Why do some MTF's act like gay men?

[Akashiya Moka]

What is this yogurt exactly? not my yummy strawberry yogurt I hope *noms*.

According to Masha it is the Crème de la crème.

[Joeyboo~ :3]

lol...why has this gone beyond 200 posts?
lmao.


goddamn simple question.
goddamn simple answer,
it was past lifestyle for them.

[Mahsa Tezani]

lol...why has this gone beyond 200 posts?
lmao.


goddamn simple question.
goddamn simple answer,
it was past lifestyle for them.

WERQ THAT ANSWER HUN!!!!

[AbraCadabra]

Why over 200 posts?

Because it is also, yet another a battle about validation, that's why :-)

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck - we guess it's a duck.
If not? Well, then it's not a duck, right?

Take care, and try some more if you wish,
Axelle

[Annah]

I say nothing about women being inherently passive and demure in society, except sexually, thus your association of 'sexist' is out of line. Socially constructed value of "feminine"  does not facilitate male dominance, this is clearly demonstrated in today's feminist movement which not only accept their differences but as a reason to grant welfare benefits especially for women. Without biological distinctions and their recognition, these welfare will have no ground for justification.

You are trying to contradict a well known biological fact that the majority of women from teen up to their late 20s are sexually immature, and have difficulty reaching organism. They become fully mature after 30 (especially after given birth) and able to enjoy sex thereafter.  Prior to that, all sex is only to for the sake of pride, and for showing off to peers with their partners (a need to be confirmed as an attractive women and that virginity is sign of unpopularity and so on, where in fact they don't really enjoy physcally apart from the feeling of intimacy as there is no guarantee of organism). Women are expert at pretending to enjoy sex, even by their making of the sound and so on. In other words, apparent biological differences exist in female and it is relative to their pschological behaviour (including the claims of enjoying sex, interested in sex, and so on, just to build up personal pride from a peer or a love-competitor rather than as a fact). Cis women univerally (majority) want love, and will associate sex with love, in order to gain love. So they will easily satisfied their need for love with one partner.  Cis men universally have no requirement for love when an attractive woman is presented in order to initiate intercourse. So there is no limitation with the number of partners if the opportunity allows.

Again this is a stereotype.

You are trying too hard to sound like an expert on this with your word choices, etc., but sadly, you have missed the mark on the general meaning of the point.

Your views of women do not constitute factual data and/or experience for women on the whole. Every single woman I have met or dated did not fit the "parameters of female socio/sexual behaviors." You say this has to be right because you read in out of a book but you may want to look at the beginning of the book to see what year it was printed because your viewpoints on women are not true.

The issues and conceptions you raised is like something you read it out of a 1970 Psychology Textbook or even the 1870 Psychology Textbook. That's why I want to make sure you look in the front of those books to see the year it was printed.

Also, women act differently than what a textbook writes on how they should act.

[Rebekah with a K-A-H]

I say nothing about women being inherently passive and demure in society, except sexually, thus your association of 'sexist' is out of line. Socially constructed value of "feminine"  does not facilitate male dominance, this is clearly demonstrated in today's feminist movement which not only accept their differences but as a reason to grant welfare benefits especially for women. Without biological distinctions and their recognition, these welfare will have no ground for justification.

You are trying to contradict a well known biological fact that the majority of women from teen up to their late 20s are sexually immature, and have difficulty reaching organism. They become fully mature after 30 (especially after given birth) and able to enjoy sex thereafter.  Prior to that, all sex is only to for the sake of pride, and for showing off to peers with their partners (a need to be confirmed as an attractive women and that virginity is sign of unpopularity and so on, where in fact they don't really enjoy physcally apart from the feeling of intimacy as there is no guarantee of organism). Women are expert at pretending to enjoy sex, even by their making of the sound and so on. In other words, apparent biological differences exist in female and it is relative to their pschological behaviour (including the claims of enjoying sex, interested in sex, and so on, just to build up personal pride from a peer or a love-competitor rather than as a fact). Cis women univerally (majority) want love, and will associate sex with love, in order to gain love. So they will easily satisfied their need for love with one partner.  Cis men universally have no requirement for love when an attractive woman is presented in order to initiate intercourse. So there is no limitation with the number of partners if the opportunity allows.

"Well-known biological fact" according to who, exactly?  And where do lesbians fit in your supposedly ironclad retrograde evo-bio approach?  Are they just faking it until age 29?

