December 30, 2020

Andrew Sullivan detects anti-gay bigotry: "So you agree not wanting to have sex with someone because they have a vagina is a form of bigotry, right?"

I had trouble understanding whether Molly — DFW was (at any point) joking. Until she says, she's free to say (at any point) that she was joking. (Cf. "Schrödinger's Douchebag " (Urban Dictionary "Word of the Day," December 24, 2020.)

Does genitalia matter? I can see thinking that a person's inner being matters far more than what's on the outside, and that "gender identification" is part of what's on the inside, but when it comes to sexual attraction, we're not required to go solely by what's on the inside, and indeed, if only the inside — the mind — counts, why are we having sexual intercourse at all? How can you say genitalia is irrelevant when what you're talking about is something you do with your genitalia?

ADDED: We shouldn't conflate rejecting somebody socially with rejecting somebody sexually. It's one thing to be respectful and friendly to all sorts of people, quite another to be open to having sex with them. 

This is all very ordinary. We all have our standards. Any given heterosexual person might think: I don't want to have sex with anyone who's overweight or not good looking. You'd be awful to behave disrespectfully to such a person socially, but there's nothing wrong with not wanting to have sex with them. 

But these 2 kinds of rejection merge when you start speaking openly about your sexual preferences. It's one thing to think to yourself there's no way I'd have sex with a fat/ugly man/woman, but you would be thought ill of if you said that out loud. If Sullivan makes a big deal about the penis as the sine qua non of gay sex, he's a bit like the heterosexual man who says "No fatties." Your speech is in the social realm. You can refrain from stating what is, in fact, your strict policy. 

But speaking publicly about sexual preference has been a big part of the gay rights movement:

355 comments:

1 – 200 of 355   Newer›   Newest»
Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr Wibble said...

This is where their "logic" was always going to lead: madness.

How is it not misogyny to say point blank that a woman's body isn't a woman's body, or that man's body is in fact a woman's body?

If we had a serious press they'd ask Biden and Harris if they agree with Molly, if it's bigotry to reject someone based solely on their genitalia. Actually, you'd first ask them, "Is it bigoted to reject a person as a romantic partner because of the color of their skin? Ok, what about because they are trans?"

Howard said...

Homosexuality is fully committed sexism.

mandrewa said...

That's a good quote, Birkel.

Theodore Dalrymple,

"Political correctness is communist propagana writ small. In my study of communist societies,
I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or
convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality
the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious
lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves,
they lose once and for
all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to cooperate with evil, and in some
small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even
destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political
correctness, it has the same effect is intended to."

Fernandinande said...

I like the way they misuse the terms bigotry, women and phobia.

How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't!

Xmas said...

Some of the LGB people older than 40 are probably coming to realize the horror they've help create. The pendulum has swung past self-acceptance and pride in your sexual identity to self-hatred, in the form of mangling your own body to conform to some external idea of what you should look like, and denouncing your sexual preferences because they may be "bigoted".

If it was some external group of people lopping off body parts of young men and women that didn't conform to heterosexualality we'd all be screaming about it.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

"When I sucked on my formers lovers dick since she was pre op transwoman for me was just a big clit.

Foucault had sex with transwomen"


Foucault's Pudendum ?

mandrewa said...

And to expand on that people need to be able to interact with and engage with others in order to think. It may be possible to think thoughts purely on your own, but most of us most of the time discover what we think by interacting with others.

This society of emasculated liars that the left creates is not only easy to control but these emasculated liars have difficulty doing their own thinking since saying the wrong thing can have such fearful consequences.

Birkel said...

Oh, Earnest Prole, you voted for these things.
And now you have nobody who will listen to your muted complaints.

I wish for you all the Leftist Collectivists wish for me.

Mr Wibble said...

It seems to me that part of this can be traced back to the insistence that it's "What inside that counts" message that was pushed on my generation. An entire generation was convinced that your appearance didn't matter, and went hog wild with it. Hence why thirty-something millennial women overweight, and wear nothing but ill-fitting leggings and "skinny jeans." It's why twenty-something men don't own a jacket or tie, live in their hoodies, and never shave. And the tattoos. Everybody is covered in ugly tattoos.

It's a short jump from "you should find me attractive for my personality despite the odd hair color, pot belly, and numerous piercings" to "you should find me attractive despite having a penis."

Make Aesthetics Great Again.

Sebastian said...

"How can you say genitalia is irrelevant when what you're talking about is something you do with your genitalia?"

How can you say -- there you go again, asking for logic and good sense.

But this is progs we are talking about. If they declare a certain kind of sexual attraction a form of bigotry, it is so. If they declare biology irrelevant to sex or identity or anything else, it is so. It is a power play in the culture war, aimed at subverting social order and transvaluing values.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Interesting times. I saw something on instapundit, I think, yesterday about how 98% of men would not consent to having sex with a transwoman, and that had to stop. And I also saw something the other day about how 30% of women under 25 considered themselves gay or trans. Meanwhile, Homer is being removed from school curriculums, statues of Lincoln are being vandalized or removed, and school boards are changing the names of schools, against the wishes of the parents of children who attend them. Societal collapse is a lot like bankruptcy, slow at first, then sudden.

Sebastian said...

So, Sullivan and Althouse, question for you: how did calling same-sex marriage "marriage" contribute to the progressive rewrite of reality?

David Begley said...

“Does genitalia matter?“

In a word: Yes.

A favorite Althouse community comment of mine is, “That pussy is a powerful thing.”

I just watched the move “Moonstruck.” One of the questions was, “Why do men chase women?” Answer: Pussy.

We could also put Ann’s question to Bill Clinton.

Lurker21 said...

Pronouns and genitalia. So much confusion. I'd say they were responsible for all the mess in the world, but there's COVID and money problems.

It seems like the sexual spectrum have shifted to the "left." Effeminacy is on the way out for gay men. That becomes the province of trans women. Maybe something similar is happening with lesbians and trans men, only more slowly and grudgingly. The next step is the rise of pansexuals who find not having sex with someone because of their genitalia to be a form of bigotry. Good or bad, I don't know, but it will fiercely mess with marriage and family structures, as will the rise of polyamory (no longer just Cleveland Amory's little sister).

The trans phenomenon does confuse people. Seventies feminists apparently wanted a world in which gender didn't matter and we were just people. Now gender is everywhere. Seventies gays wanted society to believe that they were still men and women even though they liked having relations with people of the same gender. The trans era messes with that idea, and there's long been some friction within the gay community over "masculine" and "effeminate" comportment.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kevin said...

Once all choice becomes bigotry, the authoritarians can serve us the same gruel.

wendybar said...

I DON'T CARE IF THEY SUCK DICK OR CLITS. Shut UP ALREADY. NOBODY CARES!!!

Ann Althouse said...

Please get on topic. This isn't another occasion to just say whatever you reflexively say on the general topic of homosexuality/transgenderism. Reread the post (or read it for the first time) and find inspiration to say something you hadn't thought of until now. Otherwise it's boring and unfair to me. I don't repost what I've posted before. Meet my standard or write your own blog.

J. Farmer said...

“Political correctness is the fascism of the 90s.” -Roger Ebert, Siskel & Ebert

Ann Althouse said...

I will delete all the comments that fall short by the standard I just stated. It's ruining any potential conversation on the NEW subject.

jaydub said...

Ewwwww!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

But speaking publicly about sexual preference has been a big part of the gay rights movement:

My preference is that everyone shut up about their sexuality.... and their bowel movements.

J. Farmer said...

I got booted out of my high school’s Gay-Straight Alliance for saying that the T should be dropped from LGBT. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing. And of course genitalia matters. Otherwise why would transgender people want to surgically alter it.

Breezy said...

I knew several hetero women in college that had sex with other women for the experience. Most of these women came away with the strengthened knowledge that they are indeed hetero and preferred men, both for the sex and the relationship that often came with it. You can make these intellectual arguments about bigotry or misogyny all you want, but in the end the human comfort and survival from forming the natural bonds is very compelling. Most people want children, after all.

Ann Althouse said...

If your comment boils down to I hate this subject, don't clutter the reader's view.

Fernandinande said...

98% of men would not consent to having sex with a transwoman,

I used that string for a search which returned this:

"A growing body of research shows estimates of HIV seroprevalence among transgender women that are higher than among other US at-risk populations. ...

Research with transgender women and youths has primarily focused on risks associated with commercial sex partners because of the high prevalence of sex work within this community, estimated to range from 24% to 75%."

So there's a pretty good chance that any given man disguised as a women is also a prostitute.

mandrewa said...

Birkel, I've found the text and I've started to read it, but immediately I'm reminded of a real world example of what Havel imagines.

I'm trying to remember her name but she was an American and a writer and she lived in Germany between 1934 and 1938 (inclusive). She wrote a book about her experience that was published in 1939. One chapter in that book is about her search for people that were opposed to the National Socialists and were willing to voice their opposition.

She found a green grocer, and other small businessmen, that were quite willing to voice their criticism of the government on a one-to-one personal level. (And in some cases, suffered the consequences of their words.) So in the real world the green grocer was not an emasculated liar!

