It's gender critical coming out day

[Loren Pechtel]

It is necessary that a person has to be a particular sex for me to be attracted to them sexually.

I know your church preaches against this but I don't belong to your church.

Nobody is trying to decree who you are attracted to. Sexual attraction is different for different people. It's just you don't get to decree who others are attracted to.

 

[Jarhyn]

"No, pls." Has been a gender since long before biblical times, for record. There's even some really fun verses about it in the bible.

I'm not going to go telling you which verses those are quite yet. Some people here know, or could find them, but I will neither confirm nor deny quite yet.

 

[TomC]

"No, pls." Has been a gender since long before biblical times, for record.

"No, pls" wasn't even a recognizable bit of language before modern, idiomatic, American.

You can quote ancient Scripture all you want. Lots of people do. Interpret it however you want. Lots of people do.

But this is demonstrably false.

Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

When did being gender critical become a gender?

Did it become a gender?
Anyway, I wonder, when did "No pls.", "Here." and "Faggot" become genders?

It's the "coming out" part that lead me to believe it was some sort of gender reveal. I've known Metaphor's position on gender (fairly simple too, male & female's only) thus why I knew it wasn't a reveal for that.

It sounds more like a coming out as an atheist sort of thing to me.

Missing @Gospel's lame attempt at humour is another cue. As is putting an utterly extraneous u in humor. And referring to his joke as lame.

Really, it's kinda fun, this parsing of cues.

Tom

But I did see Gospel's attempt; it's that I saw it as a mixture of humor and challenge. You on the other hand missed my attempt at humor in my reply to Gospel (a minor miss, though, nothing like the other thread).

Yeah, it was a mixture of humor and challenge. I found your "coming out as an atheist" an acceptable interpretation. I do wish you luck on that Metaphor, sincerely.

Notice that @Angra Mainyu didn't question the lame part.


Tom

ETA~Possibly because Argentineans don't catch the subtleties of insults among us USonians. It's quite possible that he didn't notice you referring to me as a bundle of sticks. ~

But I didn't affirm the lame part, either: I just worked around it.

And by the way, I did notice the "lame" part, but I admit not the bundle of sticks - and now I just searched for Gospel's posts in the thread, and still haven't seen it.

 

[Jarhyn]

"No, pls." Has been a gender since long before biblical times, for record.

"No, pls" wasn't even a recognizable bit of language before modern, idiomatic, American.

You can quote ancient Scripture all you want. Lots of people do. Interpret it however you want. Lots of people do.

But this is demonstrably false.

Tom

You are acting obtuse about the meaning of and provenance of the concept.

People have been rejecting being categorized in this way since people have been categorized in this way.

 

[Metaphor]

Nobody is trying to decree who you are attracted to.

Sure they are. Trans activists do it all the time, by defining people as attracted to a 'gender' and not a sex. Jarhyn thinks attraction to men (Jarhyn would say: men with penises) is a fetish. When Lil Nas X said he was gay because he liked dick, his space cadet woke followers 'corrected' him by saying he did not like dick, he liked the male gender, and some men have vaginas.

The problem is, Lil Nas X and most gay men live in reality, and we know what a man is and we know that dicks are attached to men. And the gender cultists live in cloud cuckoo land, where gay men are allegedly attracted to any people with the gender identity 'male' (which includes women with vaginas aping manhood), and that the only thing to explain why we are not attracted to these 'trans men' is that we also have a penis fetish.

So, fuck the inherent homophobia in the gender cultist cloud cuckoo land. I will not participate in my own erasure.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nobody is trying to decree who you are attracted to.

Sure they are. Trans activists do it all the time, by defining people as attracted to a 'gender' and not a sex. Jarhyn thinks attraction to men (Jarhyn would say: men with penises) is a fetish. When Lil Nas X said he was gay because he liked dick, his space cadet woke followers 'corrected' him by saying he did not like dick, he liked the male gender, and some men have vaginas.

The problem is, Lil Nas X and most gay men live in reality, and we know what a man is and we know that dicks are attached to men. And the gender cultists live in cloud cuckoo land, where gay men are allegedly attracted to any people with the gender identity 'male' (which includes women with vaginas aping manhood), and that the only thing to explain why we are not attracted to these 'trans men' is that we also have a penis fetish.

So, fuck the inherent homophobia in the gender cultist cloud cuckoo land. I will not participate in my own erasure.

