If being attracted to buff women makes you gay, then gender is not as simple as this twitter gremlin probably believes it to be. But they probably don’t want to think about that too much.
“Not ‘normal’ = gay”. That’s all they consider.
I have a friend that says having muscles makes women too masculine. He was not amused when I asked him if that also means he is feminine because he doesn’t have any muscle (I don’t actually believe either is the case, just wanted to point out his hypocrisy)
Is this a new metric mental gymnastics, like it’s not gay if you’re on top, or if you are the giver?
As we (jokingly) say in German: „Nur der Gefickte ist schwul.“ [“Only the one getting fucked is gay.”]
That’s a surprisingly common line of reasoning actually.
new
I mean that particular piece of homophobia has been around since antiquity
“Men cannot become women, but muscular women are men.” 😅
Yeah, I don’t get what’s wrong with wanting a muscular physique.
Anon was refused by a muscle mommy and is now on a holy incel crusade against them.
Or was pegged by one and liked it a bit too much
Pro tip: before getting yourself pegged make sure to make it clear you want her to be gentle with you, so you don’t risk having to question your sexuality.
fellas, is it gay for a man to find a woman hot?
According to xitter, if the woman is very muscular, then yes.
I don’t quite understand why though.
right wing politics promotes rigid gender norms
including that only men should be muscular
so muscular women are masculine
and men attracted to a masculine person are gay
nevermind that these are the same people who want to rigidly define women by their gametes, chromosomes, or other biological characteristics (not how buff they are, or how masculine they present)
or that these are the same people who came up with the idea that everyone is straight to begin with (“gay” being a sinful behavior, nobody being born gay)
Xitter told me dating someone with XXY chomosomes is 50% gay and just one X chomosome would be Schrodinger’s gay
(/s for the tone deaf)
xitter
’nuff said
lesbian here, hhholy shit
Wait if you think she’s hot, does that make you gay, but that makes you straight. But if you’re straight and you think she’s hot then that makes you gay.
It’s confusing.
Here’s a trick solve your confusion: if you could choose what’s in those pants, how long would it take you to make a decide: if you instantly know you want what’s in your own pants youre most likely gay, if you know instantly you want exactly what’s not in your own pants you’re most likely straight, if you need a moment before you know you’re likely not straight nor gay. All the other reasons you can think of aren’t about sexuality as in what gender do you like but are about sexuality as in what kind of person you want to be with. But it might also be a little more complicated than this.
You were the target of LeanBeefPatty’s psyop, and it worked.
Cis straight here, same
Yepppp
girl you ain’t kiddin’ 🥵
So by this logic, it would be straight for him to fuck femboys? Sounds gay.
What’s more manly than a cock? Two cocks, that’s what!!
See the only good Steve Hughes bit.
“What do you mean gays aren’t manly? They fuck men! What do you want in a partner? ‘Soft… feminine~’ ‘Yeah well I wanna fuck a bloke. Or is that too hard for you and your pussy-loving mates?’”
Nahh. It’s totally a straight thing to do :3
Hey, if I’m straight and a femboy makes me hard then she’s a girl.
It is however a psyop to make women gay
Is it working @captainlezbian@lemmy.world?
Bros jealous of her gains.
I know I am.
These people are so strange. We live in this big, complex world filled with variation, and they are like: “No! Everything must be only one way!”
Appreciating the spectrum of human experience is GAY
Realizing that emotions aren’t and can never be binary is HOMO STUFF
The complexity is too cognitively taxing so instead of just accepting that there will be people you don’t understand, they want to force everything to a strict mold they can easily comprehend, without needing to confront contradictions inherent to the human condition. Letting go of control and accepting the world is far beyond your capacity to fathom is a scary thing. But what is life but the act of letting go?
No, they want only two! They can’t handle it if everyone is the same, or if there is a rainbow of ways. To them, it must be two, no more or less! It must be binary!
Edit: This is a very boring grey lenses to view our species. Our closest relatives is bonobos…
Fucking chicks is definitely gay.
Not if you keep your socks on
This is a critical loophole that few fellas use to keep themselves free of gayness.
All the
homieslesbians agree.Thx homie, but i have not the patience to watch ads.
If reecethebrah sees a muscular woman, and the first thought he has is “THIS IS A PSYOP TO TURN MEN GAY,” then maybe he’s telling us more about how the inside of his head works than about the secret homosexual / female body building conspiracy that has been hiding in plain sight this entire time.
I reckon the tattoo isn’t helping. Clearly if you’re part of a conspiracy you would have an Illuminati tattoo, it’s just required.
People who care about what is supposed to be ‘gay’ can be disregarded entirely.
It’s NOT Gay if he Wears “makeup” and “a wigs” and LOOKS like a Girl while MY Penis is INSIDE his Butthole! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
signed
DONAKD J. TRUNP
DO NAKED. TURNIP.
I literally am incapable of forming opinions about something without consulting manosphere chuds opinion about whether or not it is gay. is that gay?
There’s no red lines. I think its OK
According to Andrew tate you can just scoot it to the side. Don’t think that’s how it works tho…
Fellas, is it gay to be attracted to women?
Yes, very much so.
Attraction itself is gay, you are supposed to neglect your wife and children until they poison you like God intended.
yes
The same people insist gender is made-up, and biological sex is the only thing that counts.
Conservatives do not mean things when they say words.
“ Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Jean-Paul Sartre
Sartre was optimistic. He believed these people say wrong things on purpose, as a tactic. Like they’re rationally advancing a goal through irrational rhetoric.
I think they honestly believe this is how things work. The word-games are their entire worldview. Ideas aren’t right or wrong, people are right or wrong, and whatever the people on your side say, you have to shuffle cards to justify it. COVID proved they would continue this behavior whilst gargling their own lungs.
And they think it’s all you’re doing, because they think that’s all there is.
The word-games are their entire worldview.
You’re touching upon what C.S. Lewis called men without chest in his book The Abolition of Men. From personal experience I believe both the author and you are spot on.
Well I think he was actually spot-on. But this was decades ago. Those people and these tactics have led to a lot of idiots. Those idiots make up the majority of the antisemites these days. You’re right that they’re not consciously running these tactics, but they are just parroting the grifters and conmen the Sartre was speaking of.
They’re despicable, but those kinds of people are smart. However, the mental offspring they shed like dandruff are the idiots you’re thinking of. They don’t do these things with any kind of cognizance. They just live in it. They’re the feeder-stock plugged into The 24hr Fear, and those talking heads employ these tactics. The idiots just emulate.
‘But bigots of the past were playing 4D chess!’ is a brave opinion to offer.
Nobody invented antisemitism as a clever scheme. It’s always been ad-hoc justifications and libelous story-telling, to bolster the kneejerk conclusions of ingroup supremacists. Rational argument has to be taught - tribalist pretense is instinctive to all people. Grifters emerge to take advantage of them, and spread the bullshit, but that dirt was always in your brain.
You think “basic interpersonal skills” or manipulation is “4d chess?” That’s kinda sad.
Antisemitism has been around since long before Sartre wrote a book about them in the 40s. He wasn’t talking about the invention of antisemitism, he was talking about the tactics of undermining logic that are still very present even in the dipshit rightwing now. For fucks sake there was a post on 4chan back in like 2017 talking about it openly—they called it how to piss of libs or some shit, but it’s still the same even if the words have adapted. We think of the right wing as mostly incompetent. But that’s not always the way they were seen. Shit even in my lifetime I remember the era of the neocons, they were scary motherfuckers inside and out. Fox News and the right wing has gone on a 40 year long anti education rout, and we do see that in their followers. But the sort of “joker” persona of the fascist movement isn’t new.
I think it’s self-evidently silly to blame ancient patterns of bigotry on specific assholes who secretly know they’re wrong.
This card-shuffling behavior, in service to strict hierarchy, has produced organized violence since at least Sulla’s civil war in the Roman republic.
To be clear: this is all that conservatives have ever been. They didn’t suddenly get stupid. They’ve always been making shit up. Some of them do the same thing you’re doing - they go ‘ah ha, this must be a clever move we all pull, despite being total bullshit.’ Nope. The vast majority of them honestly think making shit up is all there is.
The distinction is crucial because we can still teach them that words mean things. Rational argument is a learned behavior.
Don’t forget, there are plenty of us in the middle. I think gender is a made up social construct, but also that anyone should be able to go through life following whatever social norms they identify with. I don’t think boys are born into girl bodies or girls are born into boy bodies, but merely that some boys have more in common w/ society’s expectations of girls and vice versa.