But she was unable to find a single university student, and she searched for months, that would criticize of the National Socialists or the government.

This by the way is the real meaning of the phrase, Hitler Youth. It is meant to describe all of the young people in Germany.

tim maguire said...

As a straight man, there are many women I’m not attracted to. It’s not because of bigotry, it’s because I don’t find them attractive.

Is it ok for me to reject female sexual partners who I am not attracted to but bigotry for me to reject other kinds of sexual partners who I am not attracted to? That would be an absurdity. Unless I’m not allowed to reject any sexual partner. In which case there is no such thing as rape.

Is there no such thing as rape? Or is it ok to say no if you don’t feel like it? It seems to me we have to pick one.

Doug said...

Toe the line on Althouse's rules for discussing homosexuality, or feel the wrath.

Harsh Pencil said...

Our hostess writes:

ADDED: We shouldn't conflate rejecting somebody socially with rejecting somebody sexually. It's one thing to be respectful and friendly to all sorts of people, quite another to be open to having sex with them.
This is all very ordinary. We all have our standards. Any given heterosexual person might think: I don't want to have sex with anyone who's overweight or not good looking. You'd be awful to behave disrespectfully to such a person socially, but there's nothing wrong with not wanting to have sex with them.


Here I think our hostess would get genuine pushback from many on the left who would definitely say that not wanting to have sex with fat or ugly people is fatphobic and lookist. Such a person is BAD.

Dave Burge (iowahawkblog) insightfully points out that this is the left's version of "pray away the gay". That is, with enough will, and maybe grace, one can change what one is sexually attracted to. So all I really need to be sexually attracted to Lizzo and others her size is enough people and magazine covers telling me she really is wonderfully attractive, along with the will on my part to make it so, so I won't be such a horrible person.


Mr Wibble said...

You have not diagnosed the nature of the fight.
The fight is for power and control.

Nobody takes the crazy people seriously.
But the people who are promoting (front-paging, if you will) the crazy people and the crazy opinions have a purpose.
That's where the fight should be, but isn't.

This fight was lost because "nice people" thought giving into the reasonable requests would settle the issues.
This is exactly why Freeman Hunt was so incredibly wrong about allowing a few statues be removed.
These people are would-be totalitarians.

Never give the Danegeld to the Danes.


Just as important to understand is that SJWism is a product of the left's internal struggles. It's a way for activists to demonstrate their progressive credentials versus other progressive activists, as well as their ability to organize. You are merely a convenient target to be made an example.

Ann Althouse said...

Go back to the last cafe or wait for the new one if you have things you want to say that are not relevant to this post.

It takes me time to delete these irritatingly off-topic and very repetitious comments. I will need to put moderation on if people cannot meet my standard. And serial offenders are risking getting relegated to my troll category where I just delete all your comments without reading them.

People are particularly bad on this transgender subject. The kind of comments some of you are putting up make this place seem dumb and drive good commenters away. This is unfair to me, and I am going to be forced to believe that you are intentionally hurting me.

Ann Althouse said...

Go back to the last cafe or wait for the new one if you have things you want to say that are not relevant to this post.

It takes me time to delete these irritatingly off-topic and very repetitious comments. I will need to put moderation on if people cannot meet my standard. And serial offenders are risking getting relegated to my troll category where I just delete all your comments without reading them.

People are particularly bad on this transgender subject. The kind of comments some of you are putting up make this place seem dumb and drives good commenters away. This is unfair to me, and I am going to be forced to believe that you are intentionally hurting me.

Ann Althouse said...

@Birkel

You are very close to going on my troll list. Read and understand my policy and follow it.

Your contributions have been OFF TOPIC.

And responses to my criticism are not on topic. Get back to what is raised IN THE POST.

I will continue to delete and am close to turning on moderation.

Bob Boyd said...

What is the difference between the Incels, who feel entitled to sex with attractive women and the the Trans-women who feel entitled to sex with attractive men?


Reminds me of that famous line, "take away reason and accountability..."

Ann Althouse said...

I have wasted some of my morning deleting multiple comments from Birkel and others. If you like this blog, you will not treat me this way.

My definition of troll — ie those I delete without reading anything you write — is commenters who, I have come to believe, have the intention of running this blog into the ground.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

Good riddance.

Never come back.

mandrewa said...

All right, I'll try to be more on topic.

Look the idea that I should be physically attracted to someone because they are an approved politically correct category is absurd. It feels like it shouldn't be necessary to say that. It seems so obvious.

Perhaps I'm misreading it. I'd be interested in an alternate interpretations. But it seems like the meaning of Andrew Sullivan's words are that you should feel guilty if you are not attracted to someone that is transgender.

And it's even worse than that. Given the current context, that is the ascendancy of the left, there is an implicit threat that you will lose your job, or you ability to voice an opinion and be seen on the popular forums, if you voice disagreement with the idea.

It's that implied threat, by the way, that overwhelms whatever inherent interest the idea has on its own.

We would react differently if this were written in the 1980s. We could perhaps look at the idea on its own merits. Although admittedly I think as we all know, most people would just laugh.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I’m wondering what kind of comment is acceptable here. What do you want to hear, Althouse? What might the “good” commenters, in your estimation, have to say about this topic? If it’s something other than “that is a repulsive exchange” and “these people are destructive and mentally ill” and “I’m pissed that my children and grandchildren are going to have to live in the fucked up society that we have wrought by being to afraid to tell these people NO,” I’m afraid you might be waiting a while.

J. Farmer said...

“Homosexuality isn’t just a kind of sex; it’s a kind of love.” -C. Hitchens

“Bigotry” is a foolish word to use in this context. Heterosexuality isn’t bigotry against your own sex, and homosexuality isn’t bigotry against the opposite sex. Ultimately, though, it comes down to a question that I don’t believe The transgender community has an answer to: what is a woman? What is a man?

Doug said...


But speaking publicly about sexual preference has been a big part of the gay rights movement:


Which is why I detest out, strident gays. Shut up about how your life is centered around where you put your dick

Bruce Hayden said...

“Interesting times. I saw something on instapundit, I think, yesterday about how 98% of men would not consent to having sex with a transwoman, and that had to stop”

Ain’t gonna happen. The fundamental reason for most guys to date is to find receptive uteruses to implant their sperm in, in order to procreate. To the trans women out there: sorry, you don’t have a functional uterus. I don’t care if that hurts your feelings. You still don’t have a functional uterus. The drive to procreate is one of the most basic drives animals have. Failure to procreate is an evolutionary dead in. That implies that guys who date guys who now are pretending to be girls are headed down that evolutionary dead end. An evolutionary dead end that the guy pretending to be a girl has already headed down. It’s not our fault that the 98% of guys who wouldn’t have sex with someone who has never had a functional uterus, and never will, are not willing to follow them down that evolutionary dead end. That is hundreds of millions of years of successful evolution are behind that preference. Hard to break that, even if they are going to hurt the feelings of the evolutionary dead enders who wished that they had functional uteruses.

D.D. Driver said...

I love this because this is an area where one unbreakable rule is trumped by a newer unbreakable rule.

The original rule is that: no one is entitled to have people feel sexually attracted to them. This is the rule we apply to the incels.

The new rule is that: trans people must be treated in all respects exactly the same as biological men and women.

If Elliot Page gets rejected at the bar he can throw a fit and cry bigotry. If I--the exact same gender with no differences and if you think there are differences you are a retrograde fascist--throw a fit in the exact same situation I would be (rightfully, I should add) derided as pathetic and likely a misogynist.

Ultimately, you end up in a paradox where Elliot Page is exactly the same as me and to think otherwise make you a bigot and also more special than me and to think otherwise makes you a bigot.


Bob Boyd said...

If a college student repeatedly turns down trans-women, yet dates cis-women, should he be hauled before a committee?
What about at work? If you're clearly transphobic, should you keep your job?

Jeff Brokaw said...

More and more lately our culture reminds me of the epic album title “Nothin’ Matters and What If It Did” by John Cougar.

Nihilism is a sign that a culture has too much free time on its hands, and is in decline.

J. Farmer said...

I’m not a big fan of terms like “homophobia,” but this topic does seem to elicit a lot of irrational emotions from people.

To the straight people in the comments, what is it you want to do that you’re prevented from doing? As best I can tell the complaints are about tweets and headlines. Is someone forcing you to read them? Where are you hearing all this gay talk that you’d rather not being hearing?

Pookie Number 2 said...

Althouse: I don't repost what I've posted before.

Is it off topic to point out that you do, in fact, repost what you’ve posted before? This is hardly the first time that you’ve raised some nuanced third-degree implication of LGBT thought that presumes (or forces?) full acceptance of the underlying assumptions. “Facts on the ground” in the culture war.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I think the issue that repulses and turns many people off from supporting these "gender" mandates is that they ARE mandated. You must accept that Bob is now Mary (or vice versa) and be vocal about that acceptance.

You can't just say..that's his/her choice and move on with YOUR life. NO..you have to celebrate their "transition". They insist the we be involved in their personal "journey".