I don't correct lil Nas x for saying hes gay because he liked penis. I criticize him for not saying he's gay and needs penis.

It's just a little dumb for him to make an implication that all gay folks like dick. Ok a lot bit dumb, but he doesn't seem to be being shitty about it so...

It does not erase you to learn your place in the universe is a little more complicated than you thought, amid a wider field than you imagined.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't correct lil Nas x for saying hes gay because he liked penis. I criticize him for not saying he's gay and needs penis.

Jarhyn, a while back you objected to the men-only campground that (from your point of view) restricted the subset of men to 'men with penises'. Why did you object? It's because you felt it was unfair to exclude (from your point of view) men with vaginas. Why was that unfair? Why are you offended by and feel the need to police the preferences of some gay men?

It's just a little dumb for him to make an implication that all gay folks like dick. Ok a lot bit dumb, but he doesn't seem to be being shitty about it so...

That's because you have redefined what same-sex attraction is. But worse than that, you've redefined it but claim that your definition was the one that people were using all along. That's called gaslighting, Jarhyn.

It does not erase you to learn your place in the universe is a little more complicated than you thought, amid a wider field than you imagined.

My place in the universe is no more complex than it was before gender cultist language games.

Men are adult human males and part of the apparatus of being an adult human male is having a penis. There may be gay men out there (total tops) who are indifferent to the dicks of the men they have sex with, but they're the exception not the rule.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jarhyn, a while back you objected to the men-only campground that (from your point of view) restricted the subset of men to 'men with penises'. Why did you object? <Snip of attempts to fit bullshit in the gaps>

Because it is exclusionist, and needlessly so.

No more no less. You were the one that brought them and their policy up, if I recall. I didn't know they existed before someone else brought them into it. At any rate, whoever did bring them up held them up to be judged and considered.

I judged them and considered them as is the purview of anyone on these forums over any subject as brought up on them.

I objected because my opinion was actively being sought. They are exclusionist prolapses: assholes who have come out of the place where assholes hide so as to obviously be assholes.

That's because you have redefined what same-sex attraction is. But worse than that, you've redefined it but claim that your definition was the one that people were using all along. That's called gaslighting, Jarhyn.

No, I use "gay" in a way that is in all honesty extremely sloppy because "gay" is a sloppy idea.

We are beyond such sloppiness today and are on less sloppy terms and considerations today.

I don't claim it's the definition that people used all along either, or at least that you ever used it that way, or many of the stonewall generation. It's certainly the way some people have used it in the past, going back all the way to or very near the beginning of the term.

Rather, I claim that it is the most useful way to use the term that creates an inclusive community.

 

[Metaphor]

Because it is exclusionist, and needlessly so.

Do you invite people to your house sometimes, and exclude everybody you did not invite?

Your appeal to 'exclusionist' is incoherent. Your objection to the men with penises only campground was that they did not define 'men' the way you did. You have to shoehorn your gender catechism into everything.

Rather, I claim that it is the most useful way to use the term that creates an inclusive community.

What on earth does 'inclusive' mean? Does your definition of 'gay man' include heterosexual women? If not, why are you being not-inclusive?

 

[Gospel]

Nobody is trying to decree who you are attracted to.

Sure they are. Trans activists do it all the time, by defining people as attracted to a 'gender' and not a sex. Jarhyn thinks attraction to men (Jarhyn would say: men with penises) is a fetish. When Lil Nas X said he was gay because he liked dick, his space cadet woke followers 'corrected' him by saying he did not like dick, he liked the male gender, and some men have vaginas.

The problem is, Lil Nas X and most gay men live in reality, and we know what a man is and we know that dicks are attached to men. And the gender cultists live in cloud cuckoo land, where gay men are allegedly attracted to any people with the gender identity 'male' (which includes women with vaginas aping manhood), and that the only thing to explain why we are not attracted to these 'trans men' is that we also have a penis fetish.

So, fuck the inherent homophobia in the gender cultist cloud cuckoo land. I will not participate in my own erasure.

I don't correct lil Nas x for saying hes gay because he liked penis. I criticize him for not saying he's gay and needs penis.

It's just a little dumb for him to make an implication that all gay folks like dick. Ok a lot bit dumb, but he doesn't seem to be being shitty about it so...

It does not erase you to learn your place in the universe is a little more complicated than you thought, amid a wider field than you imagined.

