Alex Cheves attack in the "Advocate" on Gay men not wanting to have sex with transmen.
A really vicious attack and slander on Gay men. Shaming as a tactic.
REVIEW OF AN ATTACK ON HOMOSEXUALITY BY THE ADVOCATE: Trying to change Gay from Homosexual to Homogender.
The Advocate recently published this appalling article that is asserting Gays are retrograde and should have sex with transmen.
https://www.advocate.com/sexy-beast/2018/8/08/16-things-i-learned-having-sex-trans-men
I also had the Internet Archive store this page in their archive. This is the link.
As a researcher in another field, I learned that sometimes when people realized how stupid they have been online or how revealing something is of their agenda, it suddenly disappears. The Internet Archive will keep this article archived.
The article is titled, “16 Things I learned From Having Sex With Trans Men,” by Alex Cheves and he claims to be a cis-Gay man. Basically, it is an instruction set on how to have sex with transmen and it the underlying idea is that Gay men will be needing to know this information and should be wanting to know this information because Gay men should start having sex with transmen.
I think this article needs careful review for several reasons. It is published by a major Alphabet Soup publication and so the arguments made in the article are being widely disseminated. It is revealing of the strategies that will be used to push sex with transmen onto the Gay community. It also reveals some elements of the mentality of the Alphabet Soup and also its real lack of concern or respect for the Gay community.
It also needs to be reviewed to show how the Advocate and Alex Cheves are enemies to the Gay community and the tactics they use.
Why so Long an Essay?
The article is reviewed in depth for two reasons:
1. This article employs about every argument used to push transman sex on Gay men and I want to break down and show the falsity of each and every idea pushed in Cheves article.
2. I want to show how manipulative and disingenuous the Alphabet Soup trans extremist ideologues are in their arguments. We need to recognizes the strategies of manipulation when we see it. Being upset isn’t enough, we need to take apart their arguments and show them for the slyly presented rubbish that they are.
Trying to Change Gay from Being Homosexual to Being Homogender and Pansexual
That is the unstated goal of this article. It is the underlying basis of his arguments. Cheves actually doesn’t state that the basis of his article is that he defines Gay as being homogender instead of homosexual. That would alert the reader what the agenda is.
It is also defining being Gay as not being defined by physical attraction to the biological male body, but attraction to an individual’s personality who identifies as a man. Sex is conceptualized as something you do with a person whose personality you like and you figure out what that is after personal attraction is established.
Not only is homosexuality being redefined as homogender, but Gays are being redefined as pansexuals and with the pansexual slogan, “Hearts Not Parts.” This is a useful definition when the proposed sexual partner is lacking the Parts.
With the Alphabet Soup ideology, Gay sex comes after two people discover they both like puppies, or sunsets, or Scarlatti’s harpsichord sonatas, and they then think what type of sex they might be able to have, and not a direct physical desire, such as a Gay thinking, “look at that guy, he is packing, I liked to have that cock shoved down my throat and be choking on that!”
The Gay community is more and more recognizing the problems with trans ideology, but they don’t realize that pansexual ideology is a part of these problems. Further, that these rhetorical manipulations in one Alphabet Soup ideological agenda item denying reality will establish a precedence for accepting every more reality detached ideologies.
Cheves Core Tactic and Problem
Alex Cheves wants to establish that “Gay transmen” are just another type of Gay within the usual or normal range of the different types of Gays in the Gay community.
However, he has a problem, in that Gay transmen have a lot of phobias and are a minefield of potential problems in actually having sex with them, which tends to indicate that they are not within the ordinary range of variation of Gay men in our community. Normally you don’t need to read a sixteen-point article in general to have sex with a Gay man. Even when just starting out you will learn without much written instruction. One of Cheves primary strategies to locate Gay transmen
Pregnancy, A Strategic Omission by Cheves
One thing that clearly separates “Gay transmen” from “cis” Gay men, is that “Gay transmen” can get pregnant, “cis” Gay men, never get pregnant. Not all “Gay transmen” can get pregnant, some have bottom surgery removing their reproductive organs, but not all. Some just have bottom surgery just for some modifications. Some, actually perhaps the majority, have had no bottom surgery. Sometimes periods are stopped with taking testosterone and sometimes “Gay transmen” have dysphoria because they are having periods. In the news there are reports on transmen having babies.