While I really don't care what other people do or chose to do with each other...as long as it is voluntary, and not with minor children or animals...I REALLY care that some people want to force ME to care.

My personal, privately kept opinions about their behaviour, mental state, personal hygiene etc are just that...personal and private.

J. Farmer said...

@Bruce Hayden:

That is hundreds of millions of years of successful evolution are behind that preference. Hard to break that, even if they are going to hurt the feelings of the evolutionary dead enders who wished that they had functional uteruses.

If you discovered that a woman you were very sexually attracted to had had a hysterectomy, would you no longer want to have sex with her? Why wear condoms? What’s wrong with a 12-year-old getting pregnant? There aren’t a lot of social questions that can be answered by evolution.

Michael K said...

If these people would promise to stay in LA or New York City and leave us normals alone, I'm fine with it. That is not what they want, however.

J. Farmer said...

@Dust Bunny Queen:

You can't just say..that's his/her choice and move on with YOUR life. NO..you have to celebrate their "transition". They insist the we be involved in their personal "journey".

Do you know anyone this has happened to? How were they forced to be involved?

Kay said...

Does genitalia matter? I can see thinking that a person's inner being matters far more than what's on the outside, and that "gender identification" is part of what's on the inside, but when it comes to sexual attraction, we're not required to go solely by what's on the inside, and indeed, if only the inside — the mind — counts, why are we having sexual intercourse at all? How can you say genitalia is irrelevant when what you're talking about is something you do with your genitalia?

I won’t pretend to have the all the answers to these complicated questions. I’ll just note that genitalia is important, and yet it tends to stay hidden until the act itself. You usually develop an attraction for a person long before the genitalia is even revealed to you.

mikee said...

I'm happily married and monogomous. Where do I get my note allowing me to ignore all this, without penalty, or trial, or charges of Isms?

Rory said...

I think that you have to step back from the point of actual contact. The latter days of my dating life corresponded with the earlier days of internet dating. The websites were saturated with white women who described themselves as liberal, but who preempted any approach from a black man. They would either click check boxes indicating they would meet men of any other race, but not click the black box, or they would indicate in their personal statement that blacks were not welcome to initiate contact. Inevitably, they would include the phrase "It's just my preference."

So now they call themselves progressives instead of liberals, and the box says Trans instead of Black, and they still want to sustain this preference that they would damn anyone else for expressing in any other area of life. Well, tough - if you think the genitalia doesn't mean anything, then you have to accept their contacts and give them an equal chance.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Do you know anyone this has happened to? How were they forced to be involved?

I don’t disagree with you on this topic, but I think a lot of folks look at the “persecution” of the Colorado bakery (who’s name I forget) as a disturbing precedent.

J. Farmer said...

@mikee:

Where do I get my note allowing me to ignore all this, without penalty, or trial, or charges of Isms?

What’s stopping you from ignoring it right now?

Seriously, this comment section is a bunch of people crying victim hood. It isn’t opposing wokeness to turn yourself into another victim group that’s screaming about oppression.

tcrosse said...

So call me a bigot. Sticks and stones....

Michael K said...

Ultimately, though, it comes down to a question that I don’t believe The transgender community has an answer to: what is a woman? What is a man?

The "Transgender Community" Is about 0.01% of the human population but they are very good at making noise and are now getting crazy mothers to force small children into it. Gays have been good at magnifying their share in popular imagination to the point that lots of teens think 25% of the population is gay. Gays have been around forever but only modern science can create Transgenders.

Balfegor said...

It's one thing to think to yourself there's no way I'd have sex with a fat/ugly man/woman, but you would be thought ill of if you said that out loud.

But why is this so? I don't think it's primarily because it's rude to fat or ugly people, anymore than being attracted to brunettes is rude to blondes. I think it's because at least for heterosexuals, it's considered coarse to discuss sex at all in most contexts. I mean, there are some contexts ("locker room" banter? Howard Stern?) where maybe it's acceptable, but as a general rule, you aren't supposed to talk about your own sex life or sexual preferences at all. Any incremental rudeness has nothing to do with preferences; rather, it's just rude to call people fat and ugly at all.

Sullivan is generally not, I think, the vulgarly demonstrative gay pride parade sort of homosexual activist either -- I recall him always being in favour of a more restrained, middle class sort of homosexuality, observing more or less the same taboos around public discussion of sex as respectable heterosexuals would. So the tension here, as I see it, is that transgender activists are objecting not only to the public expression of a romantic and sexual preference for partners who are of the biological sex they claim to be -- something which doesn't really conflict with the usual taboos against public discussion of sex, any more than publicly stating one is homosexual or wants children, though the argument could be made -- but even the private preference. Which would in turn override everyone's private sexual preferences.

That said, I suppose that like "ugly", "transgender" is itself a term with heavy intrinsic negative connotations. But there's no real way of getting around that. Even if everyone agrees to pretend in public that transgender people are the sex they claim to be, just as people generally accept that ugly people ought to be treated like anyone else, that's not going to extend to the bedroom.

J. Farmer said...

@Pookie Number 2:

I don’t disagree with you on this topic, but I think a lot of folks look at the “persecution” of the Colorado bakery (who’s name I forget) as a disturbing precedent.

That I completely agree with. Masterpiece Cakeshop did win at the Supreme Court, and I fully supported that.

Balfegor said...

Re: Kay:

You usually develop an attraction for a person long before the genitalia is even revealed to you.

Sure, but the sexual component of the attraction can dry up pretty quick at that point. Even if the two parties are of compatible orientations.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The websites were saturated with white women who described themselves as liberal, but who preempted any approach from a black man. They would either click check boxes indicating they would meet men of any other race, but not click the black box, or they would indicate in their personal statement that blacks were not welcome to initiate contact. Inevitably, they would include the phrase "It's just my preference."

I've never been on a dating site, married before that was a thing, so I'm wondering if that is even still possible. And if it is, wouldn't that automatically mark you as a bigot? What's next, dating sights stop allowing people to indicate their gender and gender preferences? Hopefully the professor won't delete this comment for this, but transgenderism is a luxury good that is only sustainable in a wealthy, tolerant society and even then only if it is a few people who don't try to push their ideology on everyone else. Transgenderism is self-contradictory discriminatory towards actual women.

mandrewa said...

"I can see thinking that a person's inner being matters far more than what's on the outside, and that "gender identification" is part of what's on the inside, but when it comes to sexual attraction, we're not required to go solely by what's on the inside, and indeed, if only the inside — the mind — counts, why are we having sexual intercourse at all?"

And now I will try to engage even more with the idea. First off I was wrong to assert that Andrew Sullivan is arguing that we should feel guilty if we are not attracted to a transgender. He may be saying that. Or not. But someone is arguing that and that is what is being discussed.

Second, I do think that a person's inner being is a huge part of what makes them attractive.

But third, it's a mystery to me what it is that makes one person so much more attractive than another. I'm sure there is some book called "The Laws of Attraction" and it could literally be about those laws, but it's not obvious what they are. I experience it like a spark or a pull. It feels almost like a physical force sometimes and I don't know objectively what it is based on.

But you can experience it sometimes just by sight and without knowing the person. And you can also admire a person and like them without feeling this physical attraction at all.

Xmas said...

J. Farmer,

This is less about homophobia and more a reaction to "You MUST accept what I say is true!"

Or, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying sexual preferences?"

And it's hard to argue against reasons why your sexual preferences may be "wrong", because sexual preferences rise up from the irrational lizard brain through the even more irrational subconscious and are driven by hormones, sensory memories and pheromones.

This assault on Sullivan's sexual preferences is basically, "You like sex with men, X claims they are a man, so you MUST have sex with them." Because just one of the thousands, or millions, of subconscious and biochemical pathways that define Sullivan's sexual preference is "has a peen and does not have a vageen" some random person gets to declare him a "bigot."

mockturtle said...

DBQ nails it @8:24.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

That I completely agree with. Masterpiece Cakeshop did win at the Supreme Court, and I fully supported that.

Actually the win was along the lines of "don't be so blatant about your hatred of Christianity next time" to the Colorado officials that are still persecuting the bakery. The process is the punishment.

Breezy said...

People don’t want to be labeled a bigot based on their sexual attractions or preferences. That tactic deserves pushback.

glam1931 said...

This topic has been much on my mind lately. I am a homosexual man because I find both the bodies and personalities of men attractive. No offense meant, but I find even the thought of having sex with a woman repulsive. I imagine straight men feel the same way about other men. As an older man, I never understood how trans people got lumped in with gays; most of the ones I have known seem extremely dysfunctional, if not literally mentally ill.
I have watched with horror as a young man I have known since he was a teenager has, in his mid-twenties, decided to "transition", and is chronicling it on Facebook. All his friends are cheering him on as he takes hormones and grows breasts. You cannot question him about it in any way without being called a bigot or phobe. A perfectly attractive young man is becoming a very homely "woman" before my eyes, and I am expected to applaud it, but I cannot. He claims he wants to be a lesbian. It is beyond my understanding why, if he is attracted to women, he feels he must physically mangle himself. I have stopped regularly following his antics on Facebook, as the whole thing just makes me sad. I used to think he was an attractive young man (but way too young for me), but now he seems like a Frankenstein monster.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

J FarmerDo you know anyone this has happened to? How were they forced to be involved?

