Categories
chad thundercock homophobia lesbians don't real men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny reddit

Bad news, lesbians: You aren’t real, according to some dudes on the internet

That’s what you think, lady!

By David Futrelle

Lesbians around the world face a deep existential crisis today as it has been revealed that they do not, in fact, exist. At least according to some dudes on the internet. Specifically, some dudes on the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, long a hotbed of Lesbian Denial.

In a recent discussion, a commenter by the name of NathanHollister explained that so-called “lesbians” are just straight women who can’t find quality men.

Lesbianism is not real. It’s just women who are sick and tired of unmasculine, wussy, spineless soyboy men. They will magically turn straight for a real sexy, charming man.

Basically, women who cannot find a top 20% man become lesbians. Women who can find a top 20% man but also are kinky sluts become “bi”, but mainly because they know a threesome with another girl would turn their man on.

Other commenters agreed with the “can’t get a man” theory.

“Lesbians only exist because Chad said ‘no’ and didn’t give them attention,” declared edgysecularist.

Still others feel that lesbianism is more about the hatred of men than the lack of them. According to bbhuntt:

Any ‘lesbian’ Is really a straight person who doesn’t like men and is willing to have intercourse with women rather than not have intercourse. …

Being a lesbian is the ultimate move of feminist and nothing more. It’s all a giant game

Sir_manalot suggested that it was also about status, as no one apparently has more status than women today.

[W]omen just fuck whoever they believe is highest on the social chain. Right now, women are being given a bunch of unearned power and so lesbianism is in.

Fortunately for men — or at least for the cis men who make up the overwhelming majority of MGTOWs — they have one great advantage over all these fake lesbians. And it can be found in their pants.

“You have a dick and they don’t,” wrote rejac218.

They will never know what a woman’s pussy really feels like from balls deep. You should laugh right at them.

But of course as MGTOWs they don’t spend any time at all fantasizing about said pussies. Nope! As SprinterLyfe reminded his fellow Own-Way-Goers:

Pussy is all women have to offer. By placing little or no value on pussy, we regain control of ourselves, finding legitimate freedom from feminized cultures bent on enslavement and domination of men by women.

And there’s no greater proof of the freedom these men have from women than their tendency to discuss these completely unimportant-to-them women angrily on the internet all day every day while talking about how cool their dicks are. That’s what male freedom looks like!

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

242 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cat Mara
Cat Mara
9 months ago

Slightly OT but related to the site generally: there is a podcast called “Behind the Bastards” which takes a look at shitty people throughout history. They have an episode in their archives I just listened to about “Ragnar Redbeard”, the (pseudonymous) author of “Might is Right“, which was namedropped by the scumbag behind the Gilroy Garlic Festival mass shooting last summer and has been the inspiration for other assorted MRA/ RW shitgoblins over the years. It’s a grim listen despite the presenters’ attempts to keep it light-hearted, as much as for how much of this guy’s life and thoughts match up so perfectly with modern manospherian thought: it could have been written yesterday instead of a century ago.

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-ragnar-redbeard-the-patron-50418883/

Kevin
Kevin
9 months ago

Sorry for late comment:

In Beetlejuice, don’t the ghosts usually carry the marks of how they died? I was under the impression from his appearance that Beetlejuice himself had died from industrial – grade dissipation (loosely speaking, partying too hard.)

Lainy
Lainy
9 months ago

@Kevin

I looked it up and on the fandom wiki it says that he died from hanging himself after the woman he loved left him. They say the because he was a former civil servant in the after life which is what happens to people that took their own lives in the Beetlejuice world.

Snowberry
Snowberry
9 months ago

(Not really @ Katamount, but general commentary)

If the only exposure they have to lesbians is the male-gaze-centred adult material around the web, it just reinforces the idea that lesbian attraction is merely for the gratification of men.

They’re off by one letter. My ‘lesbian attraction’ isn’t for the gratification of men; it’s for the gratification of me.

(I know, not a lesbian, but I couldn’t resist the joke. Also given that a lot of dudebro types seem to lump all non-straight women together under under the label of “lesbian”, I’d think that I’d mostly qualify anyway.)

I’ve noted that the mainstream porn industry basically splits things into four genres:
Straight – At least one cis woman, any number of cis men which aren’t involved with each other (“lesbian” is a sub-genre of “straight”).
Gay – Cis men only.
Bisexual – At least one cis woman, at least two cis men, the men are involved with both sexes. I haven’t seen any with F/F side scenes, so I’m not sure if that exists. In cases where there are only three recognized categories, this is inconsistently lumped with either “gay” or “straight”.
Sh***** (Starred out in case it hits a filter): At least one transwoman.
I’ve never seen or heard of anything involving trans men or openly nonbinary people in mainstream porn; that’s purely the domain of niche indie porn.

So clearly, the labels are primarily from the point of view of a male audience. This already subtly alienates a lot of women. Of course this is hardly an original observation; people have mentioned things along those lines since the ’80s at least, and probably longer.

I’ve also noted that an awful lot of mainstream porn is, at least from my perspective, not merely unsexy but irritating. For most of my life I simply wrote it off as “porn isn’t really my thing” without really exploring why. It wasn’t until a few years ago when I checked out the big aggregator sites like Pornhub that I figured it out.

For a lot of M/F porn, it comes off as a woman masturbating with a dildo attached to a mannequin and not even enjoying it all that much despite apparently achieving orgasm. (A bit exaggerated, but hopefully you get what I mean.) For a lot of F/F porn, it’s like they’re not all that into each other, and distracted by what they really want to do, which is hump the camera.

…Which honestly might actually be the case, given that a lot of F/F scenes are done by straight actresses; I watched one recently where one woman really seemed to be into it but the other was like “um, yeah, I’d rather be somewhere else, I guess I should look lovingly at the camera or something even though I kind of suck at that too?”

(If it matters, M/M and trans porn can go the equivalent of either way. Bisexual porn and the rare “Playgirl” style straight porn tends to be like regular straight porn, except it’s the man who’s unenjoyably masturbating on a mannequin.)