Given that pregnancy is simply not a thing involved with “cis” Gay men having sex and Gay men don’t ever think about it in terms of the consequences of having sex, you would think that Cheves would make this a part of his SIXTEEN SECTION essay. There is no discussion of avoiding an unplanned pregnancy. Birth control is not mentioned in the sixteen-section essay at all. Unplanned pregnancy is something that is very central to sex education for straights whose sex can result in an unplanned pregnancy.
Straight guys discuss the issue of when to trust that some sexual partner is actually taking the pill and the advisability of using condoms to avoid child support.
However, as a topic it is entirely and completely omitted by Cheves. One reason is that this difference, pregnancy, can’t be paired with some other variation among “cis” Gays to locate pregnancy within the range and variation of the Gay community. Given that heterosexuality exists so that the species perpetuates through pregnancy, the possibility of sex with a transman resulting in pregnancy would suggest that sex with a “Gay transman” is actually heterosexuality if there is a possibility of pregnancy.
So Cheves solution is simple. Just don’t mention it regardless of how pertinent it is the subject.
If after reading his sixteen-section advisory on having sex with “Gay transmen,” and you end up paying child support, I guess that is just tough luck.
Pairing
So, one tactic of Alex Cheves is that when he discusses an issue about having sex with a transman or dating a transman, he brings up a supposedly equivalent variation among “cis Gay men” to pair with it.
For example, in Section No. 5, titled, “Everyone has different words for their body parts, Ask what his are.” Cheves then discusses that different transmen have different names for the parts of their body and you need to ask and know them beforehand so you don’t upset them.
So, this really seems like something you don’t normally have to do with a Gay guy when you are having sex. You might use one term, but you aren’t likely to be upset if the person uses another. If I say he has a hot “butt,” and he uses the term “ass,” I don’t think we are going to have an emotional meltdown like evidently transmen do.
However, Cheves informs us, “I also know some cis gay guys who hate the word ‘cock’ and bristle at its use.” REALLY! I think says more about the prickly sensitive Gays that Cheves associates with. I have never heard anyone getting upset with the use of the word “cock.” Though with the millions of Gays that exist I suppose there are a few that are upset with this or that.
Though to show how advanced their opinions are and in some type of solidarity with trans, we can expect in the future some Gays to cultivate phobias about one word or another. I think this is actually a good thing, since it will give us the opportunity to avoid fuss pots.
There is a misdirection in Section No. 5 where he conflates role playing with acceptable names.
In Section No. 12, “Don’t be afraid to ask what kinds of touch are wanted.” Gay transmen have a lot of ways they can be triggered. Cheves explains that some transmen don’t want their vaginas manipulated. So, you are recommended to have a conversation about which parts of the transman’s body you can touch and what you can’t.
However, he pairs that with, “Everyone has certain kinds of touch they like and certain kinds they don’t.” This isn’t being quite upfront on what the issue here by comparing two different things.
For some transmen if during sex their vagina is touched, it tends to suggest to them that perhaps they aren’t men. Also, how “Gay” is it if a man is touching your vagina? So, this is making their gender identity difficult and causes what trans call dysphoria.
Gay men are just communicating what turns them on, and maybe a dislike, but it isn’t going to cause any emotional trauma if another Gay man touches their penis. Usually, it is a request for some type of touch and not a phobia or forbidden zone.
Though I am sure Cheves can probably find some fusspot who whines that he doesn’t want his nipples liked while jacking off or something and expresses horror that his sexual partner just licked his nipples without asking and now, he is traumatized.
In Section No. 11, “Sex is so much more than penetration,” he has a pairing also. Now this section is really a ludicrous section, but I am going to review it again, but I want to just focus here on pairing.
The issue here is that transmen don’t have penises, or they might have some construction called a phalloplasty which makes a flesh tube. So regular anal sex involving a cock and butthole, (Is there some Gay that bristles at that term?) isn’t a possibility. Also, if they have a vagina, it is not going to be possible to give them a blow job. So Cheves does two pairing in this section.
First there is a pairing regarding anal sex. Cheves brings up a fourth group of Gay men, men who don’t want anal sex either as a top or bottom or versatile, and he calls them “sides.” As you might imagine, “sides” probably aren’t popular as potential sexual partners in the Gay community. However, now days, if you are unpopular as a sexual partner, it is represented that you are oppressed and owed sex. Cheves states, “sides often feel embarrassed, ashamed, or left out.” Feeling embarrassed or ashamed is something “sides” do to themselves. As for being “left out,” no one is required to have sex with you if you don’t share the same sexual interests.
