The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[ruby sparks]

I'm a (somewhat femme?) gay man who was an effeminate pregay boy. I don't attack men who have gender dysphoria, I just don't think they are women.

Ok, so to look at it in reverse, are you a cis man with a penis? If so, then how about, hypothetically, I say I don't think you are actually gay? How could you be, given that penises are, biologically, for impregnating females?

-------------------------------------------------

Look, on a separate tack, it's dead easy, I think. They are arguably not in the same category as women, in the way that cis women are, they are the term even you are using, trans women. It's just a particular, unusual (in some ways a neurological/psychological/biological hybrid*) blend of what's in their brain and what features the rest of their body has, in some ways not entirely unlike in your case, but in a different way.

*I mean hybrid in the general sense, not in the limited biological sense.

 

[Metaphor]

Ok, so to look at it in reverse, are you a cis man with a penis?

I'm a man. You can add the unnecessary qualifier 'cis' if you want.

If so, then how about, hypothetically, I say I don't think you are actually gay? How could you be, given that penises are, biologically, for impregnating females?

I would say "I don't care what you think". In what way does my wellbeing rely on you believing I am gay? You can believe I'm heterosexual if that's what you want. You'd be deluded and wrong, but you can believe it. It's no skin off my nose. I'm not going to force you to call me a homo.

-------------------------------------------------

Look, on a separate tack, it's dead easy, I think. They are arguably not in the same category as women, in the way that cis women are, they are the term even you are using, trans women. It's just a particular, unusual (in some ways a neurological/psychological/biological hybrid*) blend of what's in their brain and what features the rest of their body has, in some ways not entirely unlike in your case, but in a different way.

*I mean hybrid in the general sense, not in the limited biological sense.

In what way is being trans similar to being gay? Being trans is about a belief in your head (your gender) that does not match reality (your sex). What beliefs do I have in my head that conflict with reality? What beliefs in my head do I have that obligate other people to treat me as if I were something other than I actually am? I'm honestly extremely confused about how you think there is a connection.

 

[ruby sparks]

Being trans is about a belief in your head....that does not match reality (your sex).

So, arguably and by the same token, is being gay, albeit in a slightly different way. There's a mismatch. Some might even say you're not actually, fully or properly a man.

 

[Metaphor]

Being trans is about a belief in your head....that does not match reality (your sex).

So, arguably, is being gay, albeit in a slightly different way. There's a mismatch. Some might even say you're not actually, fully or properly, a man.

No. What is the 'mismatch'? What belief do I have in my head that conflicts with reality?

What 'some might say' doesn't alter the fact that I am an adult human male, and therefore, a man.

 

[ruby sparks]

What belief do I have in my head that conflicts with reality?

Your penis is primarily for impregnating women via sexual intercourse. That's a biological reality. And in the final analysis, your orientation or strong preference to the contrary is essentially a belief that you hold, whatever the neurological or other explanations for it. In other words, even though you may agree in principle that penises are, biologically, usually or mainly for sexual intercourse with women, to better ensure the survival of the species, your personal orientation/belief/strong preference can be said to be counter to that reality.

You calling yourself a man is arguably a bit like someone calling themselves a golfer because they own golf clubs even though they never use them for actually playing golf.

What 'some might say' doesn't alter the fact that I am an adult human male, and therefore, a man.

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what definitions are used. Or, one could hypothetically agree on a compromise and say that you are a man, but less of a man, or less fully or properly a man, than a typical straight man.

Note that I'm taking your word for it that you are actually gay. You could be mistaken, or making it up, for all I know.

 

[Emily Lake]

Keeping them safe? You are already presupposing that they are unsafe in the men's room. So, are trans men safe in the men's room?

And, what of the safety and comfort of women who don't want biological men in their private spaces?

I swear, Metaphor, you're like the polar opposite of a dogmatic trans activist. There are some exceptions, sure, but in the real world, the vast, overwhelming majority of adult women don't actually care if someone is biologically a female when they're in the locker room - they care about whether or not that person ***looks*** more or less like a woman. The only time the biology comes into play would be with the shock of finding someone who ***looks*** like a woman, but then walks around naked with a twig and giggle-berries. And really, all that takes is a teensy bit of discretion on the part of the transwoman, and nobody is ever going to notice.

High school locker rooms get a bit more complicated, largely due to raging psychotic hormones being in the mix.

