Super straight on tiktok

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
950
205
48
This discussion is stupid. It just comes down to the use of the word heterosexuality.

1) Men attracted to cis-women and and transmen -> heterosexual or not ?
2) Women attracted to cis-men and and transwomen -> heterosexual or not ?
3) Men attracted to cis-women and and transwomen -> heterosexual or not ?
4) Women attracted to cis-men and and transmen -> heterosexual or not ?

Obviously that is a question of terminology and thus has no "real" answer as long as different definitions move around. Classically when deciding which is the corect use of language you either take the majority use or list all option in your dictionary and call it a day.

However, people claiming that 2 and 4 are heterosexual and the same time style the opinion of 1 and 3 describing heterosexuality as an hetero prejudice are probably quite thoroughly deluded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
2,198
1,450
118
Country
USA
a) I didn't say all social constructs are simple.
Your words:

If it's a social construct, it's really not complex at all.
If social construct, then not complex at all and thus simple. If that wasn't what you wanted to say, then you should correct yourself instead of digging deeper.

but the question "what is money" certainly isn't, money is unit of agreed upon value that's exchanged for goods or service.
It's a bit more complex than that, especially in the digital age. Money is no longer a commodity, but the medium through which trade is facilitated. Most of it is just 1's and 0's at this point. That's far more abstract and merits way more discussion than you seem to think. Shit, look up the history of paper money some time and try to tell me that transition wasn't complex as fuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,739
615
118
Country
USA
Your words:
Are a lot longer than what you quoted, the answer to your questions are already there, you're not gonna "got ya!" me.
It's a bit more complex than that, especially in the digital age. Money is no longer a commodity, but the medium through which trade is facilitated. Most of it is just 1's and 0's at this point. That's far more abstract and merits way more discussion than you seem to think. Shit, look up the history of paper money some time and try to tell me that transition wasn't complex as fuck.
"1's and 0's" can still constitute a unit, which is the term I used. I did not say commodity.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
2,198
1,450
118
Country
USA
Are a lot longer than what you quoted, the answer to your questions are already there, you're not gonna "got ya!" me.
That wasn't a gotcha, that was pointing out that your sentence was incorrect.

"1's and 0's" can still constitute a unit, which is the term I used. I did not say commodity.
Unit of what? Value? That's pretty fucking abstract too. Value is relative, so how do we assign monetary costs to things? And no, you didn't say commodity, but historically money was based on commodities. The most common form of cash historically was the cowrie shell. Money often took the form of commodities with an agreed upon base level value until the late 20th century when we finally got off the Gold Standard. In fact, the transition to paper money was predicated on the idea that money is not a commodity so much as a medium.

Understand that social constructs are by nature far more complex than the surface-level descriptions you've so far provided.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,295
1,918
118
Country
United Kingdom
This discussion is stupid. It just comes down to the use of the word heterosexuality.

1) Men attracted to cis-women and and transmen -> heterosexual or not ?
2) Women attracted to cis-men and and transwomen -> heterosexual or not ?
3) Men attracted to cis-women and and transwomen -> heterosexual or not ?
4) Women attracted to cis-men and and transmen -> heterosexual or not ?

Obviously that is a question of terminology and thus has no "real" answer as long as different definitions move around. Classically when deciding which is the corect use of language you either take the majority use or list all option in your dictionary and call it a day.

However, people claiming that 2 and 4 are heterosexual and the same time style the opinion of 1 and 3 describing heterosexuality as an hetero prejudice are probably quite thoroughly deluded.
I can't help but think this wouldn't really matter if a lot of people weren't so instinctively defensive about being considered exclusively heterosexual.
 

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
1,822
591
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
You could try finding some trans or gender non-conforming individuals and ask them what they think. The expectation of course being that you would actually listen instead of snark at them.

This might come as a surprise to you but trans individuals do not own gender identities. Everyone has an equal right to define it, and a lot of us agree about something which is why it is normalized. You can make room for kindness towards deviation from the norm within this structure so as to be a civilized society, but to pretend we all didn't agree about something just because your minority clique has a different consensus is just the height of arrogance.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,739
615
118
Country
USA
Understand that social constructs are by nature far more complex than the surface-level descriptions you've so far provided.
So if I asked you "what is money", you wouldn't be able to give me a surface level answer?
I can't help but think this wouldn't really matter if a lot of people weren't so instinctively defensive about being considered exclusively heterosexual.
You are among a lot of people in this thread that are dangerously close to the truths that I am definitely not allowed to say.
 

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,201
1,007
118
Country
Sweden
So if I asked you "what is money", you wouldn't be able to give me a surface level answer?
I get that you are all locked up in the "what is money" thing since you desperately need to prove that you didn't use a bad example, but it is a terrible comparison to gender identity and giving a "surface level answer" to "what is gender identity?" is incredibly unsatisfactory in a way that answering what money is isn't. Because sexual identity is at a crossroads where at least a handful of complex academic fields meet and even if you can nail down exactly what those fields are, you then need to determine how they influence one another. It is part biology, part psychology, part culture, part social influence and part ideology and that is really the point of what I wrote, no? That gender identity, if one really wants to understand it, is far harder then simply making some glib remark about how Eliot Page is A MAN NOW and thus are stealing women's roles. Or trying to compare it to money which is similar only in that it also is a concept invented by humans (though one should note that gender identity is probably less invented and more an integral part of the human psyche that takes culturally appropriate forms, unlike money which is an invention to facilitate inter-human contact).
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
2,198
1,450
118
Country
USA
This might come as a surprise to you but trans individuals do not own gender identities. Everyone has an equal right to define it,
You absolutely do not have a right to dictate the terms of other people's existence to them. They know who they are better than you do.