But with the “sides” Cheves has paired them with transmen who can’t fuck a person with a human penis.
As for blow jobs, Cheves informs us that, “I’m not a big fan of oral sex, and could happily cut it from my repertoire without much concern. Some guys feel the same about anal.”
So, this is a pairing for both blow jobs and again butt fucking.
So, with these pairings and other issues he discusses, Cheves manages to obscure the division that “Gay transmen” don’t have penises and use “cis” Gay men do and that a whole group of sexual practices for “cis” Gay men are not possible with “Gay transmen.” He does this by breaking the different sexual practices into separate discussions and finding some Gay person who won’t do it either. He does this without having to drag into the conversation Gay men who might have had some surgical procedure where a penis had to be removed, such as for cancer.
As a side note, why a “cis Gay man” who is uncomfortable with oral sex would be a columnist credible for Gay men, that is Gay men who are physically attracted to biological men’s bodies, including cocks, is beyond me.
In Section No. 1, “Past lives are past lives. You don’t return to them.” This is about what trans call “dead naming” which is asking what their previous name is.
I don’t think you should ask a transman what their past name was. Usually, you are just interested in their journey through life and wanting to understand what a trans person’s life is like. Changing names is usually an important element in lots of stories and in history. Don’t do it. It sets them off. There gender identity is fragile and you really have no need to know. Even if they bring it up, I advise you to avoid the topic. If you know the name, absent mindedly you might use it someday and be denounced.
However, Cheves wants to pair trans desire to forget their previous existence which they are reminded by with their female birth name, which tends to remind them that they might be a woman, with the fact that he had a rough childhood, and that maybe as a gay person you had a rough childhood and you might have problems thinking about your past. He states, “Sometimes you have to cut your timeline and never look back.”
If someone wants to cut their timeline that is up to them, but the heading of the section was a command, “You don’t return to them,” not “sometimes.” Which is it?
This is a false pairing. Gays generally don’t have a name of something that is going to trigger some intense emotion, and if there is something, it is because something really bad happened to them. For trans it is basically that their gender identity is fragile and threatened by the past name. These items are apples and oranges.
Section No. 7 on how to initiate a conversation with a transman, states in the last paragraph, “If you're gay or bi, a trans gay/bi man is likely into many of the same things you are.” In this sentence a transman is held to have a large overlap of interests with a “cis” Gay man and in the normal variation of Gays in regards to sexual interests. It obscures that the fact that a large fraction of a cis Gay man’s interests is not possible with a transman. Though I am sure that Cheves knows Gays who are upset with the word “cock” and like Cheves don’t have a lot of the sexual interests, like cock sucking, that most Gay men have.
A Conflation, a Misdirection.
In Section No. 2, “Don’t assume anyone is straight because of how their gender is presented.” Cheves conflates, that is confuses together, two different issues. That is whether transmen can really be Gay or Bi men, with whether you can tell if someone is Gay or Bi by looking at them, that is whether Gaydar is real.
Cheves states, “many people assume trans men are only interested in women.” Really? Who is making that assumption? How does that related to assuming someone is straight? Generally Gay men aren’t thinking about trans men as sexual partners at all, let alone assuming they are straight, otherwise why the need for this sixteen-section article by Cheves to push transmen as sexual partners. Gay men aren’t making any assumptions at all. Actually, some men assume that transmen are formerly women who are attracted to men, and remain attracted to me after they have transitioned. Further when these transmen are at Gay bars or on the Gay apps or Gay bath houses, Gays aren’t assuming they are there to meet women.
Cheves is just putting out a straw person, a made-up thing, the supposed assumption that transmen are always interested in women, as a false opposite to whether there are Gay transmen. Then by knocking down this straw person, it implies that there are Gay transmen. Cheves does it as follows:
“When we talk about gay and bi men, that includes gay and bi trans men, too. Assuming anyone is straight because of how their gender is presented is an unhealthy hetero projection – one we don’t need.”
It is illogical in its reasoning.
I think most gays know that “gaydar” is largely a myth. However, exactly how does the fact that gaydar is a myth prove the assertion that the definition of Gay and bi men includes transmen.
He concludes with the observation that if a transman is on Grindr, he is likely looking for men. Yes, that is true, however, how does that make the transman, with his vagina, a Gay man?
The broader strategy in this section is to imply that those who don’t accept transmen are potential sexual partners are the type of people who have illogical reasoning, who think they can assume.
