Forum
>
Trans Women
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
> It is all a matter of subjective perception. A perception, I can add after weeks of this poll online, that appears minoritary EVEN on gwm. So, I think that the site should re-think its entire policy on trans women on the main site. Or, at least, begin to.
I think I got a new, never seen before perspective to this. Or maybe I have mentioned this already in the psychological reasons discussion. Namely that this site is based on illusions.
This makes the pro-trans argument into "since everything is based on illusion and nothing is real, it does not matter which illusion you consume, since any illusion is as good as any other illusion". Which is obviously false.
Also could not resist pointing out the doublethink that "nothing is real, everything is an illusion, but these men they have really turned into women".
I could not instead resist the point "biology only is real. Biology is the whole point. I wanna see in here only people that BORN female, no matter if they took so much Peds that now bulk bigger than any born male, have beard, have a clit that's bigger than the penis of 50% male born, and a voice deeper than James Earl Jones. They must be BORN WITH A VAGINA!!! (You say this is the major position in GWM community, even if the poll up ther refutes this, lacking other facts. But let's pretend so)". Fine. But this point brings directly to admit to the main site female to male trans (trans men) bodybuilder. It is really fine for me. Seriously. I have some friends among them. Let's open a poll? Or we can upload their images directly, given that they fill the entire requirement up here?
I could not instead resist the point "biology only is real. Biology is the whole point. I wanna see in here only people that BORN female, no matter if they took so much Peds that now bulk bigger than any born male, have beard, have a clit that's bigger than the penis of 50% male born, and a voice deeper than James Earl Jones. They must be BORN WITH A VAGINA!!! (You say this is the major position in GWM community, even if the poll up ther refutes this, lacking other facts. But let's pretend so)". Fine. But this point brings directly to admit to the main site female to male trans (trans men) bodybuilder. It is really fine for me. Seriously. I have some friends among them. Let's open a poll? Or we can upload their images directly, given that they fill the entire requirement up here?
Please do it. If we were to follow the "bIoLOgY iZ REal" argument (which, funny enough, goes against what the medical and biological community at large believes) then a "Girl With Muscle" is simply defined as a muscular human being who was born with a vagina and ovaries.
Trans Men definitely count as that. They should 100% be on this site. The only real difference between a Trans Man and... say... Natalia Kovaleva... is that a trans man bodybuilder probably got a double mastectomy and takes full on testosterone with nothing to ward off virilization effects. Other than that, the "bIoLOgY" is the same.
I'd love to see what happens when TransMuscleChic starts posting the hottest new stars of Trans Male bodybuilding. Maybe the haters on here find a whole new kink to embrace.
Well. What the US government or the medical community say is totally irrelevant to this question. People don't adjust their preferences because the government tells them to. And neither does reality change because a government tells it to or redefines it in some way. What are they going to do anyway? Bomb me or shoot me?
The question of harm is also irrelevant, no matter how insistently you bring it up. Pictures of kittens and butterflies are also harmless, so maybe we should have them too? At least female kittens and female butterflies.
At the opposite end, images of dilated rectums of farm animals would probably also be harmless, even though maybe shocking or disturbing, especially because you could quickly move on to the next photo. All I am trying to say that your whole issue with harm is a dishonest attempt at moving the goalposts.
And when I said that people are fooled against their will and intentions, it was a perfect response to what I was responding to. You trying to apply it to a different question is your mistake, not mine. Being confused and being lied to may be harmless in your books, does not matter to me. I consider both undesirable anyway.
The thing I pointed out about something being an illusion versus real I pointed out about things you (plural) had already said here. Namely that since some people are unwittingly (and against the current rules) being fooled into thinking that some models are born female when in fact not, they should volunteer to fool themselves as many times as you wish them to. Yes or no?
If I managed to swindle you out of $100 (or any other sum), does that mean I should return it or that you should give me the rest of your money too? Which one would you agree to?
The thing you "could not resist pointing out" was not based on anything I actually said, but went against what I had said already. Now I know this is the way it's done in US politics that if you disagree with something then it always means that you support and represent the obvious, exact and absolute mirror image of that position. Now stop making a hysterical mess of this and I will repeat myself for your benefit:
I presume there is a small minority that is attracted to the extreme side effects. Things that I personally find abhorrent, but that's irrelevant. I also presume part of the fascination is precisely that said persons, born female, still identify as female. And the fact that those effects are an unintended sacrifice. Which makes to them the actual thing, bodybuilding, more powerful and fascinating.
