Gay or Nah?

[AllieHeidi]

I don't think an attraction to him could be considered gynephilic since he only has male secondary sex characteristics and viceversa for her regarding androphilia. The only feminine thing he has are feminine mannerisms and the only masculine thing she has are masculine mannerisms.

Androphilia and gynephilia are terms used in behavioral science to describe sexual orientation, as an alternative to a gender binary homosexual and heterosexual conceptualization. Androphilia describes sexual attraction to men and/or masculinity; gynephilia describes the sexual attraction to women and/or femininity.

Source

A visual representation of how complex this concept actually is.

 

[Chiballana]

Source

A visual representation of how complex this concept actually is.

Are masculinity & femininity clothes, mannerisms , secondary sex characteristics or all of the aforementioned?

 

[AllieHeidi]

Are masculinity & femininity clothes, mannerisms , secondary sex characteristics or all of the aforementioned?

They're all of the aforementioned and encompass both the social and phenotypical aspects of biological sex.

When divided into two categories (social and biological phenotype) masculinity and femininity hold different meanings conceptually.

Biological Phenotype - Of or relating to the secondary sex characteristics that are male and female.

Social - Of or relating to the sociocultural standards of male and female roles, presentation, and behaviors (i.e. gender).

Technically, when referring to gender as a social construct, we are referring to what is considered masculine or feminine (see: gendered languages like French and Spanish) from a sociocultural standpoint.

What is not a social construct is the state of being a man, woman, boy, or girl. Those are objective biological realities denoting life stages of both sexes within the human species. Men and women can be masculine or feminine in their presentation, social roles, and behaviors. But men can never actually be women and vice versa.

 

[Chiballana]

They're all of the aforementioned and encompass both the social and phenotypical aspects of biological sex.

When divided into two categories (social and biological phenotype) masculinity and femininity hold different meanings conceptually.

Biological Phenotype - Of or relating to the secondary sex characteristics that are male and female.

Social - Of or relating to the sociocultural standards of male and female roles, presentation, and behaviors (i.e. gender).

Technically, when referring to gender as a social construct, we are referring to what is considered masculine or feminine (see: gendered languages like French and Spanish) from a sociocultural standpoint.

What is not a social construct is the state of being a man, woman, boy, or girl. Those are objective biological realities denoting life stages of both sexes within the human species. Men and women can be masculine or feminine in their presentation, social roles, and behaviors. But men can never actually be women and vice versa.

While someone born male can never have a female reproductive role and viceversa, someone born male can have/aqcuire a biological female phenotype and viceversa for someone born female.

 

[dreambridger]

there's just something so weird about this "I'm going to prove you're not gay" agenda.

So what?

I stated it earlier in the thread, when we're identifying as gay or straight or bi, we're doing it for practical reasons in how we relate to our community. If not being disgusted by vaginal sex makes me bi, but I'm still not interested in women, it would disappoint and confuse a lot of people to say I'm bi. It just makes more sense to say I'm gay.

 

[Chiballana]

They're all of the aforementioned and encompass both the social and phenotypical aspects of biological sex.

When divided into two categories (social and biological phenotype) masculinity and femininity hold different meanings conceptually.

Biological Phenotype - Of or relating to the secondary sex characteristics that are male and female.

Social - Of or relating to the sociocultural standards of male and female roles, presentation, and behaviors (i.e. gender).

Technically, when referring to gender as a social construct, we are referring to what is considered masculine or feminine (see: gendered languages like French and Spanish) from a sociocultural standpoint.

What is not a social construct is the state of being a man, woman, boy, or girl. Those are objective biological realities denoting life stages of both sexes within the human species. Men and women can be masculine or feminine in their presentation, social roles, and behaviors. But men can never actually be women and vice versa.

Sex Is at its core about gametes but someone with female phenotype Is considered a woman by society in every way (e.g. CAIS and some trans women).

 

[Chiballana]

They're all of the aforementioned and encompass both the social and phenotypical aspects of biological sex.

When divided into two categories (social and biological phenotype) masculinity and femininity hold different meanings conceptually.

Biological Phenotype - Of or relating to the secondary sex characteristics that are male and female.