Prisons become a little bit more complicated, because it introduces a penis into a space that does not otherwise have penises in it... which also introduces an opportunity for rape that didn't before exist. There've been a few cases of intact transwomen being moved to the female prison by request, who then raped other women prisoners. Maybe that's an exception and they're a real rarity... but it still introduces a risk that didn't previously exist. But transwomen in male prisons get raped and abused at a high rate, so I don't have a good solution.

The only place where biological maleness really is a significant issue is when it comes to sports. And that's because biology doesn't give a fuck about our feelings. Male bodies are, quite simply, larger, stronger, with greater lung capacity, and higher bone density. Male hips are shaped differently, their leg alignment is different, and they have differences in muscle and tendon attachment points that all contribute to them being faster, stronger, and having greater endurance than women. Reducing testosterone can mitigate many of those differences, but not all of them. Hormone suppression in males will reduce muscle mass, increase and redistribute fat, and alter lung capacity some. It's not a perfect solution, but it's enough to at least retain a degree of competitiveness in women's sports. And when it comes to sports, whether or not a penis is present is simply not an issue at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

No. What is the 'mismatch'? What belief do I have in my head that conflicts with reality?

What 'some might say' doesn't alter the fact that I am an adult human male, and therefore, a man.

The mismatch would be sexual attraction. The belief that conflicts with reality is the belief that men are for fucking, and women aren't, when you have a penis. The belief would be that biologically, we're sexually dimorphic and that the entire purpose of sex is reproduction... and that as a gay man, you're doing it wrong. So wrong in fact, that for a long time it was classified as a mental disorder, and intensely unpleasant therapy was used to try to change gay men to the "right" sexuality.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No. What is the 'mismatch'? What belief do I have in my head that conflicts with reality?

What 'some might say' doesn't alter the fact that I am an adult human male, and therefore, a man.

The mismatch would be sexual attraction. The belief that conflicts with reality is the belief that men are for fucking, and women aren't, when you have a penis. The belief would be that biologically, we're sexually dimorphic and that the entire purpose of sex is reproduction... and that as a gay man, you're doing it wrong. So wrong in fact, that for a long time it was classified as a mental disorder, and intensely unpleasant therapy was used to try to change gay men to the "right" sexuality.

Emphasis added. What do you mean "was?" The Reich wing, whose opinions some people are aligning to in this thread, is still classifying it as a mental disorder and still trying to change gay men and women and bisexuals and anyone else they want to change. Anyone who deviates from the orthodoxy of religion is a risk to laws and fundamentals of the religion and if the laws and fundamentals of the religion could be wrong, then the rich and powerful men who control billions of brainwashed sheep on the planet cannot continue taking advantage of people in the same ways they always have, including by being gay, bisexual, trans, anything else they want in private while putting up a front-face of straight heterosexual man in a god-ordained relationship with a woman and just having missionary sex for procreation.

Let's not stop there on the parallels. The Reich wing also says that science is invalid in the same way anti-trans activists in this thread say the science of trans persons is invalid and try to claim that sex is binary, even though that is fallacious logic and the characteristics of sex are each bimodal spectra, not binary. These conservatives in their attempts to invalidate real people also talk about the connection between violence and homosexuality. Wow, does that sound familiar!! And they talk about how "ex-homosexuals" say they were influenced by friends and other societal factors, just like the claims about trans persons in this thread.

Just take a look at conservapedia.

If we listen to anti-trans activists in the forum, we're somehow supposed to believe that conservatives are right about the science when it comes to trans people but wrong about the science when it comes to homosexuals; conservatives are right about the social factors in influencing trans people, but wrong about the social factors that allegedly influence people to be gay; that trans persons are more commonly to be feared because of something to do with trans persons, but gay people are not associated with more violence statistically; that trans persons can be fixed with therapy in a pervy summer camp of religious leaders, but gay kids cannot be so fixed; and the list goes on and on.

...and on.

 

[repoman]

So, isn't the violence against trans coming from trans attraction panic by people who have already had sex with them? Not from people chasing them down on the street...

 

[Metaphor]

Your penis is primarily for impregnating women via sexual intercourse. That's a biological reality. And in the final analysis, your orientation or strong preference to the contrary is essentially a belief that you hold, whatever the neurological or other explanations for it. In other words, even though you may agree in principle that penises are, biologically, usually or mainly for sexual intercourse with women, to better ensure the survival of the species, your personal orientation/belief/strong preference can be said to be counter to that reality.

