You actually gave a rational reason for the exclusion of trans women a few pages back. I don't agree with it, but it's rational.
In effect, you said that people look at the photos on this site to be aroused. And part of their arousal is projection. So if someone is turned on by a muscular trans woman - without knowing she's trans - they might be distressed by this knowledge, as it is now part of their projection. Even if they're never going to meet or be intimate with this person, they no longer feel like they could, and that's a boner killer (my words here).
I get that. I think this is entirely valid for a p0rn site. I have zero problem with HerBiceps or Awefilms or whoever declining to have trans models. People have the right to be turned on by who they like. It's also okay for a trans site to exclude cis women.
Thing is:
1) This isn't expressly a p0rn site. At least that's not how it's sold. Its supposed to be a huge repository of images. In theory, women should be able to exist here outside of being sexually attractive. They just need to have muscles.
2) As such, you can't have it both ways on the trans ban. If you believe that birth sex is fixed, then trans men are still women, and they belong here. There's plenty of other girls on lots of gear with huge muscles and short hair and no boobs and bulges in their panties. As stated, the only difference between Rheta West and a Trans man is the trans guy's embrace of facial hair.
If you believe that gender can change, then trans men are now verboten (as they're men) and trans women should be allowed. Lots of fit trans girls out there look indistinguishable from the girls already on here. And they work hard for their muscles. You're excluding them and devaluing their accomplishments because it's incompatible with some people's fantasy projection. And that's wrong.
3) Just to clarify - you CAN have it both ways on the trans ban, you'd just be a hypocrite. Which happens every time trans men are mentioned. The same people who want trans women to use the mens room will freak out if a buff and bearded trans man uses the women's room. It messes with the misogynistic narrative, so the solution is to move on with a joke and try to bring the focus back to "men in dresses." You're not alone in this.
I don't even personally find trans people attractive. I'm bisexual and very much into cisgender, clearly binary people. I'm horny and kinky. I like buff women with smooth vaginas and buff guys with big penises. It's just a preference. Doesn't make me a transphobe. I'm not really attracted to black girls or Indian girls or middle eastern girls either. Doesn't make me a racist. We're allowed to have our sexual preferences.
So having trans women on here isn't going to get me aroused. I'll stick with Kristina Mendoza and Chris Bumstead, thank you very much. But I still think that they should be included. I don't mind seeing their photos because I'm a reasonable person who believes that others should be free to be who they want.. and I don't think that female athletes only have value if they're sexually appealing to me.
I notice you chose to ignore everything I said and play another round of catch instead.
This site is not uncanny valley with muscles, neither is this highly disturbed persons with muscles. Every sane adult knows that you must draw the line somewhere. Just check the upload page to see how it's been drawn currently. It's drawn at very slightly uncanny and less than moderately disturbed.
Another game that gets played a lot in this discussion is let's pretend. Most of the time to pretend that you must have one criterion and one criterion only, and it can either be the gender a person identifies in or the gender a person was born in. The problem is, nobody is interested in playing this game, because it only leads to ugly, useless and undesirable conclusions.
The valid answer is the restaurant analogy I already gave a year ago and again a moment ago. You're entitled to get out, but you're not entitled to get in.
Instead of trying to shame people into playing your games you should maybe offer them reasons that would make them want to play. Or find rules that all players can agree on.
Maybe there are people for whom everything is a game of catch or let's pretend. Everything is power and representation. Nothing is real. This is related to the current AI revolution so that computers are purely things that process things, with no ability to represent anything. Humans straddle the line between things and representations. But this carries with it the danger of falling entirely into the other side.
In other words, you may see it so that no argument is or can be based on reality, but all are simply competing games of catch or let's pretend. You like to gloat how the evil transphobes have isolated and marginalized themselves just by being what they are. I don't think that's enough. I think one should give rational reasons for such claims. Like I did here.
Again, the problem here is that this site is described as:
A discussion forum and an archive of images and videos of muscular women, uploaded by users of the site.
Let's take "muscular women" at its broadest definition. They have to strong and muscular. They don't have to be traditionally attractive or hot. There are plenty of women on here with muscles who I don't find attractive in the least. And most guys would agree with me on that. This is okay, as they - of course - still have a place here.
If you believe that gender is permanently assigned at birth, then trans men cannot exist in your world. In your words, they are simply "biological females trying to pass themselves off as men." They are just as much a woman with muscle as any other woman with muscle? Let's abbreviate them TMBB (transman bodybuilders)
FBB & TMBB: Use testosterone & GH
FBB & TMBB: Have little to no functional natural breast tissue (TMBB most likely done via surgery)
FBB & TMBB: Do not menstruate (for on-cycle FBB's)
FBB & TMBB: Often have shorter hair (FBB by necessity, TMBB by choice)
FBB & TMBB: Experience facial hair growth (TMBB more likely to embrace and wear it)
FBB & TMBB: Born with vaginas. Born genetically female.
Given all of these data points, can anyone tell me why this Trans Man shouldn't be on the site? It his his pronouns? Is it the beard? Cody is a fairly unisex name. If he shaved the beard and put on a wig, would it be okay then?
And just to help you remember his "biological sex," here's a before and after. It's the same person. Just more muscles, less hair on top, more hair on face, and a very similar PED schedule to what most serious pro female bodybuilders use.
Not to mention you completely avoided again to share your opinion…
Quoting myself, a whole message from January of last year, from this same discussion:
I think that more than one criteria can apply at the same time. If that were illogical then no computer could ever have been built.
One is that identifying as a woman does not make you a woman. Another one is that the surgical and chemical actions someone takes in order to not appear like a woman anymore can and do make her unattractive and undesirable as a woman.
If this is too complicated then no wonder you didn't get anything from my previous message.
Part of another message, later on that same day, from this discussion:
> you are just saying that YOUR perception can make a biological born female that identifies as a man be considered a man
I never said that.
I explained my two-bit logic in full twice already.
But actually I don't believe and never did believe that these two things are even connected (men willing to become women and wanting to be on the site versus women willing to become men and not belonging to the site anymore). They just exist in reality as independent variables.
Most of what you (plural) have been trying to do is to force a certain narrative using loads of ridicule, selective listening and playing dumb. I know it's not in your best interest to follow my arguments to their conclusions, but in all seriousness that says nothing about the actual arguments.
The real test of consistency could be to make this into a People with Muscles. Except that there is a certain element still.
> And I won't speak about the fact that unattractiveness and undesirableness appears not to be a criteria to be featured on the main site.
I see this womanhood stuff like a restaurant. You must respect someone's desire to get out, but you don't necessarily need to respect their desire to get in.
Assuming that people are here to admire the pictures and some are here to get horny, in no particular order. Now there is not one to one relationship between what the picture looks like and what is actually in the picture. But there is a relationship nevertheless.
Nobody likes purely what they see. There is always some interpretation at play. But the interpretation is usually and preferably based on something that exists in reality. People do feel guilt and shame for misleading themselves but also for being misled. And this trans stuff does have a tendency to f*** with people's minds. And I am not sure but I would not be surprised if some trans people and their supporters got a sadistic kick out of it, out of humiliating and confusing people and in effect unloading some of their own shame onto others.
> And the fact that persons that have the some degree of unattractiveness are instead attractive because they "still identify as females"?
Not necessarily according to me, but according to what has already been established among the userbase. Again, it's a matter of degree versus matter of kind. And again, not talking about anyone de facto becoming anything else. Talking about the intention. Some facial hair on a woman that is there unintentionally is clearly different from a genetic female having a full beard by choice.
My approach to this issue is to simply describe what I think. Thus far I've been perfectly consistent. Your approach seems to be to fight everything. The idea that there must be only one criteria to determine the whole issue every way is just arbitrary and I simply have said no to it. So when you think I am "senseless", "illogical", "losing the argument", "clutching at straws" and so on and so on, I think there's nothing more going on than this.
