Don't Call Me Queer - The LGB and TQ+ Must Split Campaign

It may be the case that prenatal androgen exposure influences childhood sex-typed behaviour. (Though, well ... "sex typed behaviour" ... hmm?)

But that can't alter the fact that a man sincerely saying he feels attracted to men must be telling the truth, whereas a man sincerely saying he feels he is a woman must be making a mistake. (Since feeling attracted is being attracted but changing sex is impossible.)

So: prenatal androgen, shmenatal androgen, gay is very different from trans. In other words, LGB doesn't belong with T. That's anyway obvious, no?

Honestly, I think the problem is the same as with the words "trans man" and "trans woman": new words should have been invented instead of using clearly defined words to mean something else.

"Straight" and "gay" don't mean shit when it comes to trans people. Entirely new words should be invented that clearly mark the distinction between what someone has in their pants (whether modified or not) and how someone wishes to be interacted with.

Like, I'm a transman. That means I have female genital bits but I wish to be interacted with as a man. So who's supposed to be interested in me (other than pansexual people, I guess?) ? Not gay people (lesbians don't want to romantically interact with me as a man, and gay men are not interested in the female bits), and not straight people (same in reverse). No, what I would need would be someone who is specifically attracted to transmen, and there's no clear word for that.

So yeah, I'm all for separating the LGB from the T. I even think it would benefit the T, since it would allow for the creation of T-specific sexualities.

"Including sexual orientation" means its not the only behaviour.

Differences in brain structure that come about from chemical messengers and genes interacting on developing brain cells are believed to be the basis of sex differences in countless behaviors, including sexual orientation.[1]: 25

When it comes to GI academia have destroyed any claim to expertise they once had. The countries leading universities are the main perpetrators of this hoax.
Such papers have been linked to before and used as evidence for something that's completely made up bollocks.
There comes a time when you've got to say, enough all ready, there is no science to prove anything the poster I responded to claimed.
If crap covers it then calling it crap is the simplest way to address it.

trans gayness

Bonkers.

I'm a bi man, DP is about as heterosexual as it gets. We've been in a heterosexual relationship for nearly 20 years. That doesn't make me straight though, I'm still bi and will be till the day I die. My attraction to men doesn't disappear just because I'm in a relationship with DP, I just don't act on it, like I wouldn't with my attraction to any woman who isn't DP.

I'm definitely bi though, not pansexual. As I understand it, people who are pan are capable of fancying anyone. I'm not, I fancy male people, and I fancy female people. I like my male people to have male parts, and I like my female people to have female parts.

So , exposure to hormones in utero may affect sexual orientation. Or may not. No mention of gender. However that is defined.

I think that anyone who comes out with this sort of tosh has no real idea about the nature of genuine sexual attraction as opposed to some nonsense anime version.

Did you actually read it? I don't think it helps the gender realist cause to call published and peer reviewed papers from one of the countries leading universities "crap".

I don't have any doubt that you are right in your belief that some gendered behaviour exists from birth without culture. I'd be surprised if same sex attraction did not originate in the foetus.

Your problem, though, is that you use that to say it can therefore be conflated with sex and it can't. Because gender is a spectrum of behaviour and many or even most people will exhibit some behaviour which is more typical of the gender traits of the opposite sex.

Behaviour is also a choice. Choosing to behave like a man when I was in business did not make me one.

Not science, it's a biased activists report. Stop reading crap.

And that’s the same as asexuality, which according to some can mean only wanting to have sex with someone you have a deep connection with. Which also applies to a lot of people.

Anything after the LGB is so ridiculous try hard, a desperate attempt to find an identity in normal human experience.

In my head…
Gender - how I feel about what’s in my pants
Sexuality - how I feel about about what’s in your pants

straight - what’s in my pants is the opposite of what’s in your pants
gay/lesbian - what’s in my pants is the same as what’s in your pants
bisexual - I don’t mind what’s in your pants, as long as you don’t mind what’s in your pants
pansexual - I don’t mind what’s in your pants, even if you do
asexual - I’m not really interested in what’s in your pants, please keep them on, thanks very much.

