Gay press loses its mind when it discovers gay man starting a male-only camping club

[Metaphor]

While it's near-impossible to find neutral reporting in the lgbT press, the advocate summarised some events here:

Gay Michigan Campground Bans Trans Men (advocate.com)

A Michigan campground marketing itself to gay men has instituted a ban on transgender men.


Camp Boomerang RV Park and Campground, a yet-to-opened site in Orleans, Mich., announced the ban on its Facebook page through its co-owner, Bryan Quinn.


“Camp Boomerang is a private, membership-only RV park/campground that allows only ‘guys’. A ‘guy,’ in terms of this discussion, is defined as a person with a penis, [who] presents himself as male and has a state-issued ID that says ‘male,’” Quinn wrote in a post.


Quinn clearly anticipated a backlash to the exclusionary policy by arguing for the private campground's right to a "like-minded atmosphere" in a follow-up post. “We understand this statement, unfortunately, may not make everyone happy, but feel it needs to be clarified," he wrote. "It is our hope that everyone who visits Camp Boomerang enjoys a comfortable, safe, non-confrontational environment going forward.


“Being a ‘private membership only’ entity allows us the ability to build a like-minded atmosphere. We don’t mean for this to come off as a ‘like it or leave it’ attitude, but we feel it’s necessary for everyone to know exactly what our vision is for Camp Boomerang."

Predictably, discriminating based on sex is cast as the unforgivable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit for a large portion of the progressive left, but discriminating based on gender identity is somehow....not "bigotry".

The gay press lost its mind at the thought that there are gay men attracted to males and wanting to set up an exclusive male-only space.

Hornet said (emphasis mine):
Not Even Open Yet, This Gay Campground Has Been Slammed for Petty Transphobia | Hornet, the Gay Social Network

In a truly abhorrent move, a gay campground in Michigan has banned transmen from their male-only park. Though Camp Boomerang hasn’t even opened yet, it is (understandably) causing a ton of controversy with its blatant, mind-boggling transphobia.


...


One Facebooker wrote: “Not only do you have to have a dick, you have to be a dick to camp here. These revolutionary business owners have created a fantastic new approach to outdoor inclusivity by creating a special plot of land where only outy peepee men are welcome. I honestly can’t wait to watch them fail at this like they did Biology.”


Another commenter: “Trans men are MEN, you pretentious, exclusionary cockwaffles. 0/10, would absolutely NOT recommend.”

Pridesource evidently thinks a male-only space is 'anti-trans' (one wonders why they don't think a mens-only space is anti-woman)
Anti-Trans Michigan Camp Boomerang Removed From Gay Camp Association, Campit Features Trans Week - Pride Source

Camp Boomerang will be the fourth gay campground to open up in Michigan — along with CreekRidge, Campit Resort Saugatuck, and The Windover Women’s Resort. CreekRidge, although outwardly welcoming of transmen, requires “that their identification is that of a male due to being an all-male campground.” Because — you know — nothing is more gender-confirming than a stamp of approval from the state.


In contrast, at Campit there are no such ridiculous requirements, and the campground is open to cis and trans men and women.


It is high time the LGBTQ community at large takes a stand against these so-called queer establishments with their unconscionable policies. The messages of disgust on Facebook are a good start to what will hopefully become a full-on boycott of Camp Boomerang.

The campsite, which is not open yet, has already been review-bombed on Google with 1-star reviews.

Now, I'd like to ask a question: why is it morally okay to exclude women from something (as transactivists define women--that is, any 'cis' biological female and any trans-identified biological male), but it is not morally okay to exclude females from something?

 

[none]

hmm, sounds like you are confused after doing all that research.
why is it morally OK to exclude women from apples, but not morally OK to exclude from oranges?

 

[Metaphor]

hmm, sounds like you are confused after doing all that research.
why is it morally OK to exclude women from apples, but not morally OK to exclude from oranges?

I'm sorry, you will have to clarify your analogy. I do not understand it.

 

[none]

hmm, sounds like you are confused after doing all that research.
why is it morally OK to exclude women from apples, but not morally OK to exclude from oranges?

I'm sorry, you will have to clarify your analogy. I do not understand it.

it's not an analogy.

 

[Metaphor]

hmm, sounds like you are confused after doing all that research.
why is it morally OK to exclude women from apples, but not morally OK to exclude from oranges?

I'm sorry, you will have to clarify your analogy. I do not understand it.

it's not an analogy.

I don't understand what you've written.

 

[none]

[insult removed]

 

[none]

it's not an analogy.

I don't understand what you've written.

 

[TomC]

it's not an analogy.

I don't understand what you've written.

View attachment 32864

Perhaps you should read that.
You've done a poor job of communication in this thread.

I'm LBGTQ myself, and I had no idea what you meant to communicate by your analogy.
Tom

 

[none]

View attachment 32864

Perhaps you should read that.
You've done a poor job of communication in this thread.

I'm LBGTQ myself, and I had no idea what you meant to communicate by your analogy.
Tom

oh my fuck

I guess now you are qualified to look at pictures.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

View attachment 32864

Perhaps you should read that.
You've done a poor job of communication in this thread.

I'm LBGTQ myself, and I had no idea what you meant to communicate by your analogy.
Tom

It is a result of OMFG!!! Fatigue.

 

[none]

no offense Jimmy. next I'll have to teach these primates sign language

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This actually might make some sense if the actual intent is to be something of a sex club.

 

[Metaphor]

This actually might make some sense if the actual intent is to be something of a sex club.

It's supposed to be clothing optional, but even if it were not, why is it "bigotry"?