Another wall of text to say nothing. Another "Vladi looks manly"? Purely their opinion. "I dislike transwomen on site, it is ridiculous"? Another opinion (again, the minority on the site based on the poll?) No. Has to be law. Yes, that's hypocrisy. Not to mention you completely avoided again to share your opinion on transmen on the site. Because there the hypocrisy is shown so loudly it is clear to the whole users.
It’s so ironic that Vladi - our unofficial Queen of muscle girls - is regularly bombarded with transphobic hate and ridicule ever time she’s featured on a mainstream page.
I spent a few minutes decoding this utterance. I failed to see any irony, even though I tried to apply all three dictionary definitions to this situation. I've heard that sarcasm is a cheap substitute for intelligence. That is, some people adopt a sarcastic tone, then say something as bland as "I guess it's Tuesday", but listeners get the idea anyway that they're chronically unimpressed by everything. They must therefore be used to things being far smarter and more impressive. I think the same applies to perceiving irony when there in fact is none. The intent is purely to confuse the opponent.
Some people might think the term transphobia has lost all meaning and simply turned into mud and poo that's flung at one's political opponents. But if it still means something, then it's by definition an irrational fear that somebody is transgender when in fact he isn't. I submit that the great majority of people who ridicule Vladislava Galagan don't believe she is transgender. They simply don't like her appearance.
But really, why does it matter at all what they say or think? Why do you think it's relevant? In one place one group of people is repulsed by some woman being extremely muscular. In some other place another group of people is repulsed by the idea of a biological male trying to pass himself off as a woman. Pretending that there is a connection is ridiculous. If you're afraid of random people's opinions on the Internet then how can you use the Internet at all?
What you're basically trying to force everyone to believe is that "every manly-looking woman is interchangeable with every other manly-looking woman, not to mention manly-looking man who identifies as a woman, and to think otherwise is hypocrisy, bigotry, idiocy, nazism, fascism, chauvinism, rape and murder! If you like one of these, you must like all of them!"
Step by step it goes like first there are people ridiculing Vladislava for "looking manly". That's purely their opinion. Nobody here is on the hook for anything those people say. And even if anyone was, it would not help the argument. In the second step those comments are falsely put into a category called "transphobia", which means the dislike of or opposition to the idea of people switching genders. In the third step, people who don't want to have biological men on the main site are added to this category.
In the fourth step these people who pan Vladislava are declared evil (which the assumed average person on this site is expected to agree with), then the category called "transphobic" they're falsely included in is declared evil (and here any sane person would disagree because of the false inclusion) and then is drawn the final conclusion that "you don't want to be like these people who ridicule Vladislava, your favorite and your queen, ergo you don't want to be transphobic, ergo you must support adding biological males to the main site".
You're too used to winning arguments by bashing people with the "transphobia" hammer. But all it boils down to in this case is a false equivalence. You like strawberries? I have here some liver casserole, but some people call it strawberries, don't know why, but this is why I think you should like it and I see a great irony and hypocrisy if you don't.
The third definition of irony is "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs", so it's like people who like something that some other people bash falsely as being trans are expected to like everything else that someone might consider truthfully as being trans.
So there is an expectation based on a contrived false equivalence and the "irony" is that this expectation proved false.
Also, the whole "I see irony" means "I caught you in hypocrisy" (and bigotry and whatever), but if you shed any light on it, there's nothing.
The whole argument is actually that "in some way all these women on this site are already trans, so adding real trans, trans trans, unironically trans or intentionally trans people to the mix would change nothing". Well, I just disagree.
So sad. A female-born woman bombed with transphobic hate. How ironic. Sorry for her...
Ironic indeed. A huge portion of the population thinks that female bodybuilders look transgender or want to be men. They think that guys who like them are gay. They're laughing their ass off at all of us, and making fun of all of us.
Instead of fighting back against those sentiments by being more accepting and inclusive, some dudes on here simply want to push out the goalposts. "Normies think that Vladi looks like a man, but I think she's hot so she's a woman. But I'm not attracted to Paige Dumars, so she's officially too masculine"
I also have yet to get any kind of clarity on trans men. If men can't become women, then women can't become men. So if someone is born a woman, they are a woman forever.. no matter what they do, correct?
