/lgbt/ - LGBT

>>8183
Way more transwomen than transmen
Because being a bull dyke is usually close enough

>>8809
>nor moid
Get on T uygha

>>8674
Buy a shirt that says "Miss me with that gay shit" or something to that extent.
Now for a question: is there a point in dating trans women as a straight men when the vast majority are trans lesbians?

>Sensitive mods removing the obligatory "kill straight men" posts
hmmm… suspicious

>>8830
You miss every shot you don't take.

>>8832
Why would one date women who loudly announce their lesbianism?

>>8837
If you already known the answer to your own question, then why posit it? Did you just want to throw a little cissy fit over transwomen not being interested?

Always Sunny in Philadelphia but instead of gaining or losing weight, Rob McElhenney takes HRT for a year.

>>8830
>be man
>using a mens bathroom
>ever
mmwtgs

>>8832
I don't know anon, you would probably also poorly react to kill all faggots so it's only fair.

>>8182
Why are there so many openly homosexual reactionary/chauvinist politicians? Current AfD leader is a good example. Im wondering if its normal political variation between individuals or some form of coping mechanism for people that try to assimilate into "heteronormative" views.

I need some supporting evidence that an individual's gender is not a primarily social phenomenon. What are some cases which supports the idea of innate gender?

(I am familiar with John Money's attempt to raise David Reimer as a girl, I want other examples too)

>>8909
>Why are there so many openly homosexual reactionary/chauvinist politicians?
Where's the contradiction?

Most reactionaries aren't pure 200% reactionary about everything, and I'd wager that most people hold syncretic ideological jumbles rather than any cohesive worldview - like the anti-immigration immigrant who doesn't realize they're next on the chopping board.
I personally know an anti-privitization centre-right voter, and an environmentalist centre-right voter who is respectful towards queer people. Both also consider themselves to be anti-racist.

I don't know enough to say if it's a coping/overcompensation, or if there is simply normal variation, but I suspect they just stand out so much due to the apparent contradiction in values, that we notice them more.

>>8909
The overton window has shifted so much that it's now acceptable. Some of Hitler's top guys infamously had gay tendencies, but they felt the need to hide it. Now you've got guys like Peter Thiel running around championing religions, parties, and philosophies that were advocating for putting gays in jail twenty years ago (and would again if they could, but have mostly given up). I think some right-wingers are trying to find ways to turn back the clock, but it's a futile effort at this point.

>>9006
> like the anti-immigration immigrant who doesn't realize they're next on the chopping board.
Or a better example, the anti-queer 'libertarian'. FREEDOM FOR THEE.

Im into this guy who presents very femininely but also does hrt. They might be trans but idrc. No i am not bi I am gay, how can this be explained?

>>9010
Internalized biphobia is very common.

>>9010
>how can this be explained?
By not using oversimplified frameworks like 'straight'/'gay'/'bi'.

>>9010
You’re attracted to that person in particular, just approach them as a full human and be as honest as possible about your feelings and go from there

Why does everyone think I'm gay?
Just because I sleep in the same room with my best friend who is my roommate does not make me gay.

>>9020
Because you're a snack and I'd eat your boyhole.

>>9020
literally me

>>9023
Do you know how many hands have been in there?

>>9093
lol hetero anxiety

Been texting this girl for a while, Mexican transbian and now as recently got into a relationship with two girls (don’t know if their also trans or not but it doesn’t really matter) I believe it’s also online/long distance? So I have worrying feeling that it won’t last long. Anyway I just have a weird feeling about it since I’m not really that open to ideas about polycules, I’m I right to be concerned or am I bad ally?

