20220124 Newsletter
Advocate Magazine trans propaganda, Also, transwoman propaganda.
ADVOCATE MAGAZINE PUSHES GAYS TO HAVE SEX WITH TRANSMEN, BUT NO REAL REACTION FROM GAY COMMUNITY
At some point I will do a review of this article, but reviewing the trans absurdities of this article and its rhetorical tactics misses the important point that this article was actually published by a magazine with primarily a Gay audience nd the implications of it being published.
https://www.advocate.com/sexy-beast/2018/8/08/16-things-i-learned-having-sex-trans-men
The Advocate’s audience is primarily Gay men and advertisers whose potential customers are Gay men. It would seem that publishing an article insulting to Gays and contrary to the interests of Gays would be not in the self-interest of the magazine. Yet they published it, and the editors thought it would be to their advantage to do so. This decision needs to be understood.
We think that Gay men can be mobilized against trans ideology that erases Gays, but we need to critically re-examine that idea considering that a magazine, the Advocate, whose audience is composed of nearly all Gay men, sees to its advantage to publish this article.
Besides the few Gays mobilized to push back against trans ideology it seems there will be little reaction. Most Gays will not see a threat in the article, if they actually read it and don’t ignore it entirely. I don’t believe that Gays see any real prospect that they will face a situation in real life where they are dealing with a transman pushing sex on them or it being a real problem they will face.
What reaction that might be occurring is a detachment from the LGBTQXYZ movement by Gay men as the Alphabet Soup becomes increasingly irrelevant to their lives.
There are likely some Gay men which are becoming alienated, but they aren’t organized, and if they seek out an organization, they will find groups focused on feminist concerns with members that are hostile to the Gay community.
We can and should continue to report and document trans excess, but it isn’t likely to build a movement. We have to come up with something else.
By the way, we really need a way to broadcast items like this to others who are pushing back against trans propaganda.
TRANS PROPAGANDA TO DENY LESBIAN CONCERNS
I share it here for those who might be interested. Somehow not accepting trans ideology involves racism. I think the issue of trans shutting down Lesbian bars is a strawperson thrown up to knock down and push trans ideology.
ANOTHER SECTION ON THE GAY BOOK I AM WRITING.
Classification isn’t just assertion. When we push back against the “homogender” definition of the Gay community we have to do more than say it is absurd. We have to explain why. So this is the section I wrote.
WHO ARE THE GAYS?
You might just say it is biological men who are sexually attracted, exclusively or nearly exclusively, to biological men as opposed to women, and be done with the question. That is generally how it has been understood and what the author of this essay believes it to be.
However, with trans ideology it is anyone who imagines that they are a man who is attracted to anyone else who imagines they are a man. Homosexual is replaced by homogender.
What would be the basis in choosing one over the other besides some personal preference or bias? Also, without an understanding of why one classification is correct how would you exclude misleading classifications and classifications invented for agendas? Also, why have classifications?
First consider the need for classification. When Gay people have trouble accepting being Gay, they might be sexually active but sometimes say that they, “don’t like labels.” Imagine a supermarket where none of the products had labels, or bottles of chemicals. Imagine biology without names and classification. Though humans are individuals they are also in groups and types. With labels I can be informed that one person is a doctor if I am ill and a carpenter when my roof leaks. I am not going to write more on the need for classification. This is usually the grasping for excuses by a person who is having Gay sex but can’t accept being Gay. Also, it would be useful to those who don’t want to accept a Gay identity to keep out of Gay discussions.
A classification for groups of people can be looked at analytically and in terms of cultural history. First consider the question analytically.
The validity of a classification is based on its usefulness and descriptiveness. Is the grouping useful in understanding a collection of things and give some idea of what they are?
Let’s consider numbers, we can divide them into even and odd numbers. There are prime numbers, number that are only divisible by one and themselves, (1,2,3,5,7,11, etc.), Fibonacci numbers, and squares and other numbers. These are useful since they give some useful information about a collection of numbers.
Let’s say I decided to have vowel numbers and consonant numbers based on whether the last letter in their English name was a vowel or consonant. There would be vowel numbers one, two, three, five, nine, twelve, and we would have to wonder about twenty. (That sometimes y rule.) There would be consonant numbers, four, six, seven, eight, ten, eleven, and thirteen through nineteen.
You can divide all the numbers into two groups this way, but this classification would wouldn’t be descriptive of any properties of the numbers in the groups and would be totally useless.
A consistent classification also pulls into the class that which is validly belong together and also excludes what shouldn’t be included. For example, if you defined birds biologically as vertebrates that fly it would be mostly correct including birds, but would pull in both bats and flying squirrels as well as flying fish. On the other hand, you can refer to a class on flying creatures if your study was aerial activity of vertebrates in some setting. They wouldn’t be birds though.
If you were mentioning the patrons of Gay bars, it might involve straight women, bisexual men, Gay men, transmen, and others who make up a regular patronage, but that wouldn’t be the class of individuals who are Gay.
For Gay men if you define Gay as biological men who are sexually attracted exclusively or nearly exclusively to biological men you have coherently define a group of individuals with a common feature which shapes their activities, culture and life paths, and provides a fairly clear boundary of who is in and who isn’t. It is a definition which would include the variation we see in the Gay community.
