MEn Who ARe Attracted To Transsexual Women Are Gay?

That is simply a lack of sexuality. However for the sake of argument I'll give you that one. I didn't think I needed to address people without sexuality as we were speaking in the context of people with a sexuality. But sure. If you include people without sexual attraction at all then there are four categories.

But within the context of people who actually have sexual attraction there are only three options.

 

Not sure why you find it so difficult to understand that there is more to sex classifications than the male/female binary. On the one hand, we've heard statements here that amount to penis = male. Now you're telling us that a 'Y' chromosome = male. Which one is it? It's not always the case that a person born with a 'Y' chromosome has a penis. It's not always the case that a person born without a 'Y' chromosome fails to have a penis. And I'm not talking about surgical alterations here; I'm addressing the biological and physical makeup that some people are born with. You would seemingly have us pretend that people with intersex conditions don't exist, or that their existence is inconsequential. Their lives matter just as much as yours.

You also neglect the issue of legal sex versus genetic makeup. Doctors don't assign a person's sex at birth based on testing their chromosomes. They do it based on physical appearance - one that sometimes runs contrary to what we would expect based on a person's genetic makeup.

So what determines what sex a person is? Is it physical appearance, or genetic makeup? It seems to me that those oversimplifying the issue want to have it both ways, depending on which one they deem useful to their arguments at the time.

Intersex conditions sometimes intersect with transgender identity. Sometimes people are assigned a sex at birth that doesn't match their genetic makeup or how they perceive themselves. Sometimes doctors perform surgery on them as children to "correct" the ambiguity of their genitalia, when there's no real medical need to do so. Rather, it's forced conformance to social norms.

The idea that 'gayness' is determined by someone having sex with another person based on whether that person's chromosomes make them of the same genetic sex, despite physical appearance that runs counter to it, and despite any ability on the part of the first person to know the second person's genetic makeup, is about as ridiculous as ridiculous gets.

When you actually come up with an argument that explains how a person's identity should be determined by you, based on who they have sex with - something that you have no business doing in the first place, then get back to me.

Otherwise, I've heard enough from you.

 

It isn't. Maybe actually do some research and learn about the things you're attempting to argue, prior to just spouting off and making yourself look foolish.

Because you demand it must be so? Who died and made you God?

Despite your desire to oversimplify things that are not simple, human sexuality remains a complex subject. Orientation continues to lie along a spectrum and be about attraction, not sexual behavior, despite your insisting 'facts' that aren't facts at all.

 

You have to be a woman. I don't say that as an insult but I say that because essentially your ENTIRE position is predicated on an appeal to emotion and has absolutely nothing to do with basic logic or reasoning.

First of all you've never heard me declare that a penis makes you a male. In this day men can cut off their penis', women can get penis transplants and some people are just born with genetic defects. Having a penis does not inherently make one a male.

With that being said it IS statistically a good standard by which to determine if someone is a male. That brings me to address your claims of doctors and declaring sex. The doctors are just playing the statistics. They know that 99.999% of the people born with a penis are male and 99.999% of the people born with a vagina are female. So no they don't genetically test every single person. They are simply following the "rule" and worrying about the exception later. If you ARE actually a genetic male and you're born without a penis and they declared you a female you can get genetic testing and have the sex on your birth certificate changed. But the hospitals aren't going to spend millions of dollars genetically testing the sex of people because of .0001% of the population.

But none of that changes the fact that if you have a Y chromosome then you are a male and if you do not then you are a female.

You can identify as a dolphin but that doesn't make it true unless you're born with dolphin Dna. I mean he'll Dolezal thinks she's black but she's not. And no amount of wishing, thinking, identifying as or using makeup to look black is going to change the fact that she's not genetically black.

And just because a feminine male identifies as female doesn't change the fact that they have a Y chromosome making them a male.

And this last part is again nothing more than an appeal to emotion and has no basis in logic or reasoning.

 

Actually YOU need to educate yourself because you're just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/magnetic-partners/201406/asexuality

Asexuality is generally defined as a lack of sexual attraction to others or the lack of interest in sex. Bogaert (2004) claimed that there are two forms of asexuality: 1. People who have a sex drive but do not direct this towards others—they may masturbate; and 2. People who have no sex drive at all.

Because there is no other option. It is an IMPOSSIBILITY for you to name a human sexuality within people who are sexually attracted to others that doesn't fit within the confines of either bisexual, homosexual or heterosexual.

If you can, then provide it. If not then stop flailing in the water before you drown and admit that you're wrong.

 

Trans women are women. They aren't men dressed as women. They're women.

 

They are called Lady BOYS for a reason. They are males, complete with all the male plumbing.

 

No, they are men with a mental disorder.

 

Then why do we need the term "Trans"?

Having tits and a vagina does not a woman make on it's own.

- - - Updated - - -

In YOUR opinion...just as in mine you are a very insecure man.

 

Its the opinion of the APA.

 

I strongly disagree. I could not be attracted to a trans "woman" no matter how authentic and believable "she" may look, because I will always believe HE's a surgically altered male who takes female hormones and never a real woman.

 

It's not a vagina. Don't buy into their delusion. They don't want anyone's opinion, just their own echoed back at them.

 

Being trans isn't a mental disorder. If it was a body dysmorphic disorder, it would respond to SSRIs. It doesn't. Nor does it respond to any form of CBT, ruling out personality disorders and neuroses. It isn't a delusional disorder and does not cause hallucinations or thought disturbance, so it isn't a psychotic disorder either.

Being trans is simply the result of a conflict between a body and a brain that don't match. It causes extreme discomfort in a body that feels foreign and alien until transition finally allows them to feel comfortable in their own skin.