I figured out that what I really want to see is two or more people who are genuinely into each other. I want to emphasize with the connection they have, even if that connection is that of a casual encounter gone really well and not a real relationship. I want to emphasize with their enjoyment of the experience, something that I can’t do if they’re constantly distracted from each other or mindlessly humping someone who is little more than an object. (For all the complaints that straight porn can be dehumanizing to women, from my perspective, the dehumanization of men is even worse.) If I can’t do those things, then porn does less than nothing and I’d be better off using my own imagination.

I can’t speak for other women; for all the sex-positivity conversations I’ve had, it’s never come up except in passing, and even then, only rarely. But I can’t help but think that a lot more women and even some men would be more accepting of porn (and porn itself would subtly change) if there was some way of sorting out the emotional connection approach from the mindlessly physical approach in the easy-to-find stuff. It also might result in fewer people having toxic attitudes about sex, if more teenagers have their early experiences with the former rather than the latter. (I know, they probably shouldn’t be seeing it at all, but I first watched porn when I was 14 and there wasn’t even an internet. Some of them are going to, regardless.)

Naglfar
Naglfar
9 months ago

@Snowberry

I’ve never seen or heard of anything involving trans men or openly nonbinary people in mainstream porn; that’s purely the domain of niche indie porn.

The only trans* man in mainstream porn that I can think of is Buck Angel, who seems to have appeared in mostly gay scenes. He’s truscum, though, so do not support him. As for non-binary people, the only non-binary or genderqueer person in anything close to mainstream that comes to mind is Jiz Lee.
I’m assuming there are so few of those groups because the presumed cishet male viewer isn’t interested.

Regarding the dehumanization of men, here’s something I saw a while ago. The current porn industry definitely has some issues, though to me it seems like more of those impact women than men.

epitome of incomprehensibility

I’ll have to tell the lesbians I know that they aren’t real. They’ll be so disappointed.

Oh, they’ve included bi women too. Lovely! Let’s see how I fit:

Women who can find a top 20% man

Not sure. I have a boyfriend now, but I haven’t ranked him numerically on arbitrary parameters. Strangely, my concern was more “someone who gets along with me and whom I get along with.”

but also are kinky sluts become “bi”, but mainly because they know a threesome with another girl would turn their man on.

Puh-leese. I am not only too shy for a threesome, I’m also WAY too uncoordinated.

@Crip Dyke – About more serious matters, thanks for your advice last week and sorry I didn’t answer then. I didn’t end up writing directly to the person whose brother died but I passed along a more general message.

epitome of incomprehensibility

No! The mammoth ate the second quote (i.e., I messed it up). It was supposed to be like:

but also are kinky sluts become “bi”, but mainly because they know a threesome with another girl would turn their man on.

Anyway!

Cyborgette
Cyborgette
9 months ago

Ah, lesbian erasure, that oldest and most boring of heterosexist hot takes.

“But but but they need us! They can’t possibly not need us! How can they feel whole and safe without big aggressive males protecting them and controlling their lives?”

Nope, we don’t need you. Your machismo is not useful to us. Fuck off.

Diptych
Diptych
9 months ago

Also given that a lot of dudebro types seem to lump all non-straight women together under under the label of “lesbian”, I’d think that I’d mostly qualify anyway.

I’m not an expert, but I was under the impression that “lesbian” was, for a long time, the go-to term for all WLW in queer communities around the world? Plus, well, I gather the historical data is somewhat vague, but I was also under the impression that Sappho herself had some male lovers as well. The classification hasn’t always been clear and strict, unless I’m dramatically misinformed.

Naglfar
Naglfar
9 months ago

@Diptych

I was also under the impression that Sappho herself had some male lovers as well.

I think I read the same thing. And IIRC the term lesbian originally described bisexual women as well, it was the political lesbians who argued for it to be a more specific term.

ETA: There’s apparently debate among historians over whether Sappho was a lesbian at all:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sappho#Sexuality

Snowberry
Snowberry
9 months ago

@Naglfar:
I’ve heard of Buck Angel, but wasn’t aware he was considered mainstream. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that Cracked article before. It seems familiar, at any rate.

@Diptych:

I was under the impression that “lesbian” was, for a long time, the go-to term for all WLW in queer communities around the world?

Yes, but before my time, and I’m in my 40s. I didn’t see any useful reason to bring that up. Also, asexual women aren’t generally WLW, yet I’ve seen them get tossed in the “lesbian” pile as well. Of course, that’s not entirely consistent, but you know, they’ve only got two categories.

@Myself:

I want to emphasize with their enjoyment

It’s much easier to empathize if the porn emphasizes it. Typo or slip? Unsure.

Prith kDar
Prith kDar
9 months ago

@ Snowberry:

I figured out that what I really want to see is two or more people who are genuinely into each other. I want to emphasize with the connection they have, even if that connection is that of a casual encounter gone really well and not a real relationship.

If you’re not averse to anime or M/M scenes, there’s a hentai called Sensitive Pornograph that totally fits this. It’s two short vignettes, the first about two manga artists in love who are utterly besotted with each other (mild angst from a brief miscommunication, but they’re still cute).

The second is possibly a bit problematic, but has a happy ending. A petsitter comes to an apt to take care of a rabbit and instead finds a naked man bound and cuffed in the closet – the sub of an abusive Dom (no onscreen violence) who enjoys such unethical games. Of course the sub seduces the petsitter into sex, but once they get down to it, they go at it with singular focus, in nearly total silence. What I dislike most about porn (incl. hentai) is the always fake-sounding vocalizations to show they’re “enjoying” it, so this was really a breath of fresh air to me. They’re just very much in the moment and the pleasure and nothing else exists but the two of them.

Anyway, tmi, but I thought I’d suggest it.

Naglfar
Naglfar
9 months ago

@Snowberry

I’ve heard of Buck Angel, but wasn’t aware he was considered mainstream.

He might not be considered mainstream, he was just the only trans* masc porn actor I have heard of. Sorry if I was incorrect.

Snowberry
Snowberry
9 months ago

@Prith kDar:
Yep, I’ll totally go for fujoshi stuff too, if it’s done right. I’ll put it down on my list of things to check out, along with Naglfar’s mention of Jiz Lee above.

