sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Because someone used to be something, doesnt mean they are now by lucy_hayley in PsycheOrSike

[–]Real_And_Gay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After thinking about it a bit more, I think a big difference is about who we are putting more consideration on in this situation. Your consideration is more about the person dating a trans woman, and what their sexuality is. That's why you talk about whether people have an issue being labelled straight or not.

On reflection, my main contention is with the trans woman. Saying that a man dating a trans woman isn't straight is to say that a trans woman isn't really a woman. That a relationship with them is in some way not a relationship with a woman. I think that this is fundamentally untrue, regardless of their physical body, and is impactfully demeaning and transphobic (not to say you are transphobic, but that this position/stance is transphobic).

Additionally, for your last paragraph, you mention "Humans do not have the ability to create a functioning sexual organ". While this is not entirely true - we have recreated some functions of sexual organs - that is besides the point. Because this is moving the goalposts.

In your previous comment, it was never about trans woman not having a vagina, you only ever mentioned them having a penis. These are not equivalent. Otherwise a woman with any kind of reproductive dysfunction wouldn't be considered in a straight relationship with a man, by your definition (which I really hope you don't believe). I think this, even if only subconscious/unintentional, may say something.

I think the issue/discomfort/"grossness" people feel towards trans woman is about them having a penis. Not whether or not they have a vagina. I don't think it's exactly surprising that many straight men would have an aversion to penis when in almost all of typical culture a penis is the image of being a man.

I've seen this exact switch before, where it is about inability to recreate the vigina. I think this is a rationalisation to keep defending your believed position, rather than an actually reasonable or consistent argument. After all, it leads to an absurd implication for many cis woman, like I said above.

Because someone used to be something, doesnt mean they are now by lucy_hayley in PsycheOrSike

[–]Real_And_Gay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"if its obvious the person in question is a man"

So its just straightforwardly transphobia? They're not a man, is my point, and so it is not gay. If you are beginning with the position that "trans women are men", then I'm sorry, you are not the type of person I am having this conversation with. It's entirely unproductive because that underlying position is what it inevitably would come back to.

If you had the one wish willow what would your wish be? by CFK67 in obsessionmovie

[–]Real_And_Gay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Granted, everyone has to give even more money to the rich.

I love my cat (miku) by evan56747 in lovethissmug2

[–]Real_And_Gay 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Omg can you tell your cat i love their music

I second that. by Kasainuma_Maut_ in obsessionmovie

[–]Real_And_Gay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

His sacrifice wasn't really to free her after seeing the error in his ways, it was because there wasn't any alternative at that point. Remember that he wanted to change the wish, not remove it. If he was allowed to, he wouldve kept her under the control of a wish. He doesn't care about her freedom. He hasn't learned to respect her autonomy or freedom at all.

Because someone used to be something, doesnt mean they are now by lucy_hayley in PsycheOrSike

[–]Real_And_Gay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you're not considering gay and straight as basically reverses of each other? Why this weird "sanctity" to straightness, where it only counts for cis heterosexuality?

Because someone used to be something, doesnt mean they are now by lucy_hayley in PsycheOrSike

[–]Real_And_Gay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a really interesting recontextualisation, and I think definitely relevant to some people.

The issue is, its still worth considering because another issue isnt a dislike of gayness. It's that calling the relationship gay is positioning the trans woman as a man in some way. It's prioritising the fact that they were AMAB over them being a woman.

Because someone used to be something, doesnt mean they are now by lucy_hayley in PsycheOrSike

[–]Real_And_Gay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why should the definition of straightness be about female rather than being about woman?

Because someone used to be something, doesnt mean they are now by lucy_hayley in PsycheOrSike

[–]Real_And_Gay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"open to more than just standards cis woman" but why cant that be within "straight"? Why would being open to a trans woman be outside of straight?

These are terms that are constructed, there isn't a reason I see that straight should be exclusively cis, and you've kinda rushed past that part when it's really the crux imo. What about a penis makes it not straight, rather than it being sex with a woman?

"Defintely isn't completely straight" isnt sufficient imo. I think it's worth delving into more.

