Straight male but attracted to trans women

[Co****]

23 minutes ago, BrumDom2023 said:

A person's belief that trans women aren't women isn't hate s***ch in a legal sense & based on their original post you would have no hope in hell of ever being able to bring a prosecution for hate s***ch based on that comment, you may believe it is or want it to be legally classed as hate s***ch but you're deluded if think you could bring a prosecution for that comment.

 

Now since that original comment they are being an antogonistic prick & it might contravene site rules but even still those comments would never stand up in a court of law as being a prosecutable offence for a hate crime & I'd challenge anyone to go pay for a solicitor to try present a case for hate s***ch. 

Ok let me try. Hopefully this comes off as a bit “kinder” or something, also only liking for the “antagonistic prick” part as I do strongly disagree with the rest of your statement, but I have no energy to escalate due to life issues so please keep it civil and I’ll do the same. If I do not respond it is simply because I have nothing to say and don’t have the energy to fight. I used it all up on ☀️🧔‍♂️ and looking into places to move tbh

The reason it is hate s***ch isn’t the statement itself, but rather what that statement causes.

Whether you like it or not, trans women aren’t just “crossdressing men”. It leaks into their every day life in part or in whole, and the meaning of “woman” really can’t be defined with physical traits without excluding some cis women. So what *is* a woman? What makes a woman a woman? You can argue it’s the parts but that excludes androgen insensitivity and intersex women. You can argue it’s the ability to birth but what about women who are sterile? What about femininity? That’s gotta be womanly yes? No, actually not. Cause what about butch lesbians? Tomboys? A secret 3rd thing?

In fact, the brain waves of a cis women and trans women, the structure of the brain, etc are nigh identical. This is same for trans men and cis men, actually!

Taking estrogen so does transition the body into taking a more feminine slant. Fat gets redistributed, brain chemistry involving emotions does shift (hormones, not brain brain), even the pleasure wave up to and including orgasm does shift to what one would call “female”. The emissions even resemble such!

So, because of that, “trans women are not women” ends up being a harmful misnomer as by classifying them as men, you’d be putting them in potential danger from their ***rs. This is backed by science and is fairly well known. Of course, I don’t know the policies on linking outside this site, so please do look it up on your own time! It’s not just an opinion.

Hope this helps!

[Co****]

Oh also muscle mass can change too, I forgot about that part. That’s why I brought up the “potential danger from their ***rs” 😅

[SadoDaddy2024]

3 minutes ago, Comingbackhere2 said:

All you've done here is demonstrate that prosecuting hate crimes is difficult and traumatic and that you still don't understand how they're defined. Bless you.

I proved nothing of the sort, I will agree though a hate crime is hard to prosecute without a body of evidence to provide support to a claim a crime has been committed, however that goes for any & all crime but it doesn't change the fact the guys comments before I first posted wouldn't be classed as a hate crime, as they were his personal opinion on transexuality & that you can challenge & debate those opinions but you shouldn't just immediately censor them or want to jump to prosecuting someone because they hold a different opinion to you, now some people you will never change their opinion & for me personally if that's what he believes then that's up to him. If he's going to be censored for his comments, it should be for the ones he's made since, wheres he's just clearly trying to wind you all up now. 

[Co****]

14 minutes ago, Pawpytan said:

Ok let me try. Hopefully this comes off as a bit “kinder” or something, also only liking for the “antagonistic prick” part as I do strongly disagree with the rest of your statement, but I have no energy to escalate due to life issues so please keep it civil and I’ll do the same. If I do not respond it is simply because I have nothing to say and don’t have the energy to fight. I used it all up on ☀️🧔‍♂️ and looking into places to move tbh

The reason it is hate s***ch isn’t the statement itself, but rather what that statement causes.

Whether you like it or not, trans women aren’t just “crossdressing men”. It leaks into their every day life in part or in whole, and the meaning of “woman” really can’t be defined with physical traits without excluding some cis women. So what *is* a woman? What makes a woman a woman? You can argue it’s the parts but that excludes androgen insensitivity and intersex women. You can argue it’s the ability to birth but what about women who are sterile? What about femininity? That’s gotta be womanly yes? No, actually not. Cause what about butch lesbians? Tomboys? A secret 3rd thing?