Social - Of or relating to the sociocultural standards of male and female roles, presentation, and behaviors (i.e. gender).

Technically, when referring to gender as a social construct, we are referring to what is considered masculine or feminine (see: gendered languages like French and Spanish) from a sociocultural standpoint.

What is not a social construct is the state of being a man, woman, boy, or girl. Those are objective biological realities denoting life stages of both sexes within the human species. Men and women can be masculine or feminine in their presentation, social roles, and behaviors. But men can never actually be women and vice versa.

We cannot change sex as in gametes but we can change biological phenotype. As a trans person, that Is enough for me.

 

[XtunaStan]

it would disappoint and confuse a lot of people to say I'm bi. It just makes more sense to say I'm gay.

I think being into women in any form and still claiming to be gay is way more aggravating and contradicting.

 

[barehole4use]

I am only attracted to masculine men, any girly behaviour i find a total put off, i won't fuck with a girly man, that's just me.

 

[dreambridger]

I think being into women in any form and still claiming to be gay is way more aggravating and contradicting.

why?

 

[AllieHeidi]

We cannot change sex as in gametes but we can change biological phenotype. As a trans person, that Is enough for me.

We seem to be going in circles and revisiting the same argument from a few pages back. I'll try to be a bit more succinct.

The issue with your position is that it stems from a weak premise: If something/someone A looks like something/someone B, something/someone A objectively is something/someone B.

This is a weak premise because it will not always lead to an objectively true conclusion when applied universally.

For example:

Rachel Dolezal looks like a fair-skinned Black woman. Therefore, Rachel Dolezal objectively is a fair-skinned Black woman.

The above argument does not reach an objectively true conclusion due to its weak premise.

The same applies when it comes to the matter of identity. The issue is that the term 'identity' itself has been conflated to mean what someone is, as opposed to its correct definition which is who someone is.

Identity is 100% a sociocultural component of being human because it is malleable and is a very unique and personal aspect of each individual person. It is not measurable. It exists within the subjective space (i.e things that can be changed and are not measurable). Therefore, the concept of identity cannot be applied to that which exists within an objective space (i.e. things that cannot be changed and are measurable).

DNA and genetics are aspects of biology that cannot be changed. Biological sex is coded into an organism's DNA. Taxonomical components are coded into an organism's DNA (i.e. species). Age is also expressed in one's DNA and can actually be determined/measured through epigenetics.

If an organism is part of the human species, female, and a child, that human is not a woman. That's a girl. The girl will become a woman once the adult life stage is reached. If that woman changes her phenotype to look like a man, that woman does not objectively become a man. The woman remains a woman who now looks like a man.

Do keep in mind that it is not always necessary to medically change one's phenotype to look male or female. There are social and cultural factors that standardize phenotype, as well (i.e. masculine and feminine).

A form of this is colloquially known as cross-dressing and has been used as comic relief in many forms of entertainment as I'm sure you're aware.

 

[AllieHeidi]

I think being into women in any form and still claiming to be gay is way more aggravating and contradicting.

I agree. Instead of trying to "expand the definition" of an inherently monosexual sexual orientation like gay, the definition that should be expanded is bisexual.

If someone has any sexual attraction whatsoever for both sexes, even if that attraction comes with conditions (i.e. they "look male/female") that person is bisexual.

A gay man attracted to trans men is technically also attracted to women who look like men. That's not gay. The same applies to straight women attracted to trans men. They are attracted to women who look like men.

If a gay man states he wouldn't date or sleep with a trans man because trans men are biological women, that's not transphobic. That's the truth. Calling that transphobia is actually homophobic because it's essentially telling gay men that they should consider dating or sleeping with biological women as long as they look like men.

The social ramifications of that are too risky and dangerous, and that is why I don't agree with how language and definitions are being changed with regards to this issue. We are heading down the wrong path where the feelings of one group are being demonized in favor of another, in my opinion.

 

[AllieHeidi]

Also, to add a bit of humorous context into why it's not "hateful" to write off entire demographics for dating because "How can you say you're not attracted to all [insert demographic here]? You can't always tell someone is [demographic/adjective]."