(My first exposure to hentai was La Blue Girl. That one was so WTF that I was too weirded out to really be horrified, offended, or turned on. For those who haven’t heard of it, from what I remember it started out with ninja combat using sex magic and ended with incestuous demon rape.)

Crip Dyke
9 months ago

Let me just say that just because some people say that Buck Angel is truscum doesn’t mean that Buck Angel is truscum.

It is possible to articulate that having discomfort with one’s body is different from having discomfort with integrating one’s notion of oneself with social aspects of gender. There are reasons we have both the word transsexual and the word transgender, and it’s important to be able to describe all the different ways people experience transness.

From what I’ve seen, what Buck Angel said that others took to be the statement of a truscum is that he’s transsexual not transgender. He’s never said (that I know of) and he’s never even been alleged to have said (again, TIKO) that being transsexual is better than being transgender.

Ironically, if you’re not allowed to talk about how your experience of your own transness differs from how other people experience transness, that is also setting up a single, one right way to be trans. And, of course, that is the problem with the real truscum.

If I say that I have dysphoria as a result of my relationship with my body and that that is best described with the word transsexual and not with the word transgender, that’s not at all the same thing as truscum who say that if you don’t experience body dysphoria you’re not really trans.

In one case you’re talking about your own experience, and it’s okay to be the authority on your own experience. In the other you’re gatekeeping other persons’ access to trans community and social legitimacy, and that’s straight fucked up.

Unless you are prepared to quote someone doing the latter, I’d be extremely wary of labeling someone truscum.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
9 months ago

Mainstream porn is formatted to alway be the same, and society have the expectation that all cis men should find that specific format enjoyable, as other have exposed already. Trying to find porn that is different and well done is A – extremely hard and time consuming, B – expose you to nastiness you prefer to never have seen ever and C – probably won’t find what you seek anyway.

The main thing to remember is that they are not even made to please only cis men : they are not made to please anyone but to follow a formula and hope for the best. There’s barely any alternative anyway, and thoses alternatives quite often skirt into the illegal (see: people that exchange photos without attribution and that seem to be taken without consents for a relatively “tame” example).

I know the rule goes that there is porn of everything, but the reality is that often, there seem to not exist or be vanishingly hard to find.

occasional reader
occasional reader
9 months ago

> Ooglyboggles
I hope you’ll find a job which suit you fine, then ! Let us know if you are successfull in this regard, if it is not too personal to say.

Crip Dyke
9 months ago

Search for “feminist porn” (with quotes, so you don’t just get feminists talking about porn) and then choose search options for videos rather than all pages.

If you do that, you’ll consistently get pretty different stuff than you would otherwise. If you add in search terms, like [“feminist porn” threesome] or whatever floats your boat you can get to something that has a very different point of view than you might otherwise find.

Despite the name, “Chicks Out West” AKA “Girls Out West” is a company that is pretty good at producing things that does sex+context rather than “sex with no plot or context” or “all plot for twenty minutes and then three minutes of sex at the end”. They’ve won awards for their quality and have vids with (apparently) cis women only, vids with AFAB trans folks, and vids with (apparently) cis guys. I think they also have AMAB folks in some vids (they’ve certainly expressed interest in doing good AMAB-trans* inclusive porn during interviews), but I’ve never seen that.

While I prefer written sex scenes that I can read so I can more easily reimagine the scene as needed, I do watch video porn sometimes for other-than-academic-interest and I have watched COW/GOW porn as part of that.

What’s interesting is that when I do go looking for (video) porn, I usually find a company or site where the style is obviously different from mainstream and more to my tastes long before I find a specific video I want to watch. Basically you find good people, then you search through their catalog once you know the company/performer to include in your search. Whether you browse through their videos or do a new search within that catalog, either way finding the right creators is a much better first step to get you what you’re looking for than finding the right plot/ scene/ fetishes/ behaviors.

In fact, what I thought I might want to watch changes pretty drastically once I come across a good, feminist company with delightful performers. Watching people (appear to) truly enjoy themselves is much more erotic to me than specifying exactly what positions and acts will be in a scene with people who are either going through the motions or using their enthusiasm to say, “Fuck Yeah! More Sex! Harder, Harder!” a whole bunch. Yelling a lot or being extreme for the sake of being extreme doesn’t really tell me if you’re having a good time and really wanting to be there.

In short: look for good humans and not for good porn. If there are good humans involved, good porn will follow.

Snowberry
Snowberry
9 months ago

@Crip Dyke:

Sigh. Why did I not know that? I should have somehow heard about that sort of thing by now. Thank you. That helps a lot, really. Gives me a place to start from, at least.

Kevin
Kevin
9 months ago

@ Lainy

Thanks for the heads – up, can’t believe i never picked up on his resemblance to Ixtab.

Naglfar
Naglfar
9 months ago

@Crip Dyke

Unless you are prepared to quote someone doing the latter, I’d be extremely wary of labeling someone truscum.

Some quotes:
He seems to think only binary people are valid.
He retweets some TERFs because they share a dislike of non-binary people.
Declares non-binary people don’t deserve transition.
Bonds with Graham Linehan and defends him

There’s more out there, this is just what I found now. He’s made it clear that he opposes non-binary people and seems to desire to gatekeep, so I’m going to go with “truscum” to describe him. I am in no way accusing all transsexuals of being truscum or anything like that, I am merely calling one specific person out.

Allandrel
Allandrel
9 months ago

Definitely in agreement about issues with mainstream porn, especially how it presents men. The idea makes sense – porn is a fantasy, so the presumed straight male viewer projects himself into the male performer, so they don’t want the male talent to have any of that pesky “identity.”

I remember an interview where a performer (Lee Stone, I think?) was like “Why I you talking to me? I am a headless thrusting torso.” (“Behind-the-scenes videos, incidentally, are an easy reminder of how many claims by SWERF liars like Gail Dines are complete BS.)

And like Naglfar, when I tried to think of mainstream performers that are not cis or are nonbinary, I came up with Jiz Lee and that’s it.

There are decent scenes, where the performers clearly like each other and are enjoying themselves, but yeah, you do have to search. You’d think more people would tag videos with things like “laughter.”

