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

[TomC]

Here you are a cishet woman telling me a gay person what is offensive to gay people. Talk about "woke".

I'm a gay man and I mostly agree with her.

I find your stuff about fetishes and needs and whatever, as though you represent queer folks, rather offensive.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Here's something I am having trouble getting across in this thread.

I definitely want anti-discrimination laws concerning basic needs. Housing, health care, education, emergency services, policing, the environment, etc.

Frivolous stuff like campgrounds and cakes and sports, not so much.

It's not that I'm OK with irrational discrimination. I just don't want the government involved in the minutae. U.S. society has changed hugely since the 60s. We don't need the government involved in unimportant things, and I don't want them to have that much power. I do not trust them that much.
Tom

There is no government legislation against having an all-gay campground. And the only pople who want government interference in sports are the transphobes themselves.

Yeah, like, here we are socially criticizing the campground owner for being a bigot and assuming on behalf of all gay people that other gay people share his penis fetish and vagina squick. I'm sure some do, but then, on the other hand, gay trans men are not likely to be strongly, if at all, represented in such outings, and at rates that make avoiding them quite easy even were the organizer to not be a cunt about it.

That has nothing to do with insisting the government do anything about it and everything to do with social censure.

 

[Jarhyn]

Here you are a cishet woman telling me a gay person what is offensive to gay people. Talk about "woke".

I'm a gay man and I mostly agree with her.

I find your stuff about fetishes and needs and whatever, as though you represent queer folks, rather offensive.
Tom

And I find a lot of what you say about being gay and about trans folks offensive. If you cannot accept the reality that attraction to bodies and personalities happens at a different relationship epoch to awareness of genitals, I don't know what to tell you.

"Fetishes" are simply in this usage "things which are necessary for some party to enjoy a sexual experience".

If you as a gay man have a specific need for your partner to have a penis, then you have a penis fetish in addition to being gay.

Maybe that's controversial or "offensive" to you, but that is the reality of what "fetish" means.

Because I can tell you, I'm gay and I have no such need for my partner to have a penis... therefore they are not the same thing.

 

[TomC]

Here's something I am having trouble getting across in this thread.

I definitely want anti-discrimination laws concerning basic needs. Housing, health care, education, emergency services, policing, the environment, etc.

Frivolous stuff like campgrounds and cakes and sports, not so much.

It's not that I'm OK with irrational discrimination. I just don't want the government involved in the minutae. U.S. society has changed hugely since the 60s. We don't need the government involved in unimportant things, and I don't want them to have that much power. I do not trust them that much.
Tom

There is no government legislation against having an all-gay campground.

I saw what you did there. Dance around the cake part.

I see all these things as very similar. Cakes, sports, campgrounds, they're all frivolous activities that nobody needs. Scardina could easily have gotten a cake, either by just ordering it or going to another bakery. But that isn't what she wanted.

And the only pople who want government interference in sports are the transphobes themselves.

That's demonstrably untrue. The NCAA is trying to blur the lines between men's and women's divisions. They aren't a government agency.
And I'm not arguing in favor of government intervention, I'm arguing against it. The NCAA is a private organization, and they can make any rules they want.

I'm confident that getting rid of college teams that clearly distinguish between the women's and men's divisions won't work out, in the long run. Anecdotes not withstanding, transmen won't do well in the men's division, but transwomen will outplay ciswomen. You may as well cut to the chase, men's division and everyone else division.

You don't have to be a transphobic female to oppose that.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I saw what you did there. Dance around the cake part.

I see all these things as very similar. Cakes, sports, campgrounds, they're all frivolous activities that nobody needs. Scardina could easily have gotten a cake, either by just ordering it or going to another bakery. But that isn't what she wanted.

And the only pople who want government interference in sports are the transphobes themselves.

That's demonstrably untrue. The NCAA is trying to blur the lines between men's and women's divisions. They aren't a government agency.
And I'm not arguing in favor of government intervention, I'm arguing against it. The NCAA is a private organization, and they can make any rules they want.

I'm confident that getting rid of college teams that clearly distinguish between the women's and men's divisions won't work out, in the long run. Anecdotes not withstanding, transmen won't do well in the men's division, but transwomen will outplay ciswomen. You may as well cut to the chase, men's division and everyone else division.

You don't have to be a transphobic female to oppose that.
Tom

The NCAA creates the divisions. The only lines to "blur" are the ones they made in the first place.

Fundamentally we go right back to this false assumption that a whole bunch of people make that being trans automatically means some "meaningful" period of testosterone exposure with respect to sports, a position absolute NOT in evidence.

 

[TomC]

The NCAA creates the divisions.

You honestly believe that the NCAA created sex divisions?
Like men's and women's divisions didn't exist before the NCAA, and nobody would bother with such things without the NCAA?

I think that the NCAA is going to learn, the hard way, that not everyone agrees with their opinions on this.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

The NCAA creates the divisions.