You probably won't take my testimony as evidence (nor should you, to be fair; after all, anecdotes prove nothing), but I have plenty of female friends looking for just casual sex and no relationships.  Hell, the same is true for me.

Meanwhile, the suggestion that men are just automatic erection machines in the presence of women, without any need for love—well, that's insensitive and offensive, too.

[xxUltraModLadyxx]

lol...why has this gone beyond 200 posts?
lmao.


goddamn simple question.
goddamn simple answer,
it was past lifestyle for them.

good point. some people have lots of time to waste away i guess. i just answered, and then saw that mahsa got yogurt for being a gay boy.

[Joeyboo~ :3]

I never got yogurt.

It would have been nice, I like strawberry from Yoplait.

[The Passage]

I will never eat yogurt again without thinking about this thread. Thank you, you're all so kind.

[Forever21Chic]

I will never eat yogurt again without thinking about this thread.

Mmmm yogurt.....hey mines salty!     

[The Passage]

Mmmm yogurt.....hey mines salty!     

Hot but gross. Really gross.

I usually put sugar and oats in mine but I guess a little extra salt works for some folks... >.>

[Sailor_Saturn]

Unfortunately it is a sad fact that mind is not over matter when it come to transforming our biological body to match our gender identity, that is the reason those within the transgender umbralla cannot escape GID without srs and ffs. It is affirmative that our biological appearance determined our pschological behaviour, and that the effect of the male's brain development by T leading to fully maturity of the sex center make them superior in sexual response, and allow them to take the lead over sexual activity. It is also a fact it is incredibly unfortunate to a woman who has a husband who cannot take the initiative in bed, as she will completely miss the feeling of being loved which is needed by typically all women.

I can't help but notice that you're making claims which do not at all match the empirical data. There ARE transgender people who are perfectly satisfied with stopping at HRT (and they're not exceptional cases, they're a relevant proportion of the population). There ARE women who engage in sexual activity regularly and report genuine enjoyment without the involvement of a masculine figure (they're called lesbians). And arbitrarily assigning pride as the motive for pursuit of sex by women, then claiming that any women who don't admit to this are fooling themselves or lying is not only reckless, it's dishonest science. You've established an unfalsifiable hypothesis which uses the exact same logic that J. Michael Bailey and his cohorts use to claim that MtF transsexuals are extraordinarily effeminate gay men just lying about wanting to be women.

To claim that any woman under 30 has sex exclusively for the sake of pride and public image, and any statements she makes about enjoying sex are simply reflective of her expertise at pretending is utter nonsense. Your paradigm is unfalsifiable, and therefore NOT scientific.

[Princess of Hearts]

Wow the egos of some people.   We have moved on - temporarily I am sure - from the '->-bleeped-<-r than you' debate and now some people seem intent on proving that they are 'more intellectual than you'.    This constant need to be 'one-up' on others is I am sorry to say a sign of masculine thinking.     Men are always on the lookout for ways to raise their status or lower the status of others.  By bashing each other and trying to appear intelligent by vomiting up half digested sociological theory you only prove that there is still a lot of the male in you.

I think that the OP was wrong to make such a generalisation.  However, the OP could have had her say if she had phrased her post more carefully and used some qualifiers.    It is usually a good idea in speech and in writing to use words like: 'maybe', 'perhaps', 'to what extent', etc.

[Rebekah with a K-A-H]

Wow the egos of some people.   We have moved on - temporarily I am sure - from the '->-bleeped-<-r than you' debate and now some people seem intent on proving that they are 'more intellectual than you'.    This constant need to be 'one-up' on others is I am sorry to say a sign of masculine thinking.     Men are always on the lookout for ways to raise their status or lower the status of others.  By bashing each other and trying to appear intelligent by vomiting up half digested sociological theory you only prove that there is still a lot of the male in you.

There's no such thing as "masculine thinking", except as a social construction and societal expectation.  Also, if you're trying to tell us to stop "bashing" (though to be honest I have no idea when disagreement became bashing), you might want to refrain from saying that you disagree with our "vomited up half-digested sociological theory"—though, trust me, this has ruminated in my stomach long enough for the gastric juices of queer and feminist theories of social construction to permeate it to the core—because isn't that doing what you're trying to prevent here?

I think that the OP was wrong to make such a generalisation.  However, the OP could have had her say if she had phrased her post more carefully and used some qualifiers.    It is usually a good idea in speech and in writing to use words like: 'maybe', 'perhaps', 'to what extent', etc.