It’s a distinction w/o a difference, and I’m happy calling you whatever you’d prefer. But if you’re born with male chromosomes, you’ll always have male chromosomes.
An opinion that sounded progressive a century ago but is now politely-stated bigotry. Actually worse than saying sexual preference isn’t real, but hey, people can fuck who they choose. Talking about transition in terms of chromosomes is a dog whistle on par with rattling off birthrates.
Dysphoria is not societal.
I obviously disagree.
I think hormone therapy should obviously be available for those who want them. I admit I don’t fully understand trans people, but I firmly believe in making every accommodation for people to live the way they choose, provided it doesn’t hurt anyone, but I also don’t believe taking hormones turns a biological male I to a biological female or vice versa, nor do I believe gender is anything more than a social construct to label people.
It’s quite possible I’m wrong, I’m not a neuroscientist or anything, and brain stuff is weird. But I also don’t think it particularly matters if at the end of the day, you and I treat people the same.
Reasons matter. They inevitably emerge as differences in conclusion. A lot of JK Rowling’s bullshit begins by denying that trans women are women - and given your libertarian bent, I worry there’s some overlap. Rugged individualism does not address gendered sports, or bathrooms, or indeed sexual abuse shelters.
given your libertarian bent, I worry there’s some overlap
I doubt it. I don’t know much about JK Rowling’s politics other than a few statements about trans women. But here are my takes on those things you mentioned:
- gendered sports - government shouldn’t be involved, other than a blanked anti-discrimination law; if a school or sports league wants trans women to play on the women’s team (or trans men on the men’s team, but that’s rarely an issue), that’s totally fine; I think the only reason a sporting organization should ban people from participating is if there’s an unfair advantage, and I haven’t seen any evidence of that for trans women since it seems hormone therapy kills most of the physical advantage (other than height)
- bathrooms - I really don’t understand people’s obsessions w/ bathrooms; I wouldn’t mind the opposite sex using my sex’s bathroom, provided they’re not creepy about it; I’m a parent with kids of different sexes, and it’s never been a problem bringing them w/ me or going w/ my SO into the different bathrooms; the only law here would be not accommodating people who need to use the restroom (i.e. if one is full, people should be able to use the other), but private businesses should be able to choose their own policies
- sexual abuse shelters - I don’t know much about this, but I’d absolutely be happy to donate to any shelters that need funding; they tend to not advertise where they’re at, though, for obvious reasons, but I’d have no qualms supporting a shelter whether they support trans people or not, provided they’re doing a great service for those who need them
I really don’t care if someone chooses to be treated as the opposite sex, and I’ll call them by whatever pronouns they prefer, because I’m not a jerk. We have a trans woman at our local library, and the only reason I noticed is because they transitioned while we were routinely going there, and I made the connection that the man who used to work there is probably the woman who now works there. I’m totally happy using whatever terminology trans people want, I just disagree that there’s some innate concept of gender, but that sex is the only thing that exists in reality (chromosomes and anatomy don’t change, even after surgery), and that gender roles are largely invented (though inherited from physical characteristics; e.g. women are child nurturers because they were the ones who produced the milk for thousands of years).
I think it’s largely a distinction without a difference. I probably treat trans people similarly to how you do, I just disagree about what “gender” is. I think it’s an idea we’ve largely invented to describe social roles, and in our modern age, those roles are a bit more fluid. Some women are the sole breadwinners of their family, and some men are the child rearers. Some women are absolutely shredded (like the woman in the picture above), and some men are very effeminate. I think the real problem here is that the terms “man” and “woman” have become so loaded, so much so that people don’t feel comfortable identifying as the label that matches their anatomy.
Honestly, I think it’s completely reasonable that people would prefer to switch genders rather than fight to fix the assumptions and whatnot that we have associated with gender. So I absolutely support trans people because sometimes the partial fix is more than sufficient, and I support any policies that give people the choice to identify however they choose, provided that doesn’t provide them with an unfair advantage in some way.
So yeah, I don’t think the reason matters as much as you say. It’s completely reasonable to believe something to be true while supporting something that seemingly goes against it for other reasons. I believe in maximizing individual liberty as much as possible w/o infringing on others’ rights. I think everyone should be able to live the way they choose, provided they don’t interfere w/ others doing the exact same thing.
Respect each other, and fight for them to be able to live how they choose. That’s more-or-less my political philosophy.