ME. Worked and socialized with a woman who decided she was no longer she but was he. Began wearing men's clothing and became very butch and dated women. Not medically transitioning at this point. So... Ok. No one cared. Other than she switched to the men's dart team. (She/he was damned good and we missed her skills on our team).

However, this person became aggressive about telling everyone everything about his/her sexuality..in DETAIL. Every damned topic turned to a woe is me, no one understands, no one is helping me, you all suck AND you all hate me, hate lesbians, hate whatever...mantra. None of that was true except the last part because SHUT UP.

When she/he would bring her girlfriends to the dart team events, everyone was accepting and polite to the new date, most of whom were very nice people put into an awkward situation. She was showing off her trophy dates to us. AWKWARD no matter who does this. We felt sorry for the 'new girl' and tried to be nice like you would to anyone in that position....... But that wasn't enough. We all were supposed to be involved in her life somehow.

She complained at work about everyone being mean to her. She would bitch about OUR personal lives as if what we did was somehow a purposeful insult to her. The higher ups decided that it wasn't anything to do with gender really and not a firing event for anyone. It was just her abrasive and annoying personality..Nevertheless, to make him/her STFU, we all had to sit through meetings about diversity and yada yada yada yada.

I don't know WHAT she/he wanted from us. I moved and changed jobs. (not because of this but what a relief not to have to deal with her/his/its fucking DRAMA all the time)

tim maguire said...

J. Farmer said...
“Homosexuality isn’t just a kind of sex; it’s a kind of love.” -C. Hitchens

“Bigotry” is a foolish word to use in this context. Heterosexuality isn’t bigotry against your own sex, and homosexuality isn’t bigotry against the opposite sex. Ultimately, though, it comes down to a question that I don’t believe The transgender community has an answer to: what is a woman? What is a man?


+1

That reply from Hitchens is perfect. I wonder what the context was that fits so well with this topic.

As I noted above—straight people are not attracted to every person of the opposite sex, really only a small minority. Gay people the same—only a small minority of their own sex. Most people in the broad category of their sexual preference are still not prospective sex partners because there is more to attraction than desired gender.

Applying the language of bigotry to disinterest in romantic relationships with transgenders is lunacy. How (and why) is this rejection distinguishable from all the other people who are not considered desirable sex partners?

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Hey Farmer, I guess my husband can just ignore being forced to attend monthly indoctrination sessions on sexual wokeness, and adding his pronouns and a gay / trans flag to his email signature, and being constantly worried about what he says anywhere online so he isn’t outed as not clapping loud enough, as a condition of his employment and ability to provide for his family.

J. Farmer said...

@Balfegor:

Very well said. I think you’re completely right.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I guess people who have no ability to avoid public schools for their kids can just ignore trans ideology being inserted into their kids’ curricula, and being ostracized as bigots if they object.

Rusty said...

OK. I'll say it. I'm a big fan of vaginas. Ever since I came out of one I've been trying to gat back in a little at a time.
On the other side. OK. Your gay. Thanks for sharing, again. Get back to us when you do something really interesting that doesn't involve your poop chute.
Let's talk about election stealing. I think the current shortage of arms and ammunition is somehow connected.
Any thoughts?

mandrewa said...

"Seriously, this comment section is a bunch of people crying victim hood. It isn’t opposing wokeness to turn yourself into another victim group that’s screaming about oppression."

Oh, J. Farmer, you need to get out in the larger world. On YouTube, people are getting their channels shut down or their comments deleted for voicing criticism of transgender politics.

I'm debating how I should respond? Should I laugh at you or should I get angry? I'd rather laugh but it is easy to get angry.

Your position is absurd. You are equating fascism with disapproval of gays. These are not remotely the same thing.

You have never, ever, been persecuted like this in your life. Having an individual disapprove of you is a completely different thing than having a society trying to erase you.

Tom said...

If Sullivan makes a big deal about the penis as the sine qua non of gay sex, he's a bit like the heterosexual man who says "No fatties."

Maybe, but he's more like the heterosexual man who says, "no men," or "no persons assigned male at birth," if you prefer. For a man to say "no men" does not denigrate biological males in the same way that "no fatties" denigrates the overweight.

J. Farmer said...

@I Have Misplaced My Pants:

Where does your husband work that requires monthly sexual seminars and gay trans flag in the email signature?

I Callahan said...

If you discovered that a woman you were very sexually attracted to had had a hysterectomy, would you no longer want to have sex with her? Why wear condoms? What’s wrong with a 12-year-old getting pregnant? There aren’t a lot of social questions that can be answered by evolution.

Jesus. Where to begin with this?

Main point: What Bruce Hayden was referring to was human drive. The difference between the above people and flat-out transsexuals is that the former are actually biological females. The last one is not.

Rusty said...

Ann Althouse said...
"I have wasted some of my morning deleting multiple comments from Birkel and others. If you like this blog, you will not treat me this way."
Goddamn it, Althouse! Meade. What are her favorite flowers and candy? I'll even get them through your Amazon portal.

Harsh Pencil said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...
I’m not a big fan of terms like “homophobia,” but this topic does seem to elicit a lot of irrational emotions from people.

To the straight people in the comments, what is it you want to do that you’re prevented from doing? As best I can tell the complaints are about tweets and headlines. Is someone forcing you to read them? Where are you hearing all this gay talk that you’d rather not being hearing?

12/30/20, 8:17 AM

This question ignores the existence of the "public square."

That is, imagine that a town really does have a public square where people debate, discuss, and come to resolutions or compromises regarding the issues of the day. But then Trans advocates take over a good amount of the bandwidth of public discussion. If you reply, "no one is forcing you to listen to them" or "no one is forcing you to go to the public square", you are discounting their effects on the overall discourse.

While I would certainly be against outlawing their speech, a perfectly reasonable reply to someone monopolizing any discussion is "Oh for F*ck's sake. Please shut the f*ck up about your various mental illnesses. We don't care."

J. Farmer said...

Having an individual disapprove of you is a completely different thing than having a society trying to erase you.

Yes, as a gay atheist white separatist, I have no idea what this is like. Also, getting your YouTube channel deactivated equals society trying to erase you?

Michael K said...

Seriously, this comment section is a bunch of people crying victim hood. It isn’t opposing wokeness to turn yourself into another victim group that’s screaming about oppression.

The lack of self awareness is striking. You are not exposed to the forces that demand obedience. I'm not either than God but you should learn a bit about it before making such statements.

I Callahan said...

Where does your husband work that requires monthly sexual seminars and gay trans flag in the email signature?

Can't speak for Pants' husband, but where I work, but my employer (a major hospital organization) just added pronouns to the email signature. I work in the finance / data analytics end of a health insurance company, and the last 4 monthly Finance meetings started with at least 1/2 hour of "unconscious bias" training.

As someone else already said - you need to get out more.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

It's MY decision who to have sex with. Not some trans-fascist activist. And it's not up to some trans-fascist to tell others who they can have sex with or not have sex with. If I prefer women, and I do, then I'm not going to have sex with a man, whether he thinks he's a man, a woman or a duck.

Trans-fascists-women are just men in drag with delusions of inferiority. I'm not going to confront them, that would be simply rude. But, I'm not going to validate their delusions either.

I Callahan said...

One more thing: this is obviously a touchy subject for our hostess, maybe a bit too touchy, if she's going to remove comments from long-time commenters. It's her blog, but it's a bit unfair when she has standards for this subject that she doesn't for other more pressing subjects.

Inga said...

It seems to me that there are people who are ultra sensitive about feeling they are being forced to accept the sexuality of others. Just WHO is forcing you? Is it harming you to have trans people complain aloud that they feel that people reject them based on their genitalia? Let them talk, let them complain. No one is forcing anyone into anything. Stop being such snowflakes, let people kvetch. No one is writing any laws saying that you are in violation if you refuse a trans person’s opinions on sexuality or if you refuse a trans persons sexual interest in you.

Let people speak and express their opinions and stop acting as if anything they say will make you sound or be labeled as a bigot. You don’t have to internalize everything anyone says about you.

Why is it that people are looking for things to be upset over? Stop the the overwrought worries about being labeled as a homophobe or bigot because of what people argue about on Twitter. Most trans people, I suspect, won’t label you thusly if you reject their sexual advances. No one is going to put you in some jail for bigots. Most people won’t consider you a bigot at all.

Gator said...

J. Farmer raised a good point, and I'll respond as the husband of a wife with a gay father, we don't care what people do in their bedroom, but gay people have a tendency to be narcisisstic. Evertything is about them. My father in law never once thought about what he did to his wife, he doesn't care about his daughter, or his grand-daughter, being gay means everything to him. Its strange.

J. Farmer said...

Main point: What Bruce Hayden was referring to was human drive.

