I was referring to the football I'm juggling with my head, dumbass

that's right I like to do a kerlon /seal dribble while I F.

Found the long thread.....

https://twitter.com/OVAndOut/status/1112152119233011712?s=19

Seriously you can spoon out an actual punnet of cabin fever from a thread like that, all sides. The hurt is real, the funnelling of humans into these alienated virtual circuses is also real but it's also daft.

"My Posts!!"

Who is JP?

Oh that prick.

Is there something new to say about him?

You can be trans without surgery.

I watched the whole thing, he does get out of the costume and there is a purpose, but it's a pretty, I dunno the right word, nerd-philosophy bunch of distinctions he's going for.

On one hand, sure, let's rip jp on another front, on the other, jp has been done.

I'm ambivalent.

I’m on Team Goobs here. Cock and balls are rank. I’ve got no idea how women can get turned on by them. I’m pretty sure that the sort of curvy, child-bearing hips types I go for mean most trans women won’t do it for me. Some might. But chuck a dick and balls into the mix and it’s out of the question. Fuck trying to shame people into it.

monkey wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

You can be trans without surgery.

Yeah that’s sort of my point. I’ve got a hairy chest, crap patchy beard, one dick and two ugly dangling bollocks. If I come out as trans tomorrow are lesbians expected to find this attractive?

Surely decades of sexual progressivism (no idea if that’s the right term) is about being able to fuck who you want without being persecuted for it. Mad.

The rub is, as far as I can tell, is that there’s an invalidation of identity if some people outright don’t want to sleep a class of women. If the argument goes transwomen are women and lesbians are attracted to women they shouldn’t give a toss if they are trans or not, and yet they do.

The real issue here is that different people class womanness as based on entirely different things. A trans person will say a womanness is internal and based a certain kind of brain and a radical feminist will say womanness is defined by in part by the fact they have reproductive tool kit and bodies that men abuse for free labour and oppression through the lumbering due to children.

How can any argument or anything be resolved if both groups are warring over the same land but one is completely fighting In the sky and the other completely fighting on the sea. They never really approach each other - or at least not the loud ones who dominate the internet. Most human beings just want to be nice to other ones but the Internet cultivates and forced the ideas of definitions because it’s a playground where everything is in the form of words (at the very least the foundations or skeletons are).

Diluted Dante wrote:

monkey wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

You can be trans without surgery.

Yeah that’s sort of my point. I’ve got a hairy chest, crap patchy beard, one dick and two ugly dangling bollocks. If I come out as trans tomorrow are lesbians expected to find this attractive?

Surely decades of sexual progressivism (no idea if that’s the right term) is about being able to fuck who you want without being persecuted for it. Mad.

This misses the point pretty wildly. Leaving the morons aside, the argument is finding out someone is trans shouldn't change if you find them attractive. So it's unlikely a lesbian would find your description attractive.

If you looked like Laverne Cox it might be different.

No, but finding out that they still have a cock might. And that's a perfectly reasonable point of view.

RedDave2 wrote:

I still don't get why finding out new information about someone wont change your attraction to them. I get that on a base visual level you should still find their appearance appealing but attraction is more than that.

You might still find their personality as engaging and appealing as well, but I think small things can affect our attraction levels. Someone being trans sexual is part of what makes that person.

In an ideal world these things probably shouldn't matter but I couldn't blame someone for finding it an issue. I have loads of hang ups which have put me off perfectly fine people.

I don't get how it does. You mentioned politics earlier. Tomi Lahren is a reprehensible human being but shes still fucking fit.

Diluted Dante wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

I still don't get why finding out new information about someone wont change your attraction to them. I get that on a base visual level you should still find their appearance appealing but attraction is more than that.

You might still find their personality as engaging and appealing as well, but I think small things can affect our attraction levels. Someone being trans sexual is part of what makes that person.

In an ideal world these things probably shouldn't matter but I couldn't blame someone for finding it an issue. I have loads of hang ups which have put me off perfectly fine people.

I don't get how it does. You mentioned politics earlier. Tomi Lahren is a reprehensible human being but shes still fucking fit.

I get your point but seeing her being interviewed by trevor Noah turned me right off her.

So in this case, for me at least, it does factor. Another example, although maybe not quite equivalent, is heather nova. I thought she was one of the hottest singers around until I saw her live and realised how small she was. Small women don't do anything for me and so the heather nova crush was gone.

Just to clear things up from my stance, I'm not saying it's in any way wrong for a lesbian to be with a pre op trans partner. I don't think it's wrong for anyone to be with anyone else as long as it's consensual. I do think it's entirely wrong to criticise someone else's sexual preference for whatever reason, or quibble with them over why they do or don't find someone else attractive.

mistercrayon wrote:

The act of feminine was is an act cultivated through generations of heterosexual male preference and their ability to control wealth and therefore demand performance to their taste (quietness, demureness, obedience, revealing clothes, sexual performance, makeup etc).

So where does that base model come from? If those aspects are all based on what men find attractive (and I don't think all men are at all) where did men get this blueprint from?

mistercrayon wrote:

“Looks and acts female” implies that there is a defined way to act “female” which is exactly the kind of thing radical/second wave feminists say is part of the core of the bullshit. The act of feminine was is an act cultivated through generations of heterosexual male preference and their ability to control wealth and therefore demand performance to their taste (quietness, demureness, obedience, revealing clothes, sexual performance, makeup etc).

I’ll never dictate to anyone how they must act, nor will I expect anyone to look or behave a certain way because of their gender, but it’s bullshit to suggest that there are not generally male traits and generally female traits. That’s the same across countless species.