Why do gays often hate Transgendered or Intersexed people?

[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.

[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.