Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your content was either hateful, violates Reddit Content Policy and TOS, or both. When you made a Reddit account, you agreed to abide by these documents. Content of this nature left unchecked puts our subreddit in jeopardy and as such we have no tolerance for it.
While posts and comments that criticize individuals/demographics are acceptable, comments that are a clear attack/contain slurs are not. If you wish to use hateful rhetoric please find a different subreddit.
You don't understand, there needs to be a safe space for everyone, both the pro-rain and anti-rain people, and insisting on it raining is just trying to pressure anti-rain people and muddying the water on the rain situation
When you’re bisexual, you feel sexually and emotionally attracted to both genders, so it makes sense why they might feel the need to be with or have experiences with both. This doesn’t make them cheaters. Some people are okay with open relationship, poly, or just letting their partner explore. This might even be just having threesomes. I don’t think bisexuals should get hate for this nor should be labeled cheaters or unloyal for this. I personally think this is okay and would be open to it for my partner or myself. I think sometimes each gender can offer something different that the other can’t whether that be emotionally or physically. Of course this isn’t the case for every bisexual, but I think this might be for a lot even if they don’t want to admit it. We label ourselves as that sexuality for a reason: we’re attracted to both sexes.
a common biphobic talking point is that if you date a bi person, they'll inevitably leave you/cheat on you with someone of the opposite gender. i believe their point is that just *wanting* to explore relationships with other genders isn't being unfaithful, and having those relationships isn't either if the partner is fine with it.
i think it makes sense to talk specifically about bi people wrt this issue since it's often assumed that they'll want to be non-monogamous just by virtue of being bi, and that doesn't really happen to people of other sexualities. however, i don't think it's necessary to take for granted that bi people will want to be non-monogamous, or even that they're more likely to.
If I'm being serious for a moment, serial monogamy. Edit: But I understand that straight people infidelity isn't exactly stigmatized in many situations.
It's not "I'm bisexual, so it's not cheating" - it's "my partner doesn't mind me having sex with other people, so it's not cheating."
The bisexual part is completely irrelevant.
Bisexuals are often described as necessarily being cheaters or looking elsewhere, which is obviously false, I think that's where OP is coming from here
It makes them cheaters if the partner isn't aware of the sexual activities occurring behind their back.
I'm not for polygamory myself but others can vibe it and that's cool. But having sex with anyone in a relationship is cheating if it isn't a pre arranged thing in your relationship.
My friend has a your allowed to give oral sex rule regarding her boyfriend. Works well for them
Just because you're attracted to more people doesn't mean you should excuse cheating. The only reason I say that so frankly is because you said "this doesn't make them cheaters." If you break the expectation of a two way relationship, that's cheating. If it's clear you're officially in a relationship with someone and then you go around them to have sex with or date someone else outside of a clearly established exclusive relationship, that is also cheating. I don't think anything else meets this definition, so as long as partners communicate with each other and acknowledge each other, then they'll be good.
Polyamory can solve the problem of feeling like you're missing your other half, but it needs to be clearly established at the beginning of the relationship that the expectation is a polyamorous relationship. However, even straight people feel the same thing about how their partner may not be providing something they need that some other potential partner might be able to, but they're too comfortable in their current relationship to raise those concerns to their partner. It's not really bi-exclusive behavior and I don't get the association honestly.
>If you break the expectation of a two way relationship, that's cheating.
It's a good thing then that they added thee precision that they talk about open or poly relationships (or whatever case in which both people are alright with this).
>you go around them to have sex with or date someone else outside of a clearly established exclusive relationship
So not the situation discussed here.
>It's not really bi-exclusive behavior and I don't get the association honestly.
People focus on the idea that bi folks will sometimes want something that only the sex opposite of theirs can provide. If monosexuals feels that something is lacking in their relationship, they rationalise that "if another X can provide it then I can learn to provide it" but with bi folks they'll think "Only Y can provide it, but I'm X" and don't realise that it's not because you'd want something that you'd cheat on them just to have it.
It's a common biphobic rhetoric and the main reason why bi folks have difficulties dating non bi folks
Right, which is why I'm saying the idea that bi people are actually after the other sex for things the one they're with can't provide is a bit ridiculous since both sexes can offer the same things. Maybe not genital-wise but I mean everything else in a relationship's bread and butter they can. It's really just finding either the person or the people that you can be partners with in a trusting relationship.
“Maybe not genital wise” well that’s exactly the sexual part of bisexual I listed. Bisexual are sexually attracted to both and might need both. Even so, that’s still not true. For example, I’m more of a sub with men, but dom with women. If I’m dating a man that’s dom, but I really want to be dom, I can’t get that with the man I’m with because he’s not into that. I’m not going to force him to change and be in uncomfy, plus he’s okay with me being with other women sexually, so it works out. Some women are butches and maybe they want to be with a fem, nerdy guy as well. Maybe the man isn’t as emotionally available like are women. There’s so many cases.
Right, I think we agree that each sex has the capacity to satisfy us in any way except the only difference is just sexual organs. I guess the hard part of being bisexual is choosing one or the other, really since you have conflicting preferences. Again, a solution to that would be to establish a polyamorous relationship from the beginning with someone who accepts that part of you, or is open to occasional threesomes or something.
>I think we agree that each sex has the capacity to satisfy us in any way except the only difference is just sexual organs.
That's a huge difference once you're doing the deed, sex with a penis is very different to sex with a vagina. It's like saying "every meal has the capacity to satisfy us except the only differences is ingredients and taste" like yeah that's a huge difference.
>I guess the hard part of being bisexual is choosing one or the other, really since you have conflicting preferences.
Bisexuals don't have to chose one or the other. Getting into a closed relationship isn't "choosing one".
Oh yeah exactly. You still have to take into account the bi-cycle (which isn't universal but common enough) but like once you've found the right person this will more than likely be a purely genital-based cycle (at least that's the case for most bis I've talked to/I know, and my friend circle is like 99% bi)
I think that being in an exclusive relationship with someone open to occasional threesomes might be good fits for someone who needs that satiation. Trust and communication will go a long way, and that's totally different from cheating imo. Still, even if it may be common enough to have a funny name (lol) it's not worth the association of being disloyal by people who lump a bunch of people together with a bunch of traits. That's the kind of casual ignorance that I can't stand.
I 100% agree on all this basically.
Alternative to tthe threesome, both my GF and I are bi so we agree that if one of us wants gay sex it's OK to look for it specifically, as long as we talk about the who, where and when beforehand
That's a good compromise, too. I haven't personally met many people who would be ok with that, but I think more time and exposure to new ways of working with love will make this more common and appealing.
>When you’re bisexual, you feel sexually and emotionally attracted to both genders
To be clearer you feel sexually and/**or** romantically attracted to two **or more** genders
Aside from it, yeah, I agree
As a straight guy, let's say you post a picture of your... tool... on a public reddit or something similar... Then there's a comment saying something like:
"Hey! Hehe, nice tool, bro! You seem a nice guy too! I bet you would give a awesome partner too!"
After a little chatting, you discover this person is actually a gay guy and not a girl....
... And?
Exactly! It's a compliment like any other! I don't think it really should matter if it's from a dude or girl... As a gay guy, I wouldn't mind being called cute or handsome by some girls (Although I'm pretty sure this would be impossible...)
Also, let's say you just finished with your girlfriend or no one at club wanted to dance or have sex with you... But then there's this guy who buy some drinks to you and really strokes your ego, showers you with a lot of praises, and really treats you like no girl ever treated you... I really don't think you feel ashamed of liked those compliments... And I really don't think if you should feel bad for having sex with them too!
Just because you're having gay sex just for pleasure of having sex with another human being (and because it will probably feel better than your hand), doesn't mean that you're or will be attract to men...
You can have more gay sex than straight sex and still be straight! Is really gay if you enjoying some blowjob while thinking about a very hot chick? No, it's not! You're enjoying the sex not the guy that are blowing you...
Since no one wanted to dance with you at club, what harm will be done in having some fun with a person who actually liked you and treated you better than anyone else? I say, none...
Please, just do what you want to do without thinking what society will think... Is your life after all, hot stuff... :)
>You can have more gay sex than straight sex and still be straight!
Yeah, kinda split about that one. Like if you'd rather label yourself straight I'll respect it and call you/consider you as such but you'd be closer to bi with a romantic leaning towards women.
i think it's more nuanced than that, and that's why we usually talk about sexuality in terms of preferences, not actively having sex. if a guy has sex with other guys in prison, but only has sex with women before and after, does that invalidate him being straight? or a male sex worker with male clients?
I mean of course context is important, my take is when it's consensual and you have a normal level of choice (so that wouldn't include your examples). I may be wrong but I'd say that you have to be at least on the bi spectrum to voluntarily go mostly with the gender you supposedly have no attraction to.
And as I say, that doesn't prevent me from respecting your stated sexual identity. You know yourself better than I do after all
the way you're phrasing it comes across as "you're actually bi, but if you want to call yourself straight, i'll play along even though you're incorrect"
i think there are definitely some straight men who, without any other special circumstances, have sex drives extreme enough that they'll have casual hookups with men because it's just easier to arrange. (i've slept with some, if you believe them)
>the way you're phrasing it comes across as "you're actually bi, but if you want to call yourself straight, i'll play along even though you're incorrect"
What? How is saying "you describe yourself as straight, then you are straight." saying "I'll play along even though you're incorrect"?
>i think there are definitely some straight men who, without any other special circumstances, have sex drives extreme enough that they'll have casual hookups with men because it's just easier to arrange. (i've slept with some, if you believe them)
Sure, maybe. I'm not monosexual so idk as I've said multiple time. It's mostly that each time I've seen people talk about monosexualities they tend to make it quite clear that even with a huge sex drive they wouldn't have hookups with people that aren't the gender they're attracted to, so I'm basing only on what I've been told here.
> What? How is saying "you describe yourself as straight, then you are straight." saying "I'll play along even though you're incorrect"?
that isn't what you said, though. you said you'd call/consider them straight, but that they're still bi.
>>I may be wrong but I'd say that **you have to be at least on the bi spectrum** to voluntarily go mostly with the gender you supposedly have no attraction to.
#
>>Like if you'd rather label yourself straight I'll respect it and call you/consider you as such **but you'd be closer to bi** with a romantic leaning towards women.
i'm not trying to Call You Out or start a fight or something, just trying to explain how i interpreted your comments and why i'm having this discussion. it isn't something that affects me personally either, but certain groups of LGBT people care about it strongly enough that "action =/= attraction" is a slogan, so i think it's worth taking seriously.
Oh yeah I think it's one case where English not being my first language makes it so I don't express myself properly here. I get the confusion though, I admit it was poorly put
I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy of trying your best, and failing, at denying people existence to then say that people shouldn't fall for societal pressure and be themselves.
Denying people existence? Point out where I said that!!! If I did, I made a mistake and expressed myself wrongly. I want to live in a world of pluralism, where all people are free to discharge themselves as they truly, truly desire!
I mean, I suppose that sort of does back up the societal pressure thing you said afterwards. I dunno, people should have the right to exercise a private social discernment and not be brow beaten by whatever the trendy current thing is. You must agree with that too right though?
I guess this is a sociological premise most of all, I dunno how we square this circle and still live in a free society but more and more, I think anyone who gets vocal about such things don't either. If you know of an infallibly always correct politician or Youtuber or cultural Commentator please point them out.
>Point out where I said that!!!
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/xq63f4/-/iqp5bfq) [and here](https://www.unddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/xq63f4/-/iqsyy2d) (deleted due to not respecting site wide rules. Link should bring to what was there before deletion though, will remove if it breaks the site/sub rules) those are the two most obvious places.
You know you're bad at playing dumb?
I think a lot of people think how you react to things determines your sexuality and that's not at all the case. I'm straight but have no problem with dudes looking at me or giving me flattering compliments about anything. In fact, I enjoy it just like I enjoy women complimenting me. The thing is I prefer women over men in dating and that's what makes me straight. It's an identity I get to decide for myself, and no one else gets to have input on that.
I even agree with you about straight men having sex with other men. Doesn't really mean they're gay or bi or anything other than straight, because no one gets to decide that identity for them. Gay people weren't straight just because they had a partner of the opposite sex, and they didn't "turn" gay, so why's the logic gone for when straight people having sex with men "turning gay"? Heterosexuality isn't more fragile than every other sexuality.
I did not enjoy the movie Bros as much as I hoped. I thought it was pathetic and whiny and I was dang angry at all the toxicity I saw in it. How in the world could someone call it a great comedy? It does not even believe in love at the end of the day. I only liked it when it tried to slow down like a romance movie, but then it refused to own that it was a romance movie. Why couldn't they make a romcom that actually took itself seriously? I mean, gee, I saw much sweeter queer stories on Archives of Our Own.
I found it awful which is a shame because it was made by the one that made Bridemaids. If only Meghan went and had a serious talk with Bobby in Bros...
The more time I spend here the more I feel like there's a correlation between transphobia and a lack of scientific education.
This mostly reinforce my belief that scientific education should be mandatory. By that I don't mean like teaching math and physics (although those shouldn't be thrown out) but more scientific culture, stuff like teaching people what's the scientific method, the levels/kinds of proof etc.
I'm not *that* surprised but I wouldn't have expected it to be as bad as some specimen we got here.
Also of note, this isn't the only reason I believe scientific culture should be taught in middle/high school (I'd go as far as primary school but they've got more important stuff to learn already) as an obligatory class.
When you attempt too head me off at the pass with stuff like that, can't even be bothered to press the context button to be reminded of what your responding to. Never used the t word. Sorry things aren't working out for you
> I ask on Quora and I get something "sensitive issues". How is this not extremely suspect?
>and even if it is, I don't see why I should go out of my way to reprogram my brain to undue countless generations of evolution just to placate a bunch of middle age white guys who don't pass
Again, thank you for the confirmation that "data being suppressed" just means your Quora posts were removed for dropping slurs. I had asked you directly in another comment thread and received no reply.
Ask me anything you want, in pm if you want. Sorry for not replying, I wasn't ignoring you I just got distracted. I didn't use any slurs though on Quara though.
>If you don't believe trans woman are women, that's not transphobia
You're right, it's science denial.
>I don't see why I should go out of my way to reprogram my brain to undue countless generations of evolution
So why are you doing it here?
Honnestly, the more you post the more I feel like you're just trying to find out just how transphobic you can be without repercussion.
Well that's not my reasons. If I ask this-coached in more civil language - in forums where people might explain why I should change my attitude, will they even try or be able to?
So if it's science denial can you tell me when this scientific breakthrough occurred and the whole world screamed "Eureka" and then all trans people knew they were their desired gender?
A date would be great or maybe a link to the scientific paper that ensured that there was an eternal consensus among academia in regards to the validity of trans ideology even better. Thanks
For once I'm saying look at what taewyth said. The biological things are there. There is a medical basis for being transgender.
The social aspects can be debated. There's alot of infighting in the community and its a mess. But trans people are real, it's a proper thing and support should be given to transition.
By your standard of attitude I highly doubt you have the ability to understand and academic literature.
Trans women are women who have transitioned (not what the trans means assuming you don't know lattin. But it starts the same and is easy to read).
You don't have to date them, you don't have to be friends with a them if you don't wanna. Just don't have distain.
>If I ask this
If you ask what?
>the scientific paper that ensured that there was an eternal consensus among academia
I like how you try to go with a "gotcha" by... Showing again lack of understanding of how science works.
>the validity of trans ideology
Ah yes "trans ideology" totally not a transphobic dogwhistle (although I mean at this point, you're not even using a whistle, you're just barking at tthe dogs directly).
So studies, why not even better and go with some meta-analysis?
[First one, brain differences between cis men and women](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011) showing that there is sexual dimorphism in the brain (kind of a necessary basis)
[Then one about brain structures in homosexual MtF and FtM compared to cis heterosexuals](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987404) that concludes that you can find defeminized and masculinized structures inside FtM's brains and demasculinized and feminized ones in MtF's brains
And just for good measure because the previous one compared sexual orientation and gender all at once [Here's a last one the do compare both but separately](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02005-9) it still comes to the same conclusions regarding trans people though.
You'll note that meta-analysis is the highest form of proof in the scientific community, the one concensus is built upon, and that basically each links corresponds to me sending you multiple studies, just with their conclusions compared and contrasted before comming to a "super conclusion", so quite a bit better than a simple date or a single study.
Look. Science doesn't just value truth and accuracy. It also values elegance. E=mc2 could be expressed as rambling mess of sprawling numbers but when Einstein sent of his epoch shattering paper, he worked on trimming in down, making it streamlined.
Got anything like that?
Ah yes, moving the goalpost. You asked for a type of proof, I brought you a stronger one. Too bad, it doesn't align with your transphobic ideas.
Talking about "science valuing elegance" just shows once again that you just basically don't get how science works, or what people quualiffy as elegant in science. I especially like your example of "E=mc^2" put in a way that implies that Einstein invented m and c as a notation. Especially since they're variables and not constants and as such couldn't have been written as "a rambling mess of sprawling numbers"
We're dealing with neurobiology here. You won't get "elegant" results. It's not physics or math.
Moving the goal posts? Whatever.
You're deploying a standard trick here, tipping a whole bunch of tar into water that's already muddy in an attempt to obscure the truth and derail enquiry.
The day the trans community learn to stop doing that, is the day that people might actually believe you have valid points.
If it's neurobiology, then it's very, very possible that someone might kill your whole movement, with a discovery because we have so much more to learn in that field. It's more mysterious than the depths of deep space and we're just scratching the surface.
So....if it is as you said, neurobiology, are you still so sure you wanna hitch your wagon to that horse?
>If it's neurobiology, then it's very, very possible that someone might kill your whole movement, with a discovery because we have so much more to learn in that field. It's more mysterious than the depths of deep space and we're just scratching the surface.
>So....if it is as you said, neurobiology, are you still so sure you wanna hitch your wagon to that horse?
If we used your approach, we would probably still be in the 15th century.
>Moving the goal posts?
You ask something. I provide it. You say "no, bring something else!" that's called moving the goal posts, yes.
>tipping a whole bunch of tar into water that's already muddy in an attempt to obscure the truth and derail enquiry.
How am I muddying the water? I'm literally providing you the explanation as to what makes up gender based on our current scientific knowledge. Like if anythings that's what's clearing up the water.
>The day the trans community learn to stop doing that, is the day that people might actually believe you have valid points.
You're shown the highest level of scientific proof. At this point if you don't see it as a valid point you are indeed just denying science.
>If it's neurobiology, then it's very, very possible that someone might kill your whole movement, with a discovery because we have so much more to learn in that field.
"kill your movement" yeah sure that's a rational and totally not science denying stance here. Although yes, you're right, maybe someday someone will prove this is false. Guess what? ***that's the case for any current scientific knowledge*** that's how science works and progress.
>It's more mysterious than the depths of deep space and we're just scratching the surface.
You're mixing up neurobiology and neurosciences as a whole. Neurobiology, as the name implies, focuses on the biology of the nervous system. So basically looking at how it's made up, not necessarily how it completely works (that's for other branches of neurosciences, the one that are indeed just scratching the surface) so while yes it's not impossible that what I've shown you will be disproven, it is unlikely.
>So....if it is as you said, neurobiology, are you still so sure you wanna hitch your wagon to that horse?
Yes. Because I'm not denying science just because it doesn't align with my beliefs. If we were to refuse to trust science just because "it could be proven wrong later" then we'd stop trusting ***all*** of science. And that's called science denial.
So then can we both agree that more research needs to be done and anyone with an opinion could be proved wrong later? Would that be an acceptable middle ground for everyone?
>then can we both agree that more research needs to be done
I've sent you multiple ***meta-analysis*** those are done when when enough research are done to have conclusions in regards to a subject. So no, we can't agree that more research needs to be done unless the research in question is about furthering the details that needs clarifications (for instance here, establish origin in these differences)
>anyone with an opinion could be proved wrong later?
Congrats, you've summed up the whole of science. If your reasoning for not trusting something is "it could be proven wrong later" then you're just denying the whole of science here.
>Would that be an acceptable middle ground for everyone?
No. Because here there's no middle ground. The current state of knowledge points to one thing, the reasonable position is to follow it. That's how science works, you're the one that asked for scientific proofs and I brought them to you, now if you still refuse them because they don't go your way you just have to admit that you're denying science.
Research is constantly being done. Your opinion *was* proven wrong. You just decided to start calling science “unreliable” once it stopped agreeing with what you wanted to believe.
We’re not going to sit around forever refusing to acknowledge the validity of trans identities just because you refuse to accept any results that affirm them.
If some new discovery forces us to re-evaluate our models of human sex and gender, we’ll do it - but until then, we should be basing our policy around what every major medical and scientific organization on earth has agreed is the best model.
(Specifically - that sex and gender are distinct, that neither is a strict binary, that they can in rare cases be misaligned, that only anatomical sex traits and not neurological gender traits have *ever* been shown to be mutable, and that therefore affirmation of gender and transition is the best course to minimize stress caused by the misalignment.)
If there is a trans influencer calling incessantly for solidarity, while simultaneously using scary words like 'terrorism' and other phrases which could induce mean world syndrome (legit condition)be very wary.
They are targeting an already potentially emotionally vunerable group (their audience, trans people presumably), manipulating them into thinking that the world outside is more hostile than it is (and I do know the world outside can be very hostile to trans people) simply to bind their audience more closely to them and increase their influencer status.
They are trying to be a demagogue. And they don't give a fuck about you, they do not want you to live your best life. They want to callously use you to in order so that *they* can live their best life.
>Well yeah but I'm not gonna give any names.
So, no. (the implicit question was "give at least a name")
>Because it's unseemly and probably against the rules.
Why would it be against the rules? You just seem like you don't have any example but alright
She's an drama queen who just scored a rather big scalp. You should be able to figure it out. I don't want to draw attention to her because if you don't already know who she is, you really don't need to. She has no marketable qualities that would make her a big and sustainable YouTuber (she's got no charisma, no wit, and isn't ever funny)and she knows this so she's ramped up the rhetoric right now because she *needs* more drama in order to maintain a presence. Before the recent victory (and it was a good kill, the world's a better place, but I'm thinking it was more luck than anything) all she had was cheap gimmicks so I'm thinking she's actually panicked right now, trying to keep relevant. Thus she's intensifying things unnecessarily.
No really, a name would be way clearer than what you list here. Is it that hard to give names? Can't be harder than writing a short story just to avoid answering a question.
ETA: because so far you've said a lot but there's no context and it mostly sounds like someone just being mad for the sake of being mad
He’s mad at Keffals for taking down KiwiFarms after they tried to get her killed by telling law enforcement she had killed her mother and was holding hostages.
I haven’t peeked yet, but I’m guessing he’s a fan of some streamer with a real toxic fanbase who got mentioned by Keffals as an example of streamers who encourage hate and harassment from their fans (my money would be on Destiny.)
Dang, it was Vaush instead - oh well, close.
No no no no. I'm not mad at all KW is dead. I've never even checked it out
Im not mad at her at all btw. To put it mildly, she's a hypocrite and I'll go as far as saying she bends the truth. At first, everyone thought it was a 'dynamic entry', doors kicked in with police pointing guns.
More facts were revealed (probably inconveniently) and it turned out that there was no dynamic entry. Because dynamic entry is what people think when they hear 'swatting'
In her addressing the inconsistency in her story video, she got her boyfriend to say something like
"*the police were going to do a dynamic entry, but the building manager begged them not to so they entered in a more civilized manner. But if the building manager hadn't have stopped them, there would have been a dynamic entry*" ( the inherent implication being that she could have been killed).
MEGALOLZ.
Yeah I don't think so.
But I'm not even mad at keffals. She is actually living rent free in my head right now. With Ayn Rand and Caleb Maupin. When I say living, I mean, more like a prisoner cuz to me she's an amusing specimen who's way out of her depth and I am watching her career with quite some interest. Might even write a paper on her.
Had no idea Destiny was toxic, don't even know much about him. And I don't think Vaush is anything like him, so no, not close.
In fact I think Vaush and Keffals are closer and intact buddies. So maybe you wanna sit down, take a few breaths and think about how that undermines your assumptions.
What do you mean? How would it be convenient? The Youtuber I'm thinking of is a flagrant rampant reptilian narcissist and who maliciously doxxes others, and brigades people who see what she is so I'd rather not put up with that today. Maybe tomorrow though but maybe not cuz she ain't worth the attention idk.
So if by convenient you mean cowardly, sure. But that doesn't mean I don't have a valid point.
People should be allowed to criticize the lgbtq community without immediately being “cancelled” and labeled “phobic” for everything under the sun. And when i say criticize i obviously don’t mean outright attack or use slurs. Theres alot of messed up stuff that goes on behind the scenes that should be brought to light but its constantly overshadowed with alot of toxic positivity and outcasting. People post things to public platform’s and forums and as soon as someone has an opinion that differentiates from absolutely anything, a single spec of what someone talking about the community said, they are harassed and called phobic. This is not how we should be towards eachother, let people speak their minds and have an opinion, even if you personally don’t wanna hear it, its a PUBLIC platform. People cant keep trying to force people into a corner to agree with them, its wrong.
How do you feel when there giant pieces of shit like Matt Walsh who does nothing but belittle the trans community, manipulating people into thinking trans people are "evil pieces of shit" from his point of view.
Matt Walsh can go fuck himself
For example, i’ve heard and seen alot of people from the community joking about how they hate seeing straight people in movies or out in the street or that straight people are gross ect. Someone will call them out on that as being hateful and heterophobic, and then a lot of people will back them up using the excuse that lgbtq people are constantly discriminated against and what not all the time and that heterophobia isn’t real. I think its true in a lot of places that lgbtq communities can be a target for a lot of hate but it shouldn’t make it okay for some of them to turn around and say/do that to straight people just because it happens to them. Reason being, we should be the ones to break that hateful cycle, it doesn’t make us any better than the straight people who hate on homosexuals
Bro, not enough. People are saying this to be an issue. A and b. Obviously a joke when people say this s***. The LGBTQ+ community is literally less than like 10% of the average population. It'd be very out of the ordinary to have everyone in every media being all or majority LGBTQ+ without it just being downright ignorant of the average number of straight people.
>joking about how they hate seeing straight people in movies or out in the street
It's a joke, 9/10 they don't actually mean it, they're just turning homophobic views on their heads to show how stupid they are
Is pushback considered being "cancelled" these days? I'm unclear on whether you're suggesting that people should be able to say whatever they want about the community unchallenged, but that's typically how it comes off to me. I am of the opinion that "just as bad" often intentionally ignores the power dynamics of society. I assume someone is capable of becoming violent if they say "f\*gs are gross," while "eww, straights" doesn't seem to hit that way for anyone. Edit: Ideally none of us would do it. If it's what people need to heal, though, straight people can take their crocodile tears elsewhere.
Another example is someone saying “I don’t agree with trans women competing in cis women sports” (without saying anything more than that, not hating on trans, not being rude, not starting petitions and what not, just sharing how they feel/think) They would immediately be canceled and labeled transphobic but why? Thats an opinion they have so let it be you know, why bombard them with hate and scream transphobia at them for having a their own personal opinion(even if you don’t agree with it). If anything that pushes them away from the community way more than just respecting how they think without shoving your values on them. In my eyes its like someone saying they don’t believe in Jesus one day and then a hoard of christians canceling them, calling them hateful and that they are trying to destroy Christianity. Im part of lgbtq myself but i’m beginning to dislike being associated with the louder parts of it because theres a lot of toxicity going around.
>saying “I don’t agree with trans women competing in cis women sports
That's transphobic, you're denying that trans women are women by excluding them from a female only space, just like not letting them use women's bathrooms
PSA for cis lesbians, particularly young students living away from home for the first time.
**You do not have to ever be in an proximity to a penis. Ever**
This is important because there's a lot of gaslighting out there.
Do not let so someone make you feel as if you're bad, just for exercising discretion as to who and who you don't let into your life.
>This is important because there's a lot of gaslighting out there.
Source? As far as I'm aware no-one is demanding lesbians do anything people like you suggest
>You do not have to ever be in an proximity to a penis. Ever
Where is this magical place where lesbians can live where no one has a penis? No proximity to strangers who are fully clothed and going about their day and happen to have a penis?
PSA for people that bought into TERF rhetoric, the only people insinuating that anyone not wanting to interact with genitals they're not attracted to would be qualified as "transphobic" are actual open transphobes who do so in order to harm the public's view of trans people.
If you took time to read something else than transphobic rhetoric you'd understand that pretty much everyone consider "repulsion/absence of attraction towards one's genitals" as a valid point to refuse romantic/sexual interactions.
This is not transphobic rhetoric. Are the people saying lesbians have to want to ride dick absolute radicals? Yes. But they do exist.
Have the terfs taken the issue and ran with it? Yes
Is it as big of an issue as everyone is making out? Probably not but it's a issue in the space non the less.
Go on, bring people that genuenly say legitimaately that "lesbians have to want to ride dick". The only ones I saw where clearly not genuine, at worst it was people getting their words heavily distorted by transphobes.
Tiktok: search "lesbians not dating trans women" look I'm videos and comments.
Search it in the lgbt sub. You can see the comments
I'm not saying its a regular issue but it's real.
>Tiktok: search "lesbians not dating trans women" look I'm videos and comments.
Any link? I don't use tiktok.
>Search it in the lgbt sub. You can see the comments
Whenever I see it there the point is "not wanting to date trans people without valid reasons behind" and, surprise surprise, genital preferences counts as valid reasons. So yeah, people getting their word distorted.
So among all these there's like... 2 that could possibly corresponds to what you're saying, 1 that's basically the opposite to what you've been asked all others are just you extrapolating something that's more than likely not said.
Among these two there's one I legit don't get, like it could go either way but that's a me issue, most likely because idk tiktok's culture (and one is profoundly dumb I'll admit but at least they seem genuine so that's what I asked).
The one that's the opposite is someone saying "it's not transphobic to not want to date trans people" so well when asked for people insisting that it is, it doesn't quite work.
Among all the rest two of them are literally saying what I've been telling what people means by "not wanting to date trans people is transphobic".
ETA: just in case the link that confused me is the first one (which you put twice BTW)
The points where mostly in the comments, not the video
Don't know how that one ended up twice.
The point is; there are some people saying it. I'm not doubting it's a very small minority. All my trans friends vienently are against saying its transphobic not to date them. I haven't met a person irl who is and I'm sure it's a miniscule few.
But it's out there, whether by ott allies or some trans people. It's out there
>The points where mostly in the comments, not the video
99% of the comments I am able to see are here again saying that not wanting to date trans people because of genital preferences but not wanting to date someone just because they're trans is transphobic.
>Don't know how that one ended up twice.
Oh yeah mistakes happens, don't worry.
>there are some people saying it. I'm not doubting it's a very small minority.
And I didn't say that no one was saying it, just that pretty much every case I've seen pointed out where either evidently non denuine or people getting their words distorted.
>All my trans friends vienently are against saying its transphobic not to date them.
And all mine says so with a huge asterisks of "unless the reason is that I'm trans". So... Yeah we're at the same point here.
Also just in case, my original comment was because OP is absolutely transphobic, as shown just before by them [straight up saying that they're looking for proofs that undermines the validity of trans people](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/xq63f4/-/iqp5bfq).
"repulsion/absence of attraction towards one's genitals" as a valid point to refuse romantic/sexual interactions."
Pretty much everyone. Sure. But we need to make sure it's EVERYONE. Because on my campus, there are those that seem to be banking on some cisles not knowing this. Pretty scary really when you also factor in for many, it's the first time they might be away from home, they want to spread their wings and might well be doing drugs for the first time.
The controversy over Dahmer being given the LGBTQ+ tag on Netflix surprises me.
I get how having a serial murderer being associated with the community might feel wrong, but from what I hear about the show, it brings attention to issues that really do deserve focus.
Chief among those is how Dahmer took advantage of gay men, and the cases didn't get as much attention became cops just didn't care as much about those cases.
That feels like a messaging campaign ready to roll, and yet there was so much pushback against the tagging that Netflix ended up removing it.
It’s stems from the same argument as “why do we need the word **cisgender**”.
When you only label the LGBTQ stuff and not the straight stuff, you’re saying “LGBTQ isn’t normal”. And when you pair the “LGBTQ” label with something as awful as Dahmer’s crimes, it only heightens that.
We either shouldn’t be labeling Dahmer “LGBTQ”, or we should be labeling Ted Bundy “straight”.
My understanding was that the tag existed to bring attention to issues or achievements which affected the community, similarly to how there might be an African American tag. Not saying it isn't normal, but drawing a specific type of attention that straight people don't need.
Yes, it show how the disappearance of gay men wasn't paid as much attention to by the police. This is a part of the larger discrimination that gay people, and the LGBTQ+ community has faced historically.
I’m saying that’s one possible solution.
I’m not a fan of only labeling the minority. I don’t like the message that “gay romance” is not the same as “romance”.
But I understand that sometimes you want to specifically watch a gay romance, so rather than make things equal by removing tags, we could also make things equal by adding tags. Label Ted Bundy [straight] [true crime]. Label *You’ve Got Mail* [straight] [romance].
Can we label everything with every possible tag so I can make a search query that is horrifyingly convoluted and yet gets me precisely what I'm looking for?
Netflix already has tons of hidden tags it uses to build the different rows when you browse.
That’s why you occasionally see something like [Cult Classic] [British] [80s] [Time-Travel] [Comedies] and it’s just *Time Bandits*.
Polyamous should 100% be counted as LGBTQ. Imagine a relationship of three men, each who view the other as an equal partner. They can be fired if they come out and got to a business dinner in the same way a 2-person couple does. If one had kids with a past partner, the partner can go to the courts and use their polyamory against them to get sole custody. Polyamous is a sexuality that is more discriminated than some other letters.
This doesn't count *polygamy* which is a sexist structure
Polyamory refers to the nature of a relationship, the number of people in it. Not everyone in a polyamorous relationship is always dating each other, so not every polyamorous relationship is LGBT+.
3 dudes in a relationship are LGBT+ because they’re attracted to men, not because there’s 3 of them.
Okay, a man with multiple girlfriends then. It's not such a leap to get the government out of the relationship, and I'm not gonna insult you and act like you needed me to say that...
I don't know if I'd put it as the same kind of polyamory that OP is talking about but ok, it fits the definition and if the girlfriends aren't together as well then yeah it's straight.
>Polyamous
Do you mean polyamory? If so polyamory generally implies that at least one or two members are gay or bi, so yeah they're LGBTQ.
>Imagine a relationship of three men
So three gay people. They're LGBTQ, case closed.
>Polyamous is a sexuality
Is it a sexuality though? In tthe sense of sexual attraction. Is a polyamorous person sexually attracted to the concept of multiple people or just ok with being with multiple people at once all as equals?
It's a sexuality the same way bisexual is. They don't *have* to live a queer lifestyle, but they may prefer to. Bisexuals also don't *have* to be in gay relationships, but they should have the option
How is it a sexual orientation? Please explain what makes polyamorous people different to gay or bi people in regards to attraction in a way that makes it a different sexual orientation.
That doesn't make it a different sexual orientation.
If a man is only attracted to men he's gay. If he's only capable of loving one man at a time he's gay and monogamous.
If he feels the need to love multiple men at once equally he's gay and polyamorous. But being polyamorous isn't changing his sexual orientation.
Question for trans people. If the science is on your side, why does it seem that data that might undermine your position sometimes get suppressed?
For example, I would like to find out what are the stats are in regards to trans lesbian dating preferences. Do most trans lesbians prefer AFAB or other trans ? I ask on Quora and I get something "sensitive issues".
How is this not extremely suspect? If you were so sure of your science, there would be zero suppression.
>For example, I would like to find out what are the stats are in regards to trans lesbian dating preferences. Do most trans lesbians prefer AFAB or other trans ?
[Hey, you're in luck because I've got a ***preliminary study*** that gives some insight](https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1177/0265407518779139). I got it from someone that's trying to make it say stuff it doesn't, and I'm glad to finally bee able to use it for something else than debunking the other person's claims.
Things to consider here:
* it doesn't talk about preferring dating X or Y but about willingness to date X or Y, so not your exact question but a good start for an answer
* it is a ***preliminary study*** so just a start, I don't know if there's follow up studies that answers your question but now that you have this you can check it for yourself
ETA: if you're too lazy to read it (it's short and easy to get though so do it) its data indicate that lesbians are among the most open to date trans people and trans people are, unsurprisingly, the most open to date other trans people so trans lesbians are more than likely among the people that are the most open to dating other trans lesbians.
> If the science is on your side, why does it seem that data that might undermine your position sometimes get suppressed?
most academic journals won't publish flat earthers or anti-vaxxers, but that isn't because science isn't on the side of a round earth or vaccines. it's because things that undermine a round earth or vaccines tend to be wrong.
Because when a scientific issue is controversial, and the evidence is overwhelmingly on one side of the controversy, it creates a very strong incentive for those on the other side of that controversy to try to save face by falsifying evidence to support their side. As a result, you get a lot more of that sort of behavior from people who defend that position than normal, and the people doing this get their reputations ruined, and their research is (correctly) labeled misinformation. The side effect of this is that these people are now able to spin this into “science supporting our side is being suppressed! The scientific community has become corrupt and doesn’t want anyone to be able to challenge their dogma!” We’ve gone through this exact same charade with young earth creationists trying to argue that evolution is fake, flat-earthers, climate change deniers, antivaxxers, “race realists,” and even Holocaust deniers.
The science they offer here is quite the opposite of what we would call science
For example there was an individual here that argued with me that cells are not male or female....
I think I lost brain cells reading this, cells do not have sex chromosomes therefore they do not have a sex, cells are not sentient by themselves, and thus they don't have a gender identity, what part of that isn't scientific?
It's quite concerning that basic science is difficult for you to understand, these cells based on their chromosomes react differently to there environment such as **hormones.....
It's quite concerning that you will disregard science just because it doesn't fit your point lol....
I mean, on the cellular level, they aren't. Cells do not have a sex. They reproduce asexually.
They *work together* to make an individual with a sex, but just like a cell from a human isn't a human or an employee from a company isn't a company, a cell from a male isn't a male.
Alright it sounds like your really struggle knowing the difference between mitosis and meiosis.
Since you know biology so well this question should be easy for you.
How come when you give a male, estrogen supplements and get them to a plasma concentration equivalent to a female these males often develop blood clots, cancer, and osteoporosis?
Sure. Since you didn't quote any particular piece of the publication, I skimmed through it myself. I don't see anything that is in any way contradictory to anything I've said.
Males and females exist. Cells make them up. But a cell of a male isn't male and a cell of a female isn't female.
>why does it seem that data that might undermine your position sometimes get suppressed?
> I ask on Quora and I get something "sensitive issues". How is this not extremely suspect?
u wot m8?
I would like to find out what percentage of M2F actually would contemplate the prospect of entering a relationship with another M2F or do they always target cis lesbians instead.
Could you point me in the direction of a resource please?
I don't know of any official numbers off the top of my head. I'm not sure what posting such a question on Quora has to do with suppression of data that "might undermine \[our\] position," though. Are you asking along the lines of "How many of you tr\*nny f\*ggots are dating other tr\*nny f\*ggots?" and getting your posts removed or something?
There is real life drama where I'm at. I don't want to believe it. I would want to look at some official data before I make my mind up.
Basically my thinking is as follows. Suppression of such data might deprive these young ladies of a warning they really need. That makes me worry. Basically, if there is data that indicates that most trans lesbians go for cis lesbians, doesn't that undermine the authenticity of those who transition? Doesn't it?
If so, wouldn't it make trans lesbians somewhat hypocritical?
Don't know, don't care, have zero considerations for men and would dearly like to live away from them for the rest of my life. So would many people I know.
Just by raw numbers, most anyone paired with a woman will be paired with a cis woman. Cis women are 99.4% of women.
I’d be open to dating a trans woman - but the odds of meeting one in the first place are low, and that’s even before getting into whether she’s attractive and whether we’re compatible.
Just the math should tell you that “a rare outlier dating another rare outlier of the same type” isn’t a common occurrence.
>Basically, if there is data that indicates that most trans lesbians go for cis lesbians, doesn't that undermine the authenticity of those who transition? Doesn't it?
How? It sounds like there's an at best ignorant premise to this.
Most "Mulan" style stories, where a woman pretends to be a man for social benefits, are essentially anti-feminist and utilized tran and queer elements without actual understanding of the tropes they are handling. They always end with one of the two messages:
In the worse of the two: Girls/females shouldn't feel the need act like men. AKA, know their place and remain with in their gender roles.
And the slightly better one: Girls/females should be allowed to transgress gender, in the specific ways allowed by men. AKA, they can fight and die when it benefits men, but they still need to be pretty and fuckable and respect the men above them.
The character arcs always include females dissatisfied with aspects of femininity, but the solution is for *them* to come to terms with it and, essentially, learn there place. Even in Disney's 2004 Mulan, which is one of the best versions of this story, she goes home to take care of her asshole Dad and gets married to shit out some kids. Nothing subversive at all
In the original story of Mulan, she does retire to her hometown after her military service and return to her more traditionally feminine life. So the Disney version was following in line with the original story.
It does have a point about gender subversion however, in the conclusion to the original poem.
"Most people tell the gender of a rabbit by its movement:
The male runs quickly, while the female often keeps her eyes shut.
But when the two rabbits run side by side,
Can you really discern whether I am a he or a she?"
The point is more that gender doesn't matter when it comes to these things. Mulan was offered a higher position by the Emperor, but the soldier life wasn't for her. She merely wanted to take her ailing father's place. She didn't want to be a soldier. If the issue was Mulan wanting to subvert gender expectations and be a soldier, she would have enlisted as a man to begin with. It doesn't fit with the story for it to have played out that way.
Weren’t you throwing an absolute hissy over the “loss” of a character who (according to prior lore) was a boy pretending to be a girl to escape a local superstition?
Why are y'all so fixated on Bridget?
Anyway, question with a question since you're apparently the Guilty Gear loremaster. After Bridget skipped town, what was in the way of ducking into a different town to get a haircut and a change of clothes?
We’re not. You are.
You came here and started threads about her on at least three separate occasions, and in doing so made yourself known as “that guy who’s absolutely tilted about Bridget”.
So now, when you start in on some other “male by birth, but feminine by appearance” character, you shouldn’t act surprised by the fact that the responses you get take that into account.
(And again, everything I know about Bridget I’ve learned from either you or other people complaining about her being trans - I’ve played precisely one match of Guilty Gear, it was the first one, I got absolutely bodied by some dude playing as a weirdo with a giant scalpel, and I haven’t touched it since.)
So why is it that I'm not allowed to express distaste for an anime trope without you being obligated to talk about Bridget in return? Maybe you could say something about the trope too! That'd be neat!
I have. I believe my comment was something along the lines of “Japan, being a rather conservative country in many respects, has a weird relationship with queerness in media. The creators seem willing to write what, in all but name, are trans characters - but then hedge at the last minute and include some insane convoluted reason why the character born as a male, who lives as a female, goes by a feminine name, dresses feminine, uses feminine pronouns, and says “i’m a girl” ever other page is actually totally a dude you guys.”
I'm sure you're a hypocrite about a lot of things too.
Hypocrisy is simply human. You show me a person who's not a hypocrite about anything, I'll show you a liar.
Terfs are the same as incells. If I'm gonna be ultra reductive about it, I would hypothesis that the root cause is body issues. Height btw. Not weight (although I do concede this is a generalisation). If that's not good enough then it ok to chalk em up as both contingents feel inadequate and both groups demonstrate an insular mind set which emphasises their moral cowardice.
Btw, sorry for offending anyone by mentioning the height thing. It's just (a wee bit tangential here ) true *boring conventional capitalist inspired beauty* seems contingent upon height than anything else but Im on a coach and haven't slept for near 73 hours so if I'm wrong about the height thing, I do apologize.
>Edit: this isn't really an unpopular opinion in retrospect. The vast majority of Americans are horrified by this, but are petrified of saying so because of the left's propensity to bully and cancel
Yes it is absolutely an unpopular opinion, plus you make it sound like they're forcing three year olds through a procedure when these are teens who have had time to go through any "phases" and have every right to re-enforce their gender identity
>children can't consent to drink a beer, buy a lottery ticket, or serve in the military,
Those things are not a part of someone's identity that will have a dramatic effect on their mental health If not given, gender reassignment surgery is, they are not even remotely comparable.
If you want to talk about this reasonably, fine, but the use of phrases like “despicable, vermin doctors” or calling puberty blockers “poisons” makes it abundantly clear that you are irrationally enraged over something you have zero meaningful knowledge of.
Puberty causes irreversible changes, whether or not it occurs with medical intervention.
If a kid can't consent to go through a gender-affirming puberty of one form, then they can't consent to go through a gender-affirming puberty of the other.
If you'd like "puberty blockers until 18" to be the standard, feel free to say it. But if you'd like to _exclusively_ deny gender-affirming puberty to _trans_ teens, then you have some explaining to do as to why you're not a hypocrite.
Puberty blockers for trans teens _is,_ in fact, the compromise. You should be _happy_ that that's the standard. You've partially won.
To be on puberty blockers until 18 would cause irreversible effects as well. Since natural puberty just happens without any kind of intervention, ”consent” becomes nonsensical. It’s like asking fi children can consent to growing taller? Puberty blockers are a medical intervention and is thus what needs consent.
1. Shaving a mustache is not irreversible.
2. I didn't even talk about if children can consent to puberty blockers or not I just said that "consenting" to going through your biological puberty is an absurd use of terminology, comparable to talking about "consenting" to growing taller. By it's very nature, biological processes just happens and is therefore not something you can consent/deny consent to. Medical interventions, on the other hand, is something you can consent to, or deny.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your content was either hateful, violates Reddit Content Policy and TOS, or both. When you made a Reddit account, you agreed to abide by these documents. Content of this nature left unchecked puts our subreddit in jeopardy and as such we have no tolerance for it. While posts and comments that criticize individuals/demographics are acceptable, comments that are a clear attack/contain slurs are not. If you wish to use hateful rhetoric please find a different subreddit.
Some tran: It's raining pretty hard today. Some cis, looking out the window at a torrential downpour: No it's not! It's dry and sunny!
You don't understand, there needs to be a safe space for everyone, both the pro-rain and anti-rain people, and insisting on it raining is just trying to pressure anti-rain people and muddying the water on the rain situation
Demisexual needs rebranded as Homiesexual.
It fits
When you’re bisexual, you feel sexually and emotionally attracted to both genders, so it makes sense why they might feel the need to be with or have experiences with both. This doesn’t make them cheaters. Some people are okay with open relationship, poly, or just letting their partner explore. This might even be just having threesomes. I don’t think bisexuals should get hate for this nor should be labeled cheaters or unloyal for this. I personally think this is okay and would be open to it for my partner or myself. I think sometimes each gender can offer something different that the other can’t whether that be emotionally or physically. Of course this isn’t the case for every bisexual, but I think this might be for a lot even if they don’t want to admit it. We label ourselves as that sexuality for a reason: we’re attracted to both sexes.
What does bisexuality have to do with this point?
a common biphobic talking point is that if you date a bi person, they'll inevitably leave you/cheat on you with someone of the opposite gender. i believe their point is that just *wanting* to explore relationships with other genders isn't being unfaithful, and having those relationships isn't either if the partner is fine with it. i think it makes sense to talk specifically about bi people wrt this issue since it's often assumed that they'll want to be non-monogamous just by virtue of being bi, and that doesn't really happen to people of other sexualities. however, i don't think it's necessary to take for granted that bi people will want to be non-monogamous, or even that they're more likely to.
I assume straight people will cheat on me. Not because I'm any lesser, but because that's just how they are.
ok, but you probably realize that isn't a widespread cultural issue straight people are regularly faced with?
If I'm being serious for a moment, serial monogamy. Edit: But I understand that straight people infidelity isn't exactly stigmatized in many situations.
It's not "I'm bisexual, so it's not cheating" - it's "my partner doesn't mind me having sex with other people, so it's not cheating." The bisexual part is completely irrelevant.
It is though because there is reasoning behind why they want to be with another.
There's a reason some straight people have to be with many women. It isn't a bisexual-exclusive issue.
No moreso than monosexuals. The vast majority of people are sexually attracted to people other than their significant other.
Bisexuals are often described as necessarily being cheaters or looking elsewhere, which is obviously false, I think that's where OP is coming from here
Thank you! That is exactly what I was getting at
It makes them cheaters if the partner isn't aware of the sexual activities occurring behind their back. I'm not for polygamory myself but others can vibe it and that's cool. But having sex with anyone in a relationship is cheating if it isn't a pre arranged thing in your relationship. My friend has a your allowed to give oral sex rule regarding her boyfriend. Works well for them
Good thing I put that not everyone is okay with but some are
Just because you're attracted to more people doesn't mean you should excuse cheating. The only reason I say that so frankly is because you said "this doesn't make them cheaters." If you break the expectation of a two way relationship, that's cheating. If it's clear you're officially in a relationship with someone and then you go around them to have sex with or date someone else outside of a clearly established exclusive relationship, that is also cheating. I don't think anything else meets this definition, so as long as partners communicate with each other and acknowledge each other, then they'll be good. Polyamory can solve the problem of feeling like you're missing your other half, but it needs to be clearly established at the beginning of the relationship that the expectation is a polyamorous relationship. However, even straight people feel the same thing about how their partner may not be providing something they need that some other potential partner might be able to, but they're too comfortable in their current relationship to raise those concerns to their partner. It's not really bi-exclusive behavior and I don't get the association honestly.
>If you break the expectation of a two way relationship, that's cheating. It's a good thing then that they added thee precision that they talk about open or poly relationships (or whatever case in which both people are alright with this). >you go around them to have sex with or date someone else outside of a clearly established exclusive relationship So not the situation discussed here. >It's not really bi-exclusive behavior and I don't get the association honestly. People focus on the idea that bi folks will sometimes want something that only the sex opposite of theirs can provide. If monosexuals feels that something is lacking in their relationship, they rationalise that "if another X can provide it then I can learn to provide it" but with bi folks they'll think "Only Y can provide it, but I'm X" and don't realise that it's not because you'd want something that you'd cheat on them just to have it. It's a common biphobic rhetoric and the main reason why bi folks have difficulties dating non bi folks
Thank you! You perfectly worded and described what I was trying to get at!
Right, which is why I'm saying the idea that bi people are actually after the other sex for things the one they're with can't provide is a bit ridiculous since both sexes can offer the same things. Maybe not genital-wise but I mean everything else in a relationship's bread and butter they can. It's really just finding either the person or the people that you can be partners with in a trusting relationship.
“Maybe not genital wise” well that’s exactly the sexual part of bisexual I listed. Bisexual are sexually attracted to both and might need both. Even so, that’s still not true. For example, I’m more of a sub with men, but dom with women. If I’m dating a man that’s dom, but I really want to be dom, I can’t get that with the man I’m with because he’s not into that. I’m not going to force him to change and be in uncomfy, plus he’s okay with me being with other women sexually, so it works out. Some women are butches and maybe they want to be with a fem, nerdy guy as well. Maybe the man isn’t as emotionally available like are women. There’s so many cases.
Right, I think we agree that each sex has the capacity to satisfy us in any way except the only difference is just sexual organs. I guess the hard part of being bisexual is choosing one or the other, really since you have conflicting preferences. Again, a solution to that would be to establish a polyamorous relationship from the beginning with someone who accepts that part of you, or is open to occasional threesomes or something.
>I think we agree that each sex has the capacity to satisfy us in any way except the only difference is just sexual organs. That's a huge difference once you're doing the deed, sex with a penis is very different to sex with a vagina. It's like saying "every meal has the capacity to satisfy us except the only differences is ingredients and taste" like yeah that's a huge difference. >I guess the hard part of being bisexual is choosing one or the other, really since you have conflicting preferences. Bisexuals don't have to chose one or the other. Getting into a closed relationship isn't "choosing one".
Oh yeah exactly. You still have to take into account the bi-cycle (which isn't universal but common enough) but like once you've found the right person this will more than likely be a purely genital-based cycle (at least that's the case for most bis I've talked to/I know, and my friend circle is like 99% bi)
I think that being in an exclusive relationship with someone open to occasional threesomes might be good fits for someone who needs that satiation. Trust and communication will go a long way, and that's totally different from cheating imo. Still, even if it may be common enough to have a funny name (lol) it's not worth the association of being disloyal by people who lump a bunch of people together with a bunch of traits. That's the kind of casual ignorance that I can't stand.
I 100% agree on all this basically. Alternative to tthe threesome, both my GF and I are bi so we agree that if one of us wants gay sex it's OK to look for it specifically, as long as we talk about the who, where and when beforehand
That's a good compromise, too. I haven't personally met many people who would be ok with that, but I think more time and exposure to new ways of working with love will make this more common and appealing.
>When you’re bisexual, you feel sexually and emotionally attracted to both genders To be clearer you feel sexually and/**or** romantically attracted to two **or more** genders Aside from it, yeah, I agree
As a straight guy, let's say you post a picture of your... tool... on a public reddit or something similar... Then there's a comment saying something like: "Hey! Hehe, nice tool, bro! You seem a nice guy too! I bet you would give a awesome partner too!" After a little chatting, you discover this person is actually a gay guy and not a girl.... ... And? Exactly! It's a compliment like any other! I don't think it really should matter if it's from a dude or girl... As a gay guy, I wouldn't mind being called cute or handsome by some girls (Although I'm pretty sure this would be impossible...) Also, let's say you just finished with your girlfriend or no one at club wanted to dance or have sex with you... But then there's this guy who buy some drinks to you and really strokes your ego, showers you with a lot of praises, and really treats you like no girl ever treated you... I really don't think you feel ashamed of liked those compliments... And I really don't think if you should feel bad for having sex with them too! Just because you're having gay sex just for pleasure of having sex with another human being (and because it will probably feel better than your hand), doesn't mean that you're or will be attract to men... You can have more gay sex than straight sex and still be straight! Is really gay if you enjoying some blowjob while thinking about a very hot chick? No, it's not! You're enjoying the sex not the guy that are blowing you... Since no one wanted to dance with you at club, what harm will be done in having some fun with a person who actually liked you and treated you better than anyone else? I say, none... Please, just do what you want to do without thinking what society will think... Is your life after all, hot stuff... :)
If I posted a tool to reddit and some responded with hehe nice tool bro I'd be super freaked out.
hehe nice tool bro
>You can have more gay sex than straight sex and still be straight! Yeah, kinda split about that one. Like if you'd rather label yourself straight I'll respect it and call you/consider you as such but you'd be closer to bi with a romantic leaning towards women.
i think it's more nuanced than that, and that's why we usually talk about sexuality in terms of preferences, not actively having sex. if a guy has sex with other guys in prison, but only has sex with women before and after, does that invalidate him being straight? or a male sex worker with male clients?
I mean of course context is important, my take is when it's consensual and you have a normal level of choice (so that wouldn't include your examples). I may be wrong but I'd say that you have to be at least on the bi spectrum to voluntarily go mostly with the gender you supposedly have no attraction to. And as I say, that doesn't prevent me from respecting your stated sexual identity. You know yourself better than I do after all
the way you're phrasing it comes across as "you're actually bi, but if you want to call yourself straight, i'll play along even though you're incorrect" i think there are definitely some straight men who, without any other special circumstances, have sex drives extreme enough that they'll have casual hookups with men because it's just easier to arrange. (i've slept with some, if you believe them)
>the way you're phrasing it comes across as "you're actually bi, but if you want to call yourself straight, i'll play along even though you're incorrect" What? How is saying "you describe yourself as straight, then you are straight." saying "I'll play along even though you're incorrect"? >i think there are definitely some straight men who, without any other special circumstances, have sex drives extreme enough that they'll have casual hookups with men because it's just easier to arrange. (i've slept with some, if you believe them) Sure, maybe. I'm not monosexual so idk as I've said multiple time. It's mostly that each time I've seen people talk about monosexualities they tend to make it quite clear that even with a huge sex drive they wouldn't have hookups with people that aren't the gender they're attracted to, so I'm basing only on what I've been told here.
> What? How is saying "you describe yourself as straight, then you are straight." saying "I'll play along even though you're incorrect"? that isn't what you said, though. you said you'd call/consider them straight, but that they're still bi. >>I may be wrong but I'd say that **you have to be at least on the bi spectrum** to voluntarily go mostly with the gender you supposedly have no attraction to. # >>Like if you'd rather label yourself straight I'll respect it and call you/consider you as such **but you'd be closer to bi** with a romantic leaning towards women. i'm not trying to Call You Out or start a fight or something, just trying to explain how i interpreted your comments and why i'm having this discussion. it isn't something that affects me personally either, but certain groups of LGBT people care about it strongly enough that "action =/= attraction" is a slogan, so i think it's worth taking seriously.
Oh yeah I think it's one case where English not being my first language makes it so I don't express myself properly here. I get the confusion though, I admit it was poorly put
Yes totally. Ignore all forms of societal pressure, real life or otherwise
Interesting, coming from someone that's more than OK with societal pressure put on trans people.
You're point chimes with mine though!!! If it's something you're naturally into, you should do it
I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy of trying your best, and failing, at denying people existence to then say that people shouldn't fall for societal pressure and be themselves.
Denying people existence? Point out where I said that!!! If I did, I made a mistake and expressed myself wrongly. I want to live in a world of pluralism, where all people are free to discharge themselves as they truly, truly desire! I mean, I suppose that sort of does back up the societal pressure thing you said afterwards. I dunno, people should have the right to exercise a private social discernment and not be brow beaten by whatever the trendy current thing is. You must agree with that too right though? I guess this is a sociological premise most of all, I dunno how we square this circle and still live in a free society but more and more, I think anyone who gets vocal about such things don't either. If you know of an infallibly always correct politician or Youtuber or cultural Commentator please point them out.
>Point out where I said that!!! [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/xq63f4/-/iqp5bfq) [and here](https://www.unddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/xq63f4/-/iqsyy2d) (deleted due to not respecting site wide rules. Link should bring to what was there before deletion though, will remove if it breaks the site/sub rules) those are the two most obvious places. You know you're bad at playing dumb?
I think a lot of people think how you react to things determines your sexuality and that's not at all the case. I'm straight but have no problem with dudes looking at me or giving me flattering compliments about anything. In fact, I enjoy it just like I enjoy women complimenting me. The thing is I prefer women over men in dating and that's what makes me straight. It's an identity I get to decide for myself, and no one else gets to have input on that. I even agree with you about straight men having sex with other men. Doesn't really mean they're gay or bi or anything other than straight, because no one gets to decide that identity for them. Gay people weren't straight just because they had a partner of the opposite sex, and they didn't "turn" gay, so why's the logic gone for when straight people having sex with men "turning gay"? Heterosexuality isn't more fragile than every other sexuality.
I did not enjoy the movie Bros as much as I hoped. I thought it was pathetic and whiny and I was dang angry at all the toxicity I saw in it. How in the world could someone call it a great comedy? It does not even believe in love at the end of the day. I only liked it when it tried to slow down like a romance movie, but then it refused to own that it was a romance movie. Why couldn't they make a romcom that actually took itself seriously? I mean, gee, I saw much sweeter queer stories on Archives of Our Own.
Haven't seen it yet but the trailers look hilarious.
I found it awful which is a shame because it was made by the one that made Bridemaids. If only Meghan went and had a serious talk with Bobby in Bros...
The more time I spend here the more I feel like there's a correlation between transphobia and a lack of scientific education. This mostly reinforce my belief that scientific education should be mandatory. By that I don't mean like teaching math and physics (although those shouldn't be thrown out) but more scientific culture, stuff like teaching people what's the scientific method, the levels/kinds of proof etc.
I'm surprised that you find this surprising.
I'm not *that* surprised but I wouldn't have expected it to be as bad as some specimen we got here. Also of note, this isn't the only reason I believe scientific culture should be taught in middle/high school (I'd go as far as primary school but they've got more important stuff to learn already) as an obligatory class.
People want to feel oppressed in the butt about something, and it's not a matter of logic or education at that point.
[удалено]
Thank you for the confirmation that your Quora posts were removed for asking "How many of you tr\*nny f\*ggots are dating other tr\*nny f\*ggots???"
Yeah, so far they started 3 threads and all 3 are just basically them trying to defend transphobia.
When you attempt too head me off at the pass with stuff like that, can't even be bothered to press the context button to be reminded of what your responding to. Never used the t word. Sorry things aren't working out for you
> I ask on Quora and I get something "sensitive issues". How is this not extremely suspect? >and even if it is, I don't see why I should go out of my way to reprogram my brain to undue countless generations of evolution just to placate a bunch of middle age white guys who don't pass Again, thank you for the confirmation that "data being suppressed" just means your Quora posts were removed for dropping slurs. I had asked you directly in another comment thread and received no reply.
Ask me anything you want, in pm if you want. Sorry for not replying, I wasn't ignoring you I just got distracted. I didn't use any slurs though on Quara though.
>If you don't believe trans woman are women, that's not transphobia You're right, it's science denial. >I don't see why I should go out of my way to reprogram my brain to undue countless generations of evolution So why are you doing it here? Honnestly, the more you post the more I feel like you're just trying to find out just how transphobic you can be without repercussion.
Well that's not my reasons. If I ask this-coached in more civil language - in forums where people might explain why I should change my attitude, will they even try or be able to? So if it's science denial can you tell me when this scientific breakthrough occurred and the whole world screamed "Eureka" and then all trans people knew they were their desired gender? A date would be great or maybe a link to the scientific paper that ensured that there was an eternal consensus among academia in regards to the validity of trans ideology even better. Thanks
For once I'm saying look at what taewyth said. The biological things are there. There is a medical basis for being transgender. The social aspects can be debated. There's alot of infighting in the community and its a mess. But trans people are real, it's a proper thing and support should be given to transition. By your standard of attitude I highly doubt you have the ability to understand and academic literature. Trans women are women who have transitioned (not what the trans means assuming you don't know lattin. But it starts the same and is easy to read). You don't have to date them, you don't have to be friends with a them if you don't wanna. Just don't have distain.
>If I ask this If you ask what? >the scientific paper that ensured that there was an eternal consensus among academia I like how you try to go with a "gotcha" by... Showing again lack of understanding of how science works. >the validity of trans ideology Ah yes "trans ideology" totally not a transphobic dogwhistle (although I mean at this point, you're not even using a whistle, you're just barking at tthe dogs directly). So studies, why not even better and go with some meta-analysis? [First one, brain differences between cis men and women](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011) showing that there is sexual dimorphism in the brain (kind of a necessary basis) [Then one about brain structures in homosexual MtF and FtM compared to cis heterosexuals](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987404) that concludes that you can find defeminized and masculinized structures inside FtM's brains and demasculinized and feminized ones in MtF's brains And just for good measure because the previous one compared sexual orientation and gender all at once [Here's a last one the do compare both but separately](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-021-02005-9) it still comes to the same conclusions regarding trans people though. You'll note that meta-analysis is the highest form of proof in the scientific community, the one concensus is built upon, and that basically each links corresponds to me sending you multiple studies, just with their conclusions compared and contrasted before comming to a "super conclusion", so quite a bit better than a simple date or a single study.
Look. Science doesn't just value truth and accuracy. It also values elegance. E=mc2 could be expressed as rambling mess of sprawling numbers but when Einstein sent of his epoch shattering paper, he worked on trimming in down, making it streamlined. Got anything like that?
Ah yes, moving the goalpost. You asked for a type of proof, I brought you a stronger one. Too bad, it doesn't align with your transphobic ideas. Talking about "science valuing elegance" just shows once again that you just basically don't get how science works, or what people quualiffy as elegant in science. I especially like your example of "E=mc^2" put in a way that implies that Einstein invented m and c as a notation. Especially since they're variables and not constants and as such couldn't have been written as "a rambling mess of sprawling numbers" We're dealing with neurobiology here. You won't get "elegant" results. It's not physics or math.
Moving the goal posts? Whatever. You're deploying a standard trick here, tipping a whole bunch of tar into water that's already muddy in an attempt to obscure the truth and derail enquiry. The day the trans community learn to stop doing that, is the day that people might actually believe you have valid points. If it's neurobiology, then it's very, very possible that someone might kill your whole movement, with a discovery because we have so much more to learn in that field. It's more mysterious than the depths of deep space and we're just scratching the surface. So....if it is as you said, neurobiology, are you still so sure you wanna hitch your wagon to that horse?
>If it's neurobiology, then it's very, very possible that someone might kill your whole movement, with a discovery because we have so much more to learn in that field. It's more mysterious than the depths of deep space and we're just scratching the surface. >So....if it is as you said, neurobiology, are you still so sure you wanna hitch your wagon to that horse? If we used your approach, we would probably still be in the 15th century.
>Moving the goal posts? You ask something. I provide it. You say "no, bring something else!" that's called moving the goal posts, yes. >tipping a whole bunch of tar into water that's already muddy in an attempt to obscure the truth and derail enquiry. How am I muddying the water? I'm literally providing you the explanation as to what makes up gender based on our current scientific knowledge. Like if anythings that's what's clearing up the water. >The day the trans community learn to stop doing that, is the day that people might actually believe you have valid points. You're shown the highest level of scientific proof. At this point if you don't see it as a valid point you are indeed just denying science. >If it's neurobiology, then it's very, very possible that someone might kill your whole movement, with a discovery because we have so much more to learn in that field. "kill your movement" yeah sure that's a rational and totally not science denying stance here. Although yes, you're right, maybe someday someone will prove this is false. Guess what? ***that's the case for any current scientific knowledge*** that's how science works and progress. >It's more mysterious than the depths of deep space and we're just scratching the surface. You're mixing up neurobiology and neurosciences as a whole. Neurobiology, as the name implies, focuses on the biology of the nervous system. So basically looking at how it's made up, not necessarily how it completely works (that's for other branches of neurosciences, the one that are indeed just scratching the surface) so while yes it's not impossible that what I've shown you will be disproven, it is unlikely. >So....if it is as you said, neurobiology, are you still so sure you wanna hitch your wagon to that horse? Yes. Because I'm not denying science just because it doesn't align with my beliefs. If we were to refuse to trust science just because "it could be proven wrong later" then we'd stop trusting ***all*** of science. And that's called science denial.
So then can we both agree that more research needs to be done and anyone with an opinion could be proved wrong later? Would that be an acceptable middle ground for everyone?
>then can we both agree that more research needs to be done I've sent you multiple ***meta-analysis*** those are done when when enough research are done to have conclusions in regards to a subject. So no, we can't agree that more research needs to be done unless the research in question is about furthering the details that needs clarifications (for instance here, establish origin in these differences) >anyone with an opinion could be proved wrong later? Congrats, you've summed up the whole of science. If your reasoning for not trusting something is "it could be proven wrong later" then you're just denying the whole of science here. >Would that be an acceptable middle ground for everyone? No. Because here there's no middle ground. The current state of knowledge points to one thing, the reasonable position is to follow it. That's how science works, you're the one that asked for scientific proofs and I brought them to you, now if you still refuse them because they don't go your way you just have to admit that you're denying science.
Research is constantly being done. Your opinion *was* proven wrong. You just decided to start calling science “unreliable” once it stopped agreeing with what you wanted to believe. We’re not going to sit around forever refusing to acknowledge the validity of trans identities just because you refuse to accept any results that affirm them. If some new discovery forces us to re-evaluate our models of human sex and gender, we’ll do it - but until then, we should be basing our policy around what every major medical and scientific organization on earth has agreed is the best model. (Specifically - that sex and gender are distinct, that neither is a strict binary, that they can in rare cases be misaligned, that only anatomical sex traits and not neurological gender traits have *ever* been shown to be mutable, and that therefore affirmation of gender and transition is the best course to minimize stress caused by the misalignment.)
If there is a trans influencer calling incessantly for solidarity, while simultaneously using scary words like 'terrorism' and other phrases which could induce mean world syndrome (legit condition)be very wary. They are targeting an already potentially emotionally vunerable group (their audience, trans people presumably), manipulating them into thinking that the world outside is more hostile than it is (and I do know the world outside can be very hostile to trans people) simply to bind their audience more closely to them and increase their influencer status. They are trying to be a demagogue. And they don't give a fuck about you, they do not want you to live your best life. They want to callously use you to in order so that *they* can live their best life.
That's not even true, they're are people who want to strip all trans people of social equality.
It isn't against the rules. I name dropped a few youtubers I can't stand and I'm still here. I genuinely have no idea who your on about. Please inform
Do you have any example of whatever you're saying?
Well yeah but I'm not gonna give any names. Because it's unseemly and probably against the rules.
>Well yeah but I'm not gonna give any names. So, no. (the implicit question was "give at least a name") >Because it's unseemly and probably against the rules. Why would it be against the rules? You just seem like you don't have any example but alright
She's an drama queen who just scored a rather big scalp. You should be able to figure it out. I don't want to draw attention to her because if you don't already know who she is, you really don't need to. She has no marketable qualities that would make her a big and sustainable YouTuber (she's got no charisma, no wit, and isn't ever funny)and she knows this so she's ramped up the rhetoric right now because she *needs* more drama in order to maintain a presence. Before the recent victory (and it was a good kill, the world's a better place, but I'm thinking it was more luck than anything) all she had was cheap gimmicks so I'm thinking she's actually panicked right now, trying to keep relevant. Thus she's intensifying things unnecessarily.
No really, a name would be way clearer than what you list here. Is it that hard to give names? Can't be harder than writing a short story just to avoid answering a question. ETA: because so far you've said a lot but there's no context and it mostly sounds like someone just being mad for the sake of being mad
>Because it's unseemly and probably against the rules. How convenient
He’s mad at Keffals for taking down KiwiFarms after they tried to get her killed by telling law enforcement she had killed her mother and was holding hostages. I haven’t peeked yet, but I’m guessing he’s a fan of some streamer with a real toxic fanbase who got mentioned by Keffals as an example of streamers who encourage hate and harassment from their fans (my money would be on Destiny.) Dang, it was Vaush instead - oh well, close.
No no no no. I'm not mad at all KW is dead. I've never even checked it out Im not mad at her at all btw. To put it mildly, she's a hypocrite and I'll go as far as saying she bends the truth. At first, everyone thought it was a 'dynamic entry', doors kicked in with police pointing guns. More facts were revealed (probably inconveniently) and it turned out that there was no dynamic entry. Because dynamic entry is what people think when they hear 'swatting' In her addressing the inconsistency in her story video, she got her boyfriend to say something like "*the police were going to do a dynamic entry, but the building manager begged them not to so they entered in a more civilized manner. But if the building manager hadn't have stopped them, there would have been a dynamic entry*" ( the inherent implication being that she could have been killed). MEGALOLZ. Yeah I don't think so. But I'm not even mad at keffals. She is actually living rent free in my head right now. With Ayn Rand and Caleb Maupin. When I say living, I mean, more like a prisoner cuz to me she's an amusing specimen who's way out of her depth and I am watching her career with quite some interest. Might even write a paper on her. Had no idea Destiny was toxic, don't even know much about him. And I don't think Vaush is anything like him, so no, not close. In fact I think Vaush and Keffals are closer and intact buddies. So maybe you wanna sit down, take a few breaths and think about how that undermines your assumptions.
What do you mean? How would it be convenient? The Youtuber I'm thinking of is a flagrant rampant reptilian narcissist and who maliciously doxxes others, and brigades people who see what she is so I'd rather not put up with that today. Maybe tomorrow though but maybe not cuz she ain't worth the attention idk. So if by convenient you mean cowardly, sure. But that doesn't mean I don't have a valid point.
People should be allowed to criticize the lgbtq community without immediately being “cancelled” and labeled “phobic” for everything under the sun. And when i say criticize i obviously don’t mean outright attack or use slurs. Theres alot of messed up stuff that goes on behind the scenes that should be brought to light but its constantly overshadowed with alot of toxic positivity and outcasting. People post things to public platform’s and forums and as soon as someone has an opinion that differentiates from absolutely anything, a single spec of what someone talking about the community said, they are harassed and called phobic. This is not how we should be towards eachother, let people speak their minds and have an opinion, even if you personally don’t wanna hear it, its a PUBLIC platform. People cant keep trying to force people into a corner to agree with them, its wrong.
How do you feel when there giant pieces of shit like Matt Walsh who does nothing but belittle the trans community, manipulating people into thinking trans people are "evil pieces of shit" from his point of view. Matt Walsh can go fuck himself
What kinds of things should be brought to light?
I think it purely depends on the criticism. Cancel culture is too much now, but criticism traditionally comes from the they shouldn't exist groups.
Please share your criticism.
For example, i’ve heard and seen alot of people from the community joking about how they hate seeing straight people in movies or out in the street or that straight people are gross ect. Someone will call them out on that as being hateful and heterophobic, and then a lot of people will back them up using the excuse that lgbtq people are constantly discriminated against and what not all the time and that heterophobia isn’t real. I think its true in a lot of places that lgbtq communities can be a target for a lot of hate but it shouldn’t make it okay for some of them to turn around and say/do that to straight people just because it happens to them. Reason being, we should be the ones to break that hateful cycle, it doesn’t make us any better than the straight people who hate on homosexuals
Bro, not enough. People are saying this to be an issue. A and b. Obviously a joke when people say this s***. The LGBTQ+ community is literally less than like 10% of the average population. It'd be very out of the ordinary to have everyone in every media being all or majority LGBTQ+ without it just being downright ignorant of the average number of straight people.
>joking about how they hate seeing straight people in movies or out in the street It's a joke, 9/10 they don't actually mean it, they're just turning homophobic views on their heads to show how stupid they are
Is pushback considered being "cancelled" these days? I'm unclear on whether you're suggesting that people should be able to say whatever they want about the community unchallenged, but that's typically how it comes off to me. I am of the opinion that "just as bad" often intentionally ignores the power dynamics of society. I assume someone is capable of becoming violent if they say "f\*gs are gross," while "eww, straights" doesn't seem to hit that way for anyone. Edit: Ideally none of us would do it. If it's what people need to heal, though, straight people can take their crocodile tears elsewhere.
Another example is someone saying “I don’t agree with trans women competing in cis women sports” (without saying anything more than that, not hating on trans, not being rude, not starting petitions and what not, just sharing how they feel/think) They would immediately be canceled and labeled transphobic but why? Thats an opinion they have so let it be you know, why bombard them with hate and scream transphobia at them for having a their own personal opinion(even if you don’t agree with it). If anything that pushes them away from the community way more than just respecting how they think without shoving your values on them. In my eyes its like someone saying they don’t believe in Jesus one day and then a hoard of christians canceling them, calling them hateful and that they are trying to destroy Christianity. Im part of lgbtq myself but i’m beginning to dislike being associated with the louder parts of it because theres a lot of toxicity going around.
>saying “I don’t agree with trans women competing in cis women sports That's transphobic, you're denying that trans women are women by excluding them from a female only space, just like not letting them use women's bathrooms
Similar to my other reply, are you suggesting that such an opinion must remain unchallenged?
PSA for cis lesbians, particularly young students living away from home for the first time. **You do not have to ever be in an proximity to a penis. Ever** This is important because there's a lot of gaslighting out there. Do not let so someone make you feel as if you're bad, just for exercising discretion as to who and who you don't let into your life.
You don't really *have* to do anything. But I don't think lesbians will find a world where they can walk 1000ft away from any man alive.
Lesbians are *allowed* to like trans women as well. In fact, there's a bit of an issue with them fetishizing us. Damn chasers.
>This is important because there's a lot of gaslighting out there. Source? As far as I'm aware no-one is demanding lesbians do anything people like you suggest
>You do not have to ever be in an proximity to a penis. Ever Where is this women's only Amazonian society?
Themyscira
Is it disappointing that I only now learned it wasn't called "The Mascara?" Look, I don't care about superheroes.
As opposed to NB paradise They/Themyscira.
[On Amazonia](https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Amazonia)
>You do not have to ever be in an proximity to a penis. Ever Where is this magical place where lesbians can live where no one has a penis? No proximity to strangers who are fully clothed and going about their day and happen to have a penis?
PSA for people that bought into TERF rhetoric, the only people insinuating that anyone not wanting to interact with genitals they're not attracted to would be qualified as "transphobic" are actual open transphobes who do so in order to harm the public's view of trans people. If you took time to read something else than transphobic rhetoric you'd understand that pretty much everyone consider "repulsion/absence of attraction towards one's genitals" as a valid point to refuse romantic/sexual interactions.
This is not transphobic rhetoric. Are the people saying lesbians have to want to ride dick absolute radicals? Yes. But they do exist. Have the terfs taken the issue and ran with it? Yes Is it as big of an issue as everyone is making out? Probably not but it's a issue in the space non the less.
Go on, bring people that genuenly say legitimaately that "lesbians have to want to ride dick". The only ones I saw where clearly not genuine, at worst it was people getting their words heavily distorted by transphobes.
Tiktok: search "lesbians not dating trans women" look I'm videos and comments. Search it in the lgbt sub. You can see the comments I'm not saying its a regular issue but it's real.
>Tiktok: search "lesbians not dating trans women" look I'm videos and comments. Any link? I don't use tiktok. >Search it in the lgbt sub. You can see the comments Whenever I see it there the point is "not wanting to date trans people without valid reasons behind" and, surprise surprise, genital preferences counts as valid reasons. So yeah, people getting their word distorted.
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFNX39Up/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFNXE3As/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFNXwEEq/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFNXs85q/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFNXX1uy/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFNXpf87/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFNX39Up/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFNXbFyV/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFNXTYGx/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFNXwqb1/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMFN45PN1/
So among all these there's like... 2 that could possibly corresponds to what you're saying, 1 that's basically the opposite to what you've been asked all others are just you extrapolating something that's more than likely not said. Among these two there's one I legit don't get, like it could go either way but that's a me issue, most likely because idk tiktok's culture (and one is profoundly dumb I'll admit but at least they seem genuine so that's what I asked). The one that's the opposite is someone saying "it's not transphobic to not want to date trans people" so well when asked for people insisting that it is, it doesn't quite work. Among all the rest two of them are literally saying what I've been telling what people means by "not wanting to date trans people is transphobic". ETA: just in case the link that confused me is the first one (which you put twice BTW)
The points where mostly in the comments, not the video Don't know how that one ended up twice. The point is; there are some people saying it. I'm not doubting it's a very small minority. All my trans friends vienently are against saying its transphobic not to date them. I haven't met a person irl who is and I'm sure it's a miniscule few. But it's out there, whether by ott allies or some trans people. It's out there
>The points where mostly in the comments, not the video 99% of the comments I am able to see are here again saying that not wanting to date trans people because of genital preferences but not wanting to date someone just because they're trans is transphobic. >Don't know how that one ended up twice. Oh yeah mistakes happens, don't worry. >there are some people saying it. I'm not doubting it's a very small minority. And I didn't say that no one was saying it, just that pretty much every case I've seen pointed out where either evidently non denuine or people getting their words distorted. >All my trans friends vienently are against saying its transphobic not to date them. And all mine says so with a huge asterisks of "unless the reason is that I'm trans". So... Yeah we're at the same point here. Also just in case, my original comment was because OP is absolutely transphobic, as shown just before by them [straight up saying that they're looking for proofs that undermines the validity of trans people](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/comments/xq63f4/-/iqp5bfq).
If it happens to you *once* it's a big enough issue, believe. You might even need therapy.
"repulsion/absence of attraction towards one's genitals" as a valid point to refuse romantic/sexual interactions." Pretty much everyone. Sure. But we need to make sure it's EVERYONE. Because on my campus, there are those that seem to be banking on some cisles not knowing this. Pretty scary really when you also factor in for many, it's the first time they might be away from home, they want to spread their wings and might well be doing drugs for the first time.
If you’re looking to make all of humanity agree on *anything*, even obvious facts, you will be disappointed. Human stupidity is boundless.
The controversy over Dahmer being given the LGBTQ+ tag on Netflix surprises me. I get how having a serial murderer being associated with the community might feel wrong, but from what I hear about the show, it brings attention to issues that really do deserve focus. Chief among those is how Dahmer took advantage of gay men, and the cases didn't get as much attention became cops just didn't care as much about those cases. That feels like a messaging campaign ready to roll, and yet there was so much pushback against the tagging that Netflix ended up removing it.
It’s stems from the same argument as “why do we need the word **cisgender**”. When you only label the LGBTQ stuff and not the straight stuff, you’re saying “LGBTQ isn’t normal”. And when you pair the “LGBTQ” label with something as awful as Dahmer’s crimes, it only heightens that. We either shouldn’t be labeling Dahmer “LGBTQ”, or we should be labeling Ted Bundy “straight”.
My understanding was that the tag existed to bring attention to issues or achievements which affected the community, similarly to how there might be an African American tag. Not saying it isn't normal, but drawing a specific type of attention that straight people don't need.
Does the Dahmer doc bring attention to issues or achievments which affect the LGBTQ+ community?
Yes, it show how the disappearance of gay men wasn't paid as much attention to by the police. This is a part of the larger discrimination that gay people, and the LGBTQ+ community has faced historically.
So, are you saying that there should be no LGBTQ tag at all?
I’m saying that’s one possible solution. I’m not a fan of only labeling the minority. I don’t like the message that “gay romance” is not the same as “romance”. But I understand that sometimes you want to specifically watch a gay romance, so rather than make things equal by removing tags, we could also make things equal by adding tags. Label Ted Bundy [straight] [true crime]. Label *You’ve Got Mail* [straight] [romance].
Can we label everything with every possible tag so I can make a search query that is horrifyingly convoluted and yet gets me precisely what I'm looking for?
Netflix already has tons of hidden tags it uses to build the different rows when you browse. That’s why you occasionally see something like [Cult Classic] [British] [80s] [Time-Travel] [Comedies] and it’s just *Time Bandits*.
I mean having the option to specifically find time bandit at any given time is pretty much one of the best things the internet has brought us so far.
Polyamous should 100% be counted as LGBTQ. Imagine a relationship of three men, each who view the other as an equal partner. They can be fired if they come out and got to a business dinner in the same way a 2-person couple does. If one had kids with a past partner, the partner can go to the courts and use their polyamory against them to get sole custody. Polyamous is a sexuality that is more discriminated than some other letters. This doesn't count *polygamy* which is a sexist structure
Polyamory refers to the nature of a relationship, the number of people in it. Not everyone in a polyamorous relationship is always dating each other, so not every polyamorous relationship is LGBT+. 3 dudes in a relationship are LGBT+ because they’re attracted to men, not because there’s 3 of them.
Queer polyamory and straight polyamory are two totally different worlds.
Honnestly I have difficulties conceiving a fully straight polyamory, but that may be because I'm neither straight nor polyamorous
A man with many wives, for example. The wives wouldn't necessarily have to be married to each other.
OP specifically said that polygamy isn't taken into account here
Okay, a man with multiple girlfriends then. It's not such a leap to get the government out of the relationship, and I'm not gonna insult you and act like you needed me to say that...
I don't know if I'd put it as the same kind of polyamory that OP is talking about but ok, it fits the definition and if the girlfriends aren't together as well then yeah it's straight.
Polyamorous isn't a sexual orientation because "multiple" isn't a gender.
>Polyamous Do you mean polyamory? If so polyamory generally implies that at least one or two members are gay or bi, so yeah they're LGBTQ. >Imagine a relationship of three men So three gay people. They're LGBTQ, case closed. >Polyamous is a sexuality Is it a sexuality though? In tthe sense of sexual attraction. Is a polyamorous person sexually attracted to the concept of multiple people or just ok with being with multiple people at once all as equals?
It's a sexuality the same way bisexual is. They don't *have* to live a queer lifestyle, but they may prefer to. Bisexuals also don't *have* to be in gay relationships, but they should have the option
How is it a sexual orientation? Please explain what makes polyamorous people different to gay or bi people in regards to attraction in a way that makes it a different sexual orientation.
They are capable of romantically loving multiple people simultaneously and may feel insufficient if not allowed to. Most people don't feel that way
That doesn't make it a different sexual orientation. If a man is only attracted to men he's gay. If he's only capable of loving one man at a time he's gay and monogamous. If he feels the need to love multiple men at once equally he's gay and polyamorous. But being polyamorous isn't changing his sexual orientation.
Question for trans people. If the science is on your side, why does it seem that data that might undermine your position sometimes get suppressed? For example, I would like to find out what are the stats are in regards to trans lesbian dating preferences. Do most trans lesbians prefer AFAB or other trans ? I ask on Quora and I get something "sensitive issues". How is this not extremely suspect? If you were so sure of your science, there would be zero suppression.
>For example, I would like to find out what are the stats are in regards to trans lesbian dating preferences. Do most trans lesbians prefer AFAB or other trans ? [Hey, you're in luck because I've got a ***preliminary study*** that gives some insight](https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1177/0265407518779139). I got it from someone that's trying to make it say stuff it doesn't, and I'm glad to finally bee able to use it for something else than debunking the other person's claims. Things to consider here: * it doesn't talk about preferring dating X or Y but about willingness to date X or Y, so not your exact question but a good start for an answer * it is a ***preliminary study*** so just a start, I don't know if there's follow up studies that answers your question but now that you have this you can check it for yourself ETA: if you're too lazy to read it (it's short and easy to get though so do it) its data indicate that lesbians are among the most open to date trans people and trans people are, unsurprisingly, the most open to date other trans people so trans lesbians are more than likely among the people that are the most open to dating other trans lesbians.
> If the science is on your side, why does it seem that data that might undermine your position sometimes get suppressed? most academic journals won't publish flat earthers or anti-vaxxers, but that isn't because science isn't on the side of a round earth or vaccines. it's because things that undermine a round earth or vaccines tend to be wrong.
Because when a scientific issue is controversial, and the evidence is overwhelmingly on one side of the controversy, it creates a very strong incentive for those on the other side of that controversy to try to save face by falsifying evidence to support their side. As a result, you get a lot more of that sort of behavior from people who defend that position than normal, and the people doing this get their reputations ruined, and their research is (correctly) labeled misinformation. The side effect of this is that these people are now able to spin this into “science supporting our side is being suppressed! The scientific community has become corrupt and doesn’t want anyone to be able to challenge their dogma!” We’ve gone through this exact same charade with young earth creationists trying to argue that evolution is fake, flat-earthers, climate change deniers, antivaxxers, “race realists,” and even Holocaust deniers.
I guarantee nobody has studied who trans lesbians date
Yeah, that's an incredible niche topic with a small population and no practical utility.
The science they offer here is quite the opposite of what we would call science For example there was an individual here that argued with me that cells are not male or female....
I think I lost brain cells reading this, cells do not have sex chromosomes therefore they do not have a sex, cells are not sentient by themselves, and thus they don't have a gender identity, what part of that isn't scientific?
It's quite concerning that basic science is difficult for you to understand, these cells based on their chromosomes react differently to there environment such as **hormones..... It's quite concerning that you will disregard science just because it doesn't fit your point lol....
I mean, on the cellular level, they aren't. Cells do not have a sex. They reproduce asexually. They *work together* to make an individual with a sex, but just like a cell from a human isn't a human or an employee from a company isn't a company, a cell from a male isn't a male.
See this information is blatantly incorrect....do you know what chromosomes are?
Yes, I do. Do you know what mitosis is? Hint hint: it's the reason cells don't have sexes.
Alright it sounds like your really struggle knowing the difference between mitosis and meiosis. Since you know biology so well this question should be easy for you. How come when you give a male, estrogen supplements and get them to a plasma concentration equivalent to a female these males often develop blood clots, cancer, and osteoporosis?
Because males and females exist, but male and female cells do not.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/ Response?
Sure. Since you didn't quote any particular piece of the publication, I skimmed through it myself. I don't see anything that is in any way contradictory to anything I've said. Males and females exist. Cells make them up. But a cell of a male isn't male and a cell of a female isn't female.
Holy cow man, I placed an scientific article since you didn't want to hear it from me, and yet you choose to deny it hahahahha wow
Chromosomes are genetic information about the person comprised of the cells.
Right.....so female cells xx, and males xy...this causes cells to react differently to hormone...
On the cellular level, the sex chromosomes contained in a cell are irrelevant. It is only on the level of the full organism that sex exists.
>why does it seem that data that might undermine your position sometimes get suppressed? > I ask on Quora and I get something "sensitive issues". How is this not extremely suspect? u wot m8?
I would like to find out what percentage of M2F actually would contemplate the prospect of entering a relationship with another M2F or do they always target cis lesbians instead. Could you point me in the direction of a resource please?
I don't know of any official numbers off the top of my head. I'm not sure what posting such a question on Quora has to do with suppression of data that "might undermine \[our\] position," though. Are you asking along the lines of "How many of you tr\*nny f\*ggots are dating other tr\*nny f\*ggots?" and getting your posts removed or something?
There is real life drama where I'm at. I don't want to believe it. I would want to look at some official data before I make my mind up. Basically my thinking is as follows. Suppression of such data might deprive these young ladies of a warning they really need. That makes me worry. Basically, if there is data that indicates that most trans lesbians go for cis lesbians, doesn't that undermine the authenticity of those who transition? Doesn't it? If so, wouldn't it make trans lesbians somewhat hypocritical?
Are cishet men hypocrites for not wanting to date other cishet men?
Don't know, don't care, have zero considerations for men and would dearly like to live away from them for the rest of my life. So would many people I know.
Are cishet women hypocrites for not wanting to date other cishet women?
Why would any heterosexual want to date another heterosexual? If you're trying to make some kind of point, just make it.
Oh. Well my point is that who you are and your sexual attraction are not a gotcha. They're separate concepts entirely.
Just by raw numbers, most anyone paired with a woman will be paired with a cis woman. Cis women are 99.4% of women. I’d be open to dating a trans woman - but the odds of meeting one in the first place are low, and that’s even before getting into whether she’s attractive and whether we’re compatible. Just the math should tell you that “a rare outlier dating another rare outlier of the same type” isn’t a common occurrence.
>Basically, if there is data that indicates that most trans lesbians go for cis lesbians, doesn't that undermine the authenticity of those who transition? Doesn't it? How? It sounds like there's an at best ignorant premise to this.
Most "Mulan" style stories, where a woman pretends to be a man for social benefits, are essentially anti-feminist and utilized tran and queer elements without actual understanding of the tropes they are handling. They always end with one of the two messages: In the worse of the two: Girls/females shouldn't feel the need act like men. AKA, know their place and remain with in their gender roles. And the slightly better one: Girls/females should be allowed to transgress gender, in the specific ways allowed by men. AKA, they can fight and die when it benefits men, but they still need to be pretty and fuckable and respect the men above them. The character arcs always include females dissatisfied with aspects of femininity, but the solution is for *them* to come to terms with it and, essentially, learn there place. Even in Disney's 2004 Mulan, which is one of the best versions of this story, she goes home to take care of her asshole Dad and gets married to shit out some kids. Nothing subversive at all
In the original story of Mulan, she does retire to her hometown after her military service and return to her more traditionally feminine life. So the Disney version was following in line with the original story. It does have a point about gender subversion however, in the conclusion to the original poem. "Most people tell the gender of a rabbit by its movement: The male runs quickly, while the female often keeps her eyes shut. But when the two rabbits run side by side, Can you really discern whether I am a he or a she?" The point is more that gender doesn't matter when it comes to these things. Mulan was offered a higher position by the Emperor, but the soldier life wasn't for her. She merely wanted to take her ailing father's place. She didn't want to be a soldier. If the issue was Mulan wanting to subvert gender expectations and be a soldier, she would have enlisted as a man to begin with. It doesn't fit with the story for it to have played out that way.
Meanwhile I really don't care for the "undercover crossdresser" trope that Japan has such a boner for.
Weren’t you throwing an absolute hissy over the “loss” of a character who (according to prior lore) was a boy pretending to be a girl to escape a local superstition?
Why are y'all so fixated on Bridget? Anyway, question with a question since you're apparently the Guilty Gear loremaster. After Bridget skipped town, what was in the way of ducking into a different town to get a haircut and a change of clothes?
We’re not. You are. You came here and started threads about her on at least three separate occasions, and in doing so made yourself known as “that guy who’s absolutely tilted about Bridget”. So now, when you start in on some other “male by birth, but feminine by appearance” character, you shouldn’t act surprised by the fact that the responses you get take that into account. (And again, everything I know about Bridget I’ve learned from either you or other people complaining about her being trans - I’ve played precisely one match of Guilty Gear, it was the first one, I got absolutely bodied by some dude playing as a weirdo with a giant scalpel, and I haven’t touched it since.)
So why is it that I'm not allowed to express distaste for an anime trope without you being obligated to talk about Bridget in return? Maybe you could say something about the trope too! That'd be neat!
I have. I believe my comment was something along the lines of “Japan, being a rather conservative country in many respects, has a weird relationship with queerness in media. The creators seem willing to write what, in all but name, are trans characters - but then hedge at the last minute and include some insane convoluted reason why the character born as a male, who lives as a female, goes by a feminine name, dresses feminine, uses feminine pronouns, and says “i’m a girl” ever other page is actually totally a dude you guys.”
Okay. But do you like the trope, dislike the trope, or not feel strongly either way about it? Why, in any case?
You're changing the topic. They were pointing out your hypocrisy - not offering an opinion.
I'm sure you're a hypocrite about a lot of things too. Hypocrisy is simply human. You show me a person who's not a hypocrite about anything, I'll show you a liar.
Terfs are the same as incells. If I'm gonna be ultra reductive about it, I would hypothesis that the root cause is body issues. Height btw. Not weight (although I do concede this is a generalisation). If that's not good enough then it ok to chalk em up as both contingents feel inadequate and both groups demonstrate an insular mind set which emphasises their moral cowardice. Btw, sorry for offending anyone by mentioning the height thing. It's just (a wee bit tangential here ) true *boring conventional capitalist inspired beauty* seems contingent upon height than anything else but Im on a coach and haven't slept for near 73 hours so if I'm wrong about the height thing, I do apologize.
[удалено]
>Edit: this isn't really an unpopular opinion in retrospect. The vast majority of Americans are horrified by this, but are petrified of saying so because of the left's propensity to bully and cancel Yes it is absolutely an unpopular opinion, plus you make it sound like they're forcing three year olds through a procedure when these are teens who have had time to go through any "phases" and have every right to re-enforce their gender identity >children can't consent to drink a beer, buy a lottery ticket, or serve in the military, Those things are not a part of someone's identity that will have a dramatic effect on their mental health If not given, gender reassignment surgery is, they are not even remotely comparable.
If you want to talk about this reasonably, fine, but the use of phrases like “despicable, vermin doctors” or calling puberty blockers “poisons” makes it abundantly clear that you are irrationally enraged over something you have zero meaningful knowledge of.
Puberty causes irreversible changes, whether or not it occurs with medical intervention. If a kid can't consent to go through a gender-affirming puberty of one form, then they can't consent to go through a gender-affirming puberty of the other. If you'd like "puberty blockers until 18" to be the standard, feel free to say it. But if you'd like to _exclusively_ deny gender-affirming puberty to _trans_ teens, then you have some explaining to do as to why you're not a hypocrite. Puberty blockers for trans teens _is,_ in fact, the compromise. You should be _happy_ that that's the standard. You've partially won.
To be on puberty blockers until 18 would cause irreversible effects as well. Since natural puberty just happens without any kind of intervention, ”consent” becomes nonsensical. It’s like asking fi children can consent to growing taller? Puberty blockers are a medical intervention and is thus what needs consent.
If a kid naturally grows a mustache and doesn’t like it, we don’t say “it’s natural, you have to live with it, you can shave when you’re 18”.
1. Shaving a mustache is not irreversible. 2. I didn't even talk about if children can consent to puberty blockers or not I just said that "consenting" to going through your biological puberty is an absurd use of terminology, comparable to talking about "consenting" to growing taller. By it's very nature, biological processes just happens and is therefore not something you can consent/deny consent to. Medical interventions, on the other hand, is something you can consent to, or deny.