In fact, the brain waves of a cis women and trans women, the structure of the brain, etc are nigh identical. This is same for trans men and cis men, actually!

Taking estrogen so does transition the body into taking a more feminine slant. Fat gets redistributed, brain chemistry involving emotions does shift (hormones, not brain brain), even the pleasure wave up to and including orgasm does shift to what one would call “female”. The emissions even resemble such!

So, because of that, “trans women are not women” ends up being a harmful misnomer as by classifying them as men, you’d be putting them in potential danger from their ***rs. This is backed by science and is fairly well known. Of course, I don’t know the policies on linking outside this site, so please do look it up on your own time! It’s not just an opinion.

Hope this helps!

Oh also for some reason this message got hella scrambled. “This is backed by science…” was supposed to go after the brain waves section

[Deleted Member]

5 minutes ago, BrumDom2023 said:

I proved nothing of the sort, I will agree though a hate crime is hard to prosecute without a body of evidence to provide support to a claim a crime has been committed, however that goes for any & all crime but it doesn't change the fact the guys comments before I first posted wouldn't be classed as a hate crime, as they were his personal opinion on transexuality & that you can challenge & debate those opinions but you shouldn't just immediately censor them or want to jump to prosecuting someone because they hold a different opinion to you, now some people you will never change their opinion & for me personally if that's what he believes then that's up to him. If he's going to be censored for his comments, it should be for the ones he's made since, wheres he's just clearly trying to wind you all up now. 

How are you still struggling to understand a simple definition, my man?

[gi****]

Hi @MicropenisChamp. Lots of discussion here, but little that directly addresses your post. First, as has been mentioned, it sounds like you are exploring your identity. Be authentic with yourself and others is my advice. Authentically explore and communicate your interests and desires. You'll come off much less like you are "in it for the 'chase'" if you do.

[SadoDaddy2024]

6 minutes ago, Comingbackhere2 said:

How are you still struggling to understand a simple definition, my man?

Because the definition being used is Hate Crime, my point is with the crime. Legally nothing they said would be a crime, no matter how much some people want any negative comment to be a crime these days. None of the points they made, that a man can't be a woman & if a man sleeps with a trans woman they are homosexual, constitute a crime, they are a belief, just as it is a belief for the majority of the world's religions that a man can't be a woman & a man that sleeps with a trans woman is homosexual, that is the belief  billions of people have worldwide, are they all committing crimes if they say that is their belief, should all those billions people be arrested, all those men, women & *** be charged with a crime? 

 

Like I said originally, challenge them about their beliefs & their comments but you shouldn't just immediately call for them to be censored

 

[Deleted Member]

52 minutes ago, BrumDom2023 said:

Because the definition being used is Hate Crime, my point is with the crime. Legally nothing they said would be a crime, no matter how much some people want any negative comment to be a crime these days. None of the points they made, that a man can't be a woman & if a man sleeps with a trans woman they are homosexual, constitute a crime, they are a belief, just as it is a belief for the majority of the world's religions that a man can't be a woman & a man that sleeps with a trans woman is homosexual, that is the belief  billions of people have worldwide, are they all committing crimes if they say that is their belief, should all those billions people be arrested, all those men, women & *** be charged with a crime? 

 

Like I said originally, challenge them about their beliefs & their comments but you shouldn't just immediately call for them to be censored

 

I'm really sorry and this'll be the last time I reply because it is like playing connect 4 with a microwave but your entire supposition is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the subject about which you're talking. I've tried but you're unwilling to step away, work out if what you believe is inaccurate (it is) and adjust your stance. Take care, I hope the fence you're sitting on doesn't cause too many piles.

[Sm****]

2 hours ago, Comingbackhere2 said:

I'm really sorry and this'll be the last time I reply because it is like playing connect 4 with a microwave but your entire supposition is based upon a gross misunderstanding of the subject about which you're talking. I've tried but you're unwilling to step away, work out if what you believe is inaccurate (it is) and adjust your stance. Take care, I hope the fence you're sitting on doesn't cause too many piles.

Which parts I agree with and which parts I disagree with your opinions, Comingbackhere2, I must say throughout this thread:
.
“The condescension and more-intelligent-than-thou attitude is strong with this one”
.
You disagree with BrumDom2023. That doesn’t give you the right to insinuate that he is idiotic, even though you may disagree QUITE STRONGLY.
.
In a twist of irony, your words to him are closer to a crime (slander) than his have been in this thread, plus having the unfortunate side effect of falling into the “Ad Hominem” fallacy

[Deleted Member]

No experience with trans ***ps, I think most ***ps do not want to be defined by one part of their body/culture/ race.