 

[TomC]

This actually might make some sense if the actual intent is to be something of a sex club.

It's been a long time, so I don't know the current scene.
But it's anything like Camp-it 20+ years ago, it kinda is.

Put that many naked guys together, in a halfway secluded place, and lots of sex will happen.

You can trust me on this or ask for details. I've got lots of details if you want.

Frankly, this "only cismen" thing is probably part of their business model. They're getting a ton of free advertising which will appeal to guys like me who really do care about the difference between an inny and an outy.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This actually might make some sense if the actual intent is to be something of a sex club.

It's been a long time, so I don't know the current scene.
But it's anything like Camp-it 20+ years ago, it kinda is.

Put that many naked guys together, in a halfway secluded place, and lots of sex will happen.

You can trust me on this or ask for details. I've got lots of details if you want.

Frankly, this "only cismen" thing is probably part of their business model. They're getting a ton of free advertising which will appeal to guys like me who really do care about the difference between an inny and an outy.
Tom

I didn't think of it as a publicity stunt, I was just figuring that once you bring sex into the picture the anatomy matters. It might be about publicity, though.

 

[TomC]

This actually might make some sense if the actual intent is to be something of a sex club.

It's been a long time, so I don't know the current scene.
But it's anything like Camp-it 20+ years ago, it kinda is.

Put that many naked guys together, in a halfway secluded place, and lots of sex will happen.

You can trust me on this or ask for details. I've got lots of details if you want.

Frankly, this "only cismen" thing is probably part of their business model. They're getting a ton of free advertising which will appeal to guys like me who really do care about the difference between an inny and an outy.
Tom

I didn't think of it as a publicity stunt, I was just figuring that once you bring sex into the picture the anatomy matters. It might be about publicity, though.

It's not a binary thing.

Probably, it's both. And other stuff as well.

Not all LBGQ recognize T as a related subject. You straight people might, but not necessarily the rest of us.

Here's another example of minorities who aren't as politically correct as the SJWs in general. Lots of black folks do not recognize Jewish or Hispanic peoples as oppressed minorities.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

I didn't think of it as a publicity stunt, I was just figuring that once you bring sex into the picture the anatomy matters. It might be about publicity, though.

It's not a binary thing.

Probably, it's both. And other stuff as well.

Not all LBGQ recognize T as a related subject. You straight people might, but not necessarily the rest of us.

Here's another example of minorities who aren't as politically correct as the SJWs in general. Lots of black folks do not recognize Jewish or Hispanic peoples as oppressed minorities.
Tom

Some of us (mostly) straight people absolutely understand that the T has virtually nothing to do with the LGB. I honestly don't understand how it ended up in there at all.

And I find this particular activism approach to be downright homophobic. Shaming and demeaning a person for their sexual orientation is disgusting. But somehow, it's become the "in" thing to do, as long as someone is claiming trans status.

The entire concept of the "Cotton Ceiling", for example, is downright rapey af. Harassing and coercing lesbians that they have to have sex with penises on threat of being labeled a bigot is horrible and abusive. People - both male and female - should 100% have boundaries with respect to their own bodies and their own sexual attraction. It is completely abhorrent to me that transpeople feel like they're entitled to shit all over the gay and lesbian people that they're piggybacking on.

 

[Politesse]

I didn't think of it as a publicity stunt, I was just figuring that once you bring sex into the picture the anatomy matters. It might be about publicity, though.

It's not a binary thing.

Probably, it's both. And other stuff as well.

Not all LBGQ recognize T as a related subject. You straight people might, but not necessarily the rest of us.

Here's another example of minorities who aren't as politically correct as the SJWs in general. Lots of black folks do not recognize Jewish or Hispanic peoples as oppressed minorities.
Tom

Excuse my rudeness, but gay people who don't understand why the LGBT alliance formed in the first place are very short-sighted, a danger to themselves and others. This isn't the Dark Ages, and theocratic authoritarians with a sacred book should not be allowed to dictate public morals to us anymore. If you let them persecute trans people with no challenge, you bet your boots you'll be next. All this supposed progress will vanish like fucking dust in the wind. Have you noticed how much of the supposedly anti-trans legislation placed on the books lately has, in fact, allowed discrimination against gays as well? You may distinguish yourself from trans people, but the people who want to cancel every last social freedom you currently enjoy will make no such distinction. The tyranny of Bibliolatry must be countered on every front it presses its advantage on, not just those you personally happen to care most about.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course the gay press is going to be critical of someone who, in their desires to set up a "wet and wild" camping trip then goes on to say that a lot of the people that mainstream gay culture acknowledges as gay men are explicitly uninvited.

Not everyone who is gay, in fact shockingly few who are gay, share the aversions and fetishes of this particular organizer. Hell, even if I did have a penis fetish (I merely have penis kink), I don't think I would explicitly uninvite people without penises from being there, since I'm under no obligation to actually fuck anyone, let alone someone with genitals I would in this hypothetical be disinterested in.

Of course this is a moot point in a lot of ways. One of the bigger frustrations I see gay transguys having is that a lot of gay men objectify their bodies. It's legitimately hard to be with someone who wants to be with you for you rather than for your specific genital/body configuration as an object. And because it's hard to find anyone who can actually be cool about it in both ways (that you have it and it doesn't set you apart for special treatment or interest), it's just hard not being alone as a trans person.

It just seems a classic case where the organizer needs to listen to "it's ok to not like things":

 

[Terrell]

This actually might make some sense if the actual intent is to be something of a sex club.

Agreed. As soon as I saw the title of the thread I thought the same thing. Gay dudes looking for sex aren't likely to be interested in vaginas.