Transgender men go topless at non-nude beach

Seule wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

Now wank. I command it.

Have a maggot sundae.

You first. Seriously, man, what's the burr up your butt lately?

Cyberwulf wrote:

WHAT

SEULE ARE YOU MAD

YOU CAN'T BREASTFEED IN PUBLIC PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE TO SEE A BABY EATING

I've never understood what's so incredibly offensive about that. Granted, I think I'd ideally want some privacy and peace and quiet to feed a baby, but for the onlookers, is it really that big of a deal? Another kid might see a breast; so what. A guy might see a breast; so what -- I'm sure he's seen plenty of 'em. A woman might see another woman's breast; so what, she has her own. I really don't see the offense here.

So, uh, why am I not allowed to tinkle in public?

Because no one's ever seen anything quite like that, and no one ever should.

what is there to see, i mean seriously, mikey is the dickless wonder

Breaking news: apparently they actually were genderqueer people of some nature, and "trans men" actually was closer to the truth than "trans women". I'm guessing the mix-up involved a reporter who didn't know what a trans man was.

Thank god there's some more damned information about them.

Though, arguably, I'd say "trans men" and "trans women" are equally distant from describing them. They are genderqueer. Period.

You'd be correct. Transmasculine only indicates where they lean, it doesn't mean they are men. Or women. Or anything other than masculine, really.

Malganis wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

Now wank. I command it.

Have a maggot sundae.

You first. Seriously, man, what's the burr up your butt lately?

Because what she said is lame, it's not the first time she's done it, and last time she was like NOW EVERYONE WANK over a controversial topic, she came in and was like "I started wank!" and a bunch of boring people patted her on the back and talked about eating popcorn, and it's just so goddamn lame

InkWeaver wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Verry wrote:

You'd be correct. Transmasculine only indicates where they lean, it
doesn't mean they are men. Or women. Or anything other than masculine,
really.

Have a maggot sundae.

You first. Seriously, man, what's the burr up your butt lately?

Because what she said is lame, it's not the first time she's done it, and last time she was like HURF BURF GENDERQUEER over a controversial topic, she came in and was like "I gave the viewpoint of someone different therefore special" and a bunch of boring people patted her on the back and talked about eating popcorn, and it's just so goddamn lame

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Malganis wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

Now wank. I command it.

Have a maggot sundae.

You first. Seriously, man, what's the burr up your butt lately?

I don't wank on command.

InkWeaver wrote:

Because what she said is lame, it's not the first
time she's done it, and last time she was like NOW EVERYONE WANK over a
controversial topic, she came in and was like "I started wank!" and a
bunch of boring people patted her on the back and talked about eating
popcorn, and it's just so goddamn lame

Yep, this.

Verandering wrote:

Thank god there's some more damned information about them.

Though, arguably, I'd say "trans men" and "trans women" are equally distant from describing them. They are genderqueer. Period.

Sorry to be overly binary. My point was that considering that the individuals in the article were described as "transmasculine," the assumption that they were assigned male at birth becomes questionable and the whole "well you chose to have breasts so you have to keep them under wraps" line of argument becomes a lot more complicated and/or falls apart entirely (not that it was a good one in the first place).

And I'm sorry, Jesus, I don't think we have enough details on this situation to have a proper wank about it. Not that that's ever stopped us before.

Lady Anne wrote:

Malganis wrote:

I've never understood what's so incredibly offensive about that. Granted, I think I'd ideally want some privacy and peace and quiet to feed a baby, but for the onlookers, is it really that big of a deal? Another kid might see a breast; so what. A guy might see a breast; so what -- I'm sure he's seen plenty of 'em. A woman might see another woman's breast; so what, she has her own. I really don't see the offense here.

I don't see what's so offensive about it, either, but when my sister was breastfeeding her daughter, she had to put up with all kinds of stupid when the baby needed to nurse in public. I guess these offended people would rather listen to a baby scream.

The problem is that the female body in general and breasts in particular have been so fucking sexualised (which is no surprise, as women = sex in every society on earth) that their primary function, as far as society is concerned, is to titillate the male gaze (homo- and bisexual women are considered invisible, as we all know). Therefore any woman exposing a breast for any reason must be an attention-seeking slut, and as such is punished with negative attention in the form of tuts, stares, verbal and non-verbal disapproval, and in some cases intimidation (sexual and non-sexual).

Verandering wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

All I'm hearing is
"You CHOSE to be the inferior gender, now suck up all our sexist bullshit like a good little bitch."

But of course.
You think all these damn, no good, inferior weirdo freaks will be allowed to partake in the elite superior class phallic-shaped pie?

It's the Country Club of the Privileged Birth-Peen.

And the worst part is that the guy saying it is part of an organisation that "aims to promote a positive environment for the gay and lesbian community".

What I want to know is, how did they know these transpeople had male genitalia? Who had the job of checking that? Or was it, um . . . obvious?

saeku wrote:

Sorry to be overly binary. My point was that considering that the individuals in the article were described as "transmasculine," the assumption that they were assigned male at birth becomes questionable and the whole "well you chose to have breasts so you have to keep them under wraps" line of argument becomes a lot more complicated and/or falls apart entirely (not that it was a good one in the first place).

No worries, and yeh I agree with you. The article sounds like it was written by someone like Mikey.

Cyberwulf wrote:

And the worst part is that the guy saying it is part of an organisation that "aims to promote a positive environment for the gay and lesbian community".

LGBT with a silent T.

GLb




















































t

And that Q? Fuck the Q.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Fuck the Q? Right. Let's do this.

yeah once you get to teh qqia etc basically you can forget about any representation whatsoever

QQIA? Uh, I'm not as up on my acronyms as I perhaps should be, but I'm guessing it's Genderqueer, Q-something, Intersed and... Androgynous?

What does the second Q stand for?

Nihilist wrote:

Adagio wrote:

What does the second Q stand for?

Questioning anything? Well, Google is always there to answer.

Didn't we have this selfsame little acronym discussion thrice the past month?

Yes, yes, the acronym is unwieldy, never quite up to snuff and we've got a long way to go. Insert joke about etc./Other here.

Adagio wrote:

What does the second Q stand for?

Quacks. Doctors deserve a right to be acknowledged too.

queer questioning intersexed and allies

plus a bunch more letters i cant remember

Nihilist wrote:

Adagio wrote:

What does the second Q stand for?

Questioning anything? Well, Google is always there to answer.

Funnily enough, I always forget that Google's, um, there. Wasn't actually trying to crack a joke, though.

(Thanks, Dixon.)

I still feel like it should be broken up into one acronym for genders and another for sexual preferences. They are not the same thing!

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

I still feel like it should be broken up into one acronym for genders and another for sexual preferences. They are not the same thing!

no but they are percieved to be and probably will for a long time so may as well make it one big cause instead of dividing it up and making it a weaker movement

this is why they put 'real or percieved' sexual orientation/gender identity in hate crimes law language and stuff

Oh I guess so. If we do not directly associate gay people with transgendered people all the time every time they may get all snotty and be, like, "Well gay people are people too and deserve rights, but those alternatively gendered people? Fuck them."

And also it's possible that an 'LGB only' classification becoming the norm would lead to the next bunch of LGB people being as prejudiced against TQAQ as the already-norm are now.