I understand that. But the drive men have is to cum, not to get somebody pregnant. Men don’t to go out on a Saturday night thinking, “I really hope I knock someone up tonight!”

Mikey NTH said...

Your preferences are bigotry, your calls for privacy are proof of your bigotry. You will bend your knee because the purpose is to make you comply.

What you are to comply to is irrelevant so long as you comply.

J. Farmer said...

@Gator:

While I won’t deny people have problems with narcissism, being in the closet isn’t healthy either. Has your father-in-law ever explained why he was in the closet?

Gator said...

"You have never, ever, been persecuted like this in your life."

This, plus 1,000, not only has my father in law never been persecuted, he gets special attention. He can treat female wait staff like crap (and he does) and gets by with it. Its to the point we don't even go out with them anymore. We don't care what you do in the bedroom, we care about you treat people.

Bob Boyd said...

It's not the ones who say, "Men are rejecting me." It's the ones who say, "That has to change."

Gator said...

J. Farmer, I think the whole family is messed up, he blames Republicans. Still, he didn't need to marry a woman when we was in bathhouses with hundreds of men. Yet we put up with him.

Ann Althouse said...

"I’m wondering what kind of comment is acceptable here. What do you want to hear, Althouse? What might the “good” commenters, in your estimation, have to say about this topic? If it’s something other than “that is a repulsive exchange” and “these people are destructive and mentally ill” and “I’m pissed that my children and grandchildren are going to have to live in the fucked up society that we have wrought by being to afraid to tell these people NO,” I’m afraid you might be waiting a while."

1. Comments should be responsive to the ideas raised in the post. I only post when I have something new to say, so these are new subjects, not simply an announcement that we're going to talk about the general subject (e.g., transgenders).

2. I don't care what position people take, just that you honor my effort in bringing something new to you.

3. On the subject of transgenders, there's a knee-jerk response that I don't want to see — just the statement that it's a mental illness — not unless my post was on the subject of mental illness. I especially hate comments that link to some page that you have to go to to see that it's just someone else saying "these people are crazy" or something like that. It's visual clutter, it dilutes responsive, interesting conversation, and it's a waste of time.

4. I don't want to drive away INTERESTING, thoughtful commenters who bring something NEW to the discussion. Ask yourself: Am I adding? Am I helping make this place a place where people want to come for stimulation and excitement? Am I diluting, distracting, and making this place banal and off-putting to people who don't already agree with me? I think a lot of you are here because you can disagree with me, so do me the reciprocal favor of helping this be a place where people who disagree with YOU can feel good about being here!

Owen said...

These people are defective. They mutilate themselves physically to fill a hole in themselves. They need us to praise them or acquiesce —publicly, repeatedly—in what they have done. Tolerance is not enough.

When gay marriage was being litigated I told a gay friend that it was a mutilation of our language to call it marriage; but OK. But I warned him that his cause was likely to continue the “struggle,” was likely to shift from asking for tolerance over to demanding submission. And so it very quickly proved. Masterpiece Cakeshop, where the complaining couple went looking for a fight and then recruited the State to do their bullying for them, is a perfect example.

This bickering and whinging over “acceptance” of some behavior or characteristic is not going to end. It does not admit of legislative solutions; of “new and better rules.” That’s partly because rules only work if they have clear definitions; and these people can’t even figure out what they want and who they are. It is also because new rules are not the point of the bickering and whinging. The point of the bickering and whinging is...to bicker and whinge. Because, as I said above, these people are defective.

Inga said...

“Your preferences are bigotry, your calls for privacy are proof of your bigotry. You will bend your knee because the purpose is to make you comply.

What you are to comply to is irrelevant so long as you comply.”

Overwrought nonsense that I spoke of in my 9:04 comment. You imagine that people will label you as a bigot and even if they did, which most people wouldn’t, WHY are you so worried about it? Do you think you have some right to shut people up because they make you feel worried about being labeled a bigot? What are you forced to comply with?

mandrewa said...

"Yes, as a gay atheist white separatist, I have no idea what this is like. Also, getting your YouTube channel deactivated equals society trying to erase you?"

Yes. And the only part of that actually applies is "white separatist." Being gay has been only a marginal disadvantage during your life time. And being an atheist is actually a positive advantage depending on the context. Since being a practicing Christian is a disqualification for employment as a professor at many colleges and universities.

So since you know and experience the penalties for being a "white separatist" why don't you see and appreciate the extension of that kind of nullification to this issue?

Krumhorn said...

It’s not our fault that the 98% of guys who wouldn’t have sex with someone who has never had a functional uterus, and never will, are not willing to follow them down that evolutionary dead end. That is hundreds of millions of years of successful evolution are behind that preference. Hard to break that, even if they are going to hurt the feelings of the evolutionary dead enders who wished that they had functional uteruses.

I’ve had an exceptional sexual relationship with a gorgeous woman who had a hysterectomy. Somehow, the natural evolutionary impulse to plant the seed in fertile soil did not impede the relentless charge into her lady parts. But it would be an entirely limp proposition to consider doing the same with some guy whose pecker had been drilled out leaving some vacant vah-jay-jay wannabe cavity. I freely admit to open bigotry on the point. Seriously, a sex doll would be a better alternative.

- Krumhorn

J. Farmer said...

It's her blog, but it's a bit unfair when she has standards for this subject that she doesn't for other more pressing subjects.

Honestly, I think the touchiness is in the other direction. There’s no reason to use every gay-related post as an opportunity to browbeat Ann over her opinion on the subject. If she is “sensitivity” to the subject, that’s all the more reason not to be gratuitously confrontational.

Paco Wové said...

I guess the endpoint of the reductio is: any situation where human being A declines intimate contact with random human being B must be, ipso facto, bigotry.

M Jordan said...

I seriously feel like I just walked through a house of mirrors. I understood nothing except that supposedly smart people (including Althouse) were talking about this as if it were serious and real.

We are living in madness but it won’t last much longer. It can’t.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Lol, when I first looked at the graphic, I thought it said "science = death." And on second thought, that is what the poster is implying.

Ann Althouse said...

"'“Interesting times. I saw something on instapundit, I think, yesterday about how 98% of men would not consent to having sex with a transwoman, and that had to stop'"/"Ain’t gonna happen. The fundamental reason for most guys to date is to find receptive uteruses to implant their sperm in, in order to procreate..."

What "had to stop"?

Was this 98% of men answering a questionnaire while sitting quietly alone? Can I be sure they would — while drunk — turn down a blow job from a clothed person who looked like a beautiful woman?

These guys in search of uterus receptacles —  what percent of them turn down blow jobs and refrain from masturbation? I mean in real life, not just when they're answering that questionnaire.

I hope the questionnaire has a question asking if they ever lie on questionnaires.

Inga said...

“It's not the ones who say, "Men are rejecting me." It's the ones who say, "That has to change."”

Who would those people be? Are they going to get together and force lawmakers into writing laws that force straight people to accept the sexual advances of a trans person or be in violation?

Seriously? Get a grip.

hombre said...

“People are particularly bad on this transgender subject. The kind of comments some of you are putting up make this place seem dumb and drives good commenters away. This is unfair to me, and I am going to be forced to believe that you are intentionally hurting me.”

Please acknowledge that it is difficult to discern the topic on this one. Is it the value of vaginas? Whether the “T” should be removed from LGBT? Or is it the relative merits of sucking tranny dick over clitoris?

In any event, Professor, cowboy up! Laughing at you ought not to be considered the same as hurting you.

Transgenderism has no more efficacy than trans-speciesism. Outside of the context of pondering neurotic dysphoria, neither is a topic for serious deliberation. It’s not the skeptics who make this discussion seem dumb.

BTW, an episode of Brokenwood Mysteries, a New Zealand series, featured a woman who thought she was a mouse and a man who thought his wife was a horse. Both were portrayed as seriously mentally ill. New Zealand isn’t perfect, but some things are obvious to the Kiwis.

Aggie said...

How about this: I'll just go on continuing to reserve my right to not give a sh*t about your sexual issues. Don't care, won't care, can't make me care. You're just not that interesting.

Thistlerose said...

I work with a couple made up of a lesbian woman and a non-transitioned woman. The man who thinks he is a woman does not dress like a woman, does not wear make-up or in any way other than wearing a name tag with a woman's name on it act like a woman. If you saw them walking down the street you would think they were a straight couple. But by being lesbian and trans they get to be treated as special.

Being a non-traditional couple gives them power over both their employer and the people they work with. It appears to me that most of this obsession about who you sleep with and what pronoun you use is about having the power to force people to do what you want. Really I don't think most people care who their co-workers sleep with, but some people feel they must be forced to care. Saying someone is bigoted for not being attracted to a person of their sex is just another way of getting power over people who don't agree with you.

robother said...

Gay "Out and Proud" culture is a product of 60s free speech liberalism. Like any other political speech, it was assumed that any hurt feelings resulting from one proclaiming that I find sex with your kind "Ewww" was just the kind of jostling that living in a free society entailed.

The Transgender movement is a product of the Progressive Left's Woke Identity movement, which is all about searching out and destroying anyone not reliably Left. Safety, the charade of hurt feelings are the whole justification for the suppression of free society.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

I am sad that we are forced to care about this garbage.