You honestly believe that the NCAA created sex divisions?
Like men's and women's divisions didn't exist before the NCAA, and nobody would bother with such things without the NCAA?

I think that the NCAA is going to learn, the hard way, that not everyone agrees with their opinions on this.
Tom

The NCAA absolutely created the divisions the NCAA applies in their conferences.

To fail to acknowledge that fact is loony.

Of course not everyone agrees, but then not everyone agrees that vaccination is necessary in pandemics either. A lack of agreement at large does not imply those failing to agree are correct; it is pretty apparent that objections on genitals are spurious, where objections specifically on hormone exposure are not.

 

[TomC]

The NCAA creates the divisions.

You honestly believe that the NCAA created sex divisions?
Like men's and women's divisions didn't exist before the NCAA, and nobody would bother with such things without the NCAA?

I think that the NCAA is going to learn, the hard way, that not everyone agrees with their opinions on this.
Tom

The NCAA absolutely created the divisions the NCAA applies in their conferences.

To fail to acknowledge that fact is loony.

That's not what I said.

But I don't suppose you can see outside your blinders, so I'm not surprised that you didn't see what I actually posted.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

You were not responding to my position, then. It doesn't matter whether or that the NCAA adopted earlier models of creating divisions. What matters is, as you rightfully first stated, that the NCAA divisions are their own business.

And as has been pointed out ad nauseum, it is hormone exposures that inform any need for divisions at all. And because it is hormone exposure that informs the division, it should be hormone exposure that delineates the actual divisions. Not "sex".

 

[ZiprHead]

The NCAA creates the divisions.

You honestly believe that the NCAA created sex divisions?
Like men's and women's divisions didn't exist before the NCAA, and nobody would bother with such things without the NCAA?

I think that the NCAA is going to learn, the hard way, that not everyone agrees with their opinions on this.
Tom

Oh, no. Will they be... CANCELLED!!!

 

[J842P]

You were not responding to my position, then. It doesn't matter whether or that the NCAA adopted earlier models of creating divisions. What matters is, as you rightfully first stated, that the NCAA divisions are their own business.

And as has been pointed out ad nauseum, it is hormone exposures that inform any need for divisions at all. And because it is hormone exposure that informs the division, it should be hormone exposure that delineates the actual divisions. Not "sex".

Well, just to nitpick, hormone exposure itself is just another imperfect index. Rather, it is the developmental, physiological outcome that ultimately matters. So, just a quick example, hormone exposure to an androgen-insensitive person probably won't matter here. But I do agree, exposure to androgens during adolescence and puberty are probably good indices.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh get off it.

Here you are a cishet woman telling me a gay person what is offensive to gay people. Talk about "woke".

And you can't even seem to take the two seconds to understand what was written: that being gay is not about penises and vaginas. It's about having an attraction to men.

And the vast majority of men who have attractions to men do not display this fetish.

Okay. I am really sick and tired of Jarhyn talking about his sexual practices and fetishes (which he appears to do at the slightest opportunity), but I can say something to this ridiculous assertion that gay men don't like penises. I don't need to say this to the gay men in the thread either, who can see Jarhyn's deeply mistaken delusions about the gay landscape for themselves.

Gay men love penises, and it's because gay men are attracted to the sex 'male', and penises go along with that. If you watch any gay porn, you will no doubt find that penises feature heavily, and bigger penises are the most favoured, because having a penis is something a male has and gay men are sexually attracted to men and their penises. If you go on a gay hookup app, sometimes men greet you with 'hi' and sometimes men greet you with 'u hung?'

It beggars belief that Jarhyn is trying to tell people otherwise. Jarhyn has described multiple of his own kinks (like being a furry), and now he has re-cast liking penises as a kink.

 

[Metaphor]

Yeah, like, here we are socially criticizing the campground owner for being a bigot

He isn't a bigot for excluding transmen. He is not attracted to transmen. Similarly, he is not bigoted for excluding women. He is not attracted to women.

and assuming on behalf of all gay people that other gay people share his penis fetish and vagina squick.

He hasn't assumed any such thing on behalf of all gay people. What a strange idea. He just has an idea of what his ideal camping ground is (all males with penises) and others can either share his ideal or they can go camp somewhere else.

I'm sure some do, but then, on the other hand, gay trans men are not likely to be strongly, if at all, represented in such outings, and at rates that make avoiding them quite easy even were the organizer to not be a cunt about it.

In other words, Jarhyn likes to criticise gay men and lesbians who are not attracted to people in the same way he is. It's fine for men to exclude women (according to Jarhyn's definition of woman), but it is not fine for men with penis kinks (using Jarhyn's terminology) to exclude people without penises.

That has nothing to do with insisting the government do anything about it and everything to do with social censure.

Yes, Jarhyn wants to socially censure men who have 'penis fetishes' and punish them for creating a voluntary space where they can all hang out.

 

[TomC]

And as has been pointed out ad nauseum, it is hormone exposures that inform any need for divisions at all.

