Feminist Says You Have To Want Women With Penises Or You're "Transphobic"

If you regularly read my articles you already know I slant to the Right, politically. But one subject I tend to differ with some conservatives is LGBT issues. Because I believe everyone has the right to do what they want with their lives and bodies, I’ve supported LGBT since forever! I supported gay-marriage years before Obama and friends suddenly decided they did, since back when the Clintons were still saying marriage should always be about one man and one woman. As for Transgender issues, I actually designed the first tabletop RPG to feature a transgender heroic cover-character (Arrows of Indra).

So while I’m cisgendered and straight, I feel safe to say that Trans-Feminist Riley Dennis is talking complete garbage. In her video she says that if you’re straight, and don’t want to have sex with a (transgender) woman with a penis, you are transphobic.

Let’s review this: she’s claiming ANYONE who wouldn’t be willing to have sex with a trans person by definition hates trans people.

Do you get how absurd this is? It’s like claiming that if you don’t listen to Bjork you must want to nuke Iceland. If you don’t like angel food cake, you must be a Satanist. Like if you don’t agree with everything Feminists say, you’re a Nazi… ohhh… OK, I see what logical school Dennis trained at.

It’s the same school that presented a paper some months ago claiming that any man who wasn’t willing to be anally penetrated was not only homophobic, but couldn’t be a real Feminist:

It’s total nonsense. In no small part because the Ctrl-Left can’t figure out their own claims about gender and sexuality! On the one hand, they say that gender is just made-up, when they want to argue that men and women are exactly the same and a woman could do anything as well as a man could.

But then they claim that gay people were just born that way and are who they are entirely due to biology. Even worse, they claim that transgender women “feel like a girl on the inside,” even though they just claimed that girl doesn’t exist because it’s just a social construct! It’s all “Schroedinger’s Pseudoscience” — whatever the Left needs it to be at the time.

Then there’s this Alphabet Soup of Bullcrap:

The truth is, all this stuff is invented. But so are our other ideas about gender, sex, and relationships; including one man and one woman.

As an historian, I can see how many things we assume are absolutes really just amount to historically recent inventions. BOTH sides are wrong.

Look at homosexuality, for instance: sure, men were having sex with men since at least the Bronze Age, and it shows up in all kinds of cultures. But none of those homosexualities looked like how WE define homosexuality They were all different (and by default, so was ‘heterosexuality).

Are feminists claiming that all those other homosexuals throughout history were “gaying wrong”?!

Homosexuality, the way we see it in the West as a lifelong singular same-sex attraction, and all the culture and stereotypes around homosexual behavior, were pretty much invented just before the Victorian Era. Note: Heterosexuality as we understand it today was also pretty much invented at that time, in contrast with the former.

Before that, and outside our culture today, you have all kinds of other “homosexualities.” There’s the Greek and Roman version, where it was normal for teenage boys to be with older men, while older men could have sex with teenage boys but weren’t gay as long as they were the active partner. Even their gods like Zeus did it (here with Ganymede).

Many cultures had younger men involving themselves in gay relationships, either with other teens or older men, and then not being gay anymore when they grew older. And in a lot of cultures gay was being the one who wants to receive anal sex from another man, not give it. That’s still the definition in parts of Latin America, for example.

In some American Indian cultures, it was normal for teen boys to form sexual relationships with each other; among the Mayans it was normal for a young aristocrat to be given a young male slave as a romantic partner, where the aristocrat was always the “top,” and the slave the “bottom.” This only lasted until the aristocrat got married, at which point he was no longer a gay Mayan.

It’s the same with Transgender: there’s all kinds of traditions in world history, and none of them are exactly like ours. In India there’s been a third gender for at least 3000 years. They used to be known as “kliba” — men who would dress as and become women. Some of them did it forever, some only temporarily and later became men again. Later, there were the “hijra,” who were castrated (sometimes very young, sometimes against their will) and became third-gendered from then on:

In Southeast Asia there’s the Kathoey or “ladyboys,” similar to western transgender but different. Traditionally they don’t consider themselves men OR women.

Look, I get why the Western Left wants to say “born that way,” responding to the Christian Right claiming the “gay can be prayed away.” Truth is more complicated than either: both sexuality and gender are a huge jumbled mix of genetics, environment, early childhood experiences, and culture.

Just because it’s NOT 100% genetic doesn’t mean it can be altered at will: our sexualities become fixed relatively young, and then stay within a range of tastes.

So just like you can’t really pray the gay away, it’s stupid to think you can make people get turned on by penises if you just socially shame them enough. If you get that Jesus-based gay-conversion won’t change you, why would you possibly imagine feminist nagging is going to change anyone else?!

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *