Why do gays often hate Transgendered or Intersexed people?

[Smoothie]

This truly is a heated argument in the LGBT world. Many LGBT folks, mostly gay men, are deeply afraid of trans people. Some of them claim that because the Transgendered folks are straight in their new gender and that they don't deserve legal protections. So Transgendered people don't deserve to get married unless they succumb themselves to gender reassignment surgery?

If the LGBT crowd is OK with that, why don't they get gender reassignment surgery to get married if it is "no big deal" at all? I am a personal believer that all trans women and men are straight whether they get reassignment surgery or not, but should a person be forced to get an unwanted surgery to please the government alone? When someone is painfully obvious as being female or male, should they have to have a surgery just to please some bureaucrat? It's not like some trans girl can pass as a male anyway to begin with. If the person wants reassignment nobody is stopping them, but why force them to?

Is a man gay for being attracted to transgendered women? No.
Is a man gay for being attracted to a masculine male? Yes.
Why are the same legal precedents held to both? Why should a transgendered woman have to have a surgery THAT SHE DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE just to please the bigots in office?

"Hey, You can't get married until you prove that you have cut off your big toe".
"We don't care if you feel like a woman, we'll TELL YOU when you are a women going by our own rules and guidelines. YOU don't matter as to our judgements or decisions on whom you are."

That form of of logic is illogical, and I stand against it.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Smoothie

This truly is a heated argument in the LGBT world. Many LGBT folks, mostly gay men, are deeply afraid of trans people. Some of them claim that because the Transgendered folks are straight in their new gender and that they don't deserve legal protections. So Transgendered people don't deserve to get married unless they succumb themselves to gender reassignment surgery?

If the LGBT crowd is OK with that, why don't they get gender reassignment surgery to get married if it is "no big deal" at all? I am a personal believer that all trans women and men are straight whether they get reassignment surgery or not, but should a person be forced to get an unwanted surgery to please the government alone? When someone is painfully obvious as being female or male, should they have to have a surgery just to please some bureaucrat? It's not like some trans girl can pass as a male anyway to begin with. If the person wants reassignment nobody is stopping them, but why force them to?

Is a man gay for being attracted to transgendered women? No.
Is a man gay for being attracted to a masculine male? Yes.
Why are the same legal precedents held to both? Why should a transgendered woman have to have a surgery THAT SHE DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE just to please the bigots in office?

"Hey, You can't get married until you prove that you have cut off your big toe".
"We don't care if you feel like a woman, we'll TELL YOU when you are a women going by our own rules and guidelines. YOU don't matter as to our judgements or decisions on whom you are."

That form of of logic is illogical, and I stand against it.

I have no doubt that my good friend who is a transwoman and a lesbian would take great exception to your statement that I have highlighted above. Personally, I find it to be a statement of profound ignorance. And such ignorance is what fuels the types of misconceptions and prejudices that you seem to be writing against.

[Smoothie]

Originally Posted by smc

I have no doubt that my good friend who is a transwoman and a lesbian would take great exception to your statement that I have highlighted above. Personally, I find it to be a statement of profound ignorance. And such ignorance is what fuels the types of misconceptions and prejudices that you seem to be writing against.

You are correct.
I stated " I am a personal believer that all trans women and men are straight whether they get reassignment surgery or not". I meant that I believed that for all trans women or men interested in the opposite sex of their current gender. In other words, not ALL transgendered people are gay.
If they are gay that's also fine, but I just don't find a M2F Trans as being gay for dating a male, or vice-versa.

You didn't address the anti-trans sentiment of this thread at all, but focused on the only thing you could contest. Maybe for once you could have a positive attitude since you're supposed to be some sort of mod or admin. While you find me "profoundly ignorant" whenever you can't come up with a legitimate response based on anthropology, sociology, science or current topics for your convenience...I find you profoundly stubborn in your quite empty and desperate responses. The mainly "gay male" part of the LGBT community has singled out transgendered people in a negative way on news sites and blogs. I do hope that you're aware that transsexual admirers may *gasp*... actually care about trans rights. Of course, the *possibility* of actually caring about "trans rights" may be a profoundly ignorant topic to those whom have no interest in it.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Smoothie

You are correct.
I stated " I am a personal believer that all trans women and men are straight whether they get reassignment surgery or not". I meant that I believed that for all trans women or men interested in the opposite sex of their current gender. In other words, not ALL transgendered people are gay.
If they are gay that's also fine, but I just don't find a M2F Trans as being gay for dating a male, or vice-versa.

You didn't address the anti-trans sentiment of this thread at all, but focused on the only thing you could contest. Maybe for once you could have a positive attitude since you're supposed to be some sort of mod or admin. While you find me "profoundly ignorant" whenever you can't come up with a legitimate response based on anthropology, sociology, science or current topics for your convenience...I find you profoundly stubborn in your quite empty and desperate responses. The mainly "gay male" part of the LGBT community has singled out transgendered people in a negative way on news sites and blogs. I do hope that you're aware that transsexual admirers may *gasp*... actually care about trans rights. Of course, the *possibility* of actually caring about "trans rights" may be a profoundly ignorant topic to those whom have no interest in it.

You know nothing about me, but I give you credit for attempting in a failed effort to imply (quite directly) that I am simply some "admirer" who may not actually "care about trans rights." If you did know anything about me, you would know how profoundly wrong you are in making that implication. I have put my career on the line, more than once, in defense of gay and trans rights.

As for your attempt to explain what you wrote initially (the first paragraph, above), I am afraid it, too, is a failure. I suppose if I were functionally illiterate I could be fooled into believing that the initial comment could have actually meant the second version, but your generally high level of ability with the use of words (irrespective of actual content ... and this is something that, in my profession, I know a lot about) suggests strongly that there was no mistake.

Further, the time-honored tradition of seeking to sidestep what I wrote with an attempt to shift the focus to the part of your post that I did not respond to suggests a level of failure that trumps the other two points I've made. The mention of me being a moderator and the hint that we've sparred elsewhere ... well, I direct the reader's attention to this post:

http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...1&postcount=10

It would appear that you like to make statements that are bold, audacious, and completely unsupportable generalizations, and that you just don't like getting called on them. So, use your big vocabulary to try and bury the fact that you were called on one again, rather than answer the actual point.

Good luck with that.

[Smoothie]

Originally Posted by smc

You know nothing about me, but I give you credit for attempting in a failed effort to imply (quite directly) that I am simply some "admirer" who may not actually "care about trans rights." If you did know anything about me, you would know how profoundly wrong you are in making that implication. I have put my career on the line, more than once, in defense of gay and trans rights.

As for your attempt to explain what you wrote initially (the first paragraph, above), I am afraid it, too, is a failure. I suppose if I were functionally illiterate I could be fooled into believing that the initial comment could have actually meant the second version, but your generally high level of ability with the use of words (irrespective of actual content ... and this is something that, in my profession, I know a lot about) suggests strongly that there was no mistake.

Further, the time-honored tradition of seeking to sidestep what I wrote with an attempt to shift the focus to the part of your post that I did not respond to suggests a level of failure that trumps the other two points I've made. The mention of me being a moderator and the hint that we've sparred elsewhere ... well, I direct the reader's attention to this post:

http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...1&postcount=10

It would appear that you like to make statements that are bold, audacious, and completely unsupportable generalizations, and that you just don't like getting called on them. So, use your big vocabulary to try and bury the fact that you were called on one again, rather than answer the actual point.

Good luck with that.

I'm sorry, but you know nothing about me. We disagree on some points, and I think we agree on many others. I'm probably too outspoken as you say. Please take care and understand that I was "trying" to defend my dignity in my reply to you. If I was the fool to you, I may be the fool. I defend trans rights on the political level every day. However, I don't get scorned by them often.
We disagree on some points, and I think we agree on many others. I'm probably too outspoken as you say. Please take care and understand that I was "trying" to defend my dignity in my reply to you (You're not the only person with dignity).
If I was the fool to you, I may have been the fool.
I defend trans rights on the political level every day. However, I don't get scorned by them ever. You'd be the first at bat, champ.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Smoothie

I'm sorry, but you know nothing about me. We disagree on some points, and I think we agree on many others. I'm probably too outspoken as you say. Please take care and understand that I was "trying" to defend my dignity in my reply to you. If I was the fool to you, I may be the fool. I defend trans rights on the political level every day. However, I don't get scorned by them often.

I did not say you were "too outspoken." I don't like having words attributed to me that I did not say or write. You are correct that I "know nothing about" you. However, unlike you, I did not write anything to suggest that I do know anything about you beyond what I have read here. You, on the other hand, made all sorts of implications about me well beyond anything you could possibly know from what I've written here on this site. If you do know more, perhaps you would care to come clean in a PM. There are some shenanigans that have gone on; perhaps you know something about that?

I am sure you are correct that we agree on many things. For instance, I agree with your statement that "not ALL transgendered people are gay" ... even though I cannot even remotely agree that saying that is the same as your original post, in which you wrote: "I am a personal believer that all trans women and men are straight whether they get reassignment surgery or not" Nor can I agree with anything that might seem to equalize those statements.

I am not sure what to make of the last statement in your post above: "However, I don't get scorned by them often." Perhaps you would care to explain? It reads to me like another attempt at impugnation ... and I hope I'm wrong about that.

[Smoothie]

Originally Posted by smc

I did not say you were "too outspoken." I don't like having words attributed to me that I did not say or write. You are correct that I "know nothing about" you. However, unlike you, I did not write anything to suggest that I do know anything about you beyond what I have read here. You, on the other hand, made all sorts of implications about me well beyond anything you could possibly know from what I've written here on this site. If you do know more, perhaps you would care to come clean in a PM. There are some shenanigans that have gone on; perhaps you know something about that?

I am sure you are correct that we agree on many things. For instance, I agree with your statement that "not ALL transgendered people are gay" ... even though I cannot even remotely agree that saying that is the same as your original post, in which you wrote: "I am a personal believer that all trans women and men are straight whether they get reassignment surgery or not" Nor can I agree with anything that might seem to equalize those statements.

I am not sure what to make of the last statement in your post above: "However, I don't get scorned by them often." Perhaps you would care to explain? It reads to me like another attempt at impugnation ... and I hope I'm wrong about that.

Everything you have said about me is an implication. Other members have written me to encourage me to contact ILA because of your replies. Once again, not so liked.

[aussiepride]

He wrote ...scorned by them EVER... Not often. Changes the meaning a bit

Originally Posted by smc

I did not say you were "too outspoken." I don't like having words attributed to me that I did not say or write. You are correct that I "know nothing about" you. However, unlike you, I did not write anything to suggest that I do know anything about you beyond what I have read here. You, on the other hand, made all sorts of implications about me well beyond anything you could possibly know from what I've written here on this site. If you do know more, perhaps you would care to come clean in a PM. There are some shenanigans that have gone on; perhaps you know something about that?

I am sure you are correct that we agree on many things. For instance, I agree with your statement that "not ALL transgendered people are gay" ... even though I cannot even remotely agree that saying that is the same as your original post, in which you wrote: "I am a personal believer that all trans women and men are straight whether they get reassignment surgery or not" Nor can I agree with anything that might seem to equalize those statements.

I am not sure what to make of the last statement in your post above: "However, I don't get scorned by them often." Perhaps you would care to explain? It reads to me like another attempt at impugnation ... and I hope I'm wrong about that.

[Smoothie]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

He wrote ...scorned by them EVER... Not often. Changes the meaning a bit

It appears that he has some personal "shenanigans" to work through.

[smc]

Originally Posted by smc

... I am not sure what to make of the last statement in your post above: "However, I don't get scorned by them often." Perhaps you would care to explain? It reads to me like another attempt at impugnation ... and I hope I'm wrong about that.

Originally Posted by Smoothie

Everything you have said about me is an implication. Other members have written me to encourage me to contact ILA because of your replies. Once again, not so liked.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

He wrote ...scorned by them EVER... Not often. Changes the meaning a bit

Originally Posted by Smoothie

It appears that he has some personal "shenanigans" to work through.

Smoothie, let's see how honest you are. You know that my quote of what you wrote is from your original post. I quoted it using the QUOTE function without any alterations, as is shown in my post. After I answered you, you went back and changed the last two lines (one from "often" to "ever" and the other line completely). Then, it would appear that you were in contact with aussiepride. Then the two of you decided to use the revised post to make it look as if I misquoted you. However, it clearly shows that you were editing your post. Perhaps this is only visible to moderators (I'm not sure), but it can all be made public.

So, tell the truth: that's what happened, right? It really doesn't matter whether you confess, because the truth stays the same in either case.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by smc

Smoothie, let's see how honest you are. You know that my quote of what you wrote is from your original post. I quoted it using the QUOTE function without any alterations, as is shown in my post. After I answered you, you went back and changed the last two lines (one from "often" to "ever" and the other line completely). Then, it would appear that you were in contact with aussiepride. Then the two of you decided to use the revised post to make it look as if I misquoted you. However, it clearly shows that you were editing your post. Perhaps this is only visible to moderators (I'm not sure), but it can all be made public.

So, tell the truth: that's what happened, right? It really doesn't matter whether you confess, because the truth stays the same in either case.

I WOULD SERIOULSY HOPE THAT FALSE ACCUSATIONS ATTACKING ANOTHER MEMBERS CHARACTER WOULD BE TREATED AS A VERY SERIOUS OFFENCE. I would dearly hope that if you post an accusation such as that, that you would also provide some proof..OTHERWISE A BIG APOLOGY SHOULD BE POSTED.

I read your post first then went back to smoothies post and saw that the quote was different, and I commented as such. Now.. To be honest I cannot say if the original post had been changed by smoothie. Looking at it now, it appears it may be a possibility... But to a person reading it as is posted, there appears to be an error.

The only contact I had with smoothie via PMs was TO OFFER A SUGGESTION IN HOW TO DEAL WITH ANOTHER MEMBER OF THIS FORUM WHEN YOU THINK YOU ARE BEING BULLIED OR UNREASONABLY ATTACKTED.

I know that mods have access to the pm... And I know the you smc have read what PMs we wrote. I can glady post the pm I you wish.. And you can show me, baring some secret code I have developed with smoothie in 1 pm, where we both conspired to manipulate posts and then make you look like You misquoted.. Now either post your proof of this conspiracy, or post my Aplogy. Simple. Be a man.

[smc]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

I WOULD SERIOULSY HOPE THAT FALSE ACCUSATIONS ATTACKING ANOTHER MEMBERS CHARACTER WOULD BE TREATED AS A VERY SERIOUS OFFENCE. I would dearly hope that if you post an accusation such as that, that you would also provide some proof..OTHERWISE A BIG APOLOGY SHOULD BE POSTED.

I read your post first then went back to smoothies post and saw that the quote was different, and I commented as such. Now.. To be honest I cannot say if the original post had been changed by smoothie. Looking at it now, it appears it may be a possibility... But to a person reading it as is posted, there appears to be an error.

The only contact I had with smoothie via PMs was TO OFFER A SUGGESTION IN HOW TO DEAL WITH ANOTHER MEMBER OF THIS FORUM WHEN YOU THINK YOU ARE BEING BULLIED OR UNREASONABLY ATTACKTED.

I know that mods have access to the pm... And I know the you smc have read what PMs we wrote. I can glady post the pm I you wish.. And you can show me, baring some secret code I have developed with smoothie in 1 pm, where we both conspired to manipulate posts and then make you look like You misquoted.. Now either post your proof of this conspiracy, or post my Aplogy. Simple. Be a man.

Moderators DO NOT have access to PMs. The site owner DOES NOT have access to PMs. They are completely private, which is why they are called "Private Messages." So, retract your "I know" statement, which is completely false.

I did not accuse you of changing the post. If that is how it came across, I take responsibility for it and apologize. I DO NOT apologize for anything else in the post. I will not go into any further detail about you or past things on this site, aussiepride, pending further moderator intervention ... except to say that your intervention with Smoothie is representative.

But as long as we're demanding apologies, how about you get yourself over here and apologize for putting words in my mouth. I've been waiting:

http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...74&postcount=9

[smc]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

I WOULD SERIOULSY HOPE THAT FALSE ACCUSATIONS ATTACKING ANOTHER MEMBERS CHARACTER WOULD BE TREATED AS A VERY SERIOUS OFFENCE. ...

aussiepride, Smoothie went back and changed his post after I responded so that a false accusation could be made that I misquoted him. Given what you write above, I assume that you agree it should be treated as a "very serious offence" ... perhaps even punishable by a lengthy (or permanent) ban from the site.

Yes?

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by smc

aussiepride, Smoothie went back and changed his post after I responded so that a false accusation could be made that I misquoted him. Given what you write above, I assume that you agree it should be treated as a "very serious offence" ... perhaps even punishable by a lengthy (or permanent) ban from the site.

Yes?

If by yes you also include yourself for accusing me of some coordinated effort.. Then by all means yes.. Ban yourself as well.

Looking back to your post, it could appear that its possible that smoothie change his post, but then again, it appears that you didn't quote directly from his post ( to be clear we are talking about he said.. Ever. And you think he originally posted ...OFTEN), as his post appears in the middle of a sentence u wrote.. Not the normal way a quote would appear if it was quoted using the quote button.
Now that means I don't know who is right..
To be honest i thought you made a little Freudian slip when u quoted him.. I know I had to re read his post carefully to see the error. I had a little chuckle because I innocently thought that such a simple, one little word could change a whole argument. I had no idea it would blow up to this.
I regret picking up on it now.

[smc]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

If by yes you also include yourself for accusing me of some coordinated effort.. Then by all means yes.. Ban yourself as well.

Looking back to your post, it could appear that its possible that smoothie change his post, but then again, it appears that you didn't quote directly from his post ( to be clear we are talking about he said.. Ever. And you think he originally posted ...OFTEN), as his post appears in the middle of a sentence u wrote.. Not the normal way a quote would appear if it was quoted using the quote button.
Now that means I don't know who is right..
To be honest i thought you made a little Freudian slip when u quoted him.. I know I had to re read his post carefully to see the error. I had a little chuckle because I innocently thought that such a simple, one little word could change a whole argument. I had no idea it would blow up to this.
I regret picking up on it now.

Imply that I am a liar all you want; it doesn't change the truth.

I quoted Smoothie verbatim. I did not use the QUOTE function because it was only one line and would have required a lot of deletion. More important, I didn't use the QUOTE function because it never occurred to me that Smoothie would be a dishonest broker in the conversation and go back and change his post to make his point. You may not like what I write, but I would never, ever do what Smoothie did ... in real life or here online. Period.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by smc

Smoothie, let's see how honest you are. You know that my quote of what you wrote is from your original post. I quoted it using the QUOTE function without any alterations, as is shown in my post. After I answered you, you went back and changed the last two lines (one from "often" to "ever" and the other line completely). Then, it would appear that you were in contact with aussiepride. Then the two of you decided to use the revised post to make it look as if I misquoted you. However, it clearly shows that you were editing your post. Perhaps this is only visible to moderators (I'm not sure), but it can all be made public.

So, tell the truth: that's what happened, right? It really doesn't matter whether you confess, because the truth stays the same in either case.

The bit on bold is what I took offense at.
This is a direct accusation of wrong doing.
If you make it based on some "history" than that's just plain childish
If mods etc cannot see the PMs, then I was wrong about that. Sorry, I just assumed that ALL facets of a site were under their control.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by smc

Imply that I am a liar all you want; it doesn't change the truth.

I quoted Smoothie verbatim. I did not use the QUOTE function because it was only one line and would have required a lot of deletion. More important, I didn't use the QUOTE function because it never occurred to me that Smoothie would be a dishonest broker in the conversation and go back and change his post to make his point. You may not like what I write, but I would never, ever do what Smoothie did ... in real life or here online. Period.

Let's be clear, I don't know who is right, as it's both of you that could have made a mistake, and I am definately not calling you a liar about the quote.
Now if it come down to a simple who to believe... A senior long standing member who has the trust of all the other senior members of this site.. Or a new member who has a habit of writing somewhat silly things a times.. It's a simple choicw for me smc

[smc]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

The bit on bold is what I took offense at.
This is a direct accusation of wrong doing.
If you make it based on some "history" than that's just plain childish
If mods etc cannot see the PMs, then I was wrong about that. Sorry, I just assumed that ALL facets of a site were under their control.

I believe that you did not conspire. I did not directly write that you did; I really meant that at a minimum each of you decided to use the revised quote as I described. If you did not know it was revised, I accept that, and I apologize for the wrongly placed accusation.

As for your "childish" statement, I reject that as an insult. Further, I think that history on this site has meaning. For instance, I am still waiting for your apology for putting words into my mouth that I never wrote and then attacking me for them. And I am still waiting for your explanation in another thread regarding yet another post, in which you use feigned ignorance about something to make an attack. (Perhaps both of these will be there when I finish typing this.)

Patterns are patterns, whether you like them to be noticed or not. Call it "childish" if you must, but it doesn't change reality or its relevance.

[aussiepride]

Thanks for the apology.
As for the other posts, I am awaiting the results of a recent study I commissioned into "do chicks love muscles". The results should be available soon.

As for THIS thread, can it be brought back on track?
Albeit from all that has happened, the OP does raise some interesting topics.

I myself have only heard of this from other ts, but they have told me that gay men dislike ts.. For whatever reasons they don't know.
.. But strangely.. I have a few lesbian gg friends who love ts, girls in drag etc... Although they too sometimes say it with a slight smirk (I take that as they giggle at them when they see one like most non admirers seem to do).

Perhaps if anyone has any insight into why gay men think this way?

Originally Posted by smc

I believe that you did not conspire. I did not directly write that you did; I really meant that at a minimum each of you decided to use the revised quote as I described. If you did not know it was revised, I accept that, and I apologize for the wrongly placed accusation.

As for your "childish" statement, I reject that as an insult. Further, I think that history on this site has meaning. For instance, I am still waiting for your apology for putting words into my mouth that I never wrote and then attacking me for them. And I am still waiting for your explanation in another thread regarding yet another post, in which you use feigned ignorance about something to make an attack. (Perhaps both of these will be there when I finish typing this.)

Patterns are patterns, whether you like them to be noticed or not. Call it "childish" if you must, but it doesn't change reality or its relevance.

[smc]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

Thanks for the apology.
As for the other posts, I am awaiting the results of a recent study I commissioned into "do chicks love muscles". The results should be available soon.

You have some fucking nerve complaining in posts about being bullied, misquoted, treated badly, etc., and then posting a mocking response like that above when the demand that you apologize for a clear case of putting words into someone else's mouth has been posted.

But I thank you for so clearly proving the point I have been making about your pattern.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by smc

You have some fucking nerve complaining in posts about being bullied, misquoted, treated badly, etc., and then posting a mocking response like that above when the demand that you apologize for a clear case of putting words into someone else's mouth has been posted.

But I thank you for so clearly proving the point I have been making about your pattern.

1. Offensive language
2. It's way past my bed time, I am in bed trying to post replies as well as
I can considering I am on my phone
3. I responded to one other thread
4. I was bullied and treated badly in the past.. But sadly the really bad posts were deleted...
5. You did imply I conspired with smoothie. I was willing to let that go after you apologized.. But it seems you still want to keep up your tiraide.

[smc]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

1. Offensive language
2. It's way past my bed time, I am in bed trying to post replies as well as
I can considering I am on my phone
3. I responded to one other thread
4. I was bullied and treated badly in the past.. But sadly the really bad posts were deleted...
5. You did imply I conspired with smoothie. I was willing to let that go after you apologized.. But it seems you still want to keep up your tiraide.

There is no admonition on this site against using "swear" or "curse" or "four-letter" words. I used one to refer to your nerve. Deal with it.

I acknowledged that what I wrote implied a conspiracy, and explained that it was not what I meant. I took responsibility for my unclear writing, and apologized. So, who is the one who wants to "keep up" a tirade?

You love to play the victim ... as anyone who reads the full record of your posts can see.

[aussiepride]

Forum rules:
4. Do not post people's personal information, or attack people personally, stick to the issues. Do not threaten or put down other users. We strive to make this a friendly place.


A friendly place? To be have swear words told to you?

Personally in my experience people that have to resort to swearing are generally loosing control of an argument and their mind gets so flustered that they resort to swearing. But then again that's my own personal life experiences, and I no way is a reflection on others. Hell I swear like a crazy person at my work with my mates.
And no technically a swear word is not banned from use on this site, but it doensnt stop it from being offensive. As I said, I found it offensive

[smc]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

Forum rules:
4. Do not post people's personal information, or attack people personally, stick to the issues. Do not threaten or put down other users. We strive to make this a friendly place.


A friendly place? To be have swear words told to you?

Personally in my experience people that have to resort to swearing are generally loosing control of an argument and their mind gets so flustered that they resort to swearing. But then again that's my own personal life experiences, and I no way is a reflection on others. Hell I swear like a crazy person at my work with my mates.
And no technically a swear word is not banned from use on this site, but it doensnt stop it from being offensive. As I said, I found it offensive

Continue to play the victim. Continue to dodge. Meanwhile, you continue the offense of misrepresenting and misattributing.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by smc

Continue to play the victim. Continue to dodge. Meanwhile, you continue the offense of misrepresenting and misattributing.

Are you referring to this thread with that statement?
It's getting a bit hard to juggle between threads to continue similar claims.

[smc]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

Are you referring to this thread with that statement?
It's getting a bit hard to juggle between threads to continue similar claims.

You choose to pretend you don't know. It's all part of your game: dodge, dodge, dodge. You are fast becoming one of the masters on this site: post something, provoke a discussion, and then selectively ignore whatever you don't want to confront in the discussion. Of course, you have the "right" to do so, but anyone else has the right to call you on it, point out the game you play, challenge your method, etc.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by smc

You choose to pretend you don't know. It's all part of your game: dodge, dodge, dodge. You are fast becoming one of the masters on this site: post something, provoke a discussion, and then selectively ignore whatever you don't want to confront in the discussion. Of course, you have the "right" to do so, but anyone else has the right to call you on it, point out the game you play, challenge your method, etc.

So you are or are not referring to that here?
Seems u dodge a bit.
By the way has smoothie been banned from the forum?

Can we get back on track with this thread?

[smc]

Originally Posted by aussiepride

So you are or are not referring to that here?
Seems u dodge a bit.
By the way has smoothie been banned from the forum?

Can we get back on track with this thread?

I'm referring to it in every thread where you and I have had discourse. Without fail, you misrepresent, misattribute, generalize, play the victim, and/or dodge. Sometimes all of these; sometimes different combinations.

As for Smoothie, do you see the word "Banned" underneath his username in his posts? No, you don't. But I get it: it's a rhetorical device to ask the question.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by smc

I'm referring to it in every thread where you and I have had discourse. Without fail, you misrepresent, misattribute, generalize, play the victim, and/or dodge. Sometimes all of these; sometimes different combinations.

As for Smoothie, do you see the word "Banned" underneath his username in his posts? No, you don't. But I get it: it's a rhetorical device to ask the question.

I don't know why you see things that way. Others don't.

As for banned, um I not seen a banned member so wasn't sure.

[new believer]

My opinion, and only my opinion, to why gays hate(rather a strong point of view maybe?)TG's, is that TG's have gone to the maximum of who they feel they are. TG's do not need to be 'flaming' to be who they are.
In my opinion also is that they have a wider spectrum of admirers, straight or gay.
If I were to view a TG walking , I'd probably look and look again in an admirable fashion. At a gay, big deal, not interested.
TG's from my obsevation in the Forum, are not radical 'troublemakers' throwing chants, threats or demands into/onto society as much as the 'gay' community.
When people as myself are exposed to quite 'let me live and be who I am' vs the demanding 'it's my right that I should be treated with special laws and privledges because I'm gay so fuck you' , It's no contest on who I give my respect to. I'm tired of demanding assholes regardless who or what they are. No one should be entitled to anything more than anyone else period and that's simple human rights of existing. be respectful and contribute to society and if all goes correctly, you will be respected. But assholes exist so everyone gets abused straight or gay or even bi, black or white.

[smc]

Originally Posted by new believer

My opinion, and only my opinion, to why gays hate(rather a strong point of view maybe?)TG's, is that TG's have gone to the maximum of who they feel they are. TG's do not need to be 'flaming' to be who they are.
In my opinion also is that they have a wider spectrum of admirers, straight or gay.
If I were to view a TG walking , I'd probably look and look again in an admirable fashion. At a gay, big deal, not interested.
TG's from my obsevation in the Forum, are not radical 'troublemakers' throwing chants, threats or demands into/onto society as much as the 'gay' community.
When people as myself are exposed to quite 'let me live and be who I am' vs the demanding 'it's my right that I should be treated with special laws and privledges because I'm gay so fuck you' , It's no contest on who I give my respect to. I'm tired of demanding assholes regardless who or what they are. No one should be entitled to anything more than anyone else period and that's simple human rights of existing. be respectful and contribute to society and if all goes correctly, you will be respected. But assholes exist so everyone gets abused straight or gay or even bi, black or white.

Do you really believe that people in a minority who demand that, for instance, laws be enacted to ensure that they have the same rights as the majority are "demanding assholes"?! With all due respect, it seems to me that such a statement can only come from someone who either has never felt the sting of discrimination or has been made a victim of the divide-and-conquer strategy employed by those who try to ensure that those we see as "different" are also those about whom we care nothing. Part of that strategy, which seems to have worked with you, is to create the illusion that laws that ensure equality of rights for those who suffer discrimination are somehow laws that provide special privileges. That's simply wrong.

If you think that "simple human rights" accrue to people just because they are "respectful and contribute to society," I have to wonder whether you live on another planet. Seriously.

I am a very active member of the political action caucus in my U.S. state that has been fighting for the legal rights of trans people for a long time. I guess that makes me a member of a group of "demanding assholes." I'm proud to be one, then.

I haven't encountered any hatred from the gay men that I've met. In fact I have two, self identified, gay men who would gladly have sex with me. And they both view me as a woman.
No the most opposition that I've seen from online, is from lesbian women who think that trans women are just men trying to occupy or control all women, or some nonsense like that. :/

And as for SMC bulling or attacking other members. I haven't seen that at all. Not even in this tread. I view SMC as a friend and a fair moderator. And when he points out discrepancies in someone's post. It's not to bully them, it's to make sure that what was posted is what was meant. Because I know I've let some posts go where I didn't make my point entirely clear.
SMC also points things out that are just plan silly or untrue. And he genuinely knows what will or will not offend the trans ladies on this site. And he's also trying to get the so called admirers to get with the program and start respecting the persons of their desires.

I mean if I had got to the one line that had started the whole debate. I would of questioned it too. Because I'm in no way straight. I'm pan-sexual.

[LibertyHarkness]

because us transsexuals take all the supposed straight men away from them mwuyahahahaha

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by LibertyHarkness

because us transsexuals take all the supposed straight men away from them mwuyahahahaha

Haha I have heard this one before.
Supposedly my gfs bf only decided to transition after she (she's a ts now) saw the hotter guys her ts friends were getting and got jealous.
** typo... Bf should be BFF.. Her best friend

Originally Posted by LibertyHarkness

because us transsexuals take all the supposed straight men away from them mwuyahahahaha

Hahahaha... Lols. You may be right. hehe

Originally Posted by aussiepride

Haha I have heard this one before.
Supposedly my gfs bf only decided to transition after she (she's a ts now) saw the hotter guys her ts friends were getting and got jealous.

Wouldn't that make HER your girlfriends ex-boyfriend?

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by ThirdEyeGirl

I haven't encountered any hatred from the gay men that I've met. In fact I have two, self identified, gay men who would gladly have sex with me. And they both view me as a woman.
No the most opposition that I've seen from online, is from lesbian women who think that trans women are just men trying to occupy or control all women, or some nonsense like that. :/

And as for SMC bulling or attacking other members. I haven't seen that at all. Not even in this tread. I view SMC as a friend and a fair moderator. And when he points out discrepancies in someone's post. It's not to bully them, it's to make sure that what was posted is what was meant. Because I know I've let some posts go where I didn't make my point entirely clear.
SMC also points things out that are just plan silly or untrue. And he genuinely knows what will or will not offend the trans ladies on this site. And he's also trying to get the so called admirers to get with the program and start respecting the persons of their desires.

I mean if I had got to the one line that had started the whole debate. I would of questioned it too. Because I'm in no way straight. I'm pan-sexual.

I must admit I had to look this one up.
And yes smc does do an important and good job at keeping this forum on track.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by ThirdEyeGirl

Wouldn't that make HER your girlfriends ex-boyfriend?

Sorry, auto correct typo. I was trying to type BFF ( her best friend)

Originally Posted by aussiepride

Sorry, auto correct typo. I was trying to type BFF ( her best friend)

Ah, that makes a big difference.

And is it your gf's opinion that her bff transitioned just to get "hotter" guys?

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by ThirdEyeGirl

Ah, that makes a big difference.

And is it your gf's opinion that her bff transitioned just to get "hotter" guys?

Yes. Not just her but all the other girls in the group that transitioned around the same time.
I know it's a little more complex than that, but amongst that group that used to dress up for years and talk about doing it, and she was never interested in either.

But, there were a lot of other gay friends that the group used to have, that all stopped talking and socializing with them after each one transitioned. Take of that what u want I suppose.

Originally Posted by aussiepride

Yes. Not just her but all the other girls in the group that transitioned around the same time.
I know it's a little more complex than that, but amongst that group that used to dress up for years and talk about doing it, and she was never interested in either.

But, there were a lot of other gay friends that the group used to have, that all stopped talking and socializing with them after each one transitioned. Take of that what u want I suppose.

Well if you're gf's bff did truly transition for that reason alone (though I don't see how she'd prove she has gender dysphoria to a physiologist or psychiatrist with that being the only reason). Than she's not really a transsexual.

[aussiepride]

Originally Posted by ThirdEyeGirl

Well if you're gf's bff did truly transition for that reason alone (though I don't see how she'd prove she has gender dysphoria to a physiologist or psychiatrist with that being the only reason). Than she's not really a transsexual.

I agree, as I said I think there is more to it in her example. She is a little insular and shy, so maybe she just kept the thoughts to herself.
Anyway she is a very beautiful woman now, and has just started a relationship with a nice bloke that appears very committed to he, and except For her big doodle, she is in all respects a woman.

[new believer]

Originally Posted by smc

Do you really believe that people in a minority who demand that, for instance, laws be enacted to ensure that they have the same rights as the majority are "demanding assholes"?! With all due respect, it seems to me that such a statement can only come from someone who either has never felt the sting of discrimination or has been made a victim of the divide-and-conquer strategy employed by those who try to ensure that those we see as "different" are also those about whom we care nothing. Part of that strategy, which seems to have worked with you, is to create the illusion that laws that ensure equality of rights for those who suffer discrimination are somehow laws that provide special privileges. That's simply wrong.

If you think that "simple human rights" accrue to people just because they are "respectful and contribute to society," I have to wonder whether you live on another planet. Seriously.

I am a very active member of the political action caucus in my U.S. state that has been fighting for the legal rights of trans people for a long time. I guess that makes me a member of a group of "demanding assholes." I'm proud to be one, then.

You don't appear to be a moderator but rather an opinionator. I am also involved with politics in my state. If you're beating your chest to garner browny points with possible dates from forum members, please do it without misinterpreting my viewpoints. When you asked about equal rights of my personal opinion you seem to have passed reading the word 'special '. By no means do I feel anyone should be denied equal rights. I also believe that police should not be granted the right to automatically have the death penality imposed on a police murderer while a 'common' citizen does not. But that doesn't make me anti law-enforcement. If we're digging deeper to expose my opinion on same sex marriage, I'm for equal rights and benefits under a 'civil union'. if semantics will make people get along respectfully, then go for it. As long as equality is in society I'm satisfied. As I said, when ANYONE asks for rights ABOVE what anyone else is privy to, you now claim superiorty. Is that clearer?

Originally Posted by new believer

You don't appear to be a moderator but rather an opinionator. I am also involved with politics in my state. If you're beating your chest to garner browny points with possible dates from forum members, please do it without misinterpreting my viewpoints. When you asked about equal rights of my personal opinion you seem to have passed reading the word 'special '. By no means do I feel anyone should be denied equal rights. I also believe that police should not be granted the right to automatically have the death penality imposed on a police murderer while a 'common' citizen does not. But that doesn't make me anti law-enforcement. If we're digging deeper to expose my opinion on same sex marriage, I'm for equal rights and benefits under a 'civil union'. if semantics will make people get along respectfully, then go for it. As long as equality is in society I'm satisfied. As I said, when ANYONE asks for rights ABOVE what anyone else is privy to, you now claim superiorty. Is that clearer?

Not to be a naysayer or demean your opinions, but could you clue me into any laws that the LGBTQ community has demanded? Cause all I hear about is for equal rights, nothing about how our community should have more rights than normal citations.

[smc]

Originally Posted by new believer

You don't appear to be a moderator but rather an opinionator. I am also involved with politics in my state. If you're beating your chest to garner browny points with possible dates from forum members, please do it without misinterpreting my viewpoints. When you asked about equal rights of my personal opinion you seem to have passed reading the word 'special '. By no means do I feel anyone should be denied equal rights. I also believe that police should not be granted the right to automatically have the death penality imposed on a police murderer while a 'common' citizen does not. But that doesn't make me anti law-enforcement. If we're digging deeper to expose my opinion on same sex marriage, I'm for equal rights and benefits under a 'civil union'. if semantics will make people get along respectfully, then go for it. As long as equality is in society I'm satisfied. As I said, when ANYONE asks for rights ABOVE what anyone else is privy to, you now claim superiorty. Is that clearer?

The asinine remark about getting dates, which is insulting and for which you should apologize, has nothing to do with what I wrote.

As for your explanation, it is good that you have clarified. However, I would simply point out that in your earlier post you used the word "special" and clearly implied that anti-discriminatory laws provide "special" treatment. That is the classic argument of all those who oppose such laws, just as it is the classic argument against affirmative action. Therefore, as a response to that post, I stand by what I wrote.

Now, I think it behooves you to explain why heterosexuals should be given the "special" treatment, by law, of being allowed to marry, but others should not. Your support for civil unions reeks of hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by smc

That is the classic argument of all those who oppose such laws, just as it is the classic argument against affirmative action. Therefore, as a response to that post, I stand by what I wrote.

Well to be fair, affirmative action is a bit lauded. Only in the respect that if a white person, as long as they aren't trans (:/), and a person of color (be them black, Hispanic, or other wise) who has the same qualifications gets the just because of affirmative actions. Even if said person of color isn't as friendly as the white person.

Though that's just my understanding of that law, and I'm not that informed on that law either, so I could be wrong.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ThirdEyeGirl

Well to be fair, affirmative action is a bit lauded. Only in the respect that if a white person, as long as they aren't trans (:/), and a person of color (be them black, Hispanic, or other wise) who has the same qualifications gets the just because of affirmative actions. Even if said person of color isn't as friendly as the white person.

Though that's just my understanding of that law, and I'm not that informed on that law either, so I could be wrong.

I don't think we need to get into a discussion of affirmative action; there has been a recent one elsewhere. My point was simply to note how the "special" argument is used by those who would deny rights to minorities.

Originally Posted by smc

I don't think we need to get into a discussion of affirmative action; there has been a recent one elsewhere. My point was simply to note how the "special" argument is used by those who would deny rights to minorities.

No we don't. My only reason for responding about that particular law, is because I can see how bureaucrats can mess things up. But hey, it's better than letting discrimination continue.

[franalexes]

There appears to be something missing? No, maybe not.

[ila]

Originally Posted by LibertyHarkness

because us transsexuals take all the supposed straight men away from them mwuyahahahaha

Given a choice between you and some guy, you're going to win every time, Liberty. Who could ever resist a beautiful woman like you.