That's obviously not true.

There's a lot more to the male advantage in sports than hormones. That's one thing, but there're many others.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

Can you provide some examples?

Indiana HB 1416
Indiana IN SB 300
Iowa SF 508
Iowa HF 2273
Iowa SF 2193
Iowa SF 2194
Kentucky SB 90
Oklahoma SB 1515
South Dakota SB 109
West Virginia HB 2985


In all cases, the primary intended purpose of the legislation was to clearly persecute trans people, but the wording was so vague and general as to allow discrimination against any group evangelicals should choose to target, part of the reason most of these died in committee. But you're naive as hell if you don't think trans and gay rights are linked.

Thank you. the ones I skimmed seem like horrible ideas.

That said, the only reason I can see that gay rights and trans rights are linked... is the same reason that gay rights and women's rights are linked: because someone got lazy and decided to interpret "sex" to mean 1) your biological reproductive classification, 2) who you like to have sex with, and 3) what you feel like on the inside. In reality, however, those are not interchangeable things, and the issues faced by people in those groupings are very, very different. As are the rights and entitlements being asked for.

 

[Emily Lake]

Oh get off it.

Here you are a cishet woman telling me a gay person what is offensive to gay people. Talk about "woke".

And you can't even seem to take the two seconds to understand what was written: that being gay is not about penises and vaginas. It's about having an attraction to men.

And the vast majority of men who have attractions to men do not display this fetish.

Indeed, gay men don't necessarily have a penis fetish any more than many lesbians have vagina fetishes. What the fuck is wrong in your head that would would read what I wrote to assume that?

There is definitely some fairly significant comorbidity between being gay and having a penis fetish, but the whole point is that these are two different things.
.good to know you still can't tell the difference though.

Well, at present my two lesbian aunts, my lesbian niece, and my three lesbian first cousins, my two gay nephews, and my several lesbian and gay friends are all pretty fucking pissed about being labeled as bigots and having their sexual orientation turned into a fucking sexual deviancy by goddamned transgender people and their activist handmaidens. I'm particularly perturbed by my young lesbian niece having emotional stress because "butch lesbian transwomen" keep trying to coerce her into having sex with their "ladydiques" and calling her fucking names because she rightly recognizes them as fucking STRAIGHT MEN.

 

[Emily Lake]

There is no government legislation against having an all-gay campground. And the only pople who want government interference in sports are the transphobes themselves.

What? Did we just imagine Biden's EO?

 

[Emily Lake]

Yeah, like, here we are socially criticizing the campground owner for being a bigot and assuming on behalf of all gay people that other gay people share his penis fetish and vagina squick. I'm sure some do, but then, on the other hand, gay trans men are not likely to be strongly, if at all, represented in such outings, and at rates that make avoiding them quite easy even were the organizer to not be a cunt about it.

"Fetishes" are simply in this usage "things which are necessary for some party to enjoy a sexual experience".

I don't think I can stress enough how incredibly dehumanizing and offensive this is.

You are saying that all strictly homosexual people, and all strictly heterosexual people have fetishes. That they are all exhibiting sexual deviancies. That's just beyond merely insulting. It is massively degrading and regressive beyond conscience.

You're redefining a word to suit your own twisted logic... and in doing so you're demeaning 99.8% of the fucking species.

https://www.britannica.com/science/fetishism-psychology

Fetishism, in psychology, a form of sexual deviance involving erotic attachment to an inanimate object or an ordinarily asexual part of the human body.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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)

This is some incredible offensively homophobic bullshit. Referring to sexual orientation as a FETISH is fucking straight out of the days when psychologists considered homosexuality to be a sexual disorder and employed conversion therapy to "fix" it.

I'm not about to sit here and be silent while this insulting bigoted homophobic crap gets foisted off as if it's a fucking virtue.

Gay men don't have a "penis fetish" and lesbians don't have a "vagina fetish". That's a disgustingly regressive view. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong in your head that you say that shit seriously?

I think you have his position backwards.

First, he's not talking about a sexual orientation. He's talking about attractions to particular bits of anatomy. A homosexual man would be attracted to someone who looks male. He's saying he would prefer that male-looking person to possess a penis. It's the organizer that he's saying has a fetish.

Second, only for bisexuals is sexual orientation not a fetish. You are using "fetish" to describe something as a very abnormal sexual preference but that's not the proper meaning of the word. A fetish is something you require for sexual arousal. A straight male or a lesbian female require someone that looks female. A gay male or a straight female require someone that looks male. (Note that this can be mental imagery, not an actual person.)

Likewise, a kink is something desired but not required.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are saying that all strictly homosexual people, and all strictly heterosexual people have fetishes. That they are all exhibiting sexual deviancies. That's just beyond merely insulting. It is massively degrading and regressive beyond conscience.

The problem is that you are assuming "fetish" = "sexual deviant". It's commonly misused that way but he's using it correctly.