In case these women actually want the side effects, that is, they use PEDs to get the side effects or to ruin their femininity or appearance or want to identify as male, you are looking at a minority of a minority of a minority of the audience. This is what you are really arguing from. Instead of "since everyone is so horny about that (side effects) then why would everyone not also be horny about this (females actually identifying as male)? Are they perhaps bigots and hypocrites?"
So you failed to listen. Or you failed to comprehend. Or you failed to address what I actually said. And you have failed to address the reality of the issue. You are trying to arbitrarily dictate what should matter and your best and only argument seems to be that "it's all arbitrary anyway".
The simple answer is that at that point it's not motivated by bodybuilding anymore. It's not Girls with Muscles but Girls with Virilization. A different site. Different category of porn.
That said, being born with a vagina and XX chromosomes does come with certain desirable characteristics. I think both can be true at the same time, namely that is possible to ruin those characteristics accidentally or on purpose and that it is impossible to gain those characteristics via chemistry or surgical means no matter how hard you try.
So you can attack and belittle and ridicule biology. You can harm your understanding of its significance and you can damage and distort a particular biological entity. But none of this was new and none of this was unexpected and none of that has actually proven anything.
All this words to say nothing. These words prove nothing. You failed to listen or to comprehend. You failed to answer a simple question; I dont ridicule nothing, but you have to choose one: if biology is the parameter, you have to accept men trans bodybuilder on the site. They have both vagina and xx chromosome. Which gender they indentify into is meaningless, as you always said about women trans bodybuilder. OR, if gender into which they identify matters, this has to matter also for women trans bodybuilder. You simply can't sustain both to fit your illogical position. Stop clutching at straws, please.
All this words to say nothing. These words prove nothing. You failed to listen or to comprehend. You failed to answer a simple question; I dont ridicule nothing, but you have to choose one: if biology is the parameter, you have to accept men trans bodybuilder on the site. They have both vagina and xx chromosome. Which gender they indentify into is meaningless, as you always said about women trans bodybuilder. OR, if gender into which they identify matters, this has to matter also for women trans bodybuilder. You simply can't sustain both to fit your illogical position. Stop clutching at straws, please.
Well said TMC.
There is no reasoning with this guy. I’ve never seen anyone write SO much text and yet make zero coherent sense. It’s like fighting with an early pre-release version of ChatGPT.
Trans women are women.
If they have muscles than they belong on a site about women with muscles.
If you don’t find them attractive, than that’s okay. Don’t look at them.
Period.
I think that more than one criteria can apply at the same time. If that were illogical then no computer could ever have been built.
One is that identifying as a woman does not make you a woman. Another one is that the surgical and chemical actions someone takes in order to not appear like a woman anymore can and do make her unattractive and undesirable as a woman.
If this is too complicated then no wonder you didn't get anything from my previous message.
I’ll make it easy… I disagree with this:
“One is that identifying as a woman does not make you a woman”
It actually does. And both the scientific community and governments of most developed countries agree with that. It’s why transgender people can legally change their gender.
I mean, I guess you could go somewhere fun like Saudi Arabia or Turkmenistan. They’ll agree with you there. But funny enough… even IRAN has the means for people to change gender. I guess they never received your memo. You better send them a 20 paragraph manifesto about it.
You can be mad about things, but that doesn’t change things. And both your beliefs and the discriminatory posture of this site will look increasingly out of touch.
Some days I’m so grateful to be bisexual. I can just like muscles on people and enjoy it without all this baggage and anxiety.
Omg the length of that reply has got to be a record. Even for you.
Yes, pretty sure that you and I are opposites. I’m all for equality and I’m comfortable with my sexuality. I’m pretty jacked and I’ve had very enjoyable intimate times with quite a few really muscular women. Sometimes I pay for it, sometimes I don’t.
The idea of being upset at the mere presence of a trans model on a free site with like 15,000 models is just absurd to me. I honestly cannot empathize with that position at all. Lol I would never have the free time to even care about it.
I think you are trying to manipulate perceptions here.
Some people here would be and have been "upset" at the "mere presence" of morphed and beauty-lensed images. I think this would be a far bigger problem.
Guaranteed that some people would prefer that black women were not on this site. Should we maybe make a “black” tag? You know, so they could filter those photos out, and they won’t get too upset.
Or is that wrong because black women are women? Just like trans women.
I think that more than one criteria can apply at the same time. If that were illogical then no computer could ever have been built.
One is that identifying as a woman does not make you a woman. Another one is that the surgical and chemical actions someone takes in order to not appear like a woman anymore can and do make her unattractive and undesirable as a woman.
If this is too complicated then no wonder you didn't get anything from my previous message.