Obscuring and Conflating Gender with Sex, a Slander thrown in.
In Section No. 3, “Don’t medicalize trans identity. It’s not all about surgeries and body parts.” The section opens with “Having a penis doesn’t make you a man – nor does having top surgery. Having a vagina doesn’t make you a woman.”
Multiple rhetorical strategies (scams) are operating here.
The most important misdirection is the conflation of the question of what sexual practice is possible with a transman with that of a transman’s identity. This is the same or similar to the complaint by transmen that they are “being reduced to their genitals,” when Gay men refuse to have sex with them.
Gays are NOT claiming that transmen don’t have cultural, religious, political interests like everyone else, or likes or dislikes, personal interests, or other individual traits beyond their genitals or lack thereof. However, when it comes to doing sex, sex organs, (Can we still call them that still?), are involved with doing sex. Gays are claiming that they have sexual interests in the bodies of biological men and that transmen don’t have some of the physical sexual aspects of biological men’s bodies, we aren’t saying they don’t have souls, or something.
There is another strategy here to apply the pansexual identity to Gays. That is the “hearts no parts” idea of sexual desire. At the end Section No. 3, he mentions how he had a discussion with a transman during a sexual encounter with him, and was wanting to know what the transman would sexually enjoy. Cheves quotes the transman’s reply and concludes from that as follows:
“‘What feels good for you?’ he asked, ‘Let’s start there.’ He told me to focus on feelings, not physical actions—a rule-of-thumb for good sex with anyone.”
Here “feelings” are made to separate and be in opposition to “physical actions,” despite the fact that sexual pleasure is almost always involving touch, kissing, rubbing, stroking, licking, penetration, sucking, it involves a host of physical actions, actions applied to actual bodies and specific parts. Cock sucking and sucking on elbows or knees are not equivalent. Sexual desires aren’t called carnal desires for nothing.
Instead, we are expected to find sexual satisfaction, “feelings,” in the individual regardless of whether their bodies are objects of desire or they have the bodily objects in which we have carnal desires and sexual actions regarding. Instead, we are to be like pansexuals and have sex with the individual regardless because liking their personalities should enable sexual desire and activities with whatever body might be present, as long as they identify as a man.
Another strategy in this article is to stigmatize those Gay men who might see a lack of sexual possibilities with a transman, as aggressors, oppressors, who are those who have “medicalized trans identity.” There is the stigmatization of Gays who don’t want to have sex with a transman as transphobes.
As stated before, the section opens with “Having a penis doesn’t make you a man – nor does having top surgery. Having a vagina doesn’t make you a woman.” This is the central claim of gender ideology. Cheves is setting up Gays who don’t want to have sex with a transman in collision with this trans ideological tenet.
The simple observation that the person doesn’t have the sexual organs for the sex you might be interested in or prefer is represented as medicalizing trans identity. Section No. 3 implies that the Gay man who has made the simple observation that he is not going to be able to give a blow job to a transman with a vagina, or to expect a good butt fucking with a human penis, not strap on, or cum shot onto his body, as a person who is in denial of this opening statement by Cheves because the Gay man should be able to have sex with a transman simply on the basis that the transman is a man and being homogender, not homosexual, you should be able to have sex with him.
If the Gay man says he is homosexual and not homogender you can scream transphobe loudly and often to shut down the discussion, obviate reality and intimidate other Gay men from pointing out the obvious.
Since the claim by gender ideologists is, “A trans man is a man,” and Cheves opening sentence about sex organs and gender identity, I am going to collide with their ideology in their essay right here.
The body exists in the real world, you can weigh it, see it, measure it, photograph it, and they have different biological aspects according to sex, age, previous experiences such as nutrition and injury and other things that happen in life.
Gender is a performance. People wear certain clothes, act a certain way, and do things because it is what they expect that a person of a gender should be doing. Now gender is also asserted by some to be an esoteric metaphysical state that is the ultimate reality.
Before discussing the gender versus biological debate, something very important is overlooked in these debates. We don’t just exist in a moment of time. Individuals have a past from the moment of their conception to the present. Our present existence includes a past and it has a physical embodiment if only in neurological memories, scars, and how the brain developed.
It is asked whether without memories do we really exist. If our memories were wiped out, would we actually be who we are? There might be some residual identity left, but our memories make up a great deal of our identities.
