Why are Trans-people part of LGBTQ, when they are clearly Anti-Gay?
The Trans-culture, at its core, holds that people are simply born with the wrong genitalia, and that condition can be “corrected” with a scalpel and hormones. Instead of “pray the gay away” they offer to “flay the gay away.” Stay with me here. How many times has a heterosexual man transgendered into a Lesbian woman? I’ll bet zero. How many times has a heterosexual female transgendered into a gay man? I’ll also bet zero.
Imagine an effeminate little boy, happy, healthy. He likes to wear an apron and cook in the kitchen with Mommy rather than work on a bike or car in the garage with Daddy. He likes dolls and fancy clothes, and doesn’t like sports. None of this “makes” him gay, of course, he just might ed up with a top rated cooking show. If everyone left him the Hell alone, he might grow up to become a happy and healthy and fully functioning gay man. Enter Trans-culture. They insist that he was actually born a little girl with a boy’s genitalia. They argue that children like him should be encouraged to “identify” as a little girl, as young as 3 years old, and when he is old enough, through hormones and surgery, he can be transgendered into a woman…… a heterosexual woman, not a lesbian.
Same thing with a biological female who is attracted to other biological females. They persist that she is actually a heterosexual male in a woman’s body.
You see there is no room for gays and lesbians at the Trans-culture table. Everyone is heterosexual, and they are willing to cut on you to prove it.
Now to add insult to injury: the Gay and Lesbian community profess, and rightly so, that being homosexual isn’t a lifestyle choice, it’s just the way you’re born. And yet, Trans-culture’s dogma is that you’re not. You are defective, and can be “fixed.”
So, as I opened, why are Trans-people included in the LGBTQ group, when by their own philosophy, there are no homosexuals?
Thoughts, comments, anyone?
15 replies on “Trans-culture is Anti-Gay.”
In a conversation with a colleague on this matter recently he let drop that a friend of his worked for an insurance company that covered a group of clinics here in the UK that have been providing gender hormone therapy, including for minors. The insurers were DESPERATELY trying to unload the business on another company before the lawsuites start coming in.
Fun fact. The Islamic Republic of Iran, which has executed thousands of gay men since the Revolution, is a world leader in “gender reassignment” surgery and is totaly cool with trans.
Not what you might expect of the bearded stormtroopers of Sharia, but there is a weird logic to it. They see it as a way of “curing” gay men. The Q’uran condemns homosexuality, but is silent on surgery to change a man into a simulacrum of a woman or vice versa. Yet another example of things that simply weren’t “a thing” in 7th century Arabia this “perfect” book that covers all aspects of life is totaly silent on.
One other thing I did not include in my original post, because at the time I felt it encroached upon another subject, is this idea of more than two genders. All the screeching about “non-binary” and yet, all the surgeries seem to be exclusively Male->Female, or conversely, Female->Male. Or at the least I have been unable to find even one instance of anyone being transgendered into, say, a Hermaphrodite. No one is lined up to be transgendered into the sex with two penises or the one with three vaginas. I saw, at the DNC early in the day and not covered by the MSM, a self-professed Mermaid King-Queen, But I cannot find a medical definition of what THAT would be. A fish tail with scales? Gills? Fins? I feel that if you do not possess an unique characteristic, then you can’t just “invent” a species and brow beat everyone to use it. If you claim to be a homo-amphibian, I’m gonna need to see some webbed feet at the least. Otherwise, you’re still either a man or woman. Natural born hermaphrodites are, of course, exempted.
I think the reason that T got tacked on was that initially there were not enough of them to matter, but as the ratchet got moved more and more and grievance culture drove everyone farther and farther down the spectrum, the small number was magnified by all the “allies” and “people who care” that it became a cause of its own.
All of the T that were lifted by this movement (somewhat like mountains pushed up by tectonic plates) then had the power go to their heads and started making demands. There have been (more lesbian than gay) people denounced by the T group for trying to stand up for their own.
The “trans” ideology is not just anti-gay. It’s anti-woman, and it’s anti-man. It’s anti-soul. It’s anti-human. It claims that your sexuality is all in your head, and to prove it all you have to do is mutilate or remove your sex organs. It claims that gender and sex are the same, and then acknowledges that they are different. It claims that sex isn’t binary, and then attempts (as you point out) to force people who think they don’t fit into a binary system to choose the opposite of the one they were born with. There is no part of this ideology which is not self-contradictory and self-defeating.
Which is why it’s a perfect illustration of the inevitable result of unfettered leftist, nihilistic, narcissistic, post-modernist thinking.