No. An orientation or preference is not a belief. My preference for vanilla over caramel is not a belief (that's an actual flavour preference, not a sexual allusion).

Hands did not evolve to hold pens, but when I use a pen I do not somehow have a faulty belief about hands.

You calling yourself a man is arguably a bit like someone calling themselves a golfer because they own golf clubs even though they never use them for actually playing golf.

It's actually nothing like that. Golfing is an activity. "Man-ing" is not. I'm a man no matter what. I'm a man if I get up in the morning or if I sleep in. I'm a man whether I put on a suit or a frock. I'm a man even if I dreamed about and wanted to be a woman.

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what definitions are used. Or, one could hypothetically agree on a compromise and say that you are a man, but less of a man, or less fully or properly a man, than a typical straight man.

Note that I'm taking your word for it that you are actually gay. You could be mistaken, or making it up, for all I know.

I don't know what it would mean for me to be mistaken about what I think I think.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emphasis added. What do you mean "was?"...

I am under the impression that the medical community does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder, nor does it attempt to "treat" it into noexistence.

If your argument is essentially that some people firmly believe that the earth is 6000 years old and therefore... ? Actually, I don't know what your point was.

 

[Metaphor]

The mismatch would be sexual attraction. The belief that conflicts with reality is the belief that men are for fucking, and women aren't, when you have a penis.

Sexual attraction is not a belief. I do not believe "men are for fucking" (whatever that means), I'm sexually attracted to men. What would be delusional is if I imagined I was not sexually attracted to them.

The belief would be that biologically, we're sexually dimorphic and that the entire purpose of sex is reproduction... and that as a gay man, you're doing it wrong.

We are sexually dimorphic. Men can't reproduce with other men. Some people have heterosexual sex but specifically use contraception to prevent reproduction. The latter does not mean the people have some kind of faulty belief. It means they want to have sex without getting pregnant or fathering a child.

So wrong in fact, that for a long time it was classified as a mental disorder, and intensely unpleasant therapy was used to try to change gay men to the "right" sexuality.

Yes, and thrown off buildings or put to death right now in Islamic countries. The people who persecuted gay people just for being gay were wrong, because there's nothing morally wrong with being gay.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Emphasis added. What do you mean "was?"...

I am under the impression that the medical community does not consider homosexuality to be a mental disorder, nor does it attempt to "treat" it into noexistence.

Well, the medical community in the US has a lot of secular influence these days and so the MAJORITY think a particular way, while there are other countries in the world with VAST MAJORITY conservative that think in other ways. So, for example, if you ask the medical community in Iran what they think of homosexuals you will get a different answer on average than if you ask the average doctor in the US...but of course there are still a minority in the US who do not share the MAJORITY view.

If your argument is essentially that some people firmly believe that the earth is 6000 years old and therefore... ? Actually, I don't know what your point was.

That's very strange that you cannot interpret what you read, but regardless not understanding something is even more reason not to dismiss it but instead ask questions.

 

[repoman]

It would be nice to have a venn diagram or bullet points show what from a cis-heteronormative framework (or less ideological) is similar and different between gays and transgenders.

Get very basic, and for the sake of simplicity exclude intersex, non binary genderfluid and so on. They do have a place, but as a start this would be good.

Will women who are not in woke culture be red flagging men who have dated transwomen? What about a transwoman who wants to take a fling relationship and have it get serious and be public? Will the guy be at risk of being violent at this point?

Maybe the guy is not ashamed, but is like "damn, my dating pool will be tanked if this gets out. A girlfriend 5 years from now may leave me it she finds out, also I never had an intention for long term because trans."

Seems like this is more similar to a guy who is bisexual, but 10% gay and 90% straight. Why torch dates with women or have a girlfriend or wife leave for a secondary level thrill?

If all your friends are social science educated this will be out of your worldview.

TLDR: trans attracted is the new bisexual, trans are the new "same sex" partners of bisexuals

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49753820

Matt is a graduate trainee living in Cambridge. He has struggled to maintain relationships with both men and women, and says he now has to lie about his sexuality in order to date people.

"It scares me how people will react," he says. "It feels like I have a dark secret that I haven't aired fully.