Keep your love life to yourself.

Ann Althouse said...

"Is it off topic to point out that you do, in fact, repost what you’ve posted before? This is hardly the first time that you’ve raised some nuanced third-degree implication of LGBT thought that presumes (or forces?) full acceptance of the underlying assumptions. “Facts on the ground” in the culture war."

No. Each post has something new that is the reason I posted it. Yes, the same general subject come back again and again, but I never repost just to say let's talk about this again. Click on the tag "transgender" and go back and read as many as you want. You will see that each post is something new.

Bob Boyd said...

@ Prof. Althouse

Unless I'm mistaken, it wasn't a questionnaire Bruce Hayden was referring to.

I think it was this image, which was in a post yesterday at AoSHQ.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&insightstoken=bcid_T1-2mUb7yTcCFY3NPocUMlnxhQdW.....08*ccid_X7aZRvvJ&form=ANCMS1&iss=SBIUPLOADGET&selectedindex=0&id=19901350&ccid=X7aZRvvJ&exph=600&expw=591&vt=2&sim=11

J. Farmer said...

@Gator:

I don’t understand what your in-laws personality problems or pathologies have to do with gay people.

Meade said...

Inga said...
“Your preferences are bigotry, your calls for privacy are proof of your bigotry. You will bend your knee because the purpose is to make you comply.

What you are to comply to is irrelevant so long as you comply.”

Overwrought nonsense [...] What are you forced to comply with?

First, Cancel Culture came for "right-wing bigots," and I did not speak out—
because I was not a right-wing bigot, I was a left-wing bigot

They they came for the left-wing bigots and...


D.D. Driver said...

Also, getting your YouTube channel deactivated equals society trying to erase you?

Not erasing. Just a little deplatforming.

Nonapod said...

big·ot·ry
/ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.


Under this definition not wanting to have sex with a person because they're trans is not bigotry. Strictly speaking by modern standards sexual preference isn't a belief or an opinion.

Inga said...

“First, Cancel Culture came for "right-wing bigots," and I did not speak out—
because I was not a right-wing bigot, I was a left-wing bigot

They they came for the left-wing bigots and...”

I think this is an irrational worry. I don’t believe that anyone will be labeled a bigot and have it be something they get “cancelled” over because they turn down a SEXUAL advance from a trans person. I believe most people understand that people have the right to be attracted to the person they want to be attracted to. I’ve been seeing these overstated, overwrought comments about being labeled a bigot by the population as a whole. If some trans person labels another as a bigot, it doesn’t mean that most people will agree with them if it’s based on a rejection of a sexual nature.

Quayle said...

Anomie for me but not for thee.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Was this 98% of men answering a questionnaire while sitting quietly alone? Can I be sure they would — while drunk — turn down a blow job from a clothed person who looked like a beautiful woman?

If they knew that it was a dude, then I'm thinking at least 95% would. I too am barely old enough to remember when it was considered bigoted to say that being gay was an inborn trait. Sexual mores were outdated and the idea that having sex with someone of the same gender was in some was "immoral" was an outdated Victorian concept. Let it all hang out baby. Then, when the general populace didn't buy into that, the sale pitch changed to, "people are born gay and its wrong to discriminate against them in any way, and why should you care what grown people do in the privacy of their own homes?" Most people eventually agreed with that. Now we seem to be going back to sexual mores being outdated with a frission of "and if you don't agree then you are a bigot."

Gator said...

"I don’t understand what your in-laws personality problems or pathologies have to do with gay people."

Because I'm not stupid! I knew gay guys in college, heck 1/3 of the dudes in my small class in law school were gay. I got hit on by gay guys all the time in NYC when I was at BIGLAW. I can't tell you how many times I tried to get "turned".

Gay men are horny, have lots of sex and are narcissistic.

I Callahan said...

Just WHO is forcing you? Is it harming you to have trans people complain aloud that they feel that people reject them based on their genitalia? Let them talk, let them complain.

They complain because they want solutions. So what is the solution to her complaint? Follow it logically: if "not wanting to have sex with someone because they have a vagina is a form of bigotry", then the ONLY option is to FORCE people to have sex with people they don't want to have sex with.

jeremyabrams said...

Trans people are the proof that biological sexual identity is real. Why contort yourself into the form of the sex that is the opposite of the sex you were born with, unless that opposite sex is a real category?

The bigotry claim is based on the idea that everyone must fully accept the sexual identity a trans person presents to the world, and there's no greater evidence of acceptance than going to bed with someone.

Craig Howard said...

Some of the LGB people older than 40 are probably coming to realize the horror they've help create.

No. We did not help create that.

The T's glommed themselves onto the L', G's, and B's to gain political clout.

We had nothing to do with that.

Browndog said...

First, Cancel Culture came for "right-wing bigots," and I did not speak out—
because I was not a right-wing bigot, I was a left-wing bigot

They they came for the left-wing bigots and...


...that's when we found out there is no such thing. unpossible. Left-wing anything is pretty much a deity in this country.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Bob Boyd

Yep, that's the image I was referring to.

Bob Boyd said...

Who would those people be?

Get yourself informed.



I Callahan said...

But the drive men have is to cum, not to get somebody pregnant. Men don’t to go out on a Saturday night thinking, “I really hope I knock someone up tonight!”

Consciously? No. But if that weren't the case, would anyone get knocked up during those encounters? It certainly happens, doesn't it?

Here is the thing: men are hard-wired to do just that. The biological REASON to "cum" is to get somebody pregnant.

Michael K said...

Inga said...
It seems to me that there are people who are ultra sensitive about feeling they are being forced to accept the sexuality of others. Just WHO is forcing you?


Clueless, as usual. Read some of the accounts of such force in the comments.

Lurker21 said...

One other thing that makes this confusing is that people don't specify pre-op or post-op or what stage of the transition they are talking about. That could make a difference for people.

And yes, not wanting to have sex with somebody shouldn't be seen as bigotry.

I Callahan said...

Was this 98% of men answering a questionnaire while sitting quietly alone? Can I be sure they would — while drunk — turn down a blow job from a clothed person who looked like a beautiful woman?

OK, I admit to being touchy about this response from Ann, J Farmer. She's female, and a feminist. The idea that she knows how men think regarding the situation she describes above is laughable.

hombre said...

OTOH, this brings about hitherto unknown possibilities: “I know you are a lesbian. I am a pre-op trannywoman. Let’s get it on. Just pretend my dick is a clitoris and a dildo.”

LOL!

And, “The fundamental reason for most guys to date is to find receptive uteruses to implant their sperm in, in order to procreate..."

This is absurd. Why use this quote? It’s been a while, but back in the day before I took my faith seriously, the fundamental reason to date was to get laid while avoiding procreating.

Bob Boyd said...

Sorry, Ron. A confusing comment thread on a confusing topic in confusing times.

I Callahan said...

Who would those people be? Are they going to get together and force lawmakers into writing laws that force straight people to accept the sexual advances of a trans person or be in violation?

I remember the above logic when gay marriage was first being suggested. I remember the above logic when smoking was still allowed in restaurants. There are people who are trying to get pedophilia classified as normal right now.

Mores change if there is no resistance to that. Why would the above scenario be so hard to fathom?

J. Farmer said...

Here is the thing: men are hard-wired to do just that. The biological REASON to "cum" is to get somebody pregnant.

Yes, my point is that pregnancy is the consequence of the drive, not the drive itself. Men have more orgasms alone and with women. Our biological drives are mediated through social processes. It’s evolutionarily acceptable for a man to have sex with a 12 year old but it’s not socially acceptable.

DavidUW said...

I got unfriended years ago (the last time I was on FB) when I posted up the old joke about homosexuality being a hanging offense in my grandfather's day, to hoping to die before it becomes mandatory.

Guess we're at the mandatory part.

Inga said...

“They complain because they want solutions. So what is the solution to her complaint? Follow it logically: if "not wanting to have sex with someone because they have a vagina is a form of bigotry", then the ONLY option is to FORCE people to have sex with people they don't want to have sex with.”

Who is seriously saying it’s bigotry to reject a sexual advancement by a trans person except those who are worried about themselves being labeled a bigot? I think this is more likely the case that certain people label themselves as downtrodden and under some ominous threat because they just might be seen by very few people as a bigot. I don’t see most trans people labeling straight people as bigots over straight people rejecting their sexual advancements.

No one is going to FORCE you to have sex with someone you are not attracted to.

J. Farmer said...

Mores change if there is no resistance to that. Why would the above scenario be so hard to fathom?

For one, it would be unenforceable.

Inga said...

“Clueless, as usual. Read some of the accounts of such force in the comments.”

Overwrought nonsense from snowflakes who think everyone is out to get them and force them to have sex with trans people or go to trans bigot jail.

Gator said...

"Who would those people be? Are they going to get together and force lawmakers into writing laws that force straight people to accept the sexual advances of a trans person or be in violation?"

