Why do some MTF's act like gay men?

[Jacelyn]

Gender is not a cultural universal.

Biological gender in physical form is universally distinguishable, not indistinguishable by society's norm (whatever subjective cultural distortion that might be). Also beauty versus ugliness is of universal distinction and has a biological basis. Beauty is related to healthy gene, ugliness is related to unhealthy/inferior gene and so on. Sexual attraction based on physical attractiveness is for propagation of healthy genes in all the living species (not just in human).

[Jen61]

Very low self steam comes to mind, that is regardless of sexual orienntation or gender identity

Jen61

[wheat thins are delicious]

Also beauty versus ugliness is of universal distinction and has a biological basis. Beauty is related to healthy gene, ugliness is related to unhealthy/inferior gene and so on. Sexual attraction based on physical attractiveness is for propagation of healthy genes in all the living species (not just in human).

beauty is cultural not universal.

[SandraJane]

Old habits really do die hard. You can take the flaming gay man out of a club and turn him into a beautiful woman, but you can't always keep that gay man from dropping in from time to time. I've seen it happen in a few of my friends, many, many times. I think it some cases it sort of evolves into it's own little subculture, because a lot of the have their own form of slang and phrases ( certain phrases that i've adopted into my own vocabulary, because I think it's fun to use among my fellow sisters, haha.) And I think I know exactly who Amy is talking about and I am going to have to agree with ya, girly!

Also, not to offend Wonderdyke but she kind of reminds me of the blonde girl in this comic! http://transgirldiaries.com/?p=1842 

Thanks for the link to Transgirl Diaries Mariposa! I do think its a "little" harsh on Wonderdyke, she's still pretty young !

[Jacelyn]

beauty is cultural not universal.

Beauty is individual in addition to culture, when the objects are more or less pretty, so is the definition of urgliness is individual as well as culture when the objects are more or less urgly. But when the objects are obviously mixed between extreme of beauty and ugliness, then the universal knowledge of their differences exist.

[Butterflyhugs]

Biological gender in physical form is universally distinguishable, not indistinguishable by society's norm (whatever subjective cultural distortion that might be). Also beauty versus ugliness is of universal distinction and has a biological basis. Beauty is related to healthy gene, ugliness is related to unhealthy/inferior gene and so on. Sexual attraction based on physical attractiveness is for propagation of healthy genes in all the living species (not just in human).

1) You mean "biological sex," and in fact there is such a thing as ambiguous genitalia. Seriously, wave hi to the intersex people in the LGBT(I) community.

2) You're assuming that maleness is inherently ugly, when there is no basis whatsoever for that assumption. I offered the example of ancient Greeks regarding men as beautiful (an example of beauty being defined by a culture, by the way), but you've conveniently ignored it. And why do advertisers successfully use male models to sell things if they're supposedly inherently ugly?

If you're trying to be philosophical, you're failing in logic, and if you're trying to be empirical, you're failing in data.

[Jacelyn]

1) You mean "biological sex," and in fact there is such a thing as ambiguous genitalia. Seriously, wave hi to the intersex people in the LGBT(I) community.

They are not  normal biological trait and depend on cases may required surgical correction in order to lead a normal life desired by the person concerned.

2) You're assuming that maleness is inherently ugly, when there is no basis whatsoever for that assumption. I offered the example of ancient Greeks regarding men as beautiful (an example of beauty being defined by a culture, by the way), but you've conveniently ignored it. And why do advertisers successfully use male models to sell things if they're supposedly inherently ugly?

I meant 'beautiful', not 'handsomeness' in my definition of the extreme opposite of this, which is ugliness. The extreme of maleness in a woman fit in the ugliness features, the extreme of maleness in a man does not extremely effect 'handsomeness' as it does to woman. If man has beautiful features, then those features are feminine rather than masculine feature. For example, if a beautiful woman is pretending to be a man by dressing as a man, she will be considered as a beautiful man. The opposite is a handsome man with extreme of male features pretending to be a woman, he will be considered as an ugly woman. But a handsome man with average feminine features pretending to be a woman, he will be considered as a beautiful woman.

If you're trying to be philosophical, you're failing in logic, and if you're trying to be empirical, you're failing in data.

The fact is beauty is relative to feminity, there are beautiful men but their beauty is attributed to their feminine features. Speaking of data, consider beauty contest, there is a standard to beauty within a range where individual judgement is needed but outside that range, they are not qualified to enter the contest, and these criterial for selection are universal all over the world. Consider also about passing, without a universal knowledge of beauty that is inherein biologically in our species, MTF never need to bother about the criteria for passing. However, speaking of extreme in feminine and masculine, the extreme in feminine is not beauty, because extreme in related to unhealthy development of gene, but the average is considered the healthy development and so the average in feminity is beauty, the same apply to handsomeness.

Lastly, consider our biological default mode which is female, i.e. age between 10-13, this form in healthy state is considered beautiful, the effect of T causing the maleness is the diminishing of this beauty mode. Thus, it can be logically inferred that the result of T which is maleness opposes the definition of feminism and beauty.

[Forever21Chic]

   This reminds me of my old tg support group, always arguing with each other and getting off the subject.   

[Mahsa Tezani]

Old habits really do die hard. You can take the flaming gay man out of a club and turn him into a beautiful woman, but you can't always keep that gay man from dropping in from time to time. I've seen it happen in a few of my friends, many, many times.

