While people were looking up the definition(s) of 'straight', I was looking up 'transgender':
Quote:Transgender is the state of one's gender identity (self-identification as woman, man, neither or both) or gender expression not matching one's assigned sex (identification by others as male, female or intersex based on physical/genetic sex). Transgender is independent of sexual orientation; transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, or asexual; some may consider conventional sexual orientation labels inadequate or inapplicable to them.
Some of the same or similar ambiguities/multivalency will pertain to those who watch and enjoy the shemales on Thai Chat. That all said, if a person feels that the word(s) being used in relation to them has/have no meaningful application, then the word(s) and the definition(s) are irrelevant in any case. And also: definitions evolve; we form them, they don't form us. Trying to nail fixed meanings to the moving world is basically an exercise in futility.
seriously, why the fuck are we labelling people in this day and age lol
like who you like people, don't matter what that person is
also, do the ladies still talk dirty? been a while since I called
(12-05-2014 13:57 )richpk Wrote: [ -> ]seriously, why the fuck are we labelling people in this day and age lol
Hard to believe, isn't it. Anyway, as far as this part of the forum is concerned, it's being done to channel frustration, by those who can't accept that transgenderism is a real and distinct and increasingly acknowledged area of gender definition/pan-sexuality, and to bait those who do accept it (the just-sayin'-you're-gay-if-you-like-watching-ladyboys implication is being made over-and-over by the same people, if you check back). There's a pattern: periodically the subject gets dragged up, and tossed around, and eventually some sort of live-and-let-live ceasefire gets reached, until the next time that the frustration of the anti-shemales boils over.
I have never understood the bigotry and never will. Ladyboys can be some of the most attrctive and affectionate people in the world, people need to open their minds and lower their inhibitions
I think trying to stretch the definition of bi or gay in order to accommodate straight guys who like watching highly feminine transgender performers seems both pointed - it reflects badly on the tolerance of the one doing the redefining - and pointless - if you're going to stretch it to that degree, it might as well be stretched to include guys who look at B/G material, and who put up with the sight of a guy with his dick out in shot, semi-obscuring their view of the woman (there can be little doubt that some gay guys watch straight porn on the basis that they get to see a hot - in their eyes - nude or semi-nude guy humping or being blown by a female porn star doing nothing for them).
It all gets silly. If one of the babes on Babestation, say, was to reveal that she'd had gender reassignment surgery, would that make her fans bi or gay? Would it depend on what had been 'added' or 'taken away' behind the thong? Would transgender-phobic straight guys always choose to watch an unattractive, middle-aged, 'past it' female celebrity (I originally included a couple of names here, but it's too disrespectful to keep them in, so come up with ones yourself!) cavorting on a bed over one of the Thai shemales? To what degree does an appendage between the legs define the gender of person who owns that appendage, and define the orientation those who choose to watch that person (even when the appendage is hidden from view)? Etc, etc!
The funny thing is, I'm not sure how much acceptance you would get in gay clubs or gay society in general if the only blokes you fancied, have long hair, make-up, and tits. Haha it seems a stretch.
I can see the argument totally, for people saying you can't be 'entirely straight' if you have a thing for ladyboys. But what is 'entirely straight' anyway? Sexuality is one big grey area, not black and white.
My advice? If you get off on women, men, ladyboys, all of the above? Go ahead, and apologise to no-one.
Does no one see the hypocrisy in the last few posts!? It's quite staggering.
Here we are, being lectured at and told that it's wrong to impose your opinions and beliefs on others, while in the same breath being informed that anyone who is of the opinion or belief that a person is wrong to call themselves straight while admitting to an attraction to shemales, is, indeed, wrong.
And isn't it strange how people such as those above, always choose to read what they want into a post that they don't agree with?
We're homophobic, we're intolerant, we're prejudice... not because of anything we've said, but simply because we don't find the shemales attractive.
(13-05-2014 01:06 )JuanKerr Wrote: [ -> ]Does no one see the hypocrisy in the last few posts!? It's quite staggering.
Here we are, being lectured at and told that it's wrong to impose your opinions and beliefs on others, while in the same breath being informed that anyone who is of the opinion or belief that a person is wrong to call themselves straight while admitting to an attraction to shemales, is, indeed, wrong.
And isn't it strange how people such as those above, always choose to read what they want into a post that they don't agree with?
We're homophobic, we're intolerant, we're prejudice... not because of anything we've said, but simply because we don't find the shemales attractive.
This is where I invite you to find any point in my previous post where I said you were 'wrong'. Best of luck x
(13-05-2014 01:06 )JuanKerr Wrote: [ -> ]Does no one see the hypocrisy in the last few posts!? It's quite staggering.
Here we are, being lectured at and told that it's wrong to impose your opinions and beliefs on others, while in the same breath being informed that anyone who is of the opinion or belief that a person is wrong to call themselves straight while admitting to an attraction to shemales, is, indeed, wrong.
And isn't it strange how people such as those above, always choose to read what they want into a post that they don't agree with?
We're homophobic, we're intolerant, we're prejudice... not because of anything we've said, but simply because we don't find the shemales attractive.
did i say you individually? no i'm talking about bigotry, not people that simply dont find someone attractive
i apologise if you think i was aiming that at you, i thought we were having a general discussion.
if i had something to say to an individual member i would have named them directly
(13-05-2014 01:06 )JuanKerr Wrote: [ -> ]Does no one see the hypocrisy in the last few posts!?
People who don't like the idea of war in principle will fight against those who prescribe and proscribe to excess, when the situation demands. It doesn't make them hypocrites. If you believe that discrimination is a bad thing, and that more choice on the shows is a good thing and that shemales deserve a place alongside (not in place of, alongside) the 'natural-born' performers on Thai Chat, you'd be being tacitly hypocritical if you
didn't challenge the views of those trying to agitate in various ways to get them removed. How can anyone oppose the idea of greater variety and more equal opportunity for performers on these shows and
not expect to be challenged?
If shemales featured on the majority of channels, those who dislike them (beyond simply ignoring them and changing channel) might have the basis for a legitimate beef; but as things stand they feature on only one, and so the complaints about them represent intolerance and a form of discrimination.