My last few relationships have been with women from Brazil, albeit it has happened organically. If I were to break it down, I would enjoy a good figure on a woman, and I find fiery and passionate women attractive. Thay doesn't mean I like ALL women from Brazil or I would be disrespectful by reducing the person to one part of their personality, looks or nationality.

I'd speak in the singular, not in generalisations. "I find you attractive" versus "I want to bang a trans person."

Also, from what I have seen on dating apps, bios I wouldn't assume all 9r most trans ***ps are fantasy makers.

Just my two cents! Best of luck!

[Sm****]

@OP: Now, with that drama behind us, I can’t answer your question directly. Personally, I kept an open mind for dating trans women I found attractive and interesting people (sometimes more feminine and beautiful than women I’d dated), until sex and bdsm became more important to me, and after some bedroom exploration with a trans gal, I found that the presence of a dick in the bedroom besides mine was a personal dealbreaker for me.
.
For those who it’s not a dealbreaker, I encourage you to do as you like. I’m not your Dad. If you’re one of the (in my experience rarer) guys who’s into all the aspects of dating a trans girl, go for it if you meet one you’re more into than a born girl.
.
And if, like me, you find it’s not for you in the end, be respectful and honest like you would with anyone else. We’re looking to build each other up here.

[Deleted Member]

18 minutes ago, Smore_Cracker said:

Which parts I agree with and which parts I disagree with your opinions, Comingbackhere2, I must say throughout this thread:
.
“The condescension and more-intelligent-than-thou attitude is strong with this one”
.
You disagree with BrumDom2023. That doesn’t give you the right to insinuate that he is idiotic, even though you may disagree QUITE STRONGLY.
.
In a twist of irony, your words to him are closer to a crime (slander) than his have been in this thread, plus having the unfortunate side effect of falling into the “Ad Hominem” fallacy

Slander is defined by something not being true. So that is objectively inaccurate.
Also, irony could also only exist if I had said he had used hate s***ch. I don't think I did, only that he was defending and playing devil's advocate for someone who had.

I'm interested though, at what point after seeing repeat examples of demonstrable idiocy can one highlight them as such? Or is that never allowed?

[Sm****]

22 minutes ago, Comingbackhere2 said:

Slander is defined by something not being true. So that is objectively inaccurate.
Also, irony could also only exist if I had said he had used hate s***ch. I don't think I did, only that he was defending and playing devil's advocate for someone who had.

I'm interested though, at what point after seeing repeat examples of demonstrable idiocy can one highlight them as such? Or is that never allowed?

“This is demonstrably a matter of poor comprehension.”
.
“Does this comment come in coherent English? I’m beginning to fully understand why your ignorance is so prevalent though. Maybe if you’re not going to be able to do the reading, someone will read it to you?”
“…this’ll be the last time I reply because it is like playing connect 4 with a microwave”
And more.
Insinuation: “This guy is an idiot (because he holds a different opinion than me)”
.
Objectively, whether you do it cleverly and roundabout-ly, or directly, someone is not an idiot for having a different opinion (about whether it’s valid to have a different opinion). Repeatedly labeling someone as such constitutes slander.
.
Re:irony: Let me explain what’s ironic (to me): the conversation developed to a point where you were discussing hate s***ch, when you yourself were continually edging towards a similarly heinous crime (i.e. slander). (You’re right in that you didn’t have any hate s***ch towards him per se.)
.
Pointing out idiocy is fine, if it is bona fide idiocy. Disagreement of opinion =/= idiocy. Even if it’s an opinion you strongly disagree with. Doing something stupid like playing with knives in the bedroom with no training or regard for safety, IS bona fide idiocy.
.
You can be objective and disagree with someone and still recognize they’re not an idiot. Intelligent Christians and intelligent Atheists both exist, and disagreeing on their very strong views (to the point either side may believe the other’s views are harmful for themselves or other people) doesn’t make one side or the other more idiotic for believing differently, and both sides have people who respect and acknowledge the real intelligence of the other.
.
Happy to discuss further if it helps you, or cite my sources if you need