This happens all of the time, actually, especially in the realm of online dating and how common it has become. The amount of women who "swipe right" on the guy they thought was hot and end up losing attraction when she meets him in person for something that is beyond his control is very, very common. Are these women hateful or shallow? No. They like what they like and shouldn't be demonized for it.

 

[MisterB]

I agree. Instead of trying to "expand the definition" of an inherently monosexual sexual orientation like gay, the definition that should be expanded is bisexual.

If someone has any sexual attraction whatsoever for both sexes, even if that attraction comes with conditions (i.e. they "look male/female") that person is bisexual.

How any person chooses to identify their sexuality is their business. Not yours. Not mine. No one.

It's a tough enough journey as it is for a lot of folks to figure that out. Applying labels to people, especially a group of people who you don't know nor are part of, is wrong. Again, not your business.

A gay man attracted to trans men is technically also attracted to women who look like men. That's not gay. The same applies to straight women attracted to trans men. They are attracted to women who look like men.

Utter nonsense. This is simply your unfounded and misguided opinion. Not based in any real-world experience as you are not gay. Please stop projecting about that which you don't know.

If a gay man states he wouldn't date or sleep with a trans man because trans men are biological women, that's not transphobic. That's the truth. Calling that transphobia is actually homophobic because it's essentially telling gay men that they should consider dating or sleeping with biological women as long as they look like men.

More nonsense. If someone doesn't wish to sleep with another person, that is that someone's business. Not yours. Not mine. No one.

We are heading down the wrong path where the feelings of one group are being demonized in favor of another, in my opinion.

Can't believe you are this completely unself-aware. Projecting your own prejudices on others while you are one of those you malign heading down the wrong path with your continued demonizing of gay and transgender folks.

Demographics again, to which you do not belong.

Nor do you have any first-hand knowledge what gay or trans folks feel.

Yet you continue to demonize gay and trans folks.

 

[AllieHeidi]

Not based in any real-world experience as you are not gay.

Excuse me, I'm same-sex attracted. I am a woman attracted to other women who were born female. That is the very definition of being gay. All in all, biological sex absolutely matters when it comes to sexual orientation and shouldn't be disregarded as "hateful" when taken into consideration in the dating market.

That said, I would not date a trans woman because trans women are biologically male and I am not attracted to biological males in any capacity whatsoever. I take issue with being framed as a "hateful bigot" because I don't see someone else how they see themselves and happen to take that into consideration when choosing a romantic partner.

If I see someone whom I initially perceive to be a woman and find them physically attractive that makes sense because I am only attracted to women. And as stated earlier in this thread, humans are pre-wired to first experience andro/gynephilic attraction because we don't (usually) see genitals first. If at some point I find out that the individual is actually a biological male, I can't help it that my attraction instantly goes away and I'm not a "hateful person" because of it.

I 100% empathize with gay men who are only same-sex attracted and not attracted to trans men because trans men are biologically the opposite sex. The insistence that same-sex attracted individuals are hateful for not wanting to be with someone of the opposite sex is borderline (if not outright) homophobic.

 

[MisterB]

Excuse me, I'm same-sex attracted. I am a woman attracted to other women who were born female. That is the very definition of being gay. All in all, biological sex absolutely matters when it comes to sexual orientation and shouldn't be disregarded as "hateful" when taken into consideration in the dating market.

Ah, that explains some of your posts elsewhere here.

Congrats and welcome to the club!

But I can assure you that your experiences as a gay woman is not relevant to mine as a gay man, other than we each are attracted to our same sex.

That said, I would not date a trans woman because trans women are biologically male and I am not attracted to biological males in any capacity whatsoever. I take issue with being framed as a "hateful bigot" because I don't see someone else how they see themselves and happen to take that into consideration when choosing a romantic partner.

And that is your prerogative.

I know that every single male I know who I was fortunate to share their transitional journeys were women. Period. Once their journeys were complete, their outside now matched how they perceived themselves to be. A woman. And oh my, how each of them blossomed into the person they always knew they were and meant to be.

Please do not put words in my mouth; I did not refer to or call you a "hateful bigot". Those are your words, not mine.