See above.

"Sex-typed behavior
edit
The hormonal theory of sexuality holds that, just as exposure to certain hormones plays a role in fetal sex differentiation, such exposure also influences the sexual orientation that emerges later in the adult. Differences in brain structure that come about from chemical messengers and genes interacting on developing brain cells are believed to be the basis of sex differences in countless behaviors, including sexual orientation.[1]: 25 Prenatal factors that affect or interfere with the interaction of these hormones on the developing brain can influence later sex-typed behavior in children.[1]: 24 This hypothesis is originated from experimental studies in non-human mammals, yet the argument that similar effects can be seen in human neurobehavioral development is a much debated topic among scholars.[2] Recent studies, however, have provided evidence in support of prenatal androgen exposure influencing childhood sex-typed behavior.[2]"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2951011/

so ‘pansexuality’ means someone who’s not going to shag someone they don’t like as a person…… I think that might apply to a lot of people 😆

Asserting gender as only a culturally imposed expectation where all scientific evidence points otherwise is what's called cognitive dissonance in action….hence your discomfort & defensiveness evidenced in waving any contrary evidence as irrelevant.

Please link the scientific evidence - I know a few *scientists have tried to produce something meaningful in this space, but as far as I’m aware, no actual evidence has emerged

.* I don’t consider researchers investigating with n=1 to be qualified as scientists

Asserting gender as only a culturally imposed expectation where all scientific evidence points otherwise is what's called cognitive dissonance in action….hence your discomfort & defensiveness evidenced in waving any contrary evidence as irrelevant.

What scientific evidence is there for 'gender'?

Fancy words can't hide the fact that everything you say is wrong, it's disinformation and at this point outright lies.

Science deals with facts not made up stupidity, there is no science to back up Gender Idiocy, only activists report masquerading as scientific studies. Humans are not Clown fish.

Gender Studies = claptrap, thanks why it's in the humanities, if it were proper knowledge it would be part of science, which is the only reliable way with have to develop an understanding of the world around us.

Personally, I find it as difficult to say the word “queer” as I do to say the word “ni**er”. It is inextricably linked in my head with the word “bashing” and reminds me of the days when gay people were at genuine risk from thugs with baseball bats and “pretty police” and nail bombs.

"off topic" = arguments that I don't agree with.

How is it off topic to offer an argument as to why the lgb & tq shouldn't be split?

You act as if you are confused as to the association of TQ &LGB but that's because at the heart of the gender critical position is an inability to accept gender as a naturally occurring consequence of nature/ nurture & evolutionary pressures.

Asserting gender as only a culturally imposed expectation where all scientific evidence points otherwise is what's called cognitive dissonance in action….hence your discomfort & defensiveness evidenced in waving any contrary evidence as irrelevant.

@SadTimesNewRoman
I am a straight man, I am only attracted to women - but I don't particularly care about their gender so I'm apparently pan.

So only attracted to biological women? No transwomen in your dating pool but could be attracted to the right (for you) transman or non-binary woman is that correct? Is that what you mean? (Makes sense to me).

Just to reiterate: they only surveyed their own members.

And even then, they screened out those who might not be rabidly transphobic.

They didn't ask anyone else.

So extrapolating anything from that (and ignoring that the vast majority of gay people know transphobia is just recycled homophobia) is nothing but wishful thinking.

Tragic af honestly 😁

Yeah that was hilarious

• contact your own members
• screen out those who don't hate trans people with an introductory question
• ask the remainder your questions
• publish the results 😁

What's next? Surveying your mum to ask what percentage of her likes breathing?

Anyone taken in by this nonsense is...well, probably here, ranting all day about trans people.

It is almost as if you are saying that what makes someone male or female is their whole body and not just their genitals.

Which I would agree with.

Surgically messing with genitals and breasts doesn’t change a person’s sex