- - - Updated - - -

The term trans is necessary in this conversation in order to clarify what I'm talking about. In normal conversation, I don't find it necessary to mention that they're trans unless it's brought up.

 

Lets say one of them left a DNA sample at a murder scene. After the forensic lab gets the result, an alert will be issued declaring the suspect to be male. Not trans anything, this that or the other. Suspect is a male.

 

No they're not. Not in any way shape or form are they women.

If someone thinks of himself as a dolphin and dresses in a dolphin outfit... Is he a dolphin?

Or is he a dumbass guy dressed up like a dolphin?

 

I would call THIS a Shapely Form....and would never know she was a man unless she told me.

 

Encountered karyotypes are 47XXY, 46XX/46XY, or 46XX/47XXY, and various degrees of mosaicism (with one interesting case of an XY predominant (96%) mosaic giving birth).[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism
http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(08)00233-1/fulltext

If you have XX and XY you're a 3rd option. Both sets of genitals? >>> See first sentence. Flip flop? Same.
Still doesn't make a biologic male or female out of anyone who gets the chop, and it doesn't make a biologic male or female out of someone with that particular set of genetic quirks. Doesn't make them less human, doesn't make it ok to harm them or remove their rights. But they don't qualify for the definition either, just like Rachel Dolezal does not have predominently black genetics no matter how much she identifies as black.
What part of that is difficult to understand?


No one has been encountered who has 2 complete sets IE both sets being functional.
Seriously, don't try to argue the intersex issue if you haven't done the research.

 

If you are a man and you KNOW was what I said. If you've been tricked you've been tricked. If after the pants come off they say "I'm a biologic male" and you complete the act yes you are either bisexual or homosexual. Nothing wrong with that, its a simple definition do try to keep up.

What you're failing to grasp is that many people identify as straight but are not and are instead bi-sexual. If you popped wood in the locker room looking at naked dudes but you also pop wood at females you're bi sexual. What is so difficult to grasp about that? Of course many people, males especially, repress those feelings and often even the memory of such instances.

Well you don't have to buy it cause I aint selling it, its a simple matter of applying definitions. only attracted ever to the opposite sex? Hetero. both? Bi. Same? Homosexual. Why is that so offensive?

Yes if you're gay (*)(*)(*)(*)ing the opposite sex doesn't make you straight it makes you BI. For (*)(*)(*)(*)'s Sake what the (*)(*)(*)(*) is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hard to (*)(*)(*)(*)ing understand about that (*)(*)(*)(*)ing (*)(*)(*)(*)? BOTH= BI. <<<< That is a simple matter of definition. Google the definition of bisexual if you don't believe me.
As to people: No (*)(*)(*)(*) sherlock people lie to others and themselves about their actual orientation for a plethora of reasons, near constantly. You have discovered one of the great truths of the universe, that you cannot trust what comes out of people's mouths. hooray. Have a cookie and celebrate or something.

 

He doesn't have to rethink anything. He can continue to think of himself however he should like. Doesn't make it correct under an objective definition.

 

If you see a (*)(*)(*)(*) and still (*)(*)(*)(*) you've had homosexual sex. If the person is full transition and has a fake vagina and they tell you they are a biologic male its the same. That's what people call "gay" but if you're still into (*)(*)(*)(*)ing women as well youre really Bisexual. Nothing wrong with that.

 

It is according to the APA.....are listed as such in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) or the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) under codes F64.0, F64.1, 302.85 and 302.6 respectively. But hey, whatever it takes you to get through your day.

 

like I said, maybe he could trick you. But as long as you think it's a woman and have no indication it's a man then you're just being deceived and you're not gay.

However when he pulls his 2 piece off and his dick falls out are you still going to want to have sex with him? If so you're gay. If not you're not gay.

 

I am not a woman. But thanks for demonstrating that misogyny is alive and well. As for your declarations about my position, apparently that's the stock answer for anyone who disagrees with you.

Others in the thread have made that argument. My bringing it up in response to your post doesn't mean you specifically made that argument.

Do disagreement up to this point.

The law varies from state to state. To my knowledge, only Arizona and the District of Columbia explicitly address 'chromosome count' or 'intersex condition'. Some states flat out will not change it. Others require a court order. The laws in some are incredibly vague. In many, the laws are geared toward those who have had sexual reassignment surgery; in other words, not based on genetic makeup. Surgery isn't always needed and may even be inadvisable for persons with intersex conditions. So they aren't going to meet the requirements in the law for having sexual reassignment surgery.

Now, if you can show otherwise that an intersex person in any state can do what you claim, then prove it. We've no obligation to take you at your word.

Because you say so? Show me where it says that in the law. Apparently all you have here is an opinion, and not a very well supported one.

Irrelevant distractions.

More of the same.

If you think so, then address those last three paragraphs you quoted together directly, point by point, with logic and reason.

I see no reason to expect you will, as you've had plenty of opportunities to show us your logic and reason, but all we get are bold declarations of 'fact' from you that can't be shown to be facts.

 

....Uh....I do not think she has a penis anymore.

 

You said it was a lack of sexuality. Your source doesn't support that original assertion.

I didn't make anything up, and I'm not responsible for your uncareful reading that leads you to a conclusion counter to what your source says.

Emphasis on the word "confines". You apparently have a desire to confine people's sexuality to your own, rigid definitions thereof, as being determined by their behavior. No one has any obligation to accommodate you in that ridiculous, overly simplistic, unscientific belief.

I already did.

I think we're past the point where anyone trying to discuss this with you is anything less than an exercise in futility.