[Co****]

31 minutes ago, Smore_Cracker said:

“This is demonstrably a matter of poor comprehension.”
.
“Does this comment come in coherent English? I’m beginning to fully understand why your ignorance is so prevalent though. Maybe if you’re not going to be able to do the reading, someone will read it to you?”
“…this’ll be the last time I reply because it is like playing connect 4 with a microwave”
And more.
Insinuation: “This guy is an idiot (because he holds a different opinion than me)”
.
Objectively, whether you do it cleverly and roundabout-ly, or directly, someone is not an idiot for having a different opinion (about whether it’s valid to have a different opinion). Repeatedly labeling someone as such constitutes slander.
.
Re:irony: Let me explain what’s ironic (to me): the conversation developed to a point where you were discussing hate s***ch, when you yourself were continually edging towards a similarly heinous crime (i.e. slander). (You’re right in that you didn’t have any hate s***ch towards him per se.)
.
Pointing out idiocy is fine, if it is bona fide idiocy. Disagreement of opinion =/= idiocy. Even if it’s an opinion you strongly disagree with. Doing something stupid like playing with knives in the bedroom with no training or regard for safety, IS bona fide idiocy.
.
You can be objective and disagree with someone and still recognize they’re not an idiot. Intelligent Christians and intelligent Atheists both exist, and disagreeing on their very strong views (to the point either side may believe the other’s views are harmful for themselves or other people) doesn’t make one side or the other more idiotic for believing differently, and both sides have people who respect and acknowledge the real intelligence of the other.
.
Happy to discuss further if it helps you, or cite my sources if you need

Not looking to get re-involved, merely adding my two cents.

I do find it interesting that this is the second time now in this thread someone cited religion as an example when religion has no inherent tangible proof of existing (no offense of course, it’s less me dogging on religion and more dogging on the lack of objective proof other than belief)

Meanwhile trans people do exist and are tangible. You can argue that god “doesn’t make mistakes” which if that’s the case, then they made trans people deliberately.

Opinion versus fact only matters when it’s harmless, you dig? You don’t see me going around and telling people “it’s just my opinion” when I tell people about my spirituality. People have a tendency to hide behind their opinions to evade criticism for those beliefs. I don’t think once someone said “you can’t do this” rather said people got called out for the consequences those opinions have.

Moreover, the lack of criticism of the catholic church’s exclusionary and anti social /individual tactics is something I’m personally invested in. Please understand I’m not going after the faith, but rather the institution behind that faith. Bringing up a flawed system as your example is not a solid way to rebut. Whether that is intentional or not, I’m not gonna decide for you because I’m not you.

I’m of the mind that thought crime isn’t a thing. We’re all imperfect beings and we all have 80 years on average to learn and grow. That’s a disgustingly short time. But sometimes it takes being called out on your opinions to grow. Waiving it away as a “difference of opinion” gives people an excuse to not think critically of their own beliefs and challenging them. It’s only appropriate for stuff like “I don’t like horror, it’s too cliché” or similar.

In the case of one opinion being objectively correct even though it is still technically an opinion is the case of pedophilia. We can all agree that pedophilia is bad. It’s nigh objective. But, it’s still an opinion. If I go and talk to a proud pedo, they’ll obviously disagree. Is it my place to call them out on that nigh objectively wrong opinion? Opinions can still be *wrong*. Hell, remove that weirdly specific example and we can still agree that opinions can still have consequences. As a human sharing your opinion you need to prepare yourself for being told you’re wrong, that’s just how interacting with people works. It’s not up to devil’s advocates to bail you out.

I have no incentive to treat people with kid gloves who can’t understand the difference between sex and gender. Now, I do stop shy of insulting intelligence personally, but as someone who came in dissing ☀️🧔‍♂️ I have little room to talk. The majority of us are tired of those who won’t do the work to see things from other perspectives. And a lot of us are also tired of the equivalent of talking to a brick wall while we’re insulted for our intelligence.

In order to have an open dialogue, in order for a difference of opinion to be respected, it must be respected first. The notion that “trans women are women” regardless of its legitimacy is a hot button issue that impacts our lives outside nekkid so excuse us for calling those who can’t keep up idiots.