Also, it isn’t a definition which has additional needless criteria which are not needed. For example, if we defined it as men who additionally, besides attraction have had sexual activity with a man, we would exclude those who have sexual desire for men, but have not yet for some reason had the opportunity to have sex with a man or hadn’t acted on that desire for some reason, and it would drop out those who cease having sexual activity for some reason.
Another bad definition would be men who have sex with men, which would include rapists, and those who have sex with men but are bisexual or other sexualities.
Bisexuals, biological men whose sexual attractions include both biological men and women, have a different set of desires than Gay men which shapes a different activities and life choices.
The homogender idea, that Gay is anyone who imagines that they are a man who is attracted to anyone else who imagines they are a man isn’t descriptive of a common community of desire. It has been noted that transmen generally don’t have relations with transmen. They aren’t part of a community of desire that includes each other. The common complaint of transmen is that Gays don’t want to have sex with them. They have YouTube videos complaining about this, the so-called LGBTQ+ media has articles where they lecture Gays to consider that they should consider transmen as potential sexual partners and denounce as transphobic those who won’t. The complaints of transmen themselves show that they aren’t part of a common community of desire and that there isn’t a common homogender community.
Homogender is a definition in defiance of what homosexuality is. Transmen simply don’t have biological male bodies to which homosexual men have attraction. Homogender is an erasure of homosexuality and nonsensical. It insists on homosexual men to be heterosexual performers.
Also, homogender is based on a theory where sexual identity is all based on one thing, performance, and entirely excluding biology, imagined identity is privileged over physical reality, and made hegemonic. It also, sees sexual identity as like a mathematical state function, that is based on the individual’s existence in the immediate present, and entirely precludes it being like a mathematical path function, even though the very word trans conveys the idea of going from one place or location to another, that is “across.” A state function is a function where the value is determined by a single point on the function. A path function’s value is based on the path it has taken to that point. People are born and have a trajectory in life which they have taken to the present. Their identities are determined by their past as well as the present. Trans has strongly expressed dislike of their past, because, rightly, their assertion of their identity involves truncation of their past.
Gays have a common path is life, born men, and growing up as men, and discovering and acting upon Gay self-identity. Just as transmen often cut off parts of their bodies, they also seek to cut of their pasts to attempt to be comparable to Gay men by only considering the themselves in the present and Gay men in the present.
Homogender as a concept for Gays is an agenda to privilege one interpretation of male identity over another and establish a hegemony of that interpretation regardless of its reality or its conflict with the reality of the Gay community.
There is the historical argument also which needs to be considered.
Communities define themselves, and Gays have a right to have a self-definition that works functionally for them.
Queer is a term to diffuse and obscure Gay identity, slopping homosexuals in with a slew of sexualities and identities, with often little commonality, or no commonality, in initialisms of LGBTQ+ which now can have 14 letters representing different things. Queer is an identity which is centered on straights, staring at straightness, meaning only that an individual is not straight. As being an item in a list it is reduced to being an individual sexual variation and not a community in itself but instead it is positioned as an identity in the Alphabet Soup Sea to be defined by social workers and academics. It has been imposed by academic elites onto a set of communities.
Whereas, the African American community denies that white person Rachel Dolezai and other transracialists are African American, and Koreans have laughed and scoffed at the pretensions of Oli London, despite his surgeries to appear Korean, to be trans Korean, because of a small academic elite the pretensions of transgender men to be Gay men is pushed on the Gay community by the LGBTQXYZ media and those who don’t are denounced as transphobic, as well as those who might accept transmen self-definition as being Gay but do not want to have sex with them. Even small groups are able to insist on their self-definition, such as when Hilaria Baldwin claimed to be Majorcan, when it was revealed that she wasn’t. No trans-Majorcan identity was accepted, but Gays can be subjected to lectures as to who they are or how their community is to be defined.
Transracialists have arguments why their identities are valid, but racial and ethnic minorities won’t accept any of it, and academic elites don’t dare push transracialism.
However, academic elites feel empowered to push the homogender definition of Gay which shows how being Gay is not really respected, how the Gay community is weak, and can still be subject to abuse. Other communities are respected and have the clout to not be subjected to abuse.
These Gender studies groups are not Gay studies groups and mostly aren’t Gay men. Can you imagine the uproar is a mostly white history department, American studies department, or sociology department declared that African Americans include persons like Rachel Dolezai and condemned African Americans who didn’t accept her and other persons who imagine they are African American as transphobic? You would want to stand back as anger and outrage exploded all over the place.
The fact that Gays largely haven’t exploded with anger is evidence that Gays don’t value and have pride in being Gays. One of the goals of this book is to change the Gay community so Gays do value being Gay and see being Gay as something worth defending.
In the end Gays are homosexual biological men because we say so, because it is a working definition for our community and comes out of our own community experiences and history as well as being a rational self-classification. The definition which is proposed in this book is a definition that comes out of the Gay community’s experience, is functional for it, and works for it. Our community is not to be seized by others and defined by others and parasitism is to be resisted.
PAST NEWSLETTERS