Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Men At Work!

A funny thing has happened in the laughable fight between the Radical Feminists/Lesbians and the transfeminists/translesbians or am I supposed to use lesbians. If the individual has had SRS I do believe feminist and lesbian are appropriate and as far as I am personally concerned, I am neither a true feminist nor lesbian, it would be nice if other feminists and lesbians accepted my sisters as equals but life just does not work that way sometimes. Nobody ever said things would be fair after SRS. The only hope was it completed us although in some cases that is and was not the case.

Those of us that were born transsexual and fixed things are quite aware of the issues our future sex partners may or may not have with us. Unfortunately the may side seems to win out but there are a few may not partners that do actually get it. The real nastiness has come about as certain "trans" activists and their nimrod minions have attempted to push natal women into accepting them and their dicks as female and women. The really bizarre part about this is I never read or hear of these trans activists demanding straight men "must" accept someone with a penis as a woman and willingly accept them as a sex partner.

In many ways the difficulty that lesbian women must have accepting a woman with a penis is kind of similar to what straight men feel about women. The truth is they want you to have a vagina and I am sorry to say they really do not want you pushing your "trans" attitudes onto them. The real question is why do the "trans" push so hard with lesbians for acceptance and rarely if ever express that view with men?

The answer is rather obvious but we are supposed to ignore the obvious in this case just because these "trans" self described lesbians and feminists demand we must because it is transphobic not to. The reality is all together quite different as are the reasoning. Men know they cannot push other men around with their "trans" bullshit so they are smart enough not to try. They circumvent these issues by trying to protect themselves with laws and ordinances that protect themselves from the wrath of their fellow men and claim it is really also for those of us born transsexual. The truth is inadvertently they help some transsexuals but it was never the intent.

The other really personal reason for many of these trans activists is the simple fact they are still heterosexual men and a dick on a sex partner kind of creeps them out which is kind of odd considering they are demanding women who kind of do not want a dick in their life accept theirs as a clitoris or whatever. It flies in the face of reason but men kind of lose track of reason and common sense, f they ever had any, when it comes to their future perceived sexual pleasures. The fact they consider their dicks their pleasure palace does not seem to register with them as odd considering women, including lesbians, do not have dicks. To solve that problem they needed to redefine what female and a woman is and sadly they have succeeded in a few places. Sadly for them nothing they can do will ever make most lesbians accept them as women.

This of course makes these lesbians transphobic and the term cis is dragged out and attached to all sorts of words to imply that somehow these poor "trans" people are disadvantaged and discriminated against.  If they had any decency they would supply us with hip boots so we could wade through the knee deep bullshit but to them it is their reality. They actually begin to believe this bullshit and some actually write books collect essays extolling the nasty things these feminist women and lesbian women have done to these poor "trans" people.

The sad part is some of them actually do have SRS but still support the patriarchy they were a large part of before SRS. They are incapable of understanding that forcing men on women claiming they are as female and as much f a woman as them is arguably the ultimate in patriarchy and misogynist behavior. What is more demeaning than implying and enforcing the long held male believe that women are inferior than by telling a woman that a man and his penis are just as female and just as complete a woman as they are?

I had someone tell me well "you said you were a woman" before you had SRS. Actually I always knew I was a girl a felt I was a girl but once I knew I was transsexual I knew I was a pre-operative transsexual and I knew in my soul and my heart that until I had SRS I was less than what I knew I was and what I needed to be. I have never know anyone born transsexual that thought otherwise. It is why we are obsessively driven to obtain SRS. We need to be complete or actually as complete as we can ever be.

The irony is if most had SRS and quietly slipped into the lesbian culture they would probably be accepted by some lesbians but it is not a guarantee, as I said before. The radical feminist lesbians tried to kill a friend of mine who was a valued member of the lesbian community in Britain when some asshole outed her as having been born transsexual. They tried multiple times to hurt her physically which is a rather male behavior pattern.

These same "trans" activists never broach the subject of we heterosexual girls and the problems we face with heterosexual men. You will never read of them demanding that heterosexual men accept a transwoman with a functioning dick as a sex partner because to most men that is kind of a line drawn in the sand. Most men are kind of "dick averse" when it comes to sex.

I want to make myself clear here. I have absolutely no problem with men that are attracted to sex partners that are half male and half female or "she-male" as they are so inappropriately called in the porn industry. As long as it is mutually consensual be my guest and go for it but do me a favor and do not try and bullshit me about what it is. At best the man is bisexual but more likely is a gay man that just cannot admit it. Neither of these is evil or immoral in my humble opinion but neither are they straight men.

I have heard some strange comments over the years and this is one girl here that lived in NYC during her transition and I know who and what these men are so please either supply me with hip boots or stop the bullshit because it truly does stink. I have mentioned Monica Roberts (MW) before and the comments MW has made about having a 7 inch neoclit and how the boyfriends MW has enjoy that 7 inch neoclit. I understand this is Monica's life and if keeping a dick and servicing or being service by men makes MW happy then that is good but please do not ever again claim they are straight men because they are NOT.