Can my homie down here be posted on the site? This person, Ayran Pasha, was born a woman, takes a massive amount of male hormones, and lifts weights...
Functionally, what is the difference between Ayran and someone like Rheta West? They have the same genitals. Ayran has short hair, Rheta has no hair and is wearing a wig. Neither of them have any breasts that I can see. Their supplement and PED use most likely looks very similar. They're both on a ton of testosterone and GH.
Ayran has facial hair. You can bet your ass that Rheta would as well if she'd didn't zap it with laser or electrolysis. That's the case for most of the bigger girls. Heavy testosterone simply be like that... whether it comes from testacles or a vial.
COULD IT BE THE PRONOUNS THAT THEY USE? If it's okay to post Rheta, is it okay to post Ayran too? According to "biological sex," Ayran is female right? They'd be using the ladies' bathroom in an increasing number of states.
It’s so ironic that Vladi - our unofficial Queen of muscle girls - is regularly bombarded with transphobic hate and ridicule ever time she’s featured on a mainstream page.
They’d certainly consider you gay or trans-attracted for liking her.
Idk, I sleep with guys and girls so doesn’t bother me at all, but must be funny to consider that from your perspective.
I could draw a Venn diagram and you guys would have a nice bit of overlap with the commenters here.
t
So sad. A female-born woman bombed with transphobic hate. How ironic. Sorry for her...
It’s so ironic that Vladi - our unofficial Queen of muscle girls - is regularly bombarded with transphobic hate and ridicule ever time she’s featured on a mainstream page.
They’d certainly consider you gay or trans-attracted for liking her.
Idk, I sleep with guys and girls so doesn’t bother me at all, but must be funny to consider that from your perspective.
I could draw a Venn diagram and you guys would have a nice bit of overlap with the commenters here.
Absolutely not. Female bodybuilders are regularly maligned with comments that they are looking too masculine, so to add transgender into this forum, would in my opinion create much controversy and disagreement. I'm sure someone will start up a unique forum to cater for their social media interests.
Seems to me that many average people have an icky feeling about biological men who want to be women. One thing we could do is explore and explain the reasons for this ick and then attempt to address them, rationally and at face value, one by one, and see where we get. But I doubt this is going to happen, is allowed to happen or is even necessary to make happen, as long as the big answer is already no.
Then there is the ubiquitous misuse of the word hate, whose real meaning can range from avoidant dislike, which is practically always the case, to willingness to commit mass murder. The key being that people who have an avoidant dislike get accused of willingness to commit mass murder. But this is an example of the general tendency of trans rights activists to be on the attack and employ copious false accusations.
THE point.
Most of the things said there are best ignored. Most of the things said amount to wishful gaslighting. But for the benefit of alarmed and confused onlookers I think a few things need to be said.
Beauty can be defined in two ways that I know of. First one is to consider it synonymous with desirable. This does not say a lot. But the Aristotelian concept contains three parts that are called clarity, integrity and consonance. I think men to women trans fail in all three. No matter if they can fool some people totally and many people initially, there is a gut feeling of confusion and ugliness and lack of purpose about the whole issue. I have no idea why trans activists talk here about fear, except as part of some kind of power fantasy.
I think what people really fear is a certain kind of toxicity. People fear the verbal aggression, false accusations and gaslighting will not end until the trans activists get their way. Though this is what they're probably counting on. That people would want to buy their silence by giving in.
Then again the concept of "hate speech". If voicing a personal dislike is considered "hate speech" then hate speech is a human right and any attempt to silence it is a human rights violation. I have no clue why trans activists are so much in love with these "sliding scale" concepts, whose only utility is in making false accusations. It takes all meaning away from language and makes rational discussion impossible.
Ignorance is not a substance or type of energy. It is a state of not knowing something that is presumably true. Disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as being ignorant, though practically always when someone is accused of ignorance he is in reality being accused of disagreeing with the accuser.
To paraphrase: These trans activists aren't juicing the ad numbers. They make the place look worse and feel worse. They're a buzzkill for anyone trying to get turned on by photos. I actually can't imagine any rationale as to why they're given so much deference.