So if I asked you "what is money", you wouldn't be able to give me a surface level answer?
I already told you in the broadest possible sense that money is the medium through which trade is facilitated, which in itself is an over-simplification that glosses over a significant chunk of economic theory. For the sake of correcting you however, it's good enough.

I get that you haven't put a lot of thought into this, not many do. Social constructs are such intrinsic parts of our society that it's very easy to take them for granted. We even have a specialized profession to think about it for us. But that doesn't mean half-assed, thoughtless answers are just as good as educated ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
1,822
591
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
Not everybody has a right to define what someone else's gender identity is, either, though that seems to be what you're trying to do.
But aren't people really just saying "if I were to behave as X I'd feel like I was Y" in these comments? And aren't the things mentioned above such as people not wanting to be perceived as not this or that way being negative going against what you're suggesting here?


I don't think people care how some random person perceives their conduct, what the issue is has more to do with its official designation and what it is to be comprehended as. People are still free to reject that comprehension but that's not really what is being addressed here.

You absolutely do not have a right to dictate the terms of other people's existence to them. They know who they are better than you do.
No, if someone's existence is all about serial murder, we do most definitely get to dictate their existence to them. So the real issue here is where is the line and upon what principles we are to base that this other thing is beyond reproach.

Any such principle of granting people freedom to do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't harm anyone else directly by definition will also allow people who are against redefining their terms and definitions to persists in their argument on that same basis. That principle doesn't cease applying when it's someone else utilizing it, and redefining things as harm to get around this is transparent and not gonna work.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,295
1,918
118
Country
United Kingdom
But aren't people really just saying "if I were to behave as X I'd feel like I was Y" in these comments?
No.

And aren't the things mentioned above such as people not wanting to be perceived as not this or that way being negative going against what you're suggesting here?
I can't really parse this.

I don't think people care how some random person perceives their conduct, what the issue is has more to do with its official designation and what it is to be comprehended as. People are still free to reject that comprehension but that's not really what is being addressed here.
If that random person makes a point of contradicting their express wishes, then that's understandably going to come across as irritating and rude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
1,822
591
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
I can't really parse this.
There was a comment above about people having an issue with disliking being perceived as not heterosexual and that being a negative thing or something along those lines, when all we're hearing here is how terrible it is that people who are trans aren't being perceived as the gender they identify with.



If that random person makes a point of contradicting their express wishes, then that's understandably going to come across as irritating and rude.
Riiiight...but I was actually referring to the person who has this normal definition here that is being contradicted by people claiming they were retroactively the other gender and that such a thing as a "female penis" exists and what have you. I left it purposefully vague so that you can in your own words describe what people who are forced to change their definitions are feeling, it's irritating and rude indeed.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,739
615
118
Country
USA
I get that you are all locked up in the "what is money" thing since you desperately need to prove that you didn't use a bad example, but it is a terrible comparison to gender identity and giving a "surface level answer" to "what is gender identity?" is incredibly unsatisfactory in a way that answering what money is isn't. Because sexual identity is at a crossroads where at least a handful of complex academic fields meet and even if you can nail down exactly what those fields are, you then need to determine how they influence one another. It is part biology, part psychology, part culture, part social influence and part ideology and that is really the point of what I wrote, no? That gender identity, if one really wants to understand it, is far harder then simply making some glib remark about how Eliot Page is A MAN NOW and thus are stealing women's roles. Or trying to compare it to money which is similar only in that it also is a concept invented by humans (though one should note that gender identity is probably less invented and more an integral part of the human psyche that takes culturally appropriate forms, unlike money which is an invention to facilitate inter-human contact).
You're accidentally agreeing with me again.

a) The money example was Seanchaidh. I didn't start that comparison, nor have I any personal stake in continuing it.
b) If it's part biology and part psychology, it's not a social construct, in which case the answer is much more complex, as you accurately describe. A social construct is something that only exists because people created it and agree it exists, so if there is a natural, biological foundation for gender, it's not a social construct. As I said, it's a simple answer if it's a social construct and complex if it isn't, a statement you've implicitly agreed with by contrasting your view of gender as less invented and more complex than money.
c) I haven't said a word about Elliot Page, that was Schadrach.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,448
2,256
118
Country
United States
Riiiight...but I was actually referring to the person who has this normal definition here that is being contradicted by people claiming they were retroactively the other gender and that such a thing as a "female penis" exists and what have you. I left it purposefully vague so that you can in your own words describe what people who are forced to change their definitions are feeling, it's irritating and rude indeed.
"How dare somebody else be a gender I don't think they are, rude"
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
11,056
3,716
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
No, if someone's existence is all about serial murder, we do most definitely get to dictate their existence to them. So the real issue here is where is the line and upon what principles we are to base that this other thing is beyond reproach.

Dude, would just stop. You are way off base and could not be more wrong.

 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,295
1,918
118
Country
United Kingdom
There was a comment above about people having an issue with disliking being perceived as not heterosexual and that being a negative thing or something along those lines, when all we're hearing here is how terrible it is that people who are trans aren't being perceived as the gender they identify with.
Nobody is having a problem with people just perceiving them as something. People make mistakes, and we all unavoidably make assumptions based on appearances.

The problem arises once you know how they identify, if you then continue to insist that your own opinion on their gender is more important than theirs.

Riiiight...but I was actually referring to the person who has this normal definition here that is being contradicted by people claiming they were retroactively the other gender and that such a thing as a "female penis" exists and what have you. I left it purposefully vague so that you can in your own words describe what people who are forced to change their definitions are feeling, it's irritating and rude indeed.
People are "forced to change their definitions" if their definitions aren't useful or accurate in a given situation. Learning things isn't rude.