I read something that made me actually laugh out loud this morning. Everyone probably knows who Helen Boyd is and her books about her crossdressing or transvestite husband who is now "trans" because it is more "inclusive. She had a post called Love and Shame- Having a Thing for Trans Women which contained the following short paragraph.

Liking fellatio – and he’s unclear if he’s interested in a trans woman blowing him or blowing a woman who still has a penis – doesn’t make someone gay.
Sorry but if you are a man and give a blowjob to someone with a penis and are not getting paid for it then the odds are really high you are gay or bisexual but you are certainly not straight. Sorry Helen but that might even stretch credulity in Gender Studies at Lawrence but then I should never underestimate the ability of some intellectual elitists to rationalize much of anything.

The comment is in regards to someone called Mister Cee who I gather is or was a DJ in NYC and had a thing for men in dresses which was conveniently changed to "transsexuals" to confer the concept he like trannies.  One would not want poor Mister Cee to admit he just liked men in dresses as a certain YouTube video proves. The sad part is right there you see the attempts the mantra of "trans female" which is total bullshit but of course Mister Cee loves "natal women" and dates natal women so he is somehow straight or deceives himself into believing he bis straight.

Janet Mock wrote a post called How Society Shames Men who date transwomen and it is a pretty good but Janet does what all activists do and unites those of us that have had SRS and those who have not plus calling us all "transwomen" which is to be fucking blunt, insulting. It implies we are all similar and somehow something different or less than a woman. Most of what she has written is quite on point including the part about her boyfriend Aaron.

The problem I see with Janet's post is she is incapable or unwilling to admit that not all "transwomen" are women and that is a simple fact. It is not a guess nor is it a fabrication or transphobic to say that. The incidents Janet talks about were incidents where celebrities solicited prostitutes that they knew were she-males or trans. They were not looking for someone like Janet or me or others like us. They were looking for a "woman with a dick" for whatever reason. I have personally never looked at these incidents as derogatory to my existence because of my situation but I do agree with Janet it harms children born transsexual and others are damaged in different ways. Janet and I may differ in our beliefs on terminology and who is really a woman but because a man likes his girl a little different does not make him either a bad man or less of a man but neither does it make him a straight man but that is his issue. Having sex with a man, dressed as a woman with a functional dick, does mot make you a women either.

One part of her post did hit home and it was the part about her boyfriend Aaron and besides some things I will discuss shortly the interesting thing is I could find nowhere where Janet demanded that men accept her "transwomen" as they are otherwise it is somehow transphobic. Men really have us all conditioned not to question them about basically everything. I even feel reticent to question certain men's sexuality when I know what I am writing is true and Janet is the same. Despite what she has written she is in fact defending men whether she sees it that way or not. It always devolves into a defense of their position and whether they are straight or whatever and even Janet falls into that trap. After all they are "really" dating women which is a total lie because they were certainly not "looking" for a woman when they went looking for a tranny hooker but then we are conditioned aren't we?

Her boyfriend Aaron knows her only as a girl and an object of his desire. That is how straight men can love us and as Janet says it is rare but it happens. How and when she told him is unknown to me but I have been in relationships where they knew beforehand and when they had no clue. You will notice Janet says it is difficult to find an Aaron but never calls out men to be me more open and accepting or demanding it like others do of lesbians. It is simply because Janet comes at it from the viewpoint of a girl and a young woman and not like the others mentioned above. A woman knows you cannot push a man into many things unless it is a transvestite into a new dress. Nudging gently works best or making him think it his idea, whether he realizes it or not. As for her boyfriend Aaron it must have been an interesting talk when she decided to come out. I could never have put anyone through that but maybe I am just different although my second husband said he would stand by me if it ever became public so maybe chivalry is not dead.

Janet is also claiming that somehow these "transwomen" are being demeaned just because they are "trans" and a man is dating them. Well, I think she has kind of a point but does anyone honestly believe these transwomen did not "know" what they were doing? In almost all these cases the women were on the "game" as some Brits might say or for we Americans hookers and prostitutes. Just how does that denigrate transsexuals other than pointing out some may or may not make a living doing just that. Somehow this perpetrates the philosophy that trans women are somehow shameful and not someone that men should be seen with. I think Janet should be blaming the trans women and not the media because what they are doing is kind of illegal and it is titillating to everyone when some celebrity is taken down a peg or two. Is it somewhat negative? Yes, but only in the activists mind is it a catastrophe.

Look at the post again and see how fast it devolved into a defense of tranny chasers and their ilk because whether Mister Cee, LL Cool J,  or Eddie Murphy like it that was what they were at the moment in their lives. Nothing to be ashamed of but it always devolves into, "I thought she was real", which is humorous and in a way complimentary to the trans woman although in most cases an eye exam might be called for.