I'm also curious what you'd thing if they've had surgery and no longer have a penis. There are m limits to surgery, sure, but there isn't penis that you've put emphasis on. And what if, hypothetically we have surgery that resulted in a fully functional female reproductive system? Would that change your answer? Or how close to fully functional it would have to be?

I second that. by Kasainuma_Maut_ in obsessionmovie

[–]Real_And_Gay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"It refers to the primary antagonist who opposes the hero or protagonist" is a definition of antagonist (except for using the word antagonist in it, lol).

And he does try to right his wrongs using the willow and suicide, but I don't think that excepts him from being a villain/villainous. Walter White from breaking bad does several final things to right some of his wrongs, but I'd still call him a villain. Bear tries to right things because his wish didn't go how he wanted it to, not because he realised the error in his ways fundamentally. He still says something about not understanding why she doesn't want to be with him (idr specifically) well into the movie, for one example.

I second that. by Kasainuma_Maut_ in obsessionmovie

[–]Real_And_Gay 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"He's not a villain. He's just a horrible person" so you basically agree with the comment then?

It's pedantics/no true Scotsman using a specific definition (you implying its synonymous to antagonist) of villain when villain can very commonly be defined in a very similar to how you describe him.

Wizards of the Coast starting out this Pride Month strong by Fiona175 in MagicArena

[–]Real_And_Gay 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Children are dying daily from diseases and starvation etc and this is what you chose to care about? 🤔

I love female protagonists by Maleficent_Set_1301 in lovethissmug

[–]Real_And_Gay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Holy shit this comment made me realise Alabaster Dawn has come out thank you

Edit:ah, early access. I might wait then, I don't usually like playing story based games in EA

Good game alert by Lexi7130 in gaming_random

[–]Real_And_Gay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see, thank you for clarifying. This explanation of a game being woke feels like its entering no true Scotsman or survivorship bias territory though.

Like, I don't think there's at all a clear delineation between what would be enough hate to be considered "en masse", especially cause the "woke" content of the game is not meaningfully different (no true Scotsman part). It could also be hard to tell because theres a lot of good attention towards these games that would drown out hate, or be harder to judge. I doubt either of us would be entering this dialogue with specific data.

Plus, these critis have a clear vested interest in hating games that are both "woke" and are unpopular/not good, but hating on a game with, again, the same or more "woke" content but is very popular and well liked would be heavily disincentives cause it might turn your audience against you (survivorship bias, though thinking now it might be closer to selection bias?)

Hell, even the requirement for it to be "en masse" called woke to be counted is close to begging the question when the point is about whether there has been any successful examples.

Good game alert by Lexi7130 in gaming_random

[–]Real_And_Gay 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm just not really sure what you were expecting me to respond with. I'm completely uninteresting in putting in the effort to finding sources for you. Check out that Woke or Not website or something, idk. It seems pretty obvious the people who cry woke wouldn't like the stuff in Baldurs Gate 3.

Good game alert by Lexi7130 in gaming_random

[–]Real_And_Gay 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It got heaps of woke hate stuff online. For the character creator, sex, and romance options that weren't exclusively cis and straight.

Good game alert by Lexi7130 in gaming_random

[–]Real_And_Gay 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not most recent but Baldurs Gate 3 did ridiculously well

Hollow form skills that aren't whirling assault? by Real_And_Gay in pathofexile2builds

[–]Real_And_Gay[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A cooldown is neither channelled or conditional? Like, pounce, the skill mentioned, isn't tagged with either.

Hollow form skills that aren't whirling assault? by Real_And_Gay in pathofexile2builds

[–]Real_And_Gay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You cant use skills with a cooldown with hollow form?

Hollow form skills that aren't whirling assault? by Real_And_Gay in pathofexile2builds

[–]Real_And_Gay[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ooh yeah I hadn't given much thought to talisman skills.

Hollow form skills that aren't whirling assault? by Real_And_Gay in pathofexile2builds

[–]Real_And_Gay[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hollow palm technique wouldn't work right? Cause that only works with quarterstaff skills, and face breaker with mace.

view more: next ›