Drag Shows!!

[Thermal]

Can you show him ever saying that? In every interview I can find when he talks about himself he “identifies” as a gay man.

"Call.me he or call me she" seems to +/- indicate that.

The question was where "I was given his own words" in this thread to indicate otherwise, that "I decided to ignore". There's a couple porkies in there I would like to have straightened out.

 

[Robin]

Do you get why an hombre such as myself would have a very short fuse for evasive and vascillating answers after years of the same thing? It's hard to understand something when respondents won't be direct.

I don't get why you should get angry over the straight, consistent answers I have been giving you.

Here is what you said:

The only option for a man who identifies as a woman would be a gay man. What other option do you see that makes orientation sense for both parties?

So someone suggested that a bisexual could but you disagreed. I said I couldn't see why a bisexual could not be in a relationship with a transwoman. I have my definition and you said that my definition didn't agree with the definition you heard.

I also described a couple I knew, a trans woman and a cis woman. I said that they both described themselves as lesbians (without making comment on whether I concurred with the description.

Them you started calling me dishonest and a liar without giving any coherent reason why you should think so.

So, no vacillation on my part. No evasiveness. That is all coming from you.

You still haven't given me any reason how a person in a relationship would be in contradiction to any definition of a bisexual.

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to admit that there is nothing in any definition of a bisexual which is contradicted by them being in a relationship with a trans woman?

 

[Thermal]

I also described a couple I knew, a trans woman and a cis woman.

The hell you did. You described two "shes" who were lesbian. In context, given that the whole "not really" gender thing is up in the air, that was deliberately deceptive. If you actually had said that one was a trans woman, there would have been no problem understanding. But you deliberately chose not to be clear, and in fact to be deceptive.

Them you started calling me dishonest and a liar without giving any coherent reason why you should think so.

I called that lie by ommission of leaving out the "trans" dishonest. When you went on with outright misrepresentations, I called them lies and spelled out with painful clarity precisely why. Not a drop of incoherence.

So, no vacillation on my part. No evasiveness. That is all coming from you.

You still haven't given me any reason how a person in a relationship would be in contradiction to any definition of a bisexual.

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to admit that there is nothing in any definition of a bisexual which is contradicted by them being in a relationship with a trans woman?

Did you miss post #1525 above? I conceded the point already. Are you having fun beating the dead horse? Yet in terms of a guy getting busy with another guy, whether one or both is bi doesn't matter. Only the homosexual part is relevant. If they were also into hentai cosplay, that would also have nothing to do with the sexual relationship between two bio males. From the observable biological standpoint, they would be homosexual.males. I already elaborated on other variations as I understand them, right up to a pair of trans homosexuals of the opposite sex, which just ends up being a hetero couple.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So tell me what their definition is.

I thought I did. Oh yes, here's where I did.

Disagree. I know several bisexual females who are not at all interested in transgender people. From their own description, they tend to be attracted to people who are either 1) male bodied and very masculine in presentation and behavior or 2) female bodied and very feminine in presentation and behavior. They are not attracted to effeminate males or to butch females.

Many people who consider themselves bisexual are not interested in transgender people of either sex. If a person is open to transgender people of either sex and any sexual orientation, that is pansexual.

Then we just start running out of terms, and frankly I don't see a good reason to label everything. My sibling's oldest child is a transgender identified male, who is exclusively attracted to other transgender identified males. Apparently they really really like people who wear dresses and make-up but who have penises. I have no clue what label that would be, they use "pansexual" to describe themself. I mostly call them "happy" as they've been in a serious relationship with the same person for 4 years now.

 

[Robin]

The hell you did]/quote]
There you go flying off the handle again. Let's see what you said again:

The only option for a man who identifies as a woman would be a gay man. What other option do you see that makes orientation sense for both parties?

My answer was to this question.

So, and please answer this, why would you think that I would answer this question by describing a couple that didn't involve a biological male who identifies as a woman?

Basically you are complaining that e didn't treat you like an idiot.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Someone said that by my definition I might be what they call a heterosexual.

Which suggests what they mean by heterosexual is someone who does not mind if the person they are having sex with has a vagina or a penis.


I must have been massively misinformed about heterosexuals then

There's an element to bisexuality that puzzles me. When I was younger, I was attracted to both males and females. I had sexual encounters with other females, and thoroughly enjoyed them.

But I've only ever had relationships with males. And now that I've been married to the same male for <way too many years>, I've kind of just given up and consider myself heterosexual by any common sense of the term.

How does that work out with people who consider themselves to be bisexual? If you end up in a long term relationship with one person... do you end up defaulted to either gay or straight? Or do you still end up being bisexual, even if you're only ever sexual with one of the other?

If this is too personal, please don't feel any obligation to answer. It's curiosity, but I recognize that it's not something everyone may be comfortable answering.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, you're having a straight guy expressing frustration with your deliberately deceptive terminology. Should you choose to not equivocate your terms, we might actually get somewhere without the endlessly condescending horse ****.