>>8201
this is anecdotal but most of the people i knew growing up who couldn't assimilate are dead from suicide, whether directly or through drugs, or otherwise marginalized to the point of a slow death. even i am cut off from my people and i never really had a "community" growing up in an isolated rural environment. i ended up in a traphouse run by a rapist nepo baby after my parents dumped me in section 8 where i was groomed and coerced by neonazis who said i could be a "femboy" (as long as i put out for them of course) but i had to "grow up" and "be a man" eventually (join their criminal death cult). i knew a lot of people with similar backgrounds who never lived to tell about it. i had to leave because i was being followed around the neighborhood by crackheads and pimps trying to get me to throw my life away and join them in death. i had people follow me into the corner store and try to get me to live in their crackhouse and saying how i could sell myself there. i had nowhere to go except sleeping in friends basements and bouncing between different situations, sometimes in exchange for sex. i did so many drugs just to escape the moment and met other transwomen visiting from another place who i thought would understand my struggle but used me as an object for their sick sexual desires; they didn't really give a fuck about the feelgood bullshit they preached. they were only good for drugs and money, they were bourgie tourists from the big city coming to profit from the deprivation there. from an early age i believed i was going to die before 30 and i lived like it because i could never get an honest job. they were gentrifying our neighborhood and installing those police cameras and picking people off the streets. if you're not a bourgeoisie socialite transhumanist in a major city you're basically going to be forced into survival sex and temporary situations until you die while your own kind moralizes over your corpse. nobody gives a fuck, not even your own "people". human rights are a spook. i moved across the country with my wife just to try and start a decent life and it turned to shit because the same problems exist everywhere. i miss the ghetto i fled from because there was more "freedom" despite the intense surveillance and policing there and more opportunities to make money. i have resigned myself to a slow death and indefinitely postponed my suicide out of spite but i still have a strong will to live and i will seize on any opportunity that i find. i would say genocide is an accurate descriptor.

>>9197
None of these things happened.

>>9197
> traphouse run by a rapist nepo baby
you can just say landlord
>they didn't really give a fuck about the feelgood bullshit they preached
religion and new age liberal Oprah inspiration slop ideology is the opiate of the masses just like actual opiates are
>human rights are a spook
>i would say genocide is an accurate descriptor
The "Cold" War: 30 Million Exterminated by Neoliberalism

>>8198
No, but you'll be told it is because the government doesn't bend over for the beautiful lady😍🥰s.

1. Why can nobody give me a definition of queer (even "queers") and why has the definition seemingly gotten worse with time?
2. Why is the LGBTQ+ community so self-defeating, seemingly addicted to burning bridges with any proximal community, but also within itself?
3. What is with the patriarchy- and theoretical blind spot? not only in the lgbtq community, not only in the queer community, but apparently even in the supposedly leftist/"marxist"/"communist" version of the community here on >>>/lgbt/ and on other similar places online, like lemmygrad, where there is demonstrated a seemingly complete lack of seriousness, interest or theoretical comprehension? wasting the space as if it's just some trite high school group chat or yet another excuse to masturbate, as if you aren't afforded that fucking everywhere else? Damn, no rush I guess, people are just getting fucking slaughtered out here but whatever you do don't elevate your consciousness, don't open a book, don't discuss tactics. Fuck I'm pissed off.

>>9344
meds

>>9344
>Why can nobody give me a definition of queer (even "queers") and why has the definition seemingly gotten worse with time?
In the 1990s, theorists begun using the word "queer" for people who didn't fit the hetero/homo mold. However, its simply become a synonym for anything LGBT etc. before then, queer simply meant weird/strange. The definition gets worse because 1. The LGBT community is exclusionary 2. Just as queer theorists pointed out years ago, you can't easily pigeonhole people into labels like gay or straight, so the response to this has to mint more and more labels to keep the charade going.

>Why is the LGBTQ+ community so self-defeating, seemingly addicted to burning bridges with any proximal community, but also within itself?
Because it simply can't help doing so. In the first place, the post-Stonewall gay movement was created by middle class white Americans who were college educated and wealthy. It reflects a certain ideology and like all ideologies it can't include everyone and is built on a fair bit of exclusion e.g. traditional Catholics who see anal sex as a sin and sexual desire as something that has to be restrained as part of the process of being Christian cannot break bread with an LGBT movement that praises indulgence in sexual pleasure as a way to explore the self and live a free life. These are incompatible worldviews. Even if there's attempt to bridge the divide, they remain fundamentally incompatible. Rather than simply accept that they are different, the LGBT activists in the 80s (most of them atheists) instead decided to frame Catholics as the enemy. Basically, the LGBT movement is too ideologically narrow. They tie being gay or queer to specific worldview and of course not all people, including queer people, can or do share that worldview. This can lead to dangerous consequences e.g. gays supporting Israel.