And it’s hard to see respect when a person comes in mad abrasive. I for one have made it a point to calm down when explaining shit, but you can’t explain shit at someone who won’t open their mind.

Feel free to use this in the ongoing discussion, I’m not really here to be a vital contributor other than providing my opinion cause I’m bored if that makes sense. Yes, inherently all of this is an opinion and you have the right to disagree with it. But, that still comes with social consequences.

Apologies for the long rant, I’m surprised this is still going lmao

[Co****]

Baaasically “you can think whatever you want but as soon as it leaves your mouth it ceases being immune to repercussions. Freedom of s***ch and the ability to voice your opinion only goes so far without being held accountable for what you say.

If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it if you can’t handle the heat bruv.

Hope this helps!

[CopperKnob]

To deny someone of their personhood is discrimination
.
OP, as others have said, trans women are women regardless as to where they are in their transition. In my albeit limited knowledge, gender identity is separate from sexual preference. This is how I differentiate it if its any use to anyone....
.

Being gay or straight is about who you want to go to bed with. Being trans or cis is about who you want to go to bed as.

[CopperKnob]

30 minutes ago, Pawpytan said:

Not looking to get re-involved, merely adding my two cents.

I do find it interesting that this is the second time now in this thread someone cited religion as an example when religion has no inherent tangible proof of existing (no offense of course, it’s less me dogging on religion and more dogging on the lack of objective proof other than belief)

Meanwhile trans people do exist and are tangible. You can argue that god “doesn’t make mistakes” which if that’s the case, then they made trans people deliberately.

Opinion versus fact only matters when it’s harmless, you dig? You don’t see me going around and telling people “it’s just my opinion” when I tell people about my spirituality. People have a tendency to hide behind their opinions to evade criticism for those beliefs. I don’t think once someone said “you can’t do this” rather said people got called out for the consequences those opinions have.

Moreover, the lack of criticism of the catholic church’s exclusionary and anti social /individual tactics is something I’m personally invested in. Please understand I’m not going after the faith, but rather the institution behind that faith. Bringing up a flawed system as your example is not a solid way to rebut. Whether that is intentional or not, I’m not gonna decide for you because I’m not you.

I’m of the mind that thought crime isn’t a thing. We’re all imperfect beings and we all have 80 years on average to learn and grow. That’s a disgustingly short time. But sometimes it takes being called out on your opinions to grow. Waiving it away as a “difference of opinion” gives people an excuse to not think critically of their own beliefs and challenging them. It’s only appropriate for stuff like “I don’t like horror, it’s too cliché” or similar.

In the case of one opinion being objectively correct even though it is still technically an opinion is the case of pedophilia. We can all agree that pedophilia is bad. It’s nigh objective. But, it’s still an opinion. If I go and talk to a proud pedo, they’ll obviously disagree. Is it my place to call them out on that nigh objectively wrong opinion? Opinions can still be *wrong*. Hell, remove that weirdly specific example and we can still agree that opinions can still have consequences. As a human sharing your opinion you need to prepare yourself for being told you’re wrong, that’s just how interacting with people works. It’s not up to devil’s advocates to bail you out.

I have no incentive to treat people with kid gloves who can’t understand the difference between sex and gender. Now, I do stop shy of insulting intelligence personally, but as someone who came in dissing ☀️🧔‍♂️ I have little room to talk. The majority of us are tired of those who won’t do the work to see things from other perspectives. And a lot of us are also tired of the equivalent of talking to a brick wall while we’re insulted for our intelligence.

In order to have an open dialogue, in order for a difference of opinion to be respected, it must be respected first. The notion that “trans women are women” regardless of its legitimacy is a hot button issue that impacts our lives outside nekkid so excuse us for calling those who can’t keep up idiots.

And it’s hard to see respect when a person comes in mad abrasive. I for one have made it a point to calm down when explaining shit, but you can’t explain shit at someone who won’t open their mind.

Feel free to use this in the ongoing discussion, I’m not really here to be a vital contributor other than providing my opinion cause I’m bored if that makes sense. Yes, inherently all of this is an opinion and you have the right to disagree with it. But, that still comes with social consequences.

Apologies for the long rant, I’m surprised this is still going lmao

Is paedophilia being bad an opinion? No, it's illegal in many countries so governments have literally made it more than an opinion.
Is it your job to call it out when people express an opinion to the contrary of the above? Yes on the basis that that's how society works and its everyone's job to safeguard ***.
It's 2023, catch up.