It's not deliberately deceptive. Language simply isn't sufficient for complete logical consistency and it is unreasonable to demand that it is.

 

[Robin]

I thought I did. Oh yes, here's where I did.

Do you think that the fact that there are some bisexuals who are not interested in transgender people implies that the definition of bisexuality includes their tastes in this matter?

Every definition I am finding online matches mine.

Incidentally the trans woman I described earlier was very pretty, very feminine. Although she dressed in gender neutral clothes, wore no makeup and kept her hair short she was still very feminine.

Most people who meet her immediately assume she is a woman. Heterosexual men find her attractive.

 

[arthwollipot]

Can see Dr Who but no Cissie and Ada?

I'm not seeing Monty Python's Pepperpots, either.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Call.me he or call me she" seems to +/- indicate that.

To be fair, I suspect that's more a bit of RuPaul low-key saying that they give no ***** about pronouns.

I could say literally the same thing: I genuinely do not give a crap if you call me "she" or "he" or "they" or even "it". It makes no difference to me, provided you're not doing it as a means to try to bait or insult me. But those insults would be independent of any pronoun you might use for me. Because pronouns do not actually matter and they have no effect on my mental health and wellbeing. Me saying I don't care what pronouns you use for me wouldn't make me gender fluid or nonbinary or any other such. I'm female. The rest is someone else's baggage.

 

[arthwollipot]

Another poster used the term "bisexual" in the way I've understood it in the past, but that here on the forum (and by a poster actually in this discussion), I have been assured was incorrect. So I correct my usage.

It depends on whether you're being technically correct or not. Technically, bisexuality and pansexuality are not the same thing. Practically, though, most people use the former word to describe both. It's not deceptive or manipulative to do so, it's just a difference between common and technical usage. We see the same thing with the word theory all the time, so it shouldn't be particularly difficult to deal with.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't get why you should get angry over the straight, consistent answers I have been giving you.

Here is what you said:



So someone suggested that a bisexual could but you disagreed. I said I couldn't see why a bisexual could not be in a relationship with a transwoman. I have my definition and you said that my definition didn't agree with the definition you heard.

I also described a couple I knew, a trans woman and a cis woman. I said that they both described themselves as lesbians (without making comment on whether I concurred with the description.

Them you started calling me dishonest and a liar without giving any coherent reason why you should think so.

So, no vacillation on my part. No evasiveness. That is all coming from you.

You still haven't given me any reason how a person in a relationship would be in contradiction to any definition of a bisexual.

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to admit that there is nothing in any definition of a bisexual which is contradicted by them being in a relationship with a trans woman?

Meh, I don't think this is so difficult.

If the person is exclusively attracted to other people who have the same reproductive anatomy as them, then they are gay. How they identify is irrelevant.

If a person is exclusively attracted to other people who have the opposite reproductive anatomy from them, then they are straight. How they identify is irrelevant.

If they are attracted to people who have both the same and the opposite reproductive anatomy as them, they are bisexual. How they identify is irrelevant.

With a minor caveat that presentation can be an important aspect of attraction as well... and to the extent that some people seem to be exclusively attracted to people who are transgender, I give you pansexual.

Some bisexual people that I know (all of whom are female, which might be an element of their views) are pretty categorically NOT attracted to people who are transgender, regardless of their anatomies. Those people draw a very strong distinction between people who are bisexual and people who are pansexual.

 

[arthwollipot]

Disagree. I know several bisexual females who are not at all interested in transgender people. From their own description, they tend to be attracted to people who are either 1) male bodied and very masculine in presentation and behavior or 2) female bodied and very feminine in presentation and behavior. They are not attracted to effeminate males or to butch females.

Many people who consider themselves bisexual are not interested in transgender people of either sex. If a person is open to transgender people of either sex and any sexual orientation, that is pansexual.

And that's the technical difference between bisexuality and pansexuality.

I'd say you know what it's about to you. That's not consistent with what I've heard from several female bisexual friends, who do not hold the same view as you.

Why, it's almost like different people are different.

This is why language often doesn't work. Sexuality and gender are not systems of formal logic. They are slippery and variable, and the language we use sometimes is insufficient to describe it in terms of what has been previously defined.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do you think that the fact that there are some bisexuals who are not interested in transgender people implies that the definition of bisexuality includes their tastes in this matter?

No, it means that your definition of bisexuality does not match their definition of bisexuality. It's not as if there's a single universally agreed upon definition with no exceptions involved.

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh, dear. Some intellectual dishonesty going on here. This is his complete statement:

"You can call me he. You can call me she. You can call me Regis & Cathy Lee; I don't care! Just as long as you call me."

That is not saying he identifies as a woman.

"Call.me he or call me she" seems to +/- indicate that.

The question was where "I was given his own words" in this thread to indicate otherwise, that "I decided to ignore". There's a couple porkies in there I would like to have straightened out.

No, it doesn't indicate that at all. It's a silly rhyme saying he doesn't care what people call him.