>What is with the patriarchy- and theoretical blind spot? not only in the lgbtq community, not only in the queer community, but apparently even in the supposedly leftist/"marxist"/"communist" version of the community here on >>>/lgbt/ and on other similar places online, like lemmygrad, where there is demonstrated a seemingly complete lack of seriousness, interest or theoretical comprehension.
Well, its an internet space. Internet politics is never serious. The reason for the theoretical blindspot is pretty simple, theory forces us to ask uncomfortable questions and nobody likes to rock the boat. There are people on this board that would lynch you for saying homosexuality is a social construct.

>>9347
Thank you for the thoughtful answer! I will break the middle section down in parts to answer it more effectively.

>Because it simply can't help doing so. In the first place, the post-Stonewall gay movement was created by middle class white Americans who were college educated and wealthy.
I have also slowly begun to realize the overwhelming weight of this aspect playing in to the problems.

>It reflects a certain ideology and like all ideologies it can't include everyone and is built on a fair bit of exclusion e.g. traditional Catholics who see anal sex as a sin and sexual desire as something that has to be restrained as part of the process of being Christian cannot break bread with an LGBT movement that praises indulgence in sexual pleasure as a way to explore the self and live a free life. These are incompatible worldviews. Even if there's attempt to bridge the divide, they remain fundamentally incompatible. Rather than simply accept that they are different, the LGBT activists in the 80s (most of them atheists) instead decided to frame Catholics as the enemy.
I thought this was an odd thread to go down on as a response to "proximal communities" (because I had in mind semi-sympathetic ones, more on that later*) but then I sat with it a little and was reminded of the fact that protestants (mainline) have been more accommodating, so you may have referred to this too by extension, implicitly. It also ties into
>dangerous consequences e.g. gays supporting Israel.
The western zionist base of which is protestant, Americanism and petty bourgeois /+ labor aristocratic.

>Basically, the LGBT movement is too ideologically narrow. They tie being gay or queer to specific [petty bourgeois, labor aristocratic] worldview and of course not all people, including queer people, can or do share that worldview.
* The reason I got to confront this problem now recently was through the odd following angle: Reading Engels, specifically Origin of the Family, the section outlining modern history of bourgeois monogamy and evidence that the proletariat exclusion from capital accumulation (legal marriage), women's proletarianization and economic independence and social production, structurally forces a breakaway from bourgeois-monogamous marriage paradigm and towards what he calls 'sex-love' and polyamory.
This then got reminded me of the little history of the yankee LGBTQ history I know of, which was the early stages of it. There they had a proximal community they sought support from. That was polyamory (via queer movement's connection to it). To my surprise, this connection got weaker with time and today the apparent consensus amongst 'lgbt', 'lgbtq' and 'queer' spaces and forums considers polyamory not only 'not queer' (even though it would fit the early Stonewall era definition of queer, as far as I can tell, which is against normativity / conformance. i.e. it was not merely about gender and sexuality but also higher levels, which rejection of normativity would reflect, thus also including relationship models) but also there is heavy resistance to not including it along even the LGBTQ+ framework, by these opposing voices. Powerful counter-drivers appear to be the monogamous, frequently biphobic, homosexuals, who, after having framed "gay marriage" as something supposedly desirable in the first place, now these interests are also driving the division into "LGB", as may be already known. This is further proof of the thesis; development towards making the petty bourgeois class interest at work here explicit. Trans destabilizes the gender binary, putting it into question (leading to non-binary proposals) and thus has to be removed. Queer is and has been a bisexual force multiplier that risks destabilizes the patriarchal and monogamous norms and thus has to be removed. The conformist lesbians, gays and transphobic bis rush into the hands of the legal-marriage system, religious institutional support, bourgeois monogamous family.