Naglfar
Naglfar
9 months ago

@Allandrel

the presumed straight male viewer projects himself into the male performer, so they don’t want the male talent to have any of that pesky “identity.”

That would also explain the popularity of POV scenes from the perspective of the man, as that seems like it would be easy to project oneself into.

You’d think more people would tag videos with things like “laughter.”

One would think so. It seems like something a lot of people would like to see.

Universal Kami
Universal Kami
9 months ago

@Crip Dyke

I really appreciate you, so can you not?

Buck Angel has said so many untrue things it’s astounding that anybody but a transmedicalist would still care about what he says.

He’s one if those “if you don’t have the checklist problems you’re not trans*” ways of thinking.

He’s trying to gatekeep our community.

I don’t have the quote anymore, but iirc he has said you can’t be trans* without dysphoria.

He frequently attacks other trans* folk and takes the sides of known TERFS.

Transmeds ARE truscum.

He’s also very misogynistic in some ways if I recall.

@Nagflar

Thank you.

He’s a very problematic person.

Crip Dyke
9 months ago

@Naglfar:

There may indeed be gatekeeping/truscum quotes out there said by Buck Angel, but I keep seeing your first link used as evidence and that has made me skeptical of everything else.

Please read that first quote again:

A #transsexual is different than a #transgender person. I am transsexual. I had a #sexchange. I live in the binary and use testosterone and surgery to masculinize my body. I am male not #trans. Thats the difference😉❤️

There is literally nothing in there that invalidates anyone else’s experience. He’s speaking entirely about his own experience and says that he doesn’t fit a certain category. He never once in this quote says anything at all about whether someone else fits into that same category. He never in this quote comments on anyone else’s “validity” or “transness” or access to medical care. He literally speaks only about himself.

Again, I’m not saying that he’s not truscum, but when people repeatedly use someone narrating their own experience as an example of trying to control others’ experience, I get highly skeptical of their ability to make good judgements about who constitutes truscum.

If we can’t be the authorities on our own lives, where does that end? How do you say that it’s bad that Buck Angel defines his own identity yet still argue for the right to define your own?

As for your other links, the Lily Maynard link is bad, but it doesn’t go to Buck Angel, just to Maynard. Do you have Angel’s tweet? Does he comment on Maynard’s statement? Is it critical? Is it cryptic? If he includes either no comment or a cryptic comment that could be interpreted in many different ways, I wouldn’t want to label Angel truscum on that basis either … especially since so many people seem to have made up their minds that he’s truscum based on that first quote which only narrates his own experience.

The third link is to a story about Angel, and it may very well be true, but I don’t get to read what Angel wrote or hear what Angel said.

Your fourth link is broken.

I am not hostile to the idea that Angel is truscum, but I am hostile to the idea that defining ourselves without mentioning other people is somehow truscum behavior. And the rest of the evidence that you’ve provided either doesn’t have any statements at all by Angel (the Maynard and broken links), or only has a story about Angel in someone else’s words.

And, honestly, I would consider that story about Angel to be enough except that no one ever seems to call Angel truscum without citing that first quote, and I disagree that that could possibly be evidence of truscum behavior.

It is in the context of this repeated misuse – misuse in my perception, I realize other people may judge it differently – of your first piece of evidence that I’m reluctant to accept only one story that contains no record of Angel’s exact words.

NB folks deserve all our support, but I’m simply not willing to call someone truscum without what I consider to be good evidence.

Transsexual people, too, face unique barriers. During the transsexual/transgender conflicts in the Nineties that led to the adoption of the term “trans*”, the entire reason we needed that unifying adjective was because non-transsexual transgender people were speaking over transsexual people and agreeing with TERFs that transsexual folk were self-mutilating and delusional while there was a strong and vocal minority among transsexual folk that pushed back by saying that transgender folk weren’t “really” trans.

I lived through those days and I know what people sounded like back then. Buck Angel sounds exactly like the people on the transsexual-but-not-transgender side who were ready to embrace the word “trans*” and wanted cross-community collaboration but still believed that it was important to believe that this was a meeting of different experiences and was very wary of people who don’t medically transition speaking over the voices of people who were medically transitioning or had already done so.

Those voices were conciliatory, trying to build mutually supportive communities, but also cautious because they had been hurt and pissed because people with no experience with medical transition were going on Oprah and whatever the fuck and not just talking about what there experiences were but also bad mouthing people who medically transition as not liberated, not feminist, and ultimately responsible for the gender oppression of others.

Angel says, “I’m binary”. I’ve never heard him say, “And everyone else is binary too, whether they believe it or not.”

Truscum means something. Although I blame cis* folks for creating truscum – if doctors hadn’t required trans* people wanting medical transition to parrot a hard-line, “there is one true way to be trans” ideology to get medical care, then even the ones stupid enough to believe that wouldn’t necessarily have been invested in pushing it. And when they did, other people would be free to push back with no risk of harm.

But when Angel transitioned, the gatekeepers were fucking fierce. And it was ***hard as fuck*** to get medical insurance to pay for anything. You had to tell people that this was literally, absolutely necessary. You had to say you had no complicated feelings at all. You usually (though not always) had to flat out lie to get your care. So when some friend or acquaintance of yours started acting like a truscum asshole, you had to think twice about whether you wanted to speak up in defense of transgender and NB folks.

These dynamics through the 80s kept the “true transsexual” ideology alive, but as an integrated community – transgender and transsexual – we fought back against those clinic policies and those fucked up clinic dynamics.

And we won. The Margaret O’Hartigans of the world were forced to the margins instead of intimidating the fuck out of trans people – transsexual, transgender, nb, binary, what have you – who didn’t support their gender-rigid scheme.

But people from that time who aren’t O’Hartigan still exist. And, apparently, a number of them still use language from that time. Angel says, “I’m binary”. Okay. We said that back then. But you know what? It wasn’t against NB people. It was only because we acknowledged NB people existed that it would ever occur to us to say that some of us were binary. Saying “I’m binary” is that acknowledgement that NB people exists. You have to have more than that to make the case that someone is anti-NB.

