Any females get turned by Giving Handjob

3

328982

Guest
My initial thoughts on the Rachel Dolezal thing we're probably like most...that lady is a nutcase.

Then the Jenner thing happened and it made me wonder why that was celebrated while Dolezal is an ostracized punchline.

I read a couple articles on it, but their arguments were based more on emotion than logic. If anyone has a good one I'd love to read it!
I know she's flogging a book but I think she comes over quite well here http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/04/01/dolezals-journey-to-trans-blackness.cnn
 

Englishmansabroad

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Posts
351
Media
0
Likes
223
Points
78
Location
London (Greater London, England)
When another person's opinions or experiences on this subject do not match your own, that does not necessarily mean that they are against trans people.
I would assume 'trans' to be offensive or derogatory because I've only ever heard the word used in that context, and wouldn't use the word myself, but if someone else wants to identify as 'trans' and feel good about it (a bit like reclaiming the word 'queer') then that is fine by me.

Thanks for the support.

I think actually there are quite a few misconceptions cropping up in this thread-apart from this thing with mizzsummers.It isn't surprising, as -to my knowledge-none here apart from me and her are at -all trans.

To me a lot of these questions about what counts as a real woman, talk of cis/trans etc, are really the wrong ones to ask.That's why we're getting on to these things like white people saying they're black etc.To be fair trans people themselves are partly to blame for this.

As an analogy, imagine the following scenario.

You're driving along near a railway crossing and are involved on a terrible accident. As you lay there bleeding to death the emergency services arrive.

Instead of cutting you out of the wreck however they begin an argument. Was this actually a road (automobile) or train accident?. A whole debate ensues about the semantics of this-what is meant by road and rail? etc.

But meanwhile you don't care about any of this- you are in terrible pain/dieing, and all you need is treatment.

This,I suggest is the reality for many trans folk-especially, I believe, for A)Very dysphoric people who don't conform to the strictures of Pathway (the guidelines in western countries for treating g.d.), and B)people living outside of these p.c.liberal democracies.

This is true both in terms of the crippling dysphoria trans people feel, but also the abuse,violence and lack of rights many still suffer worldwide.

To me, this is the real issue,-I.e ensuring access to treatment and rights, not semantics.

Unfortunately what has happened is that this has now been eclipsed by endless debate between trans and Feminists etc, over the meaning of the world "woman".

Now I'm sorry if this is "preaching", but it's obvious people here want to discuss this.
 
9

950483

Guest
I know she's flogging a book but I think she comes over quite well here http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/04/01/dolezals-journey-to-trans-blackness.cnn
I had to google Rachel wotsherface! I read a sympathetic guardian article about her but I'm still not convinced. Yes she did take up some unpaid positions, but even those would have come with a certain amount of kudos, attention, and power. She just seems to me not so much like an outright liar and talented fraudster, but one of those people who can't quite tell the difference between truth or lies. The fact that she likes to call it creativity makes me wonder though.
 
9

950483

Guest
Thanks for the support.

I think actually there are quite a few misconceptions cropping up in this thread-apart from this thing with mizzsummers.It isn't surprising, as -to my knowledge-none here apart from me and her are at -all trans.

To me a lot of these questions about what counts as a real woman, talk of cis/trans etc, are really the wrong ones to ask.That's why we're getting on to these things like white people saying they're black etc.To be fair trans people themselves are partly to blame for this.

As an analogy, imagine the following scenario.

You're driving along near a railway crossing and are involved on a terrible accident. As you lay there bleeding to death the emergency services arrive.

Instead of cutting you out of the wreck however they begin an argument. Was this actually a road (automobile) or train accident?. A whole debate ensues about the semantics of this-what is meant by road and rail? etc.

But meanwhile you don't care about any of this- you are in terrible pain/dieing, and all you need is treatment.

This,I suggest is the reality for many trans folk-especially, I believe, for A)Very dysphoric people who don't conform to the strictures of Pathway (the guidelines in western countries for treating g.d.), and B)people living outside of these p.c.liberal democracies.

This is true both in terms of the crippling dysphoria trans people feel, but also the abuse,violence and lack of rights many still suffer worldwide.

To me, this is the real issue,-I.e ensuring access to treatment and rights, not semantics.

Unfortunately what has happened is that this has now been eclipsed by endless debate between trans and Feminists etc, over the meaning of the world "woman".