You see it on my fb page all the time. My friends are all gay men.

[Sailor_Saturn]

Well, sorry to burst your bubble but SOME are. At least, SOME that I've met.

The qualities that you've described cannot be exclusively ascribed to homosexual men. I invite you to attend Mardi Gras and have a look around you. The behavior that you've described is normative to virtually ALL attendees. The behaviors that you are demanding that this person assume are also not exclusively ascribed to women, they're standards of public decency which apply to both sexes and all sexual orientations.

Ye be the one in the bubble, me lass.

[Butterflyhugs]

I meant 'beautiful', not 'handsomeness' in my definition of the extreme opposite of this, which is ugliness

Why are you setting up men and women as extreme opposites? They are not, and that notion is particularly harmful because it's what helps perpetuate strict gender socialization (and thus separation) in the U.S.

Lastly, consider our biological default mode which is female, i.e. age between 10-13, this form in healthy state is considered beautiful, the effect of T causing the maleness is the diminishing of this beauty mode. Thus, it can be logically inferred that the result of T which is maleness opposes the definition of feminism and beauty.

People who are attracted to 10-13 year olds' beauty are considered pedophiles.

Stop trying to strictly equate "feminity" (which is part of socially constructed gender) to "beauty". Paintings can be beautiful, a heap of neatly arranged garbage could probably even be beautiful in some way. Do these things have gender? No.

[Mahsa Tezani]

The qualities that you've described cannot be exclusively ascribed to homosexual men. I invite you to attend Mardi Gras and have a look around you. The behavior that you've described is normative to virtually ALL attendees. The behaviors that you are demanding that this person assume are also not exclusively ascribed to women, they're standards of public decency which apply to both sexes and all sexual orientations.

Ye be the one in the bubble, me lass.

Women don't usually ..............................

[Mahsa Tezani]

Paintings can be beautiful, a heap of neatly arranged garbage could probably even be beautiful in some way. Do these things have gender? No.

The garbage heap that was talking to me one day was male. He told me.

[cynthialee]

Women don't usually get their bungholes screwed in gloryholes.

I have known three that would take up that offer....

edit...also there is plenty of GH pron that features women.

just sayin'

[Sailor_Saturn]

Women don't usually ..........................

Oh, so? Even if that's correct, some women do, right (as per your use of the word usually instead of never)? Then you haven't invalidated my argument, ma'am. My argument isn't about "typical" behavior, it's about ascribing a set of behaviors to a group universally without justifiably being able to do so. There's a difference between acting in a manner that many homosexual men do and "acting like a gay man". It's subtle, but the difference IS there.

[Forever21Chic]

The garbage heap that was talking to me one day was male. He told me.

   
  Was his name oscar the grouch by any chance?   

[Sailor_Saturn]

Was his name oscar the grouch by any chance?   

BA-HAHAHA---A! That's a good one!

[Mahsa Tezani]

   
  Was his name oscar the grouch by any chance?   

I was on like 5 tabs of acid... No his name was "Roy Red Rammerslammer"

[Mahsa Tezani]

Oh, so? Even if that's correct, some women do, right (as per your use of the word usually instead of never)? Then you haven't invalidated my argument, ma'am. My argument isn't about "typical" behavior, it's about ascribing a set of behaviors to a group universally without justifiably being able to do so. There's a difference between acting in a manner that many homosexual men do and "acting like a gay man". It's subtle, but the difference IS there.

How many gay men have you hung out with? I know hundreds of them and I've been there. So I guess I don't know my former culture now. Even gay men within the culture see the stereotypes and they are true.

What next? Gonna question me knowing my Persian history?

Post modernist thinking....

[Jacelyn]

Why are you setting up men and women as extreme opposites? They are not, and that notion is particularly harmful because it's what helps perpetuate strict gender socialization (and thus separation) in the U.S.

I'm describing things in scientific context, not by political and cultural context. Male and female are biologically distinctive, and this distinction lead to other pschological distinctions, to be successful MTF we must understand the biological and pschological differences, obstacles, and what can and cannot be resolved, while we correct what can be corrected while accept what cannot be corrected. There is a difference between facts and self-acceptance.

People who are attracted to 10-13 year olds' beauty are considered pedophiles.

There is a biological basis for male sexual attraction toward the female to be based on the image of this human biological default build. The biological reason is that estrogen permanently fixed (stop growing) the default bone structure at around age 13 for female. This timing is considered healthy and biologically attractive to our species (in the universal perception of our species) as healthy mean capable of reproduction, unhealthy development (too much bone growth) reflect lack of the estrogen (or unhealthy reproductive system) or abnormal development. Pschologically male considered a well-build figure like himself to be a direct competitor, thus arise resentment and hostility which is the opposite of sexual attraction, whereas the opposite is automatically associated with the biological sexual object, thus the universal definition of female beauty based on default human build. The fully matured male build was not biologically design as an object of sexual attraction, but as a capable agent of acquiring the object of attraction (female) through stronger physical capability, this is manifest in men's desire for war (in order to achieve money, power, sex), whereas women are the opposite (desire for peace).

Stop trying to strictly equate "feminity" (which is part of socially constructed gender) to "beauty". Paintings can be beautiful, a heap of neatly arranged garbage could probably even be beautiful in some way. Do these things have gender? No.

The word should mean 'feminine', excuse my poor english.