"One girl I was dating suddenly said that the thought of me being with a man made her physically sick. Then she blocked me on everything.

"When I date people, and mention I'm bisexual, the relationship ends. When I lie to people, and hide my sexuality, it lasts. I still don't know whether I should reveal it from the start, or wait, because the longer I wait the more anxious I get, but I don't want any relationship to end."

"I feel like if I end up in a straight relationship, I'll look like I was just experimenting all these years, but if I end up in a gay relationship people will say I was never actually bisexual. Then if I don't have a monogamous relationship people will say I'm just greedy."

That is not really anyone's fault except that is where our culture is now.

Metaphor, have you ever fallen hard for a mostly straight, but bisexual man?

When I was younger, this song made me laugh, but it is a serious song



lyrics in a spoiler box to not take up too much room

Show

All of you ladies out there turn up your radio
Girls, I'm about to tell you something You may wanna know
You know things they're not always
What they appear to be
And I don't want to happen to you
What happened to me
Listen, There are no words that can describe, what I felt inside
When I found out the man I loved loved another guy
We were at a party, Ohh to have a little fun
But when I looked around my-my man was missing
I walked outside, I couldn't believe my eyes
He was in Bill's arms breathin hard and french kissin
I was ready for Mary, Susan, Helen and Jane
When all the time it was Bill who was sleeping with my man
Bill has been to my house a thousand times
He and my man would go camping and fishing
Oh I tell you it never crossed my mind
Bill was a friend and he was God Uncle to my only son
Now it looks Uncle Billy wants to be his step-mom
Now you see I was ready for Mary, I was ready for Jane
How do a woman compete with a man for another man
I asked my man why didnt you tell me that you were gay
When you knew, knew I build my world around you
I knew I had those feelings and I didn't want it to be
I thought by being with you, Girl I thought it would change
As tears came to my eyes, hesays I'm sorry I hurt you so
I got to pack Bill is waiting for me and I got to go
I was ready for Mary, I was ready for Jane
When all the time it was Bill who was sleeping with my man
Thank you for using Top40db.com.
I don't feel ashame and I don't take the blame
My man was just a queen, he was a Queen that thought he was a King
He told before he left he said
I know you're hurt and oh I know you're mad
But if that's not asking too much,
Could you tell my son I love him and I'm still his dad
I was ready for Mary, Susan, Helen and Jane
When all the time it was Bill who was sleeping with my man
I was ready for Mary, Susan, Helen and Jane
When all the time it was Bill who was sleeping with my man
Bill used to come over to my house, I used to fix him my food
I used to loan Bill my money, all the time he was in there tryin to get
My honey

 

[Metaphor]

I swear, Metaphor, you're like the polar opposite of a dogmatic trans activist. There are some exceptions, sure, but in the real world, the vast, overwhelming majority of adult women don't actually care if someone is biologically a female when they're in the locker room - they care about whether or not that person ***looks*** more or less like a woman.

Emily, you do not seem to be aware of what trans activists want. They want any biological male, no matter what he looks like, no matter what surgeries he has or hasn't had, no matter what he does or does not do to present as female or feminine, to use the women's toilets, and you are labelled a transphobe for rejecting that notion.

I also suspect you know that most trans women do not pass. I am gay and I've seen a lot of men in drag who are very actively trying to give the illusion of womanhood for a brief period of time, but their face and shoulders and hands and height and hips and feet and any other number of things make the illusion incomplete.

I've known a lesbian who was so butch that she wore men's suits to work. Not a masculine cut woman's pantsuit. A man's suit. And, as butch as she made herself, she very clearly was a biological woman.

Trans activists are not going to let you gatekeep the people who use toilets.

The only time the biology comes into play would be with the shock of finding someone who ***looks*** like a woman, but then walks around naked with a twig and giggle-berries. And really, all that takes is a teensy bit of discretion on the part of the transwoman, and nobody is ever going to notice.

Trans activists don't want trans women to have to alter their behavior. They want trans women to be able to get their lady dick out and proud. (Note how the left lost its mind when Donald Trump bragged about going backstage during Miss World pageants and seeing women in various states of undress. If Donald had instead come out as a trans woman first, they'd have nothing to bleat about).

High school locker rooms get a bit more complicated, largely due to raging psychotic hormones being in the mix.