The OP is allowed to say whatever she wants, and I will fight for her right to be able to do so.  I'm also allowed to voice my concerns about the very validity of the question she's asking.

[Jacelyn]

I can't help but notice that you're making claims which do not at all match the empirical data.

Anyone with a long internet experience will recognized that the topic on sex in women-only forum is usually initiated by male members. Also in dating sides, the focus on sex is often of the male participants and female prostitutes soliciting business. Those who visit pronographic sides are largely males. Sexuality distinction between male and female is of reality, one just have to look for it in real life, it is not a fantasy.

There ARE transgender people who are perfectly satisfied with stopping at HRT (and they're not exceptional cases, they're a relevant proportion of the population).

Even CDs are under the transgender umbralla, everything is possible. People are Cds because they cannot go all the way and have physical limitations which they are awared of, none of these implicate such constrains are ideal. But in the ideal world, physical transition should be possible and complete with no limitation that can't be overcome, so I'm basing the transgender view on this ideal as universal parameter, without taking the constrains as a guide and mold it into a parameter to define the TS road map. Pre-op is never an ideal end goal, period. One is living in constrained, and is satisfied with it, but it is strictly personal, not a universal ideal to worth propagating. The medical and scientific community should embraced the universal TS ideal (perfect physical transition) and aimed to materialize it through research and devevelopment, and not stop and satisfied at HRT, simply because it resolved GID of a minority of less immersive transgenders with various constrains.

There ARE women who engage in sexual activity regularly and report genuine enjoyment without the involvement of a masculine figure (they're called lesbians). And arbitrarily assigning pride as the motive for pursuit of sex by women, then claiming that any women who don't admit to this are fooling themselves or lying is not only reckless, it's dishonest science. You've established an unfalsifiable hypothesis which uses the exact same logic that J. Michael Bailey and his cohorts use to claim that MtF transsexuals are extraordinarily effeminate gay men just lying about wanting to be women.

I don't denial women can enjoy intimacy with another women, but organism and penetration is not the primary aim for women (inclusive of lesbians) than it is for men (inclusive of gays). Men (and gays) desire to penetrate or be penetrated and organism, with or without love, whereas women (and lesbians) only desire intimacy, feeling of love amnd security, with or without organism. Male and female, lesbian and gays, these are eternal opposites, opposites can never be equalized, as these are based biologically (physical), in our world, physics determined everything, mind is mold after the physical opposites that defined its capability and limitations, and so is powerless to mold (transform or equalize) the physical opposites in the absence of scientific and medical means.

To claim that any woman under 30 has sex exclusively for the sake of pride and public image, and any statements she makes about enjoying sex are simply reflective of her expertise at pretending is utter nonsense. Your paradigm is unfalsifiable, and therefore NOT scientific.

I didn't mean 'any', when the simple reference to 'women' is concerning the majority, but without rejecting the opposite possibility in the minority. Please do not nick pick in words selectively just to generate an argument.

[cynthialee]

You can take the psuedo scientific babble and peddle it to someone who is easily baffled by BS, because you have failed to dazzle me with your brilliance.

You do realise that this is a group of fairly well read people who keep on top of the current trends in pychology and medicine because it directly effects our lives on a daily basis? Or perhaps you think we are collectively the standard issue internet dweller who does not do our own due dillegence?
I assure you that we do.

So now if you would care to join the 21 century and get a few modern texts and catch up with the rest of the class that would be spiffy as can be.

[Annah]

Anyone with a long internet experience will recognized that the topic on sex in women-only forum is usually initiated by male members. Also in dating sides, the focus on sex is often of the male participants and female prostitutes soliciting business. Those who visit pronographic sides are largely males. Sexuality distinction between male and female is of reality, one just have to look for it in real life, it is not a fantasy.

This isn't accurate either.

"A long internet experience" does not make anyone the expert of gender related sociology.

Also, there are many women who initiated sexual discussions on women only forums. And I don't just look at the internet; I use real life experiences. Women talk about sex just like men do.

Also, pornography is also viewed by women too. The only reason why men view pornography more than women is because some men tend to be look oriented but you cannot base gender sociology and mentalities to pornography. Because both men and women view it.

Even CDs are under the transgender umbralla, everything is possible. People are Cds because they cannot go all the way and have physical limitations which they are awared of, none of these implicate such constrains are ideal.