That depends. Does said universe exist solely in your head?

 

[Axulus]

Prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination on the basis of sex. Which are, foundationally "decisions that sex matters" and then making decisions on the basis of sex.

Sex does matter. For example, sex matters in terms of which adults can reproduced with other adults.

Sex matters in disease progression.

Sex matters in upper body strength.

Sex matters in sexual orientation.

Sex matters in all kinds of ways. I'm sorry you are delusional enough to believe differently.

"This is sexism. You are similar to a race realist (scientific racism)."

Unbelievable the level of braindead comments this forum has become. You must be a masochist Metaphor to endure this crap on every one of your posts.

 

[Jarhyn]

Nobody is trying to decree who you are attracted to.

Sure they are. Trans activists do it all the time, by defining people as attracted to a 'gender' and not a sex. Jarhyn thinks attraction to men (Jarhyn would say: men with penises) is a fetish. When Lil Nas X said he was gay because he liked dick, his space cadet woke followers 'corrected' him by saying he did not like dick, he liked the male gender, and some men have vaginas.

The problem is, Lil Nas X and most gay men live in reality, and we know what a man is and we know that dicks are attached to men. And the gender cultists live in cloud cuckoo land, where gay men are allegedly attracted to any people with the gender identity 'male' (which includes women with vaginas aping manhood), and that the only thing to explain why we are not attracted to these 'trans men' is that we also have a penis fetish.

So, fuck the inherent homophobia in the gender cultist cloud cuckoo land. I will not participate in my own erasure.

I don't correct lil Nas x for saying hes gay because he liked penis. I criticize him for not saying he's gay and needs penis.

It's just a little dumb for him to make an implication that all gay folks like dick. Ok a lot bit dumb, but he doesn't seem to be being shitty about it so...

It does not erase you to learn your place in the universe is a little more complicated than you thought, amid a wider field than you imagined.

That depends. Does said universe exist solely in your head?

Usually not, on account of frequently asking with honest reflection and introspection.

In fact I even regularly reality check things. A side effect is general immunity to nightmares, awareness of dreams, and some pretty fun "dream powers" that it's taken a while to work on. If you would like I can lead you to more resources, but really the only thing to it is double checking text occasionally, and other aspects of your surrounding against reality; if you manage to farm up some "dream powers" those are a cheap ticket to awareness, too, because they only work if you are dreaming.

I doubt literally every aspect of my existence and knowledge, or strive to. I will worry at every last seam of weakness in my knowledge with doubt, and will worry at the solid and perfect walls ever after until I decide that it is time for me to be done, and dead, and enjoy watching my adopted children worry at those walls as I have made smooth with the doubt I hand on.

 

[Axulus]

Jarhyn, a while back you objected to the men-only campground that (from your point of view) restricted the subset of men to 'men with penises'. Why did you object? <Snip of attempts to fit bullshit in the gaps>

Because it is exclusionist, and needlessly so.

No more exclusionist than anyone else who is not open to fuck any and all other types of people. Do you object to all sexual preference in general as such preference inherently will exclude some?

 

[Jarhyn]

Jarhyn, a while back you objected to the men-only campground that (from your point of view) restricted the subset of men to 'men with penises'. Why did you object? <Snip of attempts to fit bullshit in the gaps>

Because it is exclusionist, and needlessly so.

No more exclusionist than anyone else who is not open to fuck any and all other types of people. Do you object to all sexual preference in general as such preference inherently will exclude some?

Just saying, if I run a campground, it's going to be a private club so as to not discriminate as a public business against anyone.

Maybe certain interest groups would gravitate towards group events, but it would hardly be gay exclusive either.

I have a gay bar I like here in Minneapolis. There are a few big ones, and a few small ones. Common to all of them is that anyone is allowed in the door, anyone can buy drinks (assuming they aren't absolutely shit faced, and sometimes even then), it is universally frowned on to bother anyone who does not seem to enjoy the botherances.

The only thing that would be keeping the straights out is the knowledge that it's a gay space. That's all it really takes these days to keep "straights" from poking in for the most part, and all it takes is a "no gawking" and "no trouble" policy to eject any tourists or troublemakers.

Some folks won't be satisfied with that, but that's why the "no troublemakers" policy.

 

[Gospel]

Usually not, on account of frequently asking with honest reflection and introspection.