I actually haven't seen anyone been given any kind of deference. It's a simple choice between two alternatives. Nobody really knows the reasons. Maybe it's ad revenue. Maybe it's some big principle or someone's peace of mind. Maybe something else. But usually when minorities get their way in things like this, it's due to unmerited deference. And cowardice. It's absolutely a sign of courage to not give in in the face of aggressive activism and false accusations.
The opposite of ignorance is to pretend to know something one possibly can not know in reality. It is actually possible that 100 % of what you quoted is not only false but the direct opposite of reality. Real knowledge is a balance between not knowing and knowing falsely.
Probably the only way to find out would be to set up a sister site and call it transwithmuscle or something. There would only be two problems. The more obvious one is I believe the site would not get much traffic. This for the simple reason that people want to see muscular biological women. Pay no attention to what they say but where they click. There is no getting around this. It is their sexuality. Trans activists basically consider themselves entitled to meddle with not only their own but especially other people's sexuality. The other one being that this meddling is the whole point of the bid and the exercise, so this is why a parallel site would not give them what they want. It would not fool anyone into taking biological men for women.
It's no more complicated than that I know what I want to be turned on by. If someone wants to fool me into being turned on by a biological male, then I naturally think that's disgusting. If he were to momentarily succeed but eventually fail then he may think he has proven something. But this is like arguing that since rape victims sometimes get turned on by the physical activity, no matter how much and consistently they object to it otherwise, then they must secretly like it. No doubt people also object to this meddling mentality or rape mentality.
Some women may think that I am not a handsome and desirable guy. But do I wish there was a law that entitled me to pass off as handsome and desirable to whichever woman I want, under the pain of wholesale destruction of her career, finances and other relationships? Or is she somehow entitled to not consider me handsome and desirable? Might I even call that hate? Or would you be so cruel as to tell me to simply learn to live with it?
I think that this is accurate for why some guys are so resistant to trans models.
I'm confident that a strong trans women would have at least as many fans as she does haters, and most users would simply not care. It's just a vocal, hysterical minority that can't simply live and let live. Imagine being mad about a trans model when there's freaking 1.5 MILLION OTHER PHOTOS TO LOOK AT. Who the hell has time for that? Trans models scare them because many of them are strong and beautiful. And they look exactly like many of the cis girls on here. Some look even more feminine than cis FBBs. We all know that it's true. That's why it's threatening to some.
The mods made this decision because they can't or won't enforce a ban on hate speech. They said that the moderation is too difficult. Seems easy to me. Make an announcement that bigoted comments about trans people (or any other people) won't be tolerated and earns you a permanent ban. Then just ban the problematic commenters.
I've seen a bizarre degree of tolerance for ignorance and misogyny and bigotry here. I can't imagine why. These ignorant users aren't juicing the ad numbers. They make the place look worse and feel worse. They're a buzzkill for anyone trying to get turned on by photos. I actually can't imagine any rationale as to why they're given so much deference.
If I was single, and I was not, I would probably talk to her (she was with an older woman that I would assume was her mother).
She's such a teaser.
And a woman.
She doesn't have my equipment down there.
I don't mean this in an internet troll kinda way, but please go outside and touch some grass, breath some fresh air, instead of thinking about what random women on the internet have down there
Log in |
Register
Daaaaaamn!! Is she a transwoman??
Absolutley the bodies are amazing and then that bulge is just an extra treat
You actually gave a rational reason for the exclusion of trans women a few pages back. I don't agree with it, but it's rational.
In effect, you said that people look at the photos on this site to be aroused. And part of their arousal is projection. So if someone is turned on by a muscular trans woman - without knowing she's trans - they might be distressed by this knowledge, as it is now part of their projection. Even if they're never going to meet or be intimate with this person, they no longer feel like they could, and that's a boner killer (my words here).
I get that. I think this is entirely valid for a p0rn site. I have zero problem with HerBiceps or Awefilms or whoever declining to have trans models. People have the right to be turned on by who they like. It's also okay for a trans site to exclude cis women.