[Co****]

9 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

To deny someone of their personhood is discrimination
.
OP, as others have said, trans women are women regardless as to where they are in their transition. In my albeit limited knowledge, gender identity is separate from sexual preference. This is how I differentiate it if its any use to anyone....
.

Being gay or straight is about who you want to go to bed with. Being trans or cis is about who you want to go to bed as.

Piggybacking since I’m a trans asexual:

Trans or cis is merely about who you want to exist as in public. For some people it includes sexual identity but not always.

Otherwise fantastic addition!

Anyways I’m gonna go do something else for a bit, great talk everybody!

[Co****]

7 minutes ago, CopperKnob said:

Is paedophilia being bad an opinion? No, it's illegal in many countries so governments have literally made it more than an opinion.
Is it your job to call it out when people express an opinion to the contrary of the above? Yes on the basis that that's how society works and its everyone's job to safeguard ***.
It's 2023, catch up.

Well yeah of course, though I’m speaking from seeing way too fucking many while I’m trying to exist as a nsfw artist so like, 🤷

It’s illegal but on how opinions do work it can be classified as such. We [obviously] still protect *** here, but unfortunately that has little impact on the *cough* of deplorable exploitative individuals.

[Co****]

I couldn’t come up with the word, please substitute the cough with whatever word seems appropriate to the situation. apologies.

I’m not the best at wording stuff admittedly >_>

[Deleted Member]

As a trans individual, i thought it would be helpful to add my opinion.
You seem like a great guy. And understand that trans women are woman, and that they tend to be fetishized instead of being seen as women.
But I can also 100% understand what your saying. Not feeling full filled in your relationship and wanting to seek more. All of the trans women I've meet have had this grace and elegance. That is very attractive. And I don't think of it as chasing at all to be want to be in a relationship with a trans individual. Ive had people (mostly men) degrade me down to my parts. They wanted to date a trans man or a nonbinary person, only because they wanted to be dominated by someone who had a pussy.

[Sm****]

1 hour ago, Pawpytan said:

Not looking to get re-involved, merely adding my two cents.

I do find it interesting that this is the second time now in this thread someone cited religion as an example when religion has no inherent tangible proof of existing (no offense of course, it’s less me dogging on religion and more dogging on the lack of objective proof other than belief)

Meanwhile trans people do exist and are tangible. You can argue that god “doesn’t make mistakes” which if that’s the case, then they made trans people deliberately.

Opinion versus fact only matters when it’s harmless, you dig? You don’t see me going around and telling people “it’s just my opinion” when I tell people about my spirituality. People have a tendency to hide behind their opinions to evade criticism for those beliefs. I don’t think once someone said “you can’t do this” rather said people got called out for the consequences those opinions have.

Moreover, the lack of criticism of the catholic church’s exclusionary and anti social /individual tactics is something I’m personally invested in. Please understand I’m not going after the faith, but rather the institution behind that faith. Bringing up a flawed system as your example is not a solid way to rebut. Whether that is intentional or not, I’m not gonna decide for you because I’m not you.

I’m of the mind that thought crime isn’t a thing. We’re all imperfect beings and we all have 80 years on average to learn and grow. That’s a disgustingly short time. But sometimes it takes being called out on your opinions to grow. Waiving it away as a “difference of opinion” gives people an excuse to not think critically of their own beliefs and challenging them. It’s only appropriate for stuff like “I don’t like horror, it’s too cliché” or similar.

In the case of one opinion being objectively correct even though it is still technically an opinion is the case of pedophilia. We can all agree that pedophilia is bad. It’s nigh objective. But, it’s still an opinion. If I go and talk to a proud pedo, they’ll obviously disagree. Is it my place to call them out on that nigh objectively wrong opinion? Opinions can still be *wrong*. Hell, remove that weirdly specific example and we can still agree that opinions can still have consequences. As a human sharing your opinion you need to prepare yourself for being told you’re wrong, that’s just how interacting with people works. It’s not up to devil’s advocates to bail you out.

I have no incentive to treat people with kid gloves who can’t understand the difference between sex and gender. Now, I do stop shy of insulting intelligence personally, but as someone who came in dissing ☀️🧔‍♂️ I have little room to talk. The majority of us are tired of those who won’t do the work to see things from other perspectives. And a lot of us are also tired of the equivalent of talking to a brick wall while we’re insulted for our intelligence.

In order to have an open dialogue, in order for a difference of opinion to be respected, it must be respected first. The notion that “trans women are women” regardless of its legitimacy is a hot button issue that impacts our lives outside nekkid so excuse us for calling those who can’t keep up idiots.

And it’s hard to see respect when a person comes in mad abrasive. I for one have made it a point to calm down when explaining shit, but you can’t explain shit at someone who won’t open their mind.

Feel free to use this in the ongoing discussion, I’m not really here to be a vital contributor other than providing my opinion cause I’m bored if that makes sense. Yes, inherently all of this is an opinion and you have the right to disagree with it. But, that still comes with social consequences.

Apologies for the long rant, I’m surprised this is still going lmao

Thank you for the thoughtful and kindly-worded reply. I do enjoy thoughtful discourse. Helps us all grow. Also, I accidentally wrote an essay.
.
I agree (completely) that the guy who was posting before was being a complete jerkwad, and that waving away ideas we think as wrong as just difference of opinion (instead of engaging with the ideas, presuming both parties are able to reasonably discuss it) doesn’t lead to positive growth.
.
Re:religion: it wasn’t intended as an exceptional example; I meant it as one that’s more “each side sees compelling evidence and a person could be swayed either way”; I could use the fact that we can observe that intelligent people who are flat-earthers exist, even if we all (or mostly) agree they’re terribly misguided. My point wasn’t the validity of either view, only the statement I made before the comparison: One can disagree with someone and still recognize they’re not an idiot (idiocy is not indicated by the mere fact they disagreed and continue to disagree with one). On that note, thank you for not insulting people’s intelligence, and being a kind human being. I try to extend the same.
.
I’m somewhat curious about the catholic church’s antisocial tactics, as I’ve become disillusioned with their dogma. But that’s a topic I should hold off for DMs or a new thread :)
.
Re: Opinions can be *wrong*: Yes, and we’ve seen there is an abundance of nuance to how an opinion should be dealt with when the main group determines it “wrong”, or which opinions to determine “wrong”, or which opinions are even “consensus”. We probably agree on that.
Here we might disagree, but I think we’ll probably agree: Treating someone like less than a person (totally shunning them without any due process or hearing out, for example) is not a good way to act towards someone, and is not healthy for the overall community—I think it’s better for a person in charge (e.g. a mod or proven responsible person in whatever context) to talk to the person and try to understand where they’re coming from, and explain how X behavior or opinion is wrong. And then after sorting things out in a civilized way, it’s easier to sort out those who are being purposely hurtful vs those who just thought differently but are open to discussion. There’s certainly more nuance to it than that even, but total cancellation of someone hurts those who are usually more willing to change their minds/behaviors more than those who aren’t, which is why I’m hesitant towards anything along those lines (I can explain why I think this way if there’s curiosity). Though in this case, there’s sufficient evidence after several messages to seem the guy in question a troll.
.
I jive with you on the “mad abrasive” point. The guy who was putting out the hyper negativity had that most of all here, though there was also some passive-*** absolutist energy that I bristled at (I have had the same reaction to absolutism and superiority when the expressed opinions were reversed, in other contexts (for me, it’s principle: treat people like intelligent people if they’re not being assholes)).
.
“You can’t explain shit at someone who won’t open their mind.” Hard agree. Also worth noting: You can’t explain shit at someone unless you have an open enough mind to understand why they don’t (yet) understand it the same way as you (and assuming you’re trying to persuade, it’s useful to provide compelling evidence why they’re wrong).
.
Thanks for giving me an interesting response to critically think about my beliefs with.

[Deleted Member]

2 hours ago, Smore_Cracker said:

Which parts I agree with and which parts I disagree with your opinions, Comingbackhere2, I must say throughout this thread:
.
“The condescension and more-intelligent-than-thou attitude is strong with this one”
.
You disagree with BrumDom2023. That doesn’t give you the right to insinuate that he is idiotic, even though you may disagree QUITE STRONGLY.
.
In a twist of irony, your words to him are closer to a crime (slander) than his have been in this thread, plus having the unfortunate side effect of falling into the “Ad Hominem” fallacy

I agree. The sanctimonious preaching from Comingbackhere showed him up. Not anyone else.
OP: I hope you find happiness and whatever labels you embrace or reject - they're your choice.