And, again, I’m perfectly open to evidence. That Maynard person is horrible. It makes me uncomfortable just to hear that Angel retweeted Maynard, but after so many people are saying that just describing yourself as binary is an attack on NB folks, I’m not actually going to condemn Angel until I see more evidence.

I mean, when someone says, “I’m not trans,” is that an attack on trans* people? Couldn’t that just be someone being very careful not to appropriate someone else’s experience? Like saying, “Hey, I can’t speak to what it means to be trans*, because I’m not trans*.” Couldn’t Angel be saying, “Hey, I am not interested in people mistaking me for belonging to X community, because my own experience is y”?

All Angel’s subsequent clarifications seem to indicate he was going for that latter. And if you even read the reply thread to that initial comment, the replies that actually happened at the time before Angel could possibly have known that people would think this was evidence he was truscum, what do you find?

i see things like this (replying to a suspended account, so I can’t see the statement that motivated this one of Angel’s replies):

Hi friend. You are not policing me if you are having dialogue😉no it does not make me #trans as I live as a male not trans. I live binary. My transition and history is transsexual but I do not identify as trans like many in the community do. I transitioned to become and live male

He’s using a happy, friendly, generous tone throughout. He doesn’t attack others.

one person says,

Then stop profiting out of being trans then. Your right to identify is yours, but you don’t get to cash in on it when it suits you. Freedom of choice isn’t the same as freedom from accountability

to which Angel replies:

What? Cashing in on what? My own journey. Helping to create a lot if change. How is that a bad thing. Rethink what you just said.

Although lots of people describe Angel as trans, my understanding (and I could EASILY be wrong, so just drop me a quote if I am) is that he bills himself in porn as “the man with a vagina”. Not “the trans* man”.

So… yeah. I hope you don’t feel attacked, Naglfar. I’m not opposed to you, personally, but you said,

He seems to think only binary people are valid.

while quoting as evidence Angel only talking about his own experience, identity, and journey.

As someone whose ID and experience and journey has been repeatedly questioned, as someone who has had people tell them over and over that my life and my gender don’t make sense, I get pretty sensitive when someone says that a person describing their own gender is an attack on someone else, or even just evidence that the person describing their own gender is thinking that other people’s genders are invalid.

If we really accept that, then no work for social change is possible, because as soon as you talk about your gender, you’re saying mine is invalid, and same with every other person across the globe.

If you don’t want to listen to Angel talk about his gender and his experience, that’s fine. But to say that talking about ourselves is attacking others reminds me a hell of a lot of the bullshit that kept me in the closet past the age of 20.

Crip Dyke
9 months ago

I didn’t read down far enough in that reply thread, so I didn’t find these two quotes from the reply thread beneath the main quote until after I’d finished my last comment. But these two quotes are incredibly important:

Cody Severson:

I accept how you identify and respect that. Please don’t try to erase someone else’s identify because their self discovery journey is different than yours.

Buck Angel:

Actually mine is the one being erased. I never said transgender is not valid. Ever! But transgender people say transsexual is. So how about you not erase mine and we will be just fine.

So yeah, even in the moment he was absolutely 100% crystal clear that he wasn’t attacking other identities or attempting to argue that they were invalid. And as a bonus, he even called out the dynamic where people were saying he couldn’t even describe himself without others saying that he was attacking them, and therefore he was left without an ability to describe himself: that does erase identity.

For the 1500th time, Angel could have done any number of bad, bad, wrong things. And I’m open to that evidence. But quoting this thread isn’t evidence of Angel attacking other people. It’s evidence of other people attacking Angel for having the temerity to describe his own life.

Crip Dyke
9 months ago

@Universal Kami:

I don’t follow Angel. I’m not a fan of Angel. I’m not wanting to defend Angel.

But I sure as fuck defend the right of anyone, including Angel, to describe their own journey.

I personally haven’t seen the things you’ve seen because I don’t read Angel and I’m not on twitter (at all, ever). I’m not defending any of the things you’ve seen him do, except this one very specific thing.

And I’m just not sure how people who believe in our right to be authorities on our own lives could possibly criticize Angel for telling his own story.

Naglfar
Naglfar
9 months ago

@Crip Dyke
I respect you as a person, and I know that you are much more experienced than I. I’m younger and didn’t live through many of the things you lived through. However, a few things:

If we can’t be the authorities on our own lives, where does that end? How do you say that it’s bad that Buck Angel defines his own identity yet still argue for the right to define your own?

My problem with his quote is that he implies that one cannot be a certain identity without physically transitioning. Some people can’t afford to transition, others can’t for social reasons or health reasons. This kind of reasoning invalidates those people.

the Lily Maynard link is bad, but it doesn’t go to Buck Angel, just to Maynard. Do you have Angel’s tweet? Does he comment on Maynard’s statement? Is it critical? Is it cryptic? If he includes either no comment or a cryptic comment that could be interpreted in many different ways, I wouldn’t want to label Angel truscum on that basis either

He retweeted it without comment. It’s on his feed. I’m not sure how to link in a way that shows that, but in general retweeting without comment implies agreement.

Your fourth link is broken.

Oops. Does this link work?

I get pretty sensitive when someone says that a person describing their own gender is an attack on someone else, or even just evidence that the person describing their own gender is thinking that other people’s genders are invalid.

I do not have a problem with people describing their own genders. I have a problem when someone starts describing there as being only one true way to be a gender (e.g. when he says “I had a #sexchange. I live in the binary and use testosterone and surgery to masculinize my body. I am male not #trans”).

I didn’t live through the time you describe, and I recognize that what was considered progressive in the 1990s may not be so today. This could be one of those things, that what he says may not have carried the same connotations then compared to now.

We can disagree on this and I will still respect you as a person and your right to an opinion, but I still think Buck Angel is bigoted against non-binary people based on what I have seen and is a transmedicalist, so I will not be supporting him. I did not mean to start an argument, I mentioned this in passing to say why I wasn’t a fan.

Crip Dyke
9 months ago

He retweeted it without comment. It’s on his feed. I’m not sure how to link in a way that shows that, but in general retweeting without comment implies agreement.