This isn't accurate either. You cannot state that CDs are CDs because they cannot go all the way and have physical limitations "which they are awared of" (Whatever that means???).

Some CDs are CDs because they enjoy wearing clothing of the opposite gender. For whatever reasons, they enjoy wearing those type of clothing. It is inaccurate to say crossdressers are crossdressers because "they cannot go all the way."

Pre-op is never an ideal end goal, period.

Depends on how you define pre op. Pre Ops are Pre Ops for a number of reasons. For some it is not an ideal end goal for others there are alternatives.

The medical and scientific community should embraced the universal TS ideal (perfect physical transition) and aimed to materialize it through research and devevelopment, and not stop and satisfied at HRT, simply because it resolved GID of a minority of less immersive transgenders with various constrains.

This is based on individual convictions. Also, I would be interested in how you define "perfect physical transition."  Because for some trans people their perfect physical transition is different than another transgirl's idea of a perfect physical transition.

For some transgirls, HRT is good enough for them. For other girls it is dressing in their gender presentation. For others, it could be SRS/GCS, FFS, or a myriad of other steps.

I don't denial women can enjoy intimacy with another women, but organism and penetration is not the primary aim for women (inclusive of lesbians) than it is for men (inclusive of gays).

I am assuming you mean orgasm rather than organism. If that is the case, you are utterly wrong about that. If you go to your girlfriend and say "oh baby...but you having an orgasm is not your primary aim" let's see how fast she breaks up with you.

Orgasm is desired by both men and women and all those in between and outside. To say orgasm is not the aim for women is basically denying their sexual right to be equals.

Men (and gays) desire to penetrate or be penetrated and organism, with or without love, whereas women (and lesbians) only desire intimacy, feeling of love amnd security, with or without organism.

Again, I am assuming you mean orgasm versus organism. As I stated earlier, your views are inaccurate. Men have a desire for intimacy, love, and security too. Women have a desire for orgasms as well.

Male and female, lesbian and gays, these are eternal opposites, opposites can never be equalized, as these are based biologically (physical),

Did you make that up? It makes no sense. I'm trying to understand it but it makes no sense. Please clarify if you can.

I didn't mean 'any', when the simple reference to 'women' is concerning the majority, but without rejecting the opposite possibility in the minority. Please do not nick pick in words selectively just to generate an argument.

It isn't nitpicking. You are very inaccurate and your ideas are very "stereotyped."

You cannot stick all transgirls with one label. You cannot place male and female gender roles in one box either.

I've taken numerous sexuality courses in undergraduate and graduate levels and I can tell you for a fact that gender and sexuality is not as simple or as how you explained it. Your version is clearly from your experiences and does not relate to the general mass.

I also mean no offense to this, but I swear you are making this up and throwing complicated words in there to make it sound "valid."  Anyone can do that. Watch:

Inter cellular micro biological mass can be produced with the introduction of a stable nuclei to an unstable element (such as an electron or related). In an ideal environment this stabilization will occur by introducing carbonated hydrogen to two parts hydrogen with oxygen and then keeping this mass sustained through a macro dense layer of electron particle burst.

[Lynn]

I've been following this thread, just not saying anything, but I can no longer just sit by idly here.

The discussions in this thread are quite likely the most pointless ones on this whole forum since I joined. It's just filled with BS arguments and the only redeeming quality is the mention of yoghurt.

[Jacelyn]

This isn't accurate either.
"A long internet experience" does not make anyone the expert of gender related sociology.

It helps to have the general picture about the community one is facing.

Also, there are many women who initiated sexual discussions on women only forums. And I don't just look at the internet; I use real life experiences. Women talk about sex just like men do.

Sure they do, but not in the sense of hoping to get arose in sharing the details, do you think women will write x-rated sex novels? Women will write about the sex act, but tend to add in some romantic elements. The same for women directors of movie, sex always involved sentimental element. But male directors concentrate on x-rated contents.

Also, pornography is also viewed by women too. The only reason why men view pornography more than women is because some men tend to be look oriented but you cannot base gender sociology and mentalities to pornography. Because both men and women view it.

Out of courousity yes. But after watching a few times, they will complaint of the taste of those who like these pornography.  If a guy openly confessed to like porn or share porn with his new gf, then it is highly certain that she will dump him imediately or sometime later. Men and women do view it, but with different results. Never heard of any member of the feminist group complaint about porn depict women as sexual object? When did a member of the male species ever made such a compaint?