With those who say “A trans man is a man,” the esoteric metaphysical state is privileged and held to be not only primary, but the entirety of identity. Both biology and the persons past are held to be inconsequential to the question of identity. Rather than acknowledging that there are multiple interacting factors here, there is an authoritarian ideological absolutism to flatten the complexity in life.
Are We Supposed to Talk or Not?
In Section No. 1 we are instructed what not to say to a transman. Section No. 3 instructs us how to discuss what sex to have with a transman. Section No. 5 is titled, “Everyone has different words for their body parts. Ask what his are.” It directly instructs Gays to ask a transman, “what should I call your parts?” Section No. 7 it titled, “Don’t know how to break the ice? Ask what he’s into.” Section No. 9 is titled “Flirting is a universal language.” It is more instructions on how to talk to a transman and what not to say. Section No. 12 is titled, “Don’t be afraid to ask what kinds of touch are wanted.” The trans body is full of mind fields.
So, it is rather hilarious when Section No. 13 it titled, “Pre-sex talk doesn’t have to be a long and heavy discussion.” Sections No. 1, No. 3, No. 5, No. 7, and No. 9 suggest that it will be. “Cis” gay men often just get into sex without any discussion, imagine that!
What Cheves is realizing is that with all these cautions which he is instructing Gays regarding transmen that these cautions themselves might make Gays cautious about talking to a transman or that they might imagine that sex or talking about sex with a transman is going to be some grim exercise. It tends to separate out transmen from “cis” Gays which is contrary to his essay’s goal. So, he asserts, it isn’t like Sections No. 1, No. 3, No. 5, No. 7, and No. 9, it is light hearted and fun, just like his sixteen-point essay.
SHAMING GAY MEN: Ass Fucking and Cocksucking Are No Longer an Act of Revolution, they are Now Reactionary.
Section No. 11, is titled, “Sex is so much more than penetration.”
In this section Cheves asserts that Gay men are uneducated about having sex. He actually starts this assertion that Gay men are uneducated about having sex in the previous Section No. 10, titled, “Getting hung up on preconceived ideas of sex will close you of to new experiences.”
In Section No. 10, Cheves says that he needed a transman to teach him about his body and having sex. He states, “Getting there requires opening your mind and your body to new sensation and silencing the mental playbook you thought you’d use.”
Even casual observation online shows that Gays are fairly open to new sexual ideas and sensations. You can find videos of Gay men masturbating their partners with the soles of their feet, there are Gays wearing leather dog masks with butt plugs with extensions imitating the tail of a dog. There is double penetration. There is candle wax dripped on bodies. There is the whole world of leather and kink. If there is a sexual possibility Gays are likely already doing it, and developing it. Who but Gay people would come up with Bukkake.
Cheves is just asserting without any basis that Gays are narrow in their thinking about the possibilities of sex. One of the great things about the Gay community is their development of sexual possibilities and so this is actually a vicious slander.
In Section No. 11, Cheves informs the reader that, “there is massage, rubbing, mutual masturbation, rimming, licking, fingering, and literally endless non-penetrative kinky sex acts you can do,” as if there are Gay people who don’t know this already.
In Section No. 4, Cheves has the same idea that Gays are sexually uniformed, when he concludes with, “… he has his hands, mouth, fingers, strength, breath, and body weight, along with a myriad of sex toys, strap-ons, insertables, and more that exist,” as if Gays wouldn’t know about those things.
One unstated reason Cheves is pushing these slanders against “cis” Gay men, is that he is pushing alternatives to sex involving a penis, since that is something a transman doesn’t have. If some Gay is hot for the type of sex which would involve a penis, he is portrayed as retrograde and unimaginative and narrow. This is a slander on Gays.
However, the central focus of this section is to criticize Gay men for liking anal sex too much. Cheves states:
“Gay cis men tend to focus on anal sex as the base requirement of sex — many do not consider other sex acts, like oral sex, to be "sex" at all.”
Who and where are these Gay persons who don’t think cock sucking is sex? Or who or where are those Gays that think that other non-anal sexual activities where often you end up coming isn’t sex? This is simply ludicrous. It is simply an assertion.
Also, as mentioned earlier in the section on Pairing, Cheves talks about sides being oppressed by the Gay communities enjoyment of butt fucking.
Gay “cis” men are probably focusing on sex that they like the most and which they feel gives them the most pleasure. Butt fucking is really hot, for both the person fucking and being fucked. In sex, people usually want to do what they most enjoy and they expect to enjoy sex.