Not just high school locker rooms. Sex segregated accommodation on camping trips and school excursions as well.

I went on an overnight school excursion in Year 6. I sure as fuck would not want to have shared my accommodation with a biological female girl who wants to be regarded as a boy. But I guess I was a transphobe at 11, too.

Prisons become a little bit more complicated, because it introduces a penis into a space that does not otherwise have penises in it... which also introduces an opportunity for rape that didn't before exist. There've been a few cases of intact transwomen being moved to the female prison by request, who then raped other women prisoners. Maybe that's an exception and they're a real rarity... but it still introduces a risk that didn't previously exist. But transwomen in male prisons get raped and abused at a high rate, so I don't have a good solution.

The solution isn't to endanger female prisoners by having biological males in their prison, is it?

The only place where biological maleness really is a significant issue is when it comes to sports. And that's because biology doesn't give a fuck about our feelings. Male bodies are, quite simply, larger, stronger, with greater lung capacity, and higher bone density. Male hips are shaped differently, their leg alignment is different, and they have differences in muscle and tendon attachment points that all contribute to them being faster, stronger, and having greater endurance than women. Reducing testosterone can mitigate many of those differences, but not all of them. Hormone suppression in males will reduce muscle mass, increase and redistribute fat, and alter lung capacity some. It's not a perfect solution, but it's enough to at least retain a degree of competitiveness in women's sports. And when it comes to sports, whether or not a penis is present is simply not an issue at all.

No. No body that has undergone a male puberty can ever be made to be 'fair' in sex-segregated sports. Even if a body has not undergone a male puberty, men don't experience the hormone cycle that women do, even when they attempt to ape the internal chemistry of a woman by taking hormones.

And note that trans activists don't want rules about testosterone levels. They want gender identification alone.

 

[Metaphor]

Matt is a graduate trainee living in Cambridge. He has struggled to maintain relationships with both men and women, and says he now has to lie about his sexuality in order to date people.

"It scares me how people will react," he says. "It feels like I have a dark secret that I haven't aired fully.

"One girl I was dating suddenly said that the thought of me being with a man made her physically sick. Then she blocked me on everything.

"When I date people, and mention I'm bisexual, the relationship ends. When I lie to people, and hide my sexuality, it lasts. I still don't know whether I should reveal it from the start, or wait, because the longer I wait the more anxious I get, but I don't want any relationship to end."

I suspect it was the women he was dating that had a problem with it. I've never dated a bisexual man but I know gay men who have, and it didn't particularly bother them that their boyfriend was bisexual.

That is not really anyone's fault except that is where our culture is now.

Metaphor, have you ever fallen hard for a mostly straight, but bisexual man?

My best friend all through highschool was a 'mostly straight' bisexual man, though I never felt romantically or sexually attracted to him. I am fascinated by bisexuality though. I

And yes, I used to be one of the cynical 'bisexuals are just gay' crowd.

When I was younger, this song made me laugh, but it is a serious song

It's a song about a gay man, not a bisexual.

 

[Metaphor]

Let's not stop there on the parallels. The Reich wing also says that science is invalid in the same way anti-trans activists in this thread say the science of trans persons is invalid and try to claim that sex is binary, even though that is fallacious logic and the characteristics of sex are each bimodal spectra, not binary

Sex in mammals is functionally binary and no amount of believing and uttering anything else will make that untrue.

But, the binary nature of sex is a furphy. Humans can't change sex.

If we listen to anti-trans activists in the forum, we're somehow supposed to believe that conservatives are right about the science when it comes to trans people but wrong about the science when it comes to homosexuals; conservatives are right about the social factors in influencing trans people, but wrong about the social factors that allegedly influence people to be gay;

What? I reckon there are definitely social factors to becoming gay (or straight for that matter). Do you believe otherwise?

that trans persons are more commonly to be feared because of something to do with trans persons, but gay people are not associated with more violence statistically; that trans persons can be fixed with therapy in a pervy summer camp of religious leaders, but gay kids cannot be so fixed; and the list goes on and on.

I didn't say trans people can be 'fixed'. If there was an easy way to get rid of gender dysphoria we'd know it.

I'm saying people can't change sex, nor can we be deluded into thinking a man is a woman when he isn't and cannot be.

Gay men are not asking to be fixed. Gay men are not asking that you approve of what they do. Gay men do not demand you look at us and call us heterosexual.