"A couple of [your] writers, I asked them, 'What's the thing with Spider-Man?' I get Superman, I get Wonder Woman, I've never gotten Spider-Man!" Mama Ru said, referencing his time spent with the program's writing staff after guest-hosting the talk show earlier this year in Kimmel's absence.

When Kimmel asked why, RuPaul responded: "You know, I think because I'm gay. I think that's probably it."

"So, I'm a brown-skinned gay man," he said. "You know, I do drag. "I'm an entertainer, OK?'"

You might consider climbing down off that hill now.

 

[arthwollipot]

Taking it from the top, and please man, drop the combativeness and any screwed up preconceptions you have about where I'm coming from:

I'm a straight guy. I likes my babes. By that I mean the whole XX chromosomal package with boobs and the works, not some dude that is feeling womanish. You with me so far?

I have zero tolerance for some twat that would give anyone **** for being who they are, and I'd beat the Confederate flag tattoo right off the ass of any prick who said you or I have any different rights or privileges based on who or what we are. Still with me?

I am also very interested in how other people experience things. Like, I'm sympathetic to religious types, too. And I'm interested in an empathetic way to get a handle on this whole trendy gender thing. I've been round and round with it on multiple threads. Still with me?

How refreshingly direct.

Here's the kicker: I am also highly pragmatic, and every freaking time I ask about this stuff, I am given preachy and condescending answers that border on insulting. All revolve around playing word games, especially with the G Word. It's meaning will change from meaning how the person feels, to how they look to others, to their actual sex, depending on what is convenient for their argumentation at the moment. Often in the same replies.

Do you get why an hombre such as myself would have a very short fuse for evasive and vascillating answers after years of the same thing? It's hard to understand something when respondents won't be direct.

You're being unreasonable. Sorry but you deserve the same kind of directness that you have demonstrated.

It is unreasonable to demand clarity in issues of gender and sexuality, and yes, they are related. It is not a clear field. Things don't go neatly into pigeonholes. Different people are different and talk about different things differently.

So you've got a choice. Either you continue to unreasonably demand clarity in a distinctly unclear field, or you embrace unclarity and celebrate diversity.

I choose the latter.

 

[Robin]

There's an element to bisexuality that puzzles me. When I was younger, I was attracted to both males and females. I had sexual encounters with other females, and thoroughly enjoyed them.

But I've only ever had relationships with males. And now that I've been married to the same malbe for <way too many years>, I've kind of just given up and consider myself heterosexual by any common sense of the term.

How does that work out with people who consider themselves to be bisexual? If you end up in a long term relationship with one person... do you end up defaulted to either gay or straight? Or do you still end up being bisexual, even if you're only ever sexual with one of the other?

If this is too personal, please don't feel any obligation to answer. It's curiosity, but I recognize that it's not something everyone may be comfortable answering.

I was bisexual at 13 but didn't have sex until I was 21. I the meantime I had crushes on girls, crushed on guys, noticed them both in the street, so there was no doubt I was bisexual.

Now I'm in a long term relationship with a woman and I have never cheated or wanted to.

But, you know, when I'm on the beach and some ripped surfer dude is taking off his wet suit, stripping down to his Speedos I'm looking and enjoying (trying not to make it obvious). And I'm noticing the women too.

So I could hardly call myself a heterosexual. Again, if heterosexual men feel the way I do about ripped surfer dudes then I really have been misinformed about heterosexuality.

We have a saying "It's the attraction, not the action"

 

[Robin]

Meh, I don't think this is so difficult.

I'm not the one saying it's difficult.

But a bisexual who doesn't go for trans people (and there's nothing wrong with that) is just a bisexual who doesn't go for trans people.

That doesn't imply anything about a long established definition.

 

[Robin]

Only the homosexual part is relevant. If they were also into hentai cosplay, that would also have nothing to do with the sexual relationship between two bio males. From the observable biological standpoint, they would be homosexual.males. I already elaborated on other variations as I understand them, right up to a pair of trans homosexuals of the opposite sex, which just ends up being a hetero couple.

Firstly there is more to a relationship than sex. And there is much more to sex than the biological observables, it engages all of our emotions, all our body and brain.

Secondly, say a het couple are sitting up in bed

A hot scantily clad woman appears on screen and a hot scantily clad guy. You would kind of expect the man to be looking at the gal and the woman to be looking at the guy.

But in this case they're both getting off on the girl. The cis partner has never had a relationship with or has had sex with a man.

As I said, the trans woman is pretty and feminine although she kept her hair short, wore no gender specific clothes and never wore makeup.

She was wolf whistles as she goes past the building site pretty.

If you saw them you would immediately conclude that they were a lesbian couple

As I said they didn't particularly care if people called them a heterosexual couple.

 

[TomB]

I'd say you know what it's about to you. That's not consistent with what I've heard from several female bisexual friends, who do not hold the same view as you.

One can be bisexual with preferences. Just as one can be heterosexual with preferences or homosexual with preferences.