What's crazy is that, due to the fact nobody fucking reads the selected works, even collections of self-described "Marxists" like here, this has no discourse, no commentary.
Have you ever seen a discussion on the subject of Engels' post-monogamous 'sex-love' as a socio-sexual macrodevelopment into the proletarian era on here? I haven't and I've been browsing this shithole for years. If anyone did, they'd probably make a thread about it at some point on, especially post the creation of >>>/lgbt/ (existed for years now), right? But not a single person seemingly is able to engage with anything in regards to this, even the theory thread >>1163. There literature is just dumped (again for merely aesthetic indications of ideological adherence), not read. This is me >>8700 a month ago. What I read by Engels made me flabbergast. We're in this eternal peasant/pb-accomodating mindset rather than appealing to the fucking proletariat, one quarter into the 21st century, having no intuitive self-defense against bourgeois ideology in our daily lives. Something that must play into the widespread ignorance and unseriousness must also be the media. I'm willing to bet that most on here simply click up their imperialist interactive entertainment with liberal narratives x10.000 before even considering reading *gasp* [the Marxist ebook]. Surely reflecting a labor aristiocratic and petty bourgeois predisposition. Having been bribed. This problem of the petty bourgeois ideological masquerade as a part of our movement goes back straight to the start, with Lassalle, Bernstein, and it's just as big of a problem today.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm

If you have any advice on what I should look in to more specifically in regards to the history / state of the queer movement I would appreciate it greatly.

>>9348
>'sex-love' and polyamory
>What's crazy is that, due to the fact nobody fucking reads the selected works, even collections of self-described "Marxists" like here, this has no discourse, no commentary.
The fuck are you getting this? Engels speaks of the material conditions of the proletariat opening up the possibility of "true monogamy":
<the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrous
There isn't a lot to discuss about this, simply because it's the liberal ideal of romantic love, each of us likely grew up with, realized and economics-driven relationships tend to be grouped under the greater malaise of capitalist coercion by people who aren't puacels.

>>9348
I wouldn't take Engels' Origin as the Family seriously as an explanation of how kinship/family emerged or even how bourgeois sexuality took shape. If you want histories of the LGBT movement, I'd suggest checking out John D'Emilio's book Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities. Laurie Marhofer's Racism and the Making of Gay Rights looks at how eugenics and imperialism shaped early queer culture. Foucault's History of Sexuality Vol 1 is very relevant too. D'Emilio's point is that capitalist industrialization created gay culture because for the first time autonomous individuals could gather in commercial spaces and share a common identity. Can you say there was a petty bourgeois element to this? Probably.

>protestants (mainline) have been more accommodating
The point I wanted to make is that secular and Protestant biases shaped the invention of gay identity in ways that make it difficult for others to accommodate gayness or creates an impossible subject position, both of which contribute to homophobia. There were Catholic theologians in the 60s who wanted decriminalization of homosexuality and rejected the idea that it was a sin, but they still wound up enemies of post-Stonewall gay activists who framed religion (with some exceptions) as the enemy.

>Trans destabilizes the gender binary, putting it into question (leading to non-binary proposals) and thus has to be removed. Queer is and has been a bisexual force multiplier that risks destabilizes the patriarchal and monogamous norms and thus has to be removed.
It doesn't destabilize the gender binary because you of course need to separate 'men' from 'women' in order to make transition from one side to the other possible. What trans does is destabilize the hetero/gay binary by mystifying the gender of the other person. If people can change sex, if they can have a gender entirely different from their physical sex, then suddenly gay, straight, and lesbian begin to loose meaning or get thrown into crisis. This is what stimulates lesbian and gay transphobia. As for bisexuality, something like it was common in much of human history and co-existed with patriarchy, polygamy, religion, and monogamous marriage. Gays didn't like bisexuals because their ideology (we are born this way, there is only gay or straight) couldn't initially accommodate people who were attracted to more than one sex. Gay males also have a misogynistic streak and that fed into it too.

Will drinking beer really turn me into a girl? I heard it is full of estrogen.