However, for Alphabet scold, Cheves, preferring the sex you most enjoy simply won’t do, you must be retrograde. Getting a hard-on for Cheves is an ideological project.
Further, does Cheves not know that Gays usually engage in foreplay before fucking? Does he not know that foreplay by Gay men involves hands, mouth, toys, massage, licking nipples, cock sucking and other many other activities?
With a “Gay” transman you aren’t doing any cock sucking, whether you consider it sex or not sex.
The simple fact is that with a transman you can’t do any sex involving a penis and though Gays do like many types of foreplay they mostly like cock cucking and butt fucking.
Cheves is attempting to shame Gay men into thinking their sexuality is retrograde, unimaginative, and sexually ignorant to push them to consider sex with a transman.
This is a vicious attack on Gays.
Informed Consent
In the last paragraph in Section No. 16, Cheves declares:
Trans men are men. If you meet a man who you think is really cute, and he's interested in you back, you may have a great sex night ahead of you. When he tells you he's trans, say OK, ask for terms, and have fun.
It seems that Cheves doesn’t understand the basic ethical concept of informed consent.
Let’s break down this statement. Cheves assumption is that if the guy looks cute, possibly sexually desirable, from casual observation and conversation, that should require you to agree to sex, to “say OK,” even when you later find out that the person doesn’t have the sexual equipment that you might have expected or wanted. This violates a basic ethical principle of informed consent. You don’t owe anyone sex when at some point being informed you no longer want to give consent. Sex is a physical thing and you aren’t informed in terms of informed consent until you know the person is trans. At that point, you are informed, and you don’t have to give consent.
Also, the implication of this last paragraph is that you will be willing and wanting to “say OK,” as a Gay man to having sex with a transman. The preceding article to this concluding paragraph is a series of arguments to assert that for a Gay person this should be what a good Gay does and is a reasonable expectation. That is the point of Cheves article.
Oppression
One strategy is to locate the discussion of having sex with transmen by Gays in a context of oppression and having sex with transmen being resistance against oppression and refusing transmen by implication as collaboration with those who oppress the “queer” community.
The introduction, Section No. 1, talks about the oppressive environment that Cheves and a Lesbian who later became a transman experienced. In Section No. 11, wanting anal sex is held to be oppressive of the “sides” discussed in the previous section on Cheves tactic of pairing. (See Pairing.) However, if you have you aren’t interested in sexual activity that is popular, you shouldn’t be surprised if you aren’t popular as a possible sexual partner. If you can’t stand the sound of music probably you wouldn’t get invited to parties, but the people aren’t inviting you aren’t oppressing you.
In Section No. 6, Cheves talks about “queer experiences” that are “universal.” These experiences are oppression that Gays and trans experience. Quoting Cheves:
But I do know there are commonalities among us — family isolation and rejection, hunting for our people, discovering sex on a different timeline than our peers, living in shame and denial, coming out, exploring our first queer spaces, trying on labels, and finding words that fit.
These are the beautiful milestones of queerness that most of us share.
Essentially Gay and Trans are made to be similar. This is in keeping with his other approaches to making trans men who identify as Gay near equivalents to Gay men. Also, it positions the rejection of seeing trans men as Gay men as collaboration the oppressors of the Gay community. This quote should also show how “queer” is to minimize differences between the letters in the initialisms such as LGBTQ+ to erase the essential differences of Gays from the other letters.
Cheves as a Cis-Gay Man
In Section No. 6, he introduces the section saying, “As a cis gay man, …” However, in Section No. 11 he states, “I’m not a big fan of oral sex, and could happily cut it from my repertoire without much concern.” He thinks there is too much emphasis on anal sex.
From the article you learn that he has had a significant amount of sexual experience with transmen.
However, it would be a wrong idea to label him as not Gay. You are entering the realms of metaphysical speculation if you do and there is really no solid ground to stand on in that realm.
I do think it defines Cheves as being peripheral to the major Gay sexual activities, practices and preferences of the Gay community though. Cheves would do well to not support the practice on narrowly defining what is acceptable Gay sexual practice lest he finds some person like him draws lines that exclude him.
Summary
These attacks on Gays for not wanting to have sex with transmen continue and are vicious. We can’t just simply casually reject them as crazy even though they are. We need to critically take their arguments apart and show their fallacy and also their rhetorical tactics and in particular show their manipulative nature.
As to why a magazine which purports to serve the Gay community would publish this vicious attack on Gay men and expect to get away with it is another topic.