If I see someone whom I initially perceive to be a woman and find them physically attractive that makes sense because I am only attracted to women. And as stated earlier in this thread, humans are pre-wired to first experience andro/gynephilic attraction because we don't (usually) see genitals first. If at some point I find out that the individual is actually a biological male, I can't help it that my attraction instantly goes away and I'm not a "hateful person" because of it.

Good for you! Sounds like you know yourself and what you like. Kudos.

I 100% empathize with gay men who are only same-sex attracted and not attracted to trans men because trans men are biologically the opposite sex.

And I completely support anyone who doesn't wish to sleep with another person for whatever reason. Sexual attraction is personal and inherent to each of us. What floats your boat is all that should matter to you. Not my business.

You won't find me judging you for your sexual choices, as I'm not you.

The insistence that same-sex attracted individuals are hateful for not wanting to be with someone of the opposite sex is borderline (if not outright) homophobic.

Again, not my place to tell others who/what they are/should be attracted to. Who one finds attractive is subjective to that person.

I agree with you that sexual attraction normally stems from what we see before any clothes come off. And if a cis gay guy meets a gay guy who has transitioned, finds him attractive and decides to sleep with him, he's still gay.

Genitals do not make the man. Or woman.

 

[AllieHeidi]

But I can assure you that your experiences as a gay woman is not relevant to mine as a gay man, other than we each are attracted to our same sex.

No one, of any demographic, has experiences that align 100% with someone else even if they belong to the same demographic. But to say that they're completely irrelevant is, to me, dismissive.

My experiences as a same-sex attracted woman of color are not 100% aligned with other SSA WOC, but that doesn't make them irrelevant, either. There are plenty of similarities and experiences. I would argue that homophobia and racism would be shared and quite relevant experiences in both instances.

I know that every single male I know who I was fortunate to share their transitional journeys were women. Period. Once their journeys were complete, their outside now matched how they perceived themselves to be. A woman. And oh my, how each of them blossomed into the person they always knew they were and meant to be.

Please do not put words in my mouth; I did not refer to or call you a "hateful bigot". Those are your words, not mine.

And I am glad they found happiness and peace once their bodies matched how they perceived themselves. But true inner peace (and by extension social harmony) can only come when one not only no longer cares how others perceive them, but doesn't demand that others change their perceptions.

I also wasn't stating you were calling me a hateful bigot and apologize for my lack of clarification. I was speaking in a general sense where many people have absolutely been labeled transphobic for not wanting to date or sleep with trans people. This has happened to me and others I know on a few occasions. And it's not okay.

You won't find me judging you for your sexual choices, as I'm not you.

That's great. An unfortunate theme I observed here, however, is gay men being berated and labeled "transphobic" for not wanting to see trans men in gay porn because they don't perceive that to be gay sex. Instead of just respecting their positions and validating their feelings, they were told it was wrong to feel that way. So, of course, they went on the defensive as any one would.

I agree with you that sexual attraction normally stems from what we see before any clothes come off. And if a cis gay guy meets a gay guy who has transitioned, finds him attractive and decides to sleep with him, he's still gay.

Genitals do not make the man. Or woman.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, here.

 

[Chiballana]

We seem to be going in circles and revisiting the same argument from a few pages back. I'll try to be a bit more succinct.

The issue with your position is that it stems from a weak premise: If something/someone A looks like something/someone B, something/someone A objectively is something/someone B.

This is a weak premise because it will not always lead to an objectively true conclusion when applied universally.

For example:

Rachel Dolezal looks like a fair-skinned Black woman. Therefore, Rachel Dolezal objectively is a fair-skinned Black woman.

The above argument does not reach an objectively true conclusion due to its weak premise.

The same applies when it comes to the matter of identity. The issue is that the term 'identity' itself has been conflated to mean what someone is, as opposed to its correct definition which is who someone is.

Identity is 100% a sociocultural component of being human because it is malleable and is a very unique and personal aspect of each individual person. It is not measurable. It exists within the subjective space (i.e things that can be changed and are not measurable). Therefore, the concept of identity cannot be applied to that which exists within an objective space (i.e. things that cannot be changed and are measurable).