>>9427
no, but the ethanol will turn you into a raging alcoholic

>>8190
It’s more that trans women get more media attention because women are often the social assignees of beauty. So anyone that wants to join their side has a lot on their plate.
Also trans men aren’t talked about as much because people are too worried about “cross dressing men trying to rape women in the female restroom”

Trans men have problems as well.
They’re mocked and patronized for not being tall enough, not having a cisgender penis, not having a masculine voice, etc

Trans men often fave constant rejection and are patronized a lot.

Why is there no discussion about trans men issues?

Why are femboys hated upon?

Why do people prompt the urban myth about trans female hood being due to cishet men being under appreciated?

Why is femininity always divinated in radlib circles while masculinity is dismissed as either fake or malevolent?

There seems to be this general hostility towards cishet male aesthetics beyond sex.

Anything that’s assumed to be popular with them is automatically considered shallow/tainted

Cishet males showing any sign of sexual/romantic interest in LGBT people is seen as bad.

Yet LBGT people lust after good looking nuanced men whom are cishet

>>9551
Trans men issues are discussed thoroughly you’re just in the wrong circles. Trans women are discussed more because they are the current target in most media outlets. Transphobes usually believe that trans men are just hysterical innocent wombyn so they’re ’not a threat’.

Femboys are hated because the femboy community has an alt right infestation + massive transphobia problem. Feminine men are usually treated differently. The label of femboy in specific has a lot of baggage.

Idk

Radfems are cliquey reactionaries who believe that they have perfect AFAB victim souls and that any outgroup is an enemy. They do tend to like butch lesbians as long as they agree with their cult.

>>9560
>Femboys are hated because the femboy community has an alt right infestation + massive transphobia problem. Feminine men are usually treated differently. The label of femboy in specific has a lot of baggage.

Trans people are also complicit in the alt right pipeline.
A lot of hate for femboys seem to come from jealousy or animosity over “hogging all the male attention”

Alot of complaints against femboys are easily applied to bears and trans women.
But those groups aren’t given much flak for their flaws because they’re not seen as attractive.
Alot of their chasers seem to be bitter men who canno score well with women so treat them as convenient alternatives.

>>9561

Implying that femboy hate is over hogging male attention is insanely weird, no it’s not about male attention. Are you forgetting that not all trans people are into men? Not even all femboys are into men.

Trans women have criticized femboys for using trans specific slurs and transmysoginistic charicatures. That has nothing to do with wanting male attention lmao
Are you out of your mind? Not everything is about wanting male sexual attention.
And yes, bears and trans women can also obviously be alt righters, but that’s not what anons question was about.

>>9565
>Are you out of your mind? Not everything is about wanting male sexual attention.

Then why are there complaints about men chasing after femboys in cishomo male spaces?

And yes, bears and trans women can also obviously be alt righters, but that’s not what anons question was about.

Bit of a deflection but okay

>Implying that femboy hate is over hogging male attention is insanely weird, no it’s not about male attention.

It is a factor albeit not the only one

>Are you forgetting that not all trans people are into men? Not even all femboys are into men.

I’m well aware of that, I’m focusing on the ones that are.

>Trans women have criticized femboys for using trans specific slurs and transmysoginistic charicatures. That has nothing to do with wanting male attention lmao

That’s a better explanation.

> A lot of hate for femboys seem to come from jealousy or animosity over “hogging all the male attention”
Male attention is dirt cheap, nobody cares.

>>9579
If that’s so, then why do people complain about femboys?
If cis men started gravitating towards femboys en masse, rejecting trans women, cis women, and cis homo men, would you still say this?

>If that’s so, then why do people complain about femboys?
Are these people in the room with us right now? Morons on the internet will always find something to be offended about and oppressed by
>If cis men started gravitating towards femboys en masse, rejecting trans women, cis women, and cis homo men, would you still say this?
That's a very big if pal. Discussion about a meteorite falling tomorrow is more fruitful because that at least happened before.

Why do so many homos glomp onto Christian aesthetics when they hate the religion itself?
>>9559
Cishet men are incapable of showing romantic or sexual interest in queers because it would be gay.

> Cishet men are incapable of showing romantic or sexual interest in queers because it would be gay.
Or maybe because they don't have such interest, basically by definition?