I got nothing from your messages, because they keep to be completely senseless: you are just saying that YOUR perception can make a biological born female that identifies as a man be considered a man ("make her unattractive and undesirable as a woman"), BUT my (and many, many other) perception does NOT make a biological born male that identifies as a woman a woman. Seriously? An unattractive and undesirable female that identifies as a man remains a woman. That's your own criteria. You simply arbitrarily apply it or not to keep your unkeepable position. And I won't speak about the fact that unattractiveness and undesirableness appears not to be a criteria to be featured on the main site. That's perception too. And the fact that persons that have the some degree of unattractiveness are instead attractive because they "still identify as females"? Another perception (audience) based on a selfperception (fbb heavily on PEDS). No...you keep clutching at straws and drop ton of words, contradicting yourself more by every post, to hide the only truth here: this is all matter of perception, but YOURS are the only that matter. Plain and simply.
I simply can't care less if you approve my way of life, but seeing that you are clearly losing this argument, and that "the minority of minority of minority" of the community is still winning the poll, you try to make this thread unreadable, invoking the moderators to "nuke this discussion". My my, you really must be desperate.
oh no, the cameltoe inspector has wormed his way over into this subsection of the forum! and as is usual for Zarkle, 'posturing' is the perfect word to describe his vacuously meandering style of diction, along with most of whatever he believes he's saying through it. in any case, i don't think he's in any position to make accusations of 'forcing a narrative' when he's willing to dismiss what the medical community may suggest on the subject as irrelevant over his own half-baked and poisonous prejudices. that - as someone might point out - would be the perfect example of confirmation bias.
i mean, seriously:
My personal opinion, after having observed multiple male to female transitioners, is that their way of being female appeared, with no exceptions and to a lesser or greater degree, cheesy, carnivalesque and distorted.
classic projection.
I do know they can fool some people for some time in some contexts, especially a site like this, but sooner or later you will become aware that something is off.
assuming that they are pretending to be something they aren't. this is YOUR narrative, not their reality.
A professor of psychology employed in two publicly funded universities once told me and a group of other people that there is a consensus among those two faculties that it's impossible to psychometrically tell apart a trans person from a person with body dysmorphia[..] The other thing I remember from that talk was that there are no people who are otherwise well-adjusted but simply want a gender transition, but that there are always other issues and disorders, always severe.
"this dude in a place once told me a thing, and i took him at face value because what he said was consonant to my preconceptions." i wanna know who the professor is, and i'd like some information on the surveys you've quoted by proxy - otherwise this is just hearsay.
Logically it looks like transgenderism has neither biological nor psychological origin but is a cultural phenomenon.
if you're going to dismiss what the medical community at large might say, then on what basis do you rationalise your logic beyond 'personal opinion'?
Real science is a process of making observations, doing experiments and recording data.
..and nothing - i mean NOTHING - that you've written here, counts as a demonstration or knowledge of real science. you make mention of keeping 'superfluous emotion' out of your dialogue as if most of it isn't an outstanding example of unchecked homo- and transphobia-driven catastrophisation where you're willing to write them all off as having "issues and disorders, always severe." as a bisexual person, i can't say i've heard that one bef-oh, wait.. i have! right up there with 'it's just a phase' and 'it's an attention-seeking ploy!'
at one point you even write that you "don't like seeing people, societies and cultures disintegrate", as if you're attributing the complete breakdown of society on what you assert is a proportion that'll "probably never amount to more than one percent of anything", the latter point of which btw is an expression of diminutisation, an informal fallacy also based on an appeal to emotion.
i'm not going to assume that you're aware of your hypocrisy, Zarkle, just as much as i realise that there's no point in showing you why having someone call you an idiot on this example wouldn't actually be an insult.
Somebody call the police, I need to report a murder!!
LOL I love it BarteusSimpsonii, this was absolutely perfect. Couldn't agree more on all points.
I will not just spend my time to answer such nonsense anymore. Let him write his wall of text. If he has time to.
I will not just spend my time to answer such nonsense anymore. Let him write his wall of text. If he has time to.
Never ever ever ever wade into this thread...
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/forum/thread/...
You'll lose many brain cells that you'll never get back. It's amazing how simply liking girls with muscles (on a site about girls with muscles) can throw people into such epic throes of anxiety and soul searching.
Sorry, no. I never allowed myself to write something like that, even to people that do not want trans women (me too), on the main site. Just because I was considered "worthless human garbage" by many people during my life (and I bet there are some even among those voted against in the poll), so I would never consider even my worst enemy like so.