Why is it that straight men are never called out and all the privileges we are accused of having never seem to include the male privileges they had as men before they transitioned.? In my mind it is rather simple. Janet Mock and even me have been conditioned to not put men in a bad position bit that is because we are women. Most of these penis packing trans activists have a different reason and it is testosterone based. They are men and they protect each other and lets face it women are easier to pick on.

So when you read all this lunacy from certain trans activists remember the simple truth. It is just men at work pretending to be women and regardless of what they say and do they will always be men. After all only a man or a fool could possibly believe a woman and a female can have a functioning penis. Unfortunately there seems to a lot more fools arriving daily. Oh well I guess it is just stupid men at work.




5 comments:

Anonymous said...

“The answer is rather obvious but we are supposed to ignore the obvious in this case just because these "trans" self described lesbians and feminists demand we must because it is transphobic not to.”
Thank you for this piece. I would like to comment on your thought which I have quoted because in my view it is central to the issue discussed. If I have a cleft palate and am disfigured in some way then immediate physical attraction to and by the opposite or same sex is different than the for those who are not marred with such a birth defect. The reason is individual, personal and while marginally impacted by societal beauty ideals, it is an interaction that occurs between two people. It is the result of a very individual personal medial history of one of individual and another who may or may not be attracted to the person with a birth defect. The same is true for us I believe. In essence love will occur between two people, as will attraction and in this sense there is no societal or political interest in the love btween the two. As Trudeau once famously said: The nation has no place in the bedrooms of it’s citizens.
When you look at the notion that the rejection of “trans” hetero or gay by hetero or gay population is a form of transphobia, then the premise is that attraction and love can be regulated by social mandates to protect the disadvantaged. In fact brought to it’s natural conclusion it mandates that society regulate who we are to be attracted to and who we are to love. This is of course completely bizarre and conjures up a world of the handmaidens of Margaret Atwood. In essence the concept of transphobia has been invented to socially regulate societal behavior towards persons of a certain ilk.
If you look at the community of women with a transsexual medical history (the term being used loosely to describe those that were born with birth defect and had it fixed there are few if not none who complain about their personal lives even if sometimes on behalf of the TGs about being ignored or rejected by heterosexual or gay persons because they have this history. I think they are women and men who live a life like any other bound by the same rules of love and attraction as anyone else. We are all looking for the one be it hetero or gay or lesbian depending on our sexual orientation.
I have always held the belief that gender variance is a distress caused by social rejection of needing to deviate from the gender binary norm ( be it fetishistic or not). The cause of the TG is to force society to accept those that fall outside that norm. However, love and affection do not follow any norm societal or otherwise. This is why trans-lesbianism and transphobia are, you guessed it trans-misogyny, attempting to impose “who thou shalt love” on unsuspecting women and men.

Kathryn

Anonymous said...

It really is just this simple. "It is just men at work pretending to be women and regardless of what they say and do they will always be men. After all only a man or a fool could possibly believe a woman and a female can have a functioning penis."

As a heterosexual woman, I am sexually attracted to men. That is the definition of hetero sexual.

Hetero means other/different than. Homo means the same as, as in homogeneous. or homosexual, IE: attracted to the same sex.

Notice that there is no mention of gender, as in homo-genderous(?)

Theren lies the fraud and conflation. Sex does not equal gender. Trans-woman does not equal woman.

@Kathryn. Good point.

Just Jennifer said...

To be honest, a lot of "trans women" live in a state of denial, where they convince themselves that the men who are obsessed with them really are "straight." Yeah, some guy who only dates pre-op transsexuals, or non-op transgender "women" and who tells the pre-ops that they shouldn't have surgery is "really" straight. Uh huh...sure, whatever you say....

When I arrived in San Francisco almost eleven years ago, I was pretty naive. My therapist sort of pushed me to get involved with Craigslist, and not wanting to wind up like Gwen Araujo, I was upfront about my history at first. I learned some things really fast, (like what guys meant when they asked if I was "functional") and I found myself saying, more than once, "What part of. 'I am a woman,' do you not understand?" I finally decided I was not likely to do much dating until I was post-op.

I wound up doing outreach for a few years, and I heard a lot of stuff from the people I worked with. A lot of that has influenced my opinions.

Anonymous said...

Right or wrong? Rejecting labels cis/trans here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DHeyward#Cis

Anonymous said...

I believe part of the confusion in labeling someone as gay or straight is caused by lumping sexual display/response with sexual acts. They are not always consistent.

An biologist once explained to me animals have display/response behavior and a separate set of sexual act, mounting/mounted behavior. It is likely humans have a similar sex display/sex act duality. If a male is aroused by a female sexual display but also is aroused by male sexual expression, a she-male or "non-op" is an optimal choice. The converse is maybe less common but also exists. The are males and females who are aroused by someone who looks like a masculine fellow but functions sexually as a female.

When display/act arousals don't match, it's easy to see how the question of gay/straight can be confusing.

That said, I dislike being objectified for all shapes and flavors of objectified.

- an old aunty