This isn't accurate either. You cannot state that CDs are CDs because they cannot go all the way and have physical limitations "which they are awared of" (Whatever that means???).

Aware of physical characteristics that cannot be resolved by surgical means, such as height (>180cm), extremely masculine facial features beyond ffs, extremely broad shoulder width and so on. They hesitate srs simply because after the operation, they cannot lead a normal life as a presentable woman, not even as a male like they are at present.

Some CDs are CDs because they enjoy wearing clothing of the opposite gender. For whatever reasons, they enjoy wearing those type of clothing. It is inaccurate to say crossdressers are crossdressers because "they cannot go all the way."

Here I'm not stating the type of MTF CDs that considered themselves as male, but as MTF who refused HRT due to health constrains and reservation for possible change of mind if they wish to de-transition and being capable bearing children.

Depends on how you define pre op. Pre Ops are Pre Ops for a number of reasons. For some it is not an ideal end goal for others there are alternatives.

As mentioned, it is due to constrains, not ideal (having a penis should not be consider as the ideal physical state for MTF). It is the lack of disatisfaction with the constrained that is not consistent with their motive for transition.  It is okay to accept constrains (as knowledge) but not satisfaction with the condition without complaint but actually promoting such condition as universal acceptance, or projecting a third gender umbralla as an acceptable society standard for such physical abnormality, without needing surgical correction for improvement of their image.

This is based on individual convictions. Also, I would be interested in how you define "perfect physical transition."  Because for some trans people their perfect physical transition is different than another transgirl's idea of a perfect physical transition.

The state of 'perfection' is open for improvement by the medical and scientific field, perfection is an object to be sought by transgender in their path to gender perfection which is conformity to the biological gender binary characteristics, not ignored due to being satisfied via self-acceptance with the constrained or GID.

For some transgirls, HRT is good enough for them. For other girls it is dressing in their gender presentation. For others, it could be SRS/GCS, FFS, or a myriad of other steps.

Half-way is acceptance of self-constrains, all the way to SRS is accepting the perfection in transition. It is an individual choice, but the TS road map is not individually based (but is based universally on the mold of default gender binary), the map lied out the ultimate goal of perfection (post-op). One is free in how one may tranverse the map, the destination is there to be accepted, not ignored, discouraged, or slighted by the arrogance of self-acceptance.

I am assuming you mean orgasm rather than organism. If that is the case, you are utterly wrong about that. If you go to your girlfriend and say "oh baby...but you having an orgasm is not your primary aim" let's see how fast she breaks up with you.

It just mean one should be more sensitive of her emotionally need for love and security than just physical intercourse. A simple way to make a woman crazy about him.

Orgasm is desired by both men and women and all those in between and outside. To say orgasm is not the aim for women is basically denying their sexual right to be equals.

Sex is not all about orgasm, and its importance to women is the physical intimacy, the fun in fore-play and the pschological feelings from the act itself. It is standard male misconception that women also should orgasm every time like they do. If it come fine, if not, it is also fine. It is a none issue to women in majority.

Again, I am assuming you mean orgasm versus organism. As I stated earlier, your views are inaccurate. Men have a desire for intimacy, love, and security too. Women have a desire for orgasms as well.

Orgasm is heavily promoted by male stereotype misconception, men do have a desire for intimacy, love, and security, but it is entirely optional for intercource.  It a simple fact that when the male lost sexual interest in a woman, any force sex only bring displeasure. Male is a sexual being, even love is sexually motivated. But for women, for relationship wise, intimacy, love, and security are of priority, physical attraction is optional, it is fine to have, it is fine not to have, since they derived pleasure in receptive mode, not in one's acting, or doing something to the women after being attracted visually by the woman.

I've taken numerous sexuality courses in undergraduate and graduate levels and I can tell you for a fact that gender and sexuality is not as simple or as how you explained it. Your version is clearly from your experiences and does not relate to the general mass.

Science lead to complexity and philosophy lead to simplicity. One cannot strayed to science and ignored the philosophical part if one is to make sense of any discussion with the complexity of scientific technicalities. Neither gender and sexuality has to be complex if the simple binary gender mechanism is fully acknowledged as universal parameters for their variants.

[Sailor_Saturn]

Am I accused of being a part of the supposed ego contest? Because I fail to see how calling misinformation such is stoking one's ego and trying to feel intellectually superior, if I am.