Thing is:
1) This isn't expressly a p0rn site. At least that's not how it's sold. Its supposed to be a huge repository of images. In theory, women should be able to exist here outside of being sexually attractive. They just need to have muscles.
2) As such, you can't have it both ways on the trans ban. If you believe that birth sex is fixed, then trans men are still women, and they belong here. There's plenty of other girls on lots of gear with huge muscles and short hair and no boobs and bulges in their panties. As stated, the only difference between Rheta West and a Trans man is the trans guy's embrace of facial hair.
If you believe that gender can change, then trans men are now verboten (as they're men) and trans women should be allowed. Lots of fit trans girls out there look indistinguishable from the girls already on here. And they work hard for their muscles. You're excluding them and devaluing their accomplishments because it's incompatible with some people's fantasy projection. And that's wrong.
3) Just to clarify - you CAN have it both ways on the trans ban, you'd just be a hypocrite. Which happens every time trans men are mentioned. The same people who want trans women to use the mens room will freak out if a buff and bearded trans man uses the women's room. It messes with the misogynistic narrative, so the solution is to move on with a joke and try to bring the focus back to "men in dresses." You're not alone in this.
I don't even personally find trans people attractive. I'm bisexual and very much into cisgender, clearly binary people. I'm horny and kinky. I like buff women with smooth vaginas and buff guys with big penises. It's just a preference. Doesn't make me a transphobe. I'm not really attracted to black girls or Indian girls or middle eastern girls either. Doesn't make me a racist. We're allowed to have our sexual preferences.
So having trans women on here isn't going to get me aroused. I'll stick with Kristina Mendoza and Chris Bumstead, thank you very much. But I still think that they should be included. I don't mind seeing their photos because I'm a reasonable person who believes that others should be free to be who they want.. and I don't think that female athletes only have value if they're sexually appealing to me.
I notice you chose to ignore everything I said and play another round of catch instead.
This site is not uncanny valley with muscles, neither is this highly disturbed persons with muscles. Every sane adult knows that you must draw the line somewhere. Just check the upload page to see how it's been drawn currently. It's drawn at very slightly uncanny and less than moderately disturbed.
Another game that gets played a lot in this discussion is let's pretend. Most of the time to pretend that you must have one criterion and one criterion only, and it can either be the gender a person identifies in or the gender a person was born in. The problem is, nobody is interested in playing this game, because it only leads to ugly, useless and undesirable conclusions.
The valid answer is the restaurant analogy I already gave a year ago and again a moment ago. You're entitled to get out, but you're not entitled to get in.
Instead of trying to shame people into playing your games you should maybe offer them reasons that would make them want to play. Or find rules that all players can agree on.
Maybe there are people for whom everything is a game of catch or let's pretend. Everything is power and representation. Nothing is real. This is related to the current AI revolution so that computers are purely things that process things, with no ability to represent anything. Humans straddle the line between things and representations. But this carries with it the danger of falling entirely into the other side.
In other words, you may see it so that no argument is or can be based on reality, but all are simply competing games of catch or let's pretend. You like to gloat how the evil transphobes have isolated and marginalized themselves just by being what they are. I don't think that's enough. I think one should give rational reasons for such claims. Like I did here.
Again, the problem here is that this site is described as:
A discussion forum and an archive of images and videos of muscular women, uploaded by users of the site.
Let's take "muscular women" at its broadest definition. They have to strong and muscular. They don't have to be traditionally attractive or hot. There are plenty of women on here with muscles who I don't find attractive in the least. And most guys would agree with me on that. This is okay, as they - of course - still have a place here.
If you believe that gender is permanently assigned at birth, then trans men cannot exist in your world. In your words, they are simply "biological females trying to pass themselves off as men." They are just as much a woman with muscle as any other woman with muscle? Let's abbreviate them TMBB (transman bodybuilders)
Given all of these data points, can anyone tell me why this Trans Man shouldn't be on the site? It his his pronouns? Is it the beard? Cody is a fairly unisex name. If he shaved the beard and put on a wig, would it be okay then?
https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a43882661/...
