I'd be more comfortable with you just admitting that you don't view transpeople as their identified gender. It would make it seem less like you're assuming I'm a moron.

Don't think shaming people into banging transgenders is a winning position for you.

I have to agree. Trans people arent for everyone. You cant shame people into wanting to be with one.

Personally I would hit that, but to each their own.
---

https://www.instagram.com/lariweber_/
---

WalkingPlague posted...

Nope. Born a dude; its a dude and I'm not gay. I have nothing against trans or anything, but nah.

---

WalkingPlague posted...

Nope. Born a dude; its a dude and I'm not gay. I have nothing against trans or anything, but nah.

Has anyone tried doing one of these but not state they are trans until a bunch of people vote?
---

The Admiral posted...

Don't think shaming people into banging transgenders is a winning position for you.

As has already been explained, that absolutely isn't the position. Try again, thanks.
---

COVxy posted...

The Admiral posted...

Don't think shaming people into banging transgenders is a winning position for you.

As has already been explained, that absolutely isn't the position. Try again, thanks.

Admiral doesn't comprehend some things.

In another topic, he said that he didn't consider frat hazing inappropriate after bashing "thug life" for the same behavior.

Apparently, by inappropriate, he meant in a sexual way. I didn't catch that from his phrasing, so I called him out, as it seemed like he had said "thugs beating up dudes was toxic masculinity but frat kids doing the same shit was fine."

My mistake. I misunderstood him. When he clarified that he meant inappropriate as in sexually inappropriate, I said "it's not sexual though lol. No one said it was."

His response was something like "It's not inherently sexual. I don't know why you keep saying it is" or some shit like that. I literally just said it wasn't and that no one was trying to make it so. It was as if I had said "of course water is set. No one is calling it dry" and his response was "Why you keep saying water is dry?"

I don't get that guy. I really don't. He actually had some reasonable and insightful things to say on the topic's subject. He's such a bizarre character.
---

I thought everyone agreed on admiral being a troll lol
---