Now I'm sorry if this is "preaching", but it's obvious people here want to discuss this.
Had wine, so I might need to post a more well thought out response tomorrow, but how can a man feel like a woman? Surely he would just feel like a man who feels like a woman? I'm a woman, and I don't know what it feels like to be a woman, I only know what it feels like to be this woman.
What if a woman didn't feel like a woman, because she had physical traits that were not considered womanly or attractive? The NHS does not sanction or offer treatment for that. I'm not suggesting that anyone should be left bleeding and mangled in an accident, but everyone has their own shortcomings or difficulties to come to terms with. Physical or psychological. (Okay, some more than most I guess). When you've dealt with or come to terms with those difficulties and accepted yourself for who and what you are is when you are truly being yourself. Yes, I know that is just my opinion, but it is a more healthy and empowering one than some of the alternatives.
Why did you detransition? Why did you transition in the first place for that matter? I'm not asking just to pick holes or shore up my own point of view. I'm genuinely interested. It's fine if you'd rather not respond. Or pm me about it if that would be preferable.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
My initial thoughts on the Rachel Dolezal thing we're probably like most...that lady is a nutcase.

Then the Jenner thing happened and it made me wonder why that was celebrated while Dolezal is an ostracized punchline.

I read a couple articles on it, but their arguments were based more on emotion than logic. If anyone has a good one I'd love to read it!
I would love to read a good article too. The only ones I read either supporting Ms. Dolezal, or supporting apathy regarding her sham, were too easy for me to argue against. I'd be interested to read one that made me reconsider my disdain.
 

Scarletbegonia

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
May 2, 2013
Posts
8,335
Media
26
Likes
23,701
Points
508
Location
Purgatory (Maine, United States)
Sexuality
Asexual
Gender
Female
I would love to read a good article too. The only ones I read either supporting Ms. Dolezal, or supporting apathy regarding her sham, were too easy for me to argue against. I'd be interested to read one that made me reconsider my disdain.

I don't think I could lose my disdain.
I see her in the same light as the Gentile members of Jews for Jesus.
Shams.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
I don't think I could lose my disdain.
I see her in the same light as the Gentile members of Jews for Jesus.
Shams.
I'm not familiar with Gentile members of that organization. What do they say about themselves? My grandmother was what I would call a Messianic Jew. She was not a part of Jews for Jesus. She went to a shul or a temple (I wasn't yet born, and don't know which) and asked to convert. She expected to be declined two or three times, but they rejected her on more than ten separate occasions. Still, she knew that what she was practicing on her own, that she had believed was Christianity, was Judaism, and she wanted to be able to worship and live with other Jewish folks. She kept going back. She had already been keeping Kosher, she just didn't know that's what she had been doing. She lived Leviticus nearly literally. She had obeyed Jewish law and observed Jewish customs a long time. One day, she showed kindness and hospitality to a stranger in need, who had come to her house. She, as any good Southerner, wouldn't let him leave with just the phone call he'd asked to make, and the facilities he'd asked to use. She fed him. He was Jewish, and told her she was too, even if she did believe that Jesus Christ was Emmanuel, her savior and Redeemer, and eagerly await his return. Eventually, the Rabbi agreed, and she was able to study and worship at the temple near her house. She and my cousin even taught Hebrew there. She was so devout they often invited her to teach from the bema, but the Bible and the Torah said a woman couldn't stand there, so she never accepted those requests. If you would have asked her about her seemingly confused beliefs and practices, she would have told you that the Torah is practically identical to the Old Testament, and all she was doing was obeying it's teachings, to the very best of her ability, just as Jesus did, and Jesus was Jewish, and so was she. Is that similar to the people you're referring to, or are they on some bullshit like Dolezal was?
 

firsttimecaller

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Posts
588
Media
0
Likes
217
Points
78
are they on some bullshit like Dolezal was?

See, why is Dolexal a bullshit sham, while Jenner (for example) being trans is legitimate?

Both were "built" physically correctly as specified by their genetics

Both felt at a young age that these physical specs did not mesh with what their brain was comfortable with.

Both decided to undergo superficial and lifestyle changes to reflect this perceived identity.

What's the difference?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 950483

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
See, why is Dolexal a bullshit sham, while Jenner (for example) being trans is legitimate?
Trans is different. It is legitimate to say that though one is male, he feels other than a man. Trans is legitimately its own gender, as far as I and many others are concerned. Binary-non-conforming is legitimate too. I call bullshit when you tell me Jenner is a woman. She is not. She is a trans-woman. If she was actually physically intersexed, that would be different. But she's not. Womanhood is earned through the trials of girlhood.