 

[ruby sparks]

No. An orientation or preference is not a belief. My preference for vanilla over caramel is not a belief (that's an actual flavour preference, not a sexual allusion).

Hands did not evolve to hold pens, but when I use a pen I do not somehow have a faulty belief about hands.



It's actually nothing like that. Golfing is an activity. "Man-ing" is not. I'm a man no matter what. I'm a man if I get up in the morning or if I sleep in. I'm a man whether I put on a suit or a frock. I'm a man even if I dreamed about and wanted to be a woman.

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what definitions are used. Or, one could hypothetically agree on a compromise and say that you are a man, but less of a man, or less fully or properly a man, than a typical straight man.

Note that I'm taking your word for it that you are actually gay. You could be mistaken, or making it up, for all I know.

I don't know what it would mean for me to be mistaken about what I think I think.

You are missing the essential general point in principle, but never mind, I'm good with at least establishing that you are arguably, by some definitions and criteria (not entirely unlike, in some ways, the sorts of restrictive and simplistic ones you choose to use when it comes to others who are not like you) less of a man than, or not actually a proper man compared to, a normal man whose sexual orientation is not in conflict with his biology.

The bottom line is that while you can choose the definitions and criteria that you prefer in such matters, and indeed call them facts if you want to, you do not, thankfully imo, get to decide if they become the agreed, accepted or relevant ones. So basically, thanks for your narrow-minded personal opinions about who is or isn't what or in what categories.

 

[Metaphor]

You are missing the essential general point, but never mind, I'm good with at least establishing that you are, by some definitions and criteria (not entirely unlike, in some ways, the sorts of ones you choose to use when it comes to others) less of a man than a normal man whose sexual orientation is not in conflict with his sex organ function.

I certainly do seem to be missing some 'essential general point' you appear to be making, and I continue to be baffled. It's as if you desire to apply additional stipulations to the meaning of the word 'man' - which is an adult human male.

[h=1]man[/h] noun

\ ˈman , in compounds ˌman or mən \
plural men\ ˈmen , in compounds ˌmen or mən \

[h=2]Definition of man[/h] (Entry 1 of 4)


1a(1) : an individual human especially : an adult male human
(2) : a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combinationcouncilman
(3) : husband I now pronounce you man and wife.
(4) : lover He was her man.

You appear to know better than lexicographers what a man is, as you include stipulations of having a sexual interest in fertile women and, presumably, reproductive success with fertile women. If that's what you think makes a man, I guess I can't argue with your fantasy.

Now, when men have protected sex with women, or with non-fertile women, or with a woman who has purposely interrupted her fertility, I don't believe that makes them somehow lesser men. But if you believe it, more power to you.

You must be a deeply unhappy man.

 

[Jokodo]

You are missing the essential general point, but never mind, I'm good with at least establishing that you are, by some definitions and criteria (not entirely unlike, in some ways, the sorts of ones you choose to use when it comes to others) less of a man than a normal man whose sexual orientation is not in conflict with his sex organ function.

I certainly do seem to be missing some 'essential general point' you appear to be making, and I continue to be baffled. It's as if you desire to apply additional stipulations to the meaning of the word 'man' - which is an adult human male.

[h=1]man[/h] noun

\ ˈman , in compounds ˌman or mən \
plural men\ ˈmen , in compounds ˌmen or mən \

[h=2]Definition of man[/h] (Entry 1 of 4)


1a(1) : an individual human especially : an adult male human
(2) : a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combinationcouncilman
(3) : husband I now pronounce you man and wife.
(4) : lover He was her man.

You appear to know better than lexicographers what a man is, as you include stipulations of having a sexual interest in fertile women and, presumably, reproductive success with fertile women. If that's what you think makes a man, I guess I can't argue with your fantasy.

Now, when men have protected sex with women, or with non-fertile women, or with a woman who has purposely interrupted her fertility, I don't believe that makes them somehow lesser men. But if you believe it, more power to you.

You must be a deeply unhappy man.

Well they did use to say "she made him a man", didn't they? So by a strictly traditional definition, a boy remains a boy until/unless he becomes sexually active with the opposite sex.

The point is, your definition may be more ttaditional than the one preferred by some trans activists, but it's not the one true factual and traditional people have always used - it too is ultimately arbitrary.