[gi****]

10 minutes ago, Smore_Cracker said:

Thank you for the thoughtful and kindly-worded reply. I do enjoy thoughtful discourse. Helps us all grow. Also, I accidentally wrote an essay.
.
I agree (completely) that the guy who was posting before was being a complete jerkwad, and that waving away ideas we think as wrong as just difference of opinion (instead of engaging with the ideas, presuming both parties are able to reasonably discuss it) doesn’t lead to positive growth.
.
Re:religion: it wasn’t intended as an exceptional example; I meant it as one that’s more “each side sees compelling evidence and a person could be swayed either way”; I could use the fact that we can observe that intelligent people who are flat-earthers exist, even if we all (or mostly) agree they’re terribly misguided. My point wasn’t the validity of either view, only the statement I made before the comparison: One can disagree with someone and still recognize they’re not an idiot (idiocy is not indicated by the mere fact they disagreed and continue to disagree with one). On that note, thank you for not insulting people’s intelligence, and being a kind human being. I try to extend the same.
.
I’m somewhat curious about the catholic church’s antisocial tactics, as I’ve become disillusioned with their dogma. But that’s a topic I should hold off for DMs or a new thread
.
Re: Opinions can be *wrong*: Yes, and we’ve seen there is an abundance of nuance to how an opinion should be dealt with when the main group determines it “wrong”, or which opinions to determine “wrong”, or which opinions are even “consensus”. We probably agree on that.
Here we might disagree, but I think we’ll probably agree: Treating someone like less than a person (totally shunning them without any due process or hearing out, for example) is not a good way to act towards someone, and is not healthy for the overall community—I think it’s better for a person in charge (e.g. a mod or proven responsible person in whatever context) to talk to the person and try to understand where they’re coming from, and explain how X behavior or opinion is wrong. And then after sorting things out in a civilized way, it’s easier to sort out those who are being purposely hurtful vs those who just thought differently but are open to discussion. There’s certainly more nuance to it than that even, but total cancellation of someone hurts those who are usually more willing to change their minds/behaviors more than those who aren’t, which is why I’m hesitant towards anything along those lines (I can explain why I think this way if there’s curiosity). Though in this case, there’s sufficient evidence after several messages to seem the guy in question a troll.
.
I jive with you on the “mad abrasive” point. The guy who was putting out the hyper negativity had that most of all here, though there was also some passive-*** absolutist energy that I bristled at (I have had the same reaction to absolutism and superiority when the expressed opinions were reversed, in other contexts (for me, it’s principle: treat people like intelligent people if they’re not being assholes)).
.
“You can’t explain shit at someone who won’t open their mind.” Hard agree. Also worth noting: You can’t explain shit at someone unless you have an open enough mind to understand why they don’t (yet) understand it the same way as you (and assuming you’re trying to persuade, it’s useful to provide compelling evidence why they’re wrong).
.
Thanks for giving me an interesting response to critically think about my beliefs with.

So, I've held off on responding to a number of these side discussions from the OP's original question.  I did see you as wanting to engage in a critical discussion so I wanted to provide a couple of thoughts.  Firstly, to the idea that "cancellation" of someone due to their behavior hurts others.  It is not the responsibility of marginalized communities to educate and tolerate those who do not accept them.  Maybe cancellation is too far, but when someone says hateful and hurtful things, what should be the consequence?    

Secondly, the idea of leaving it to a person in charge to respond, I'd ask do we not as a community have a responsibility to call out hurtful behavior against marginalized groups?

Thirdly, I would also say, just like other discussions of late, there has been a *** of the discussion from the original question to debates around related, but not salient to the question, topics.  Do we not risk marginalizing those who have questions from asking them if we as a community constantly are trying to explain things rather than answering the specific question that was asked?  

I've watched this thread, as I have many of late, and wondered at the inability to allow the question to be answered, and focused on, rather than other topics.  I think there is a time and place for an intellectual discussion of things.  I think debate has many merits.  I question its value to the OP and to the rest of the community who are asking questions that they are legitimately wondering about.  

[sa****]

Trans women are women. So you’re still straight.