DNA and genetics are aspects of biology that cannot be changed. Biological sex is coded into an organism's DNA. Taxonomical components are coded into an organism's DNA (i.e. species). Age is also expressed in one's DNA and can actually be determined/measured through epigenetics.

If an organism is part of the human species, female, and a child, that human is not a woman. That's a girl. The girl will become a woman once the adult life stage is reached. If that woman changes her phenotype to look like a man, that woman does not objectively become a man. The woman remains a woman who now looks like a man.

Do keep in mind that it is not always necessary to medically change one's phenotype to look male or female. There are social and cultural factors that standardize phenotype, as well (i.e. masculine and feminine).

A form of this is colloquially known as cross-dressing and has been used as comic relief in many forms of entertainment as I'm sure you're aware.

I don`t understand why it`s so hard for people like you to be trans-inclusive, as a society we already consider both Swyer and CAIS individuals women even though they are genetically male, why wouldn`t do the same for mtf and for ftm regarding men? You are very insistent on saying "trans women are not women", but I wonder if you would be so insistent on saying "CAIS women are not women". Maybe then would you realize how dogmatic you sound, yes, neither group has female gametes, but when both have a female phenotype how else are they supposed to be classified in society? Are you not able to empathize with the female typical experiences and misogyny both groups would experience based on their female phenotype? You seem fixated on preserving the "purity" of maleness and femaleness, we are social beings, the social is more important than raw genetics.

For context, I`m a post op trans woman and have a female phenotype including female typical strength, everyone I meet assumes I`m an XX female with eggs and am treated as such. I`ve been talked over by men, catcalled, groped without my consent and have narrowly escaped a rape attempt. I`m asked if I`m pregnant every time I have exams done at the doctor as well as the date of my last period, I`ve had sex
with men who didn`t know I`m trans and my current boyfriend didn`t know it during the first months of our relationship. My transition has been successful and obviously being in male spaces puts me in danger of rape like any other woman, considering I have a female body when naked, at least externally. True, I don`t have female gametes or chromosomes, but I do have a female phenotype which means I will inhabit the female role indefinitely and everyone in society sees me as such. As a society, we have always accommodated CAIS individuals in this situation, avoiding doing the same with trans women due to transphobia would be a moral failure.

 

[Chiballana]

Also, to add a bit of humorous context into why it's not "hateful" to write off entire demographics for dating because "How can you say you're not attracted to all [insert demographic here]? You can't always tell someone is [demographic/adjective]."

This happens all of the time, actually, especially in the realm of online dating and how common it has become. The amount of women who "swipe right" on the guy they thought was hot and end up losing attraction when she meets him in person for something that is beyond his control is very, very common. Are these women hateful or shallow? No. They like what they like and shouldn't be demonized for it.

I`m sure some would call them shallow or "sizeist".

 

[Chiballana]

I agree. Instead of trying to "expand the definition" of an inherently monosexual sexual orientation like gay, the definition that should be expanded is bisexual.

If someone has any sexual attraction whatsoever for both sexes, even if that attraction comes with conditions (i.e. they "look male/female") that person is bisexual.

A gay man attracted to trans men is technically also attracted to women who look like men. That's not gay. The same applies to straight women attracted to trans men. They are attracted to women who look like men.

If a gay man states he wouldn't date or sleep with a trans man because trans men are biological women, that's not transphobic. That's the truth. Calling that transphobia is actually homophobic because it's essentially telling gay men that they should consider dating or sleeping with biological women as long as they look like men.

The social ramifications of that are too risky and dangerous, and that is why I don't agree with how language and definitions are being changed with regards to this issue. We are heading down the wrong path where the feelings of one group are being demonized in favor of another, in my opinion.

your dogmatic model excludes intersex people, for one. ANY gay man and straight woman can feel attraction towards a trans man. As said before, sexual attraction is towards secondary sex characteristics and genitals, not chromosomes or gametes. Most people need the first two ones to align to the typical model in order to engage in sex. You realize you sound just like religious conservatives when they complain about their feelings being demonized regarding LGBT acceptance, right? Society is becoming more trans inclusive, and that is a GOOD thing.