And I forgot to mention, the body rejects the surgery, a little known “thing.” The biological body recognizes the surgery as a wound, unnatural, and therefore Trans-people must have “routine maintenance” to prevent the wounds from closing, naturally. Full disclosure: I came upon this information from a plastic surgeon, sitting at the bar in a Buffalo Wild Wings. He didn’t divulge this information flippantly. But after approximately 11 beers, and two dozen hot wings, and a spirited political debate, he opened up about it. According to this source, anecdotal though it is, he performs surgeries like this and also does the “routine maintenance” to keep his handiwork looking convincing. Nevertheless, the biological male body knows, on a molecular level, that something is amiss, and tries to heal itself. Same for biological females.
If someone truly wants to do all this, let Freedom ring. But I kind of have a problem with meddling with the decisions/choices of others. Leave people the Hell alone. No influence peddling. And for God’s Sake leave the kids alone. Let them just be children for the time being. They can decide what they want when they are grown.
Little boys and girls are never old enough for hormone therapy or surgery. They need to wait until they are adults (18? 21?) to make the decision for themselves. Any parents or judges advocating for hormone therapy or surgery for people under 18 belong in jail.
Michael, I agree. In our society you are considered to immature to buy cigarettes, alcohol, and a plethora of other things until you are over, at least 18, and 21 for most everything else. You pay higher insurance rates under 25. And several car rental places won’t let anyone under 21 rent a car, no matter the circumstances. You cannot vote until 18, or enlist in the military, but somehow the whole Trans thing is okay? Men competing in girl’s sports, pre-op? Nope. I think that is wrong, unfair, and needs its own league. Shouldn’t be a problem, since allegedly there are so many trans-girls wanting to compete.
I wouldn’t even qualify it with “pre-op”. Pre-op or post-op transsexuals should compete only with other transsexuals. I don’t care whether they split it further, I will not be watching in any case.
My daughter was on the high school track team, shotput, hammer throw, and discus. She was fortunate enough to be able to compete against biological females in her sports. After she graduated, that changed. Sad.
“Now to add insult to injury: the Gay and Lesbian community profess, and rightly so, that being homosexual isn’t a lifestyle choice, it’s just the way you’re born.”
Just out of curiosity, how do you know it is “rightly so”? Asking for a lot of scientists.
I noticed that too and was considering commenting on it when I saw what you posted. You’re right, I agree with you. So here’s my two cents.
Kevin Noel has a good premise with the idea that trans people don’t see themselves as gay, they see themselves as mis-gendered through a mistake of nature. Kevin makes a lot of iffy suppositions and assumptions in support of that but in that point basically he gets it right. However …
Trans people don’t see themselves as gay, but mostly they are no matter what label they adopt to obfuscate that fact. In a world of billions of people anything can and does happen but largely if a female transgenders herself to a male role, she’s still more amorously interested in females than males. Same for man who ‘becomes’ female, he likes being “one of the girls” but his amorous attentions are still largely directed towards other men. (This is where we got the song “Lola” by The Kinks, btw.) Like I said, this isn’t a hard and fast immutable rule but it works just fine as a rule of thumb. Because any heterosexual, male or female, is very unlikely to accept a same-sex transgendered person as though that person were genuinely of the opposite sex by chromosomal determination.
I know I wouldn’t. A guy can’t put on a dress, makeup and lipstick then expect me to see and react to him as a girl no matter how well the masquerade is perpetrated. He’s still a he no matter what the paint job says and there’s no getting past that fact for me. This is where a lot of the discord in the whole social phenomena arises. Because a gay man dresses up as a woman and wants straight hetero men to treat him like a her all the way to and out of the bedroom. I don’t think that human beings are EVER going to get THAT “progressive”.
Kevin got it right about trans people not seeing themselves as gay but his supporting arguments are a little unrefined and presumptive. I was going to let that go because not everyone is a master at explaining themselves even when they have the right idea. Sometimes it’s just not that easy to come up with the right words, analogies and examples to get a point across. I’m willing to listen to his larger point without trying to parse everything he posits to support that point.
I get it, that’s generally good enough for me and I try not to pounce on ancillary inaccuracies because I hate it when people do that to me too.
That said, I don’t subscribe to the hard and fast rule that being gay is a conscious lifestyle choice OR that people are “just born that way”. I know of cases where, say, a woman is a lesbian and her sister is hetero but both suffered the most egregious sorts of abuse as young children at the hands of a stepfather. A man who should have been put to death for what he did, in my not so humble opinion.
Why did one turn out “straight” and the other turn out gay? I don’t know, but I know them both well enough to be certain that the one who is gay didn’t wake up one morning and say “Gee, I think I’d like to be a lesbian for the rest of my life.” I think that her homosexuality was a coping mechanism that got ingrained at a very young age in reaction to a kind of horror that you and I cannot even viscerally grasp …
So I’m willing to forgive and overlook that and try to see the real person underneath. Some might find that condescending and I don’t care. We’ve discussed this and neither does she care nor think it’s condescending. She’s not interested in other people being outraged for her and I commend and admire her for that. I don’t approve of homosexuality and she knows that but she also knows that I’m willing to look past that because there’s much about her that I do very much approve of. We get along just fine and neither of us has to hide any of our own convictions.