LOL, my best friend 1L year is gay, I told him some time we'd have gay affirmative action, I didn't think it would be actual gay affirmative action where you must have gay sex before you get married to a woman with a vagina.

And its only 2% of the population that bullies the rest into submission.

Fernandinande said...

I think it was this image, which was in a post yesterday at AoSHQ.

It says: "98% of straight men are unwilling to date trans women because of hatred" then in separate text THIS HAS TO CHANGE.

I guess "THIS HAS TO CHANGE" to 100% since straight men would be unwilling to "date" another man, by definition.

J. Farmer said...

Guess we're at the mandatory part.

Yes, an argument on Twitter between a gay man and lesbian woman over transsexuals means homosexuality is now mandatory.

Mark said...

Don't overthink human sexuality. It ain't that hard.

It only becomes hard when the "smart" people choose it to be by insisting on not liking the answer that nature and right reason provide.

Inga said...

“Who would those people be? Are they going to get together and force lawmakers into writing laws that force straight people to accept the sexual advances of a trans person or be in violation?”

“I remember the above logic when gay marriage was first being suggested. I remember the above logic when smoking was still allowed in restaurants. There are people who are trying to get pedophilia classified as normal right now.

Mores change if there is no resistance to that. Why would the above scenario be so hard to fathom?”

Since same sex marriage was legalized, has anyone been forced to marry someone of their same sex?

DavidUW said...

Yes, an argument on Twitter between a gay man and lesbian woman over transsexuals means homosexuality is now mandatory.
>>
Considering how quickly we went from California (!!!) passing a proposition banning gay marriage (2008), to it being overturned by a gay California judge (2011) to it being legal throughout the USA (2015), yes we're pretty much at the mandatory part.

Inga said...

“Yes, an argument on Twitter between a gay man and lesbian woman over transsexuals means homosexuality is now mandatory.”

Exactly. Why are people here so worried about what others argue over that it should affect laws being made to FORCE them into some compliance regarding sexual preferences?

It’s irrational.

Mark said...

Those who eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge only become stupider in their hubris.

J. Farmer said...

Republicans are not equipped to handle this issue because so much of it is coming from private companies and not the government. People are making allusions to Soviet communism but then the examples are, “My private employer forces me to abide by company policies.” If you support at-will employment, how do you complain about this?

Bob Boyd said...

I don’t see most trans people labeling straight people as bigots over straight people rejecting their sexual advancements.

Neither do I, but there is a segment of trans activism trying to apply the levers of political correctness to their own particular agenda. They have seen these levers used successfully by other identity groups to punish and silence opposition and enforce behaviors.
It's not about passing laws. It's about going around the laws by using social pressures. People with the wrong ideas can be excluded from educational and employment opportunities, that kind of thing. It's about making people afraid. These are the goals of the trans activists I'm referring to according to them.

J. Farmer said...

yes we're pretty much at the mandatory part.

OK, so when are you marrying a man?

Nonapod said...

We shouldn't conflate rejecting somebody socially with rejecting somebody sexually.

I've always found it a little odd that for certain gay people it seems like their entire identity is tied up in being gay (and it seems like the same could be said of some trans people). It seems like all they talk about or think about. It's as if they have no hobbies or other interests, or at least they don't seem to. I guess for such people it's not surprising that they might conflate social and sexual preferences.

Bruce Hayden said...

“To the straight people in the comments, what is it you want to do that you’re prevented from doing? As best I can tell the complaints are about tweets and headlines. Is someone forcing you to read them? Where are you hearing all this gay talk that you’d rather not being hearing?”

Nobody really cares about tweets. But really do care about forced indoctrination.

Darrell said...

Imagine having that argument in space. On a collision course with the Sun.

Darrell said...

First it's allowed.
Then it's mandatory.

Browndog said...

I'm rather stunned this conversation is even taking place.

Hope y'all sort it all out.

lb said...

Reading post and thinking about comments, the first thing that comes to mind is that the T is the issue. Someone upthread asked "why care? why worry about it you don't have to read it" Tell that to the young women that had their running careers taken away from them by the two trans athletes (men) that took their scholarship slots. It's one thing to be a bigot about sexuality - personally I could care less who people have sex with other than animals and children - it's another to force delusion on the masses in the form of pretending men are women and women men. Science, right? Sorry Ann if this is off topic - not sure this meets the parameters

Ann Althouse said...

"I think it was this image, which was in a post yesterday at AoSHQ. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&insightstoken=bcid_T1-2mUb7yTcCFY3NPocUMlnxhQdW.....08*ccid_X7aZRvvJ&form=ANCMS1&iss=SBIUPLOADGET&selectedindex=0&id=19901350&ccid=X7aZRvvJ&exph=600&expw=591&vt=2&sim=11"

Oh! Ridiculous. That's a well-known 4chan hoax — discussed on Reddit — here — a year ago.

Jeez! You have to be pretty dumb to mistake that for pro-trans.

Ann Althouse said...

Here's the Ace of Spades post. Embarrassing!

Inga said...

“It's not about passing laws. It's about going around the laws by using social pressures. People with the wrong ideas can be excluded from educational and employment opportunities, that kind of thing. It's about making people afraid. These are the goals of the trans activists I'm referring to according to them.’

I don’t agree with you that this is the goal of the grand majority trans activists. I think they are more concerned with being denied jobs, or being denied places to live, or shop based on being transgendered than they are concerned with punishing people who reject them sexually.

DavidUW said...

OK, so when are you marrying a man?
>>
Holding out for better tax breaks.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Where does your husband work that requires monthly sexual seminars and gay trans flag in the email signature?

He is an executive at a global marketing agency. Which, I might add, has laid off 30% of their workforce but was able to find the money to hire a new chief diversity officer and pay the monthly workshop facilitators.

I know your workplace is not like this Farmer -- here is a tip -- you don't know everything about every corner of the universe. Because you are not experiencing forced acceptance of a political/sexual ideology does not mean it is not happening.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Gay and trans flag, by the way. Both of them.

Bob Boyd said...

I don’t agree with you that this is the goal of the grand majority trans activists.

I didn't say that. I said exactly the opposite.

gregory said...

Inga said:

"I think this is an irrational worry. I don’t believe that anyone will be labeled a bigot and have it be something they get “cancelled” over because they turn down a SEXUAL advance from a trans person."

I believe that you believe this.

J. Farmer said:

"That I completely agree with. Masterpiece Cakeshop did win at the Supreme Court, and I fully supported that."

I believe that you agree with this.

And it doesn't matter, because anyone with eyes can see where your side is going with this. My sexual wiring is straight but my political wiring is libertarian ("live and let live" is practically scripture to me), and so I fully supported gay marriage legalization.

Masterpiece Cakeshop blew people like me over because it revealed an entirely different kind of game. Acceptance is not enough, I must celebrate your choices or face violence at the hand of government.

From there it's a short jump to "you will be attracted to who I say you will be attracted to, or you will face the consequences."

On this hill we are prepared to die. There is no hill after this one.

LakeLevel said...

The apex of moral philosophy, both eastern and western, has always contained a transcendence of the physical and the tribal shackles that bind us. The Left, in order to gain political power, has chosen to go back to the old hate mongering ways. Fuck them. They deserve no respect or consideration.

Freeman Hunt said...

The argument seems like a power play for greater access to sexual partners--a will to make it socially acceptable to present oneself as a full member of one's preferred sex category without the specification of "trans." If a romantic partner discovers the deception and objects, the anger is cast as bigotry, so there is no expectation that the deceiver should change behavior. The idea is that one can go on misrepresenting oneself while forbidding others from calling it misrepresentation.

LakeLevel said...

The apex of moral philosophy, both eastern and western, has always contained a transcendence of the physical and the tribal shackles that bind us. The Left, in order to gain political power, has chosen to go back to the old hate mongering ways. Fuck them. They deserve no respect or consideration.

J. Farmer said...

First it's allowed.
Then it's mandatory.


It’s been 100 years since the 19th amendment was passed. Are women forced to vote?

Freeman Hunt said...

The idea isn't to get people to say yes to sex with transpeople. The idea is to allow transpeople to conceal the fact of being trans.

Inga said...

“People with the wrong ideas can be excluded from educational and employment opportunities, that kind of thing. It's about making people afraid. These are the goals of the trans activists I'm referring to according to them.”

I don’t agree with you here, note the bolded words.

Bob Boyd said...

I guess I need to get out of the Althouse more.

What's 4chan?

J. Farmer said...

@gregory:

From there it's a short jump to "you will be attracted to who I say you will be attracted to, or you will face the consequences."

That isn’t a short jump; it’s a gargantuan leap. How could you even enforce a law about personal attraction? That’s like saying it’s a short jump from Loving v. Virginia requiring people to be in interracial marriages

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The fact that we MUST be made to accept and think a certain way about LBGT etc agenda is proved by the comments by J Farmer, Inga etc. Proving the case that if you don't accept or don't get on the bandwagon by their very own actions. They will browbeat you into submission.

It is unacceptable to think or act or speak in anyway other than the approved mantra. They refuse to accept and will diminish other people's experiences because it isn't in their own narrow world view.