I completely agree with this statement, and seeing that retweet would have been evidence to me that he was doing something very fucked up. I just have never ever used twitter so I don’t even know how to look things up. For now, I’ll take your word for it that the retweet exists.

My only reservation is that because people use that one quote describing his own experience as evidence that he’s gatekeeping for others, I feel like I want more conclusive evidence than a retweet without comment. I guess I’m feeling that if one tweet is misunderstood, then it’s possible to misunderstand another.

This doesn’t mean that I need better quality evidence, though. For me one retweet without comment is enough to give me serious pause, and three retweets without comment would more than blow past my reservations.

Of course, I’m not trying to say that your standards of evidence have to be the same as mine, and I’m not trying to say that you’re wrong to call Angel truscum, just that I feel that first tweet of his has been so misused it makes me extra cautious.

Does this link work?

Yes, it does. Having just read up on Linehan, I can say he’s clearly a nasty piece of cissexist work. I can also clearly say it was fucking awful of Angel to defend Linehan.

On the cumulative basis of the reddit personal story you linked before, your statement that Angel retweeted that horrible person, and the statement on RationalWiki that he made in defense of Linehan, that Angel is being fucked up as hell.

I still don’t know the exact brand of fucked up he is from those pieces of evidence, but people I know and respect say it’s the truscum brand of fucked up and at this point I’m happy to take your (and others’) word.

All that said, I would really like you to think through exactly what bothers you about that first piece of evidence you linked. I think in the context of the other fucked up shit Angel has done, you can read into that comment some sort of superiority or whatever, but that’s something you have to read into it … AND it’s directly contradicted by what he says later in that same thread. Again:

I do not have a problem with people describing their own genders. I have a problem when someone starts describing there as being only one true way to be a gender (e.g. when he says “I had a #sexchange. I live in the binary and use testosterone and surgery to masculinize my body. I am male not #trans”).

I also respect you and don’t want to have an argument. But please, please think about what you’re saying. There are literally zero words in that quote that say anything about anyone else’s gender. There are literally zero words about which way is the one true way to be a gender.

All he says is that he lives in the binary, not that people are supposed to live in the binary. I would strongly urge you to consider that if we can’t accurately describe our own experiences, we live in a fucked up world. I react so strongly to this because we literally have TERFs saying that trans* people can’t describe their own identities and experiences without being misogynists attacking women. If the TERFs are wrong when they say that, is it possible that we are wrong to say it in this case?

It’s possible for a really fucked up person to not be a demon who is thoroughly awful 24 hours a day. My very strong concern is that if we establish the precedent that statements describing your own experience are wrong because you were an asshat an hour before or an hour later, there’s no solid line anymore that says that it’s okay to describe your own experience.

When I came out as trans, my father disowned me. To my father and step-mother and at least 2 of my siblings, my description of my own life was construed as an attack on them. And hey, I’ve done bad things. I’d lied as a teenager. Like a lot. I never wanted to tell anyone where I’d been or what I’d been doing, even when what I was doing was perfectly fine. I just didn’t want anyone close. I didn’t trust anyone to be near me.

And so if they just said, “I’m not sure you’re telling the truth, so I’m not going to believe you until I see more evidence that this isn’t a phase,” I would have been hurt but I would have really, really understood. But they didn’t. They said that my mere description of my life was an attack on them, done to hurt them. And now I haven’t spoken to my father in more than 25 years and haven’t even so much as been in the same room with him since my sister’s wedding 20 years ago. Literally because I dared to tell him what was actually going on for me.

And, yes, TERFs are still attacking us to this day for this very reason: describing our own experiences.

Obviously Angel has done fucked up things, but I can’t tell you how much I really want us to rally around the idea that we get to be the experts on our own lives and we get to describe our own lives out loud …not just even, but especially when our lives are different from other persons’ lives.

I understand that people honestly feel pain reading that statement from Angel. I’m not saying that anyone deserves that pain. But I am saying that however painful it is, if we can’t say even a fucker like Angel gets to talk about his own life out loud, how can we possibly defend ourselves against the family who want to abandon us or the TERFs who want to strip away our rights and dignity and self-determination?

Rights aren’t rights unless even the fuckers get to have them.

You don’t owe me any response, but please think about what it means to say that Angel was wrong for describing himself – because that’s all he did, and even fuckers get to do that.

Crip Dyke
9 months ago

I didn’t live through the time you describe, and I recognize that what was considered progressive in the 1990s may not be so today. This could be one of those things, that what he says may not have carried the same connotations then compared to now.

BTW: I just want to say that I’m not trying to say that if something was progressive in the 90s it must be okay now.

If it’s fucked up now, it doesn’t matter that you lived in the 90s or that people would have accepted it then.

My concern was simply that it was possible that Angel was being misunderstood because he was expressing something that was actually fine, but using a dialect that was different and so people thought he was saying something else. My concern was based on that first piece of evidence and because other pieces didn’t have direct quotes from him (the RationalWiki piece did, but I hadn’t gotten your updated link when I was writing originally) the possibility that he was being misunderstood still seemed real to me.

I do not think that there’s any possibility that misunderstanding is at the root of this anymore, based on the RationalWiki link, but if Angel had been expressing something that was not fucked up, one of the ways that it could have seemed fucked up was if he were speaking a different (90s) dialect.

That was all that I was trying to say, that (at that time) I considered misunderstanding a possible explanation. I decidedly do not agree with the kind of thinking that says if something was considered progressive at one time, we must accept it now.

Also, even if something was “progressive” doesn’t mean it was right. Policing other people’s identities was as wrong then as it is today. Jim Crow wasn’t magically okay in 1950 just because slavery was worse and Jim Crow would therefore be “progress”.

I just think it’s important to put that out there.

Naglfar
Naglfar
9 months ago

@Crip Dyke

All that said, I would really like you to think through exactly what bothers you about that first piece of evidence you linked. I think in the context of the other fucked up shit Angel has done, you can read into that comment some sort of superiority or whatever, but that’s something you have to read into it

Fair enough, my other knowledge of Angel could be coloring my perspective here, so maybe that first tweet is fine and I’m seeing things that aren’t there. The important thing is, I think we can all agree based on the other evidence at hand that Angel is in the wrong and has some reprehensible views.