In fact I even regularly reality check things. A side effect is general immunity to nightmares, awareness of dreams, and some pretty fun "dream powers" that it's taken a while to work on. If you would like I can lead you to more resources, but really the only thing to it is double checking text occasionally, and other aspects of your surrounding against reality; if you manage to farm up some "dream powers" those are a cheap ticket to awareness, too, because they only work if you are dreaming.

I doubt literally every aspect of my existence and knowledge, or strive to. I will worry at every last seam of weakness in my knowledge with doubt, and will worry at the solid and perfect walls ever after until I decide that it is time for me to be done, and dead, and enjoy watching my adopted children worry at those walls as I have made smooth with the doubt I hand on.

I appreciate this. Not really on topic, but it was the part where you said "It does not erase you to learn your place in the universe is a little more complicated than you thought, amid a wider field than you imagined" that my "That depends. Does said universe exist solely in your head?" statement was directed towards. I imagine that if the world as I see it (not the world itself) is in my head and the way I see it changes, that change in how I see it erases the me who saw it one way and replaces that me with a me that now sees it differently. I would not be able to go back to the less informed me. I mean I could, from the outside saying "WTF was I thinking" but I couldn't possibly be that uninformed me again.

BTW - Welcome to the Gospel's restaurant serving word salad.


Ok now to make the Mods happy and get back on topic. I'll be honest I'm old school & have a limited (purely sexual) understanding of Gay men, lesbians, and folks who like both. I don't mind people doing and believing whatever they want (free world), my only request is don't mistake my ignorance and lack of drive to learn about all this gender stuff for malice. I advise Metaphor to take the same approach. Don't go out of your way by doing some gender-critical reveal nonsense. Just demand your freedom to be ignorant like me.

Edit:

“if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be.”

— Thomas Jefferson, January 6, 1816


I don't know what he's talking about

 

[Jarhyn]

Usually not, on account of frequently asking with honest reflection and introspection.

In fact I even regularly reality check things. A side effect is general immunity to nightmares, awareness of dreams, and some pretty fun "dream powers" that it's taken a while to work on. If you would like I can lead you to more resources, but really the only thing to it is double checking text occasionally, and other aspects of your surrounding against reality; if you manage to farm up some "dream powers" those are a cheap ticket to awareness, too, because they only work if you are dreaming.

I doubt literally every aspect of my existence and knowledge, or strive to. I will worry at every last seam of weakness in my knowledge with doubt, and will worry at the solid and perfect walls ever after until I decide that it is time for me to be done, and dead, and enjoy watching my adopted children worry at those walls as I have made smooth with the doubt I hand on.

I appreciate this. Not really on topic, but it was the part where you said "It does not erase you to learn your place in the universe is a little more complicated than you thought, amid a wider field than you imagined" that my "That depends. Does said universe exist solely in your head?" statement was directed towards. I imagine that if the world as I see it (not the world itself) is in my head and the way I see it changes, that change in how I see it erases the me who saw it one way and replaces that me with a me that now sees it differently. I would not be able to go back to the less informed me. I mean I could, from the outside saying "WTF was I thinking" but I couldn't possibly be that uninformed me again.

BTW - Welcome to the Gospel's restaurant serving word salad.


Ok now to make the Mods happy and get back on topic. I'll be honest I'm old school & have a limited (purely sexual) understanding of Gay men, lesbians, and folks who like both. I don't mind people doing and believing whatever they want (free world), my only request is don't mistake my ignorance and lack of drive to learn about all this gender stuff for malice. I advise Metaphor to take the same approach. Don't go out of your way by doing some gender-critical reveal nonsense. Just demand your freedom to be ignorant like me.

Edit:

“if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be.”

— Thomas Jefferson, January 6, 1816


I don't know what he's talking about

And that's fair. Though I take no pity in killing the ignorant with knowledge that replaces them with someone more wise or knowledgeable.

Then, if I did happen to know something I could say that WOULD erase your identity, I don't think you would want me to say it.

Some things we can safely be ignorant of, as long as we have some meta understanding of what that box contains. For instance I don't want to know whether (insert name here) is into poop stuff. Or where missile bases are.

 

[Gospel]

Hey, I learn as I go. I'm always welcome to change so If I learn something new about this gender Identity stuff down the road I'm cool with that. Just (and this is not directed at you but to the general public) don't expect me to go to the library to withdraw any books about it is all I'm saying.