Similarly, blackness is an experience, as much as it is skin tones and genes. That Dolezal woman is no more a black person than Jenner is a woman.
 
9

950483

Guest
Trans is different. It is legitimate to say that though one is male, he feels other than a man. Trans is legitimately its own gender, as far as I and many others are concerned. Binary-non-conforming is legitimate too. I call bullshit when you tell me Jenner is a woman. She is not. She is a trans-woman. If she was actually physically intersexed, that would be different. But she's not. Womanhood is earned through the trials of girlhood.

Similarly, blackness is an experience, as much as it is skin tones and genes. That Dolezal woman is no more a black person than Jenner is a woman.
Exactly.
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,496
Media
0
Likes
14,978
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Trans is different. It is legitimate to say that though one is male, he feels other than a man. Trans is legitimately its own gender, as far as I and many others are concerned. Binary-non-conforming is legitimate too. I call bullshit when you tell me Jenner is a woman. She is not. She is a trans-woman. If she was actually physically intersexed, that would be different. But she's not. Womanhood is earned through the trials of girlhood.

Similarly, blackness is an experience, as much as it is skin tones and genes. That Dolezal woman is no more a black person than Jenner is a woman.

220px-Walter_F_White.jpg


Walter Francis White was an African American who could pass for white. He was head of the NAACP for 24 years. Is he less of a black person because he could pass for white and thus not subject to the trials of blackhood? Is there a percentage of black blood which one must possess before they can "legitimately" identify as black regardless of how earnestly they feel to be black?

Is a genetically male person who has complete androgen insensitivity syndrome and thus develops as anatomically female (not biologically, they have undescended testes rather than ovaries and no womb, but outwardly they have breasts, a vagina, etc), is such a person not allowed to identify as a woman because genetically they are XY?

Just trying to understand where we draw the lines in terms of who is allowed to have an earnest belief that they belong to one of the various social constructs that we as humans have put together to define our differences.
 

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
220px-Walter_F_White.jpg


Walter Francis White was an African American who could pass for white. He was head of the NAACP for 24 years. Is he less of a black person because he could pass for white and thus not subject to the trials of blackhood? Is there a percentage of black blood which one must possess before they can "legitimately" identify as black regardless of how earnestly they feel to be black?

Is a genetically male person who has complete androgen insensitivity syndrome and thus develops as anatomically female (not biologically, they have undescended testes rather than ovaries and no womb, but outwardly they have breasts, a vagina, etc), is such a person not allowed to identify as a woman because genetically they are XY?

Just trying to understand where we draw the lines in terms of who is allowed to have an earnest belief that they belong to one of the various social constructs that we as humans have put together to define our differences.
She comes from people who identify as as white and was raised being told she was white. As she went about her business, there was no danger of being found out as not white, and no frightening potentially dangerous consequences of being exposed as not white. There was no obviously black relative who might turn up and get your social and economic privilege snatched away. I have relatives who look white too. But their grandparents told them, or told their parents about how they escaped slavery and then survived the Civil War. They grew up in black American or Bajan culture, or both.

In high school, I spent a lot of time with Cantonese. I learned a lot about food, a little about language, dancing, music. Am I cantonese?

And trust me. There are certain experiences unique to being part black. There's often a struggle of trying to figure out where you fit. My best friend is black and Jewish, and when we talk about social issues, that comes up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hijinxy and 950483
9

950483

Guest
220px-Walter_F_White.jpg


Walter Francis White was an African American who could pass for white. He was head of the NAACP for 24 years. Is he less of a black person because he could pass for white and thus not subject to the trials of blackhood? Is there a percentage of black blood which one must possess before they can "legitimately" identify as black regardless of how earnestly they feel to be black?

Is a genetically male person who has complete androgen insensitivity syndrome and thus develops as anatomically female (not biologically, they have undescended testes rather than ovaries and no womb, but outwardly they have breasts, a vagina, etc), is such a person not allowed to identify as a woman because genetically they are XY?

Just trying to understand where we draw the lines in terms of who is allowed to have an earnest belief that they belong to one of the various social constructs that we as humans have put together to define our differences.
Some people need to bridge the gap of understanding. Looking black, a person would not know any different to always being treated as black. This could well have given him more insights into racism, and enabled him to 'see the wood for the trees', so to speak. He was still authentic to, and in congruence with, his background, his experiences and his identity.
He is not similar to Rachel Dolzeal. She has to black-up in the mornings before she leaves the house for a long day of 'creativity'.
 

firsttimecaller

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Posts
588
Media
0
Likes
217
Points
78
Just trying to understand where we draw the lines in terms of who is allowed to have an earnest belief that they belong to one of the various social constructs that we as humans have put together to define our differences.