I really want us to rally around the idea that we get to be the experts on our own lives and we get to describe our own lives out loud …not just even, but especially when our lives are different from other persons’ lives.

I recognize this and I definitely agree that we should each be able to describe our own experiences and stories. And yes, I understand that that means that even the assholes should be allowed to self-identify.

I decidedly do not agree with the kind of thinking that says if something was considered progressive at one time, we must accept it now.

Nor do I. I know too many older liberals who would have been considered progressive at one point but are more reactionary now.

Diego Duarte
Diego Duarte
9 months ago

@Naglfar and Crip Dyke

Your responses on this topic are very illuminating. I’ve stood on the side concerning this issue, given that I hardly think I should be speaking over trans* people and their experiences regarding bigotry and discrimination.

That being said, I did watch Natalie Wynn’s video on the whole “Cancelling” controversy, over her using Buck Angel for a voice-over, but I do admit that, other than the well-documented harassment directed at her, I do not have sufficient elements to make a final judgement.

I do however feel that, as Naglfar mentioned, Buck Angel may be one of those people who led the way back in the nineties, but hasn’t moved forward since then and his views can totally be considered bigoted bigoted nowadays. Likewise, I understand Crip Dyke’s and Natalie’s take that he’s speaking from his own experience and using the terminology that was used at the time when he transitioned.

That being said I also do not deny the possibility he may be truscum, nor do I stand by his decision to lash out at critics by retweeing TERFs or the like.

Lastly, thanks for your takes on this issue, you do not need to keep on going if you’re not comfortable talking about this Naglfar.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
9 months ago

Hey-ho, here’s the reminder that Buck Angel outed Lana Wachowski.

Buck Angel, who was devastated by Strix’s sudden obsession with the director, sold stories to several tabloids accusing [Lana] Wachowski of stealing his wife and of being a crossdresser.

I think this was bad, even in the far away times of the 90s/aughts. Excuse me for not giving him the benefit of the doubt now.

(Source. Warning for description of BDSM practices.)

kupo
kupo
9 months ago

@Crip Dyke
I have no problem with you defending Buck Angel’s right to describe his own lived experience. That’s an admirable thing to do. But that’s not what you came into the discussion doing. You took issue with Naglfar making a statement and instead of asking for clarification/evidence you immediately defended Buck Angel’s character by asserting that just because some people call him truscum doesn’t make it so. You made an assumption that Naglfar had no evidence they had personally seen to demonstrate that Buck is truscum, only that they were repeating what they heard and started arguing from that assumption. That very much makes it look like you have already decided that Buck Angel is not truscum and that you’re taking it upon yourself to defend him. I get that it’s not what you intended, but that’s how it came across.

Crip Dyke
9 months ago

You made an assumption that Naglfar had no evidence they had personally seen to demonstrate that Buck is truscum, only that they were repeating what they heard and started arguing from that assumption.

This is simply not true. If I had made that assumption, I wouldn’t have been honestly looking for evidence, I would have been looking for a “gotcha” to prove that Naglfar fucked up. But I wasn’t looking for that, and I was looking for evidence.

Immediately after this, you say,

That very much makes it look like …

I really wish you had put this at the top. It may very well have looked like I had made that assumption, but I didn’t make that assumption and you’re not in my head, you’re not telepathic, and you can’t in fact know something that’s not true anyway.

Please don’t be the expert on what’s happening in someone else’s brain.

What’s actually true is that I have asked for the evidence multiple times in other places because I really, really do not want to support fucked up people in their fuckeduppedness. In every single case I have previously asked for evidence the ONLY evidence cited was that first tweet that Naglfar quoted.

If you sensed anything other than my openness to the evidence – which did exist, as proven by the fact that I actually considered the evidence – it was that I was desperately wishing that we were not here repeating the same mistakes as the fucking TERFs by saying that a statement of the form “I am not trans, I am male” is actually a statement, “You are not trans, your gender is invalid.”

Clearly Angel is supporting bigots, and clearly that makes him bigoted. But narrating your own story is not bigotry. I was desperate to hear some other evidence so that

1) I could know that we weren’t condemning people for describing their own experience, and
2) I could put my mind at rest that Angel really is a fucking bigot – which I have done.

It was driving me batty to hear people say he was truscum while putting forward that first tweet. Honestly, if from the very beginning people had presented no evidence at all other than their own says-so, I really, really wouldn’t have questioned it. I was in the very uncomfortable position that people were saying Angel was bigoted (which I agree is true, though I didn’t know that then) but using as evidence, as the only evidence, an argument identical to that of TERFs: that describing yourself is actually an attack on other people.

I will still be upset anytime anyone uses an argument based on that first tweet Naglfar linked, but because Naglfar took the time to show me other evidence, I no longer have to be in this batty, nerve-wracked place of wanting to support people condemning bigots, but not wanting to support the TERF tactic of saying that telling your own story and defining your own identity is an intolerable attack on others.

It really has been a horrible place to be, emotionally, not least because of the horrific harm that this argument has caused in my own life – might I remind you that I’ve lost my dad, my step-mom, and two sisters to this exact argument?

I was desperate, truly desperate, to understand exactly what was going on and to feel like I had sound footing for criticizing Angel. This is the fourth time I’ve asked people for the evidence. It’s the first time someone was as generous as Naglfar. I honestly owe Naglfar for giving me back a bit of sanity that I’ve been missing for days and days now.

About the rest:

That very much makes it look like you have already decided that Buck Angel is not truscum and that you’re taking it upon yourself to defend him. I get that it’s not what you intended, but that’s how it came across.

I came across badly, and I can own that.

I can easily see how this bit

Unless you are prepared to quote someone doing the latter, I’d be extremely wary of labeling someone truscum.

in particular came across as more hostile to Naglfar’s judgement than I meant it to be.

I apologize for this wording, Naglfar.

kupo
kupo
9 months ago

@Crip Dyke

I need to step away. You are being extremely aggressive at me for responding to your actual words instead of what you meant or thought you were communicating. I’m sorry, but I don’t see another way to interpret your first post other than what I summarized and I’m just not okay with how you’re being about this.