They also distort what is being said.

No one is being 'forced' to participate in sex with anyone. We ARE being forced to support ideas and lifestyles by verbal approbation (big word look it up). Forced to use made up gender modifiers. IF we don't use the approved and appropriate words are subject to censure, lectures and possibly loss of jobs, lose access to internet and subject to suppression of opinion.

Are there anti LBGTQ etc bigots. Sure. But not agreeing with you doesn't make us bigots. Refusing to accept that we have a RIGHT to disagree does make YOU bigots.

Denying what is happening is not a substantial argument for you own case.

Skeptical Voter said...

Ah the love that dare not speak its name and now just won't shut up---has been joined by a host of other voices, flavors and preferences.

All of it is pretty tiresome to us missionary sexual warriors.

Nonapod said...

What's 4chan?

If the internet was a gas station with an old dirty bathroom stall, 4chan would be the wall of that stall.

I Callahan said...

Since same sex marriage was legalized, has anyone been forced to marry someone of their same sex?

Sorry Inga, but that's where YOU draw the line. And that's fair - I'm not knocking your actual point of view on the subject in particular. But I'd bet you money that if you asked the SJW Sullivan was arguing with what her answer would be, she'd come awfully close to actually saying that force SHOULD be involved. Eventually, all ideas that MUST be done are implemented via force. Until the USSC came along, that gay couple were for FORCING that baker to bake the cake.

All I'm saying is that it's not out of the realm of possibility.

Kay said...

J. Farmer said...
Republicans are not equipped to handle this issue because so much of it is coming from private companies and not the government. People are making allusions to Soviet communism but then the examples are, “My private employer forces me to abide by company policies.” If you support at-will employment, how do you complain about this?
12/30/20, 10:09 AM


I agree with this. Also agree that private companies since the beginning have had way too much power over people’s personal behavior. I think things are getting gradually more free in some ways (dress codes, for instance) but we still have a long way to go.

Ken B said...

I think Ann has dropped some context. Sullivan posted a graphic that said men who don’t date transgender persons with penises are haters. Some said the graphic was a hoax. Sullivan posted other examples, and this exchange ensued.

I think, on substance, AA and AS agree.

Bob Boyd said...

I don’t agree with you here

Well, I hope you're right.

daskol said...

Is it bigoted to have no interest at all in white or black M2F transexuals, but at the same time to be possessed of an involuntary curiosity bordering on interest in, say, Thai ladyboys? Asking for a friend.

Michael K said...

Overwrought nonsense from snowflakes who think everyone is out to get them and force them to have sex with trans people or go to trans bigot jail.

Still clueless about mandatory lectures and losing jobs for violating the new rules.

Michael said...

Foucault did a lot of things. You can look it up.

Ken B said...

This sort of thing just shows how much this topic is a power play. It doesn’t matter if the claims make sense, it only matters that you acquiesce. Would you, as a straight person, have sex with someone with the same parts as you? You don’t even actually have to have the sex, just to affirm you would. Bend the knee is the real demand.

gregory said...

J. Farmer said:
"It’s been 100 years since the 19th amendment was passed. Are women forced to vote?"

The Colorado Cakeshop was forced to close its doors because the baker wouldn't bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, citing a first ammendment objection

You've already said that you agree with the SC decision overturning it. Thanks for that.

Do you know who doesn't agree with the SC decision? The entire left-side power structure in America, including local law enforcement (who initially took action against the baker), the lower-courts (who ruled against the baker), nearly all of the media (who vilified the baker), and the Democratic Party (which supports legislation and SC nominees that will prosecute the baker). It is the stated agenda of the party that controls the House, the White House (in a few weeks), maybe the Senate (depends on GA runoffs), and the lower courts that Colorado Cakeshop be re-prosecuted and forced out of business.

Can you see why this is a problem for us? That you and Inga and Andy Sullivan express their disagreement means nothing.....your side is fully behind this.

I Callahan said...

I agree with this. Also agree that private companies since the beginning have had way too much power over people’s personal behavior. I think things are getting gradually more free in some ways (dress codes, for instance) but we still have a long way to go.

The only thing I'd disagree with here is the "gradually more free" part. I'm just not seeing it. If you're a conservative, for example, be careful who you share your philosophy with. Brandon Eich of Mozilla could serve as just one example.

We certainly have a long way to go.

Inga said...

“No one is being 'forced' to participate in sex with anyone. We ARE being forced to support ideas and lifestyles by verbal approbation (big word look it up). Forced to use made up gender modifiers. IF we don't use the approved and appropriate words are subject to censure, lectures and possibly loss of jobs, lose access to internet and subject to suppression of opinion.

Are there anti LBGTQ etc bigots. Sure. But not agreeing with you doesn't make us bigots. Refusing to accept that we have a RIGHT to disagree does make YOU bigots.”

WHO is denying you the right to not agree with gender modifiers? Who is censuring you? What legal cudgel do they hold over you to make you sound paranoid over some mafia like force? Who is calling you a bigot when it comes to rejecting anyone for sexual activities, which is what the subject matter of this conflict in the Tweets refers to. And WHY do you care? So many people are leaping to the conclusion that people arguing on Twitter will someday affect them negatively? I see this as overwrought and irrational.


I think they are more concerned with being denied jobs, or being denied places to live, or shop based on being transgendered than they are concerned with punishing people who reject them sexually.

Meade said...

“What's 4chan? “

I know what you mean. Back in my day 4chan was the channel w that brought us the Three Stooges. Came out of Indianapolis I think. But we just called it Channel 4.

Joe Smith said...

You will be made to fuck (and like it) whomever the state deems appropriate.

Personally? I only like to fuck blonde or redhead supermodels between the ages of 18 and 26.

I'm so lonely.

Readering said...

Molly has under 70 followers. Have more than that commented here?

J. Farmer said...

@DBQ:

The fact that we MUST be made to accept and think a certain way about LBGT etc agenda is proved by the comments by J Farmer, Inga etc. Proving the case that if you don't accept or don't get on the bandwagon by their very own actions. They will browbeat you into submission.

First, you don’t even know my position on the “LGBT agenda.” Second, how was asking you questions or disagreeing with you browbeating you? Third, have I accused you of forcing me to accept your opinion by disagreeing with me? Fourth, I’m about as tolerant of other peoples
opinions as possible, because I don’t take being disagreed with personally.

Bob Boyd said...

My mom wouldn't let us watch the Stooges.
I still carry the scars.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

“Still clueless about mandatory lectures and losing jobs for violating the new rules.”

Don’t like attending mandatory lectures? I can understand, but these are private companies that have the right to expect their employees to adhere to their demands, do they not? You and anyone who is so upset over these mandatory lectures, have the right to seek employment elsewhere or maybe go to the EEOC and file some complaint.

mockturtle said...

Biden has promised to pass the Equality Act in his first 100 days:
From the National Review:
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is promising to pass the Equality Act, which would make sexual orientation and gender identity federally protected classes, within the first 100 days of his administration should be be elected president in next week’s election.

“I will make enactment of the Equality Act a top legislative priority during my first 100 days – a priority that Donald Trump opposes,” Biden said in an interview with Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal."

This will impact everyone will penalize churches who don't compy. Biden has said that 'Churches can't be havens for hate".


I will lay it on the line here for Farmer and others who think we are making too big a deal out of the LBGTQ mandates: Sexual perversion is an unfortunate fact of human behavior and, among consenting adults, should not be criminalized but neither should sexual deviancy be a cause for celebration, either by the participants or by the rest of us. Just keep it to yourselves, please!

I Callahan said...

gregory - great points. Both Ginsburg and Sotomayor were for forcing Masterpiece to bake the cake in the USSC decision. And people forget that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission sided with the gay couple in the first place; it would never have gotten to the USSC if that hadn't happened. Just imagine if the Dems really do pack the court if they get a majority in the Senate...

In addition, people are still trying to sue the owner today. From Wikipedia:

"Scardina brought a second lawsuit against Phillips in April 2020, waiting past the appeal deadline to file in a different court, for more than $100,000 in damages, fines, and attorney's fees."

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

So yes, Inga and J Farmer, there is a LARGE contingent of your fellow citizens who are all in for forcing people to do what they don't want. It's not only in the realm of possibility, it's already happening.

Joe Smith said...

I love GOML Ann : )

mockturtle said...

My mom wouldn't let us watch the Stooges.

Now that is cruel! Child abuse, even!

J. Farmer said...

@gregory:

Can you see why this is a problem for us? That you and Inga and Andy Sullivan express their disagreement means nothing.....your side is fully behind this.

You don’t know my side so stop trying to make this personal. Protected classes in state anti-discrimination laws over public accommodations is a separate issue from what’s been talked about thus far.

Freeman Hunt said...

Workplace issues aren't purely about the decisions of private companies. Many (most?) of these policies are designed to avoid lawsuits based on government regulations.

Joe Smith said...

"I know your workplace is not like this Farmer -- here is a tip -- you don't know everything about every corner of the universe."

Oh, you are soooo wrong about that : )

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 355   Newer› Newest»