For me personally it's where things stop making sense.

It's like those straight guy blowjob threads. Claim straightness all you want, but when you claim it then proceed to smoke pole all weekend, you lose me.

It seems strange that one must refer to a stapler as a potato just because the stapler insists.
 

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,496
Media
0
Likes
14,978
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
For me personally it's where things stop making sense.

It's like those straight guy blowjob threads. Claim straightness all you want, but when you claim it then proceed to smoke pole all weekend, you lose me.

It seems strange that one must refer to a stapler as a potato just because the stapler insists.

All 7.5 billion of us modern humans descend from the same group of roughly 2,000 homo sapiens in Africa. Over the 50,000 - 60,000 years since we started spreading out around the globe, people have adapted to their local environments / climates, but we're all one people.

To some extent, things already stopped making sense the moment we decided to start categorizing ourselves on the basis of skin tone in particular.

My dad's black. At family reunions on his side of the family tree, it's a coffee and cream rainbow from dark black to indistinguishable from white. The takeaway I had at an early age is that it would be rude to pry or even ask about someone's heritage... to somehow make them try and justify their decision to identify as the race they identify as.

If someone identifies themselves to me as black, even if they're lily white I don't see the reason or value in questioning that. Glass houses or something I guess?
 

Englishmansabroad

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Posts
351
Media
0
Likes
223
Points
78
Location
London (Greater London, England)
I put you on ignore for being a jackass. I did. And you still are both a jackass, and on ignore. But there's a clever little button that lets you see ignored content, if you wonder if you're missing anything. You tagged me. I happened to see. I responded.

I do not have dissociative disorder, and am not fractured.

Rather than clever, your post is stupid. Are you? Or, is it laziness and ignorance that makes search engines elusive for you? Dissociative disorder (which used to be called multiple personality disorder, and has apparently been renamed dissociative identity disorder) is not schizophrenia, Genius.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Dissociative+disorder+vs+schizophrenia

In other words you unblocked me as you couldn't resist arguing with/insulting me again for some reason.Perhaps it is your weird way of flirting.

The ref.in my post seemed stupid to you, because you almost certainly didn't understand it. "The Divided Self" is the title of one of the most famous books ever written concerning schizophrenia. It is by R.D.Laing.In it a young Schizophrenic girl has a series of conflicting selves (what in your Google-speak you call "alts"), similar to those of your friend.She believes herself to be a mixture of male and female, with "all the bones of the house hold cavalry".

The joke was an obvious reference to the fact that the term alts is short for alter egos:your user name being a pun on this. However you are obviously in complete denial of the bloody obvious.

Perhaps however your condition is "only" one of Schitzo -effective disorder: this would explain your paranoia and hostility to others- also you imaging meeting people that do not exist, as well as other imaginary things, such as animals, and 11" penises, and imaginary small penis humiliation. Or perhaps you just enjoy posting bullshit for attention.

I am not even discussing the difference between types of diagnosis, if Any, that apply here. If I wish to know about psychology/psychiatry, perhaps I will consult the above work- or one of the hundreds of others I have read- or perhaps I will ask my friend the former Chair of Psychology of Social Work at Oxford Uni,UK, with whom I worked designing degree level course on the the role of psychosis in religion and mysticism. I certainly won't be asking a person on the internet, who gets their diagnosis from blogs on Google:( the equivalent of getting you plumber to perform heart surgery), but then tells others that they are lazy and stupid).

Anybody who believes that they are being compelled to do things which seriously effect them by imaginary individuals is clearly schizophrenic: if you do not even know this, then go back to Googling.This has nothing to do with gender dysphoria as normally understood, and could never be diagnosed as such: the schizophrenia is neither a "Hourse" nor a Zebra" but metaphorically a fucking heard of stampeding pink elephants.Also for you info.,psychiatrists rarely if ever even give "multiple diagnosis".

In future I suggest you stick to catering and food design, and avoid lecturing people on psychology.
 

Tight_N_Juicy

Mythical Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Posts
18,469
Media
154
Likes
65,022
Points
508
Location
U.S.A.
Verification
View
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Female
It seems strange that one must refer to a stapler as a potato just because the stapler insists.

Except that staplers and potatoes aren't sentient beings with all the complexities and nuanced circumstances that human beings live with...

False equivalence is an understatement on that one.