But I don’t think she was born that way and I don’t think she consciously chose to be homosexual by her own volition either.
Well, it was my first ever post on this forum, and I’m more accustomed to having people not listen, not even attempt to understand, and just shout me down as a hate-monger, and a homophobe, and worse.
I did not intend to imply only two possible conclusions for homosexuality, and you offer a good example, to differentiate Nature vs. Nurture. Environment can be a reason. Thank you for putting it better than I did.
As for those who believe they are “passable?” The Adam’s Apple usually gives it away, no matter how expensive the shave down surgery was. I always go to a line in the animated series Archer, where Sterling is on the phone trying to procure a hooker for a dinner date, and as comedic one-sided phone conversations usually go, Archer says something to the effect, “No, she’s not ‘passable.’ She looks like she swallowed a G****mn Rubik’s Cube.” It’s offensive, I’m sure, but funny. The first time I heard it, I shot Diet Dr. Pepper out of my nose. #painful
Also I’m not begrudging anyone their desires. If you want to strap a kiddie pool across your back, spray paint yourself green from head to toe, and identify as Donatello… fine. Still doesn’t make you a Ninja Turtle. Even if you have three trans friends named Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael. But Cosplay to your heart’s content and be happy. I just draw the line at encouraging/pressuring children to pick YOUR path. Would it kill anyone to just let kids be kids? They can make a choice when they are adults, or make no choice at all and just be themselves, whatever form that might take. But at least THEN, it will be THEIR choice, and I can live with that.
Again thank you for your insights.
In case no one else has done so yet allow me to welcome you to the forum and to Bill Whittle’s Enterprise. If someone else has already done so then please add my welcome to theirs.
I’ve only been here going on two months myself. There’s a lot of decent folks here though you still get a little taste now and then of the kind of snark you’d see elsewhere on the internet … But not very much at all. I constantly have to check my fire to be sure I’m not hitting friendlies.
I still comment on other sites and I too am accustomed to being attacked without supporting argument, so I know what that’s like. Be that as it may, I’m fully capable of giving as good as I get and I do exactly that. If someone is decent and respectful they can count on reciprocation from me, whether here or “in the wild”. If not, I enjoy a good fight and I can be very combative. In this forum there is far more of the former than the latter.
Thus I sometimes find myself asking “Is there another way to read what that person said to me that is not the offensive snark I first took it to be?” Usually the answer to that is “yes” and I proceed from there. When the answer is “no” I’ve noticed that Scott Ott, or whoever helps monitor and moderate the forum, will “disappear” my comment arbitrarily applying whatever standard he/they use but which is unknown to me.
This I do not appreciate so much because I say what I mean and I mean what I say the way I say it. My words are carefully chosen whether amicable or acerbic. Mostly civility and respect are in order but when nasty is called for then nasty it is. I do not initiate hostilities though I’m more than happy to respond in kind. Scott Ott et.al.don’t see things the way I see them but as they own the site there’s nothing to be done for that. If they don’t like something for some reason it vanishes into cyberspace, so consider yourself advised thereby.
A couple of tips … It takes two carriage returns (hit “Enter” twice) to space a paragraph, the HTML controls under the comment box are very helpful for emphasis and other editing and though most comments are brief because their context is appropriate to brevity I have not yet had some smarty-pants tell me “TL;DR” when I take the time to write out thoughts in more detail.
Again, welcome to the forum and I look forward to seeing what you have to say on the topics we discuss.
I just figure that people are wired the way they are wired. I like a particular type of woman, and a lot of women are excluded. I make no apologies for it. It’s just the way I am wired. I used to use a pie analogy, but that also pissed a lot of people off.
Let’s say your favorite pie is blueberry. You’d pick it every time over cherry, over lemon, over chocolate, etc. Then along comes someone insisting that you pick the coconut creme pie. You politely say no, but they fly into a tizzy because you’re shallow, prejudiced, chauvinistic, etc because you won’t pick the coconut creme pie. Look, it’s just not my thing. “How do you know you won’t like it until you try it?” Probably for the same reason I don’t unscrew the bulb from a lamp, insert my penis, and then flick the switch on and off. Some things just don’t appeal to you, and you don’t have to actually try it to be sure. Dating certain types of women (like a BMI over 29) is one of them, and any “woman” with an Adam’s Apple is definitely one of them. I apologize, that devolved into an entirely different topic.
I like what I like, and I do not know why. I suppose I was born that way. I have never looked at another man and been aroused. I was born that way. Even a biological female that has a raspy, low voice is a turn-off. Hirsute women don’t do it for me. I was just born that way, and figured other people are too. That’s all I’m saying, poorly as I did.