Naglfar
Naglfar
9 months ago

@Crip Dyke

I honestly owe Naglfar for giving me back a bit of sanity that I’ve been missing for days and days now.

You’re welcome. I’m sorry I cited the first tweet; I didn’t realize it would be so hurtful to you and I thank you for explaining to me.

in particular came across as more hostile to Naglfar’s judgement than I meant it to be.

I apologize for this wording, Naglfar.

It’s fine. I see why you have strong feelings, and I’m sorry you’ve experienced suffering.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
9 months ago

CripDyke, I read your initial reply to Naglfar the same way kupo did. This (pretty aggressive) reply is… A lot.

Remember, many of us either are on twitter, or have read the twitter stuff about Buck Angel. You literally just learned about Linehan! He’s been a shitheel since late 2016 (link goes to his wiki page). Hbomberguy did his DK stream last January, because the unholy alliance of Linehan and mumsnet got funding for Mermaids, a charity for trans youth in the UK, put on hold.

What I’m saying is that you’re coming at this without any of the background knowledge others have. Instead of asking for that, you said

Let me just say that just because some people say that Buck Angel is truscum doesn’t mean that Buck Angel is truscum.

Which implies that we all have only *read others* saying that he’s truscum, and that we should check if he’s actually truscum, because maybe we’ve been mislead by these mysterious ‘others’ that are never defined.

You also said

Please don’t be the expert on what’s happening in someone else’s brain.

I read this as kupo summarising what you said. You did state that just because many people said he was truscum, didn’t make him so. The phrase you used assumed that Naglfar didn’t have any primary sources to back themselves up.

That’s how it reads. It might not be what you intended, but that’s just how it reads.

After reading what the rest of us have read, you came to the conclusion that he was definitely doing something Not Good. Maybe you won’t label it ‘truscum’, but you could now see why we’d have an uncharitable reading of his tweets.

You are used to being the expert in situations. In this one, you are not.

(also he outed Lana Wachowski, so everything I judge him on comes from that. TO TABLOIDS, he outed her.)

Moon Custafer
Moon Custafer
9 months ago

Snowberry:

figured out that what I really want to see is two or more people who are genuinely into each other. I want to emphasize with the connection they have, even if that connection is that of a casual encounter gone really well and not a real relationship.

Fanfic is often good for that, if you’re ok with mostly text rather than mostly visual (I always figure being written rather than visual is part of the reason fic tends to delve more into the characters’ reasons for finding each other attractive than mainstream porn does— of course there’s also that it tends to start with characters who canonically have some kind of emotional connection, and then take it further..)

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
9 months ago

File under “women did half the work, men got all the credit”: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-forgotten-life-of-einsteins-first-wife/

@Beyond Ocean:

I wouldn’t call the fact that you have to wait for the site to finish rendering after switching back to it “breaking major functionality”

Not being able to do something else while a slow task completes in the background, leaving the user to just stare at the screen while some progress meter crawls, is tantamount to turning back the clock all the way to circa 1990, when we were all still using MS-DOS. I’d call that pretty major.

Also: do you have some kind of inside knowledge? You’re speaking in an authoritative manner about what was initially proposed as an hypothesis, rather than a definite fact.

Jesalin, Goddess of Lust & Pleasure
Jesalin, Goddess of Lust & Pleasure
9 months ago

Fuck this noise, I’m going to have to step away too, I’m dealing with enough already to handle people defending truscum (and yeah, that includes Contra).

@Naglfar
I don’t see anything you need to apologize for.

@Rhuu and kupo
I love that you never let truscum-y garbage or transphobia slide by quietly. The moreso because I rarely have the spoons to engage hurtful stuff.

Makroth
Makroth
9 months ago

OT: Can someone post a good study or metastudy about trans people, transitioning, dysphoria and suicide rates?

Makroth
Makroth
9 months ago

I’m asking because i’m currently arguing with someone who believes that sex-reasignment surgery is “mutilation”.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
9 months ago

@Surplus – go to the mozilla forums and ask them, please. They will have better answers for you than here.

You could also try to find extensions that would help you get the behaviour you’re expecting. Maybe something like this?

Load Background Tabs Lazily places newly created background tabs in a line and allows only a specific number to load, while blocking the rest. A tab is removed from the line once it has finished loading. The first blocked tab in the line is then allowed to load. This extension was designed for users with slow internet connections that routinely open multiple background tabs at the same time.

I KNOW THIS IS FIXING A PROBLEM YOU DIDN’T USED TO HAVE. I can’t tell you why everything changed, and I’m sorry you’re upset by it. All I can do is try to help you find something that will fix the problem you are currently having.

Maybe this is a starting point.

If you want to have a browser that doesn’t do this, I believe firefox is open source.

@Makroth – sorry, I can’t list any off the top of my head.

@Jes – <3

Crip Dyke
9 months ago

@Makroth:

Why does it matter? Does the person you’re arguing with get to decide which trans people have surgery? Do they only get to do so if the suicide rates are high enough? What, exactly, is the suicide rate going to decide?

If they don’t want trans*-related health care, then they shouldn’t have trans* related health care. Problem solved.

Naglfar
Naglfar
9 months ago

@Makroth
I don’t have any studies handy right now, I can try to find some later. I do know that among SRS patients, less than 1% express regret.

Makroth
Makroth
9 months ago

@Crip Dyke

https://pastebin.com/YS8fFG1q

This is that user’s response.

Naglfar
Naglfar
9 months ago

@Makroth
This person has some familiar arguments and is pulling a number of logical fallacies. I’m not sure what to do next.

At *best* we don’t know the long term effects of HRT and sex reassignment surgery.

We actually do know, people have been doing these for upwards of a century now. But of course a troll would ignore that in favor of cherry picking.

Makroth
Makroth
9 months ago

I’m not very knowledgeable about these things. Most everyone on here is more knowledgeable than me and can argue better. I really wish someone better than me would have argued with him.

Naglfar
Naglfar
9 months ago

@Makroth
What was the original topic of argument (how you got to this point)?

For me, my biggest issue with online arguments is the sunk cost fallacy. I have a hard time knowing when to walk away even when I know I’m not persuading anyone.