And just to help you remember his "biological sex," here's a before and after. It's the same person. Just more muscles, less hair on top, more hair on face, and a very similar PED schedule to what most serious pro female bodybuilders use.
Quoting myself, a whole message from January of last year, from this same discussion:
Part of another message, later on that same day, from this discussion:
Another wall of text to say nothing. Another "Vladi looks manly"? Purely their opinion. "I dislike transwomen on site, it is ridiculous"? Another opinion (again, the minority on the site based on the poll?) No. Has to be law. Yes, that's hypocrisy. Not to mention you completely avoided again to share your opinion on transmen on the site. Because there the hypocrisy is shown so loudly it is clear to the whole users.
I've read every word, Zarkle, and I agree with the whole thing.
The idea of putting men disguised as women in this "GIRLS with muscle" site is ridiculous.
Make your own "TRANS GIRLS with muscle" site and stop trying to ruin everything.
^ There’s just no way that I’m reading all that. But I really enjoy speculating what you look like.
I usually envision Pollux Troy in “Face Off.” Am I close at all?
I spent a few minutes decoding this utterance. I failed to see any irony, even though I tried to apply all three dictionary definitions to this situation. I've heard that sarcasm is a cheap substitute for intelligence. That is, some people adopt a sarcastic tone, then say something as bland as "I guess it's Tuesday", but listeners get the idea anyway that they're chronically unimpressed by everything. They must therefore be used to things being far smarter and more impressive. I think the same applies to perceiving irony when there in fact is none. The intent is purely to confuse the opponent.
Some people might think the term transphobia has lost all meaning and simply turned into mud and poo that's flung at one's political opponents. But if it still means something, then it's by definition an irrational fear that somebody is transgender when in fact he isn't. I submit that the great majority of people who ridicule Vladislava Galagan don't believe she is transgender. They simply don't like her appearance.
But really, why does it matter at all what they say or think? Why do you think it's relevant? In one place one group of people is repulsed by some woman being extremely muscular. In some other place another group of people is repulsed by the idea of a biological male trying to pass himself off as a woman. Pretending that there is a connection is ridiculous. If you're afraid of random people's opinions on the Internet then how can you use the Internet at all?
What you're basically trying to force everyone to believe is that "every manly-looking woman is interchangeable with every other manly-looking woman, not to mention manly-looking man who identifies as a woman, and to think otherwise is hypocrisy, bigotry, idiocy, nazism, fascism, chauvinism, rape and murder! If you like one of these, you must like all of them!"
Step by step it goes like first there are people ridiculing Vladislava for "looking manly". That's purely their opinion. Nobody here is on the hook for anything those people say. And even if anyone was, it would not help the argument. In the second step those comments are falsely put into a category called "transphobia", which means the dislike of or opposition to the idea of people switching genders. In the third step, people who don't want to have biological men on the main site are added to this category.
In the fourth step these people who pan Vladislava are declared evil (which the assumed average person on this site is expected to agree with), then the category called "transphobic" they're falsely included in is declared evil (and here any sane person would disagree because of the false inclusion) and then is drawn the final conclusion that "you don't want to be like these people who ridicule Vladislava, your favorite and your queen, ergo you don't want to be transphobic, ergo you must support adding biological males to the main site".
You're too used to winning arguments by bashing people with the "transphobia" hammer. But all it boils down to in this case is a false equivalence. You like strawberries? I have here some liver casserole, but some people call it strawberries, don't know why, but this is why I think you should like it and I see a great irony and hypocrisy if you don't.
The third definition of irony is "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs", so it's like people who like something that some other people bash falsely as being trans are expected to like everything else that someone might consider truthfully as being trans.
So there is an expectation based on a contrived false equivalence and the "irony" is that this expectation proved false.
Also, the whole "I see irony" means "I caught you in hypocrisy" (and bigotry and whatever), but if you shed any light on it, there's nothing.
The whole argument is actually that "in some way all these women on this site are already trans, so adding real trans, trans trans, unironically trans or intentionally trans people to the mix would change nothing". Well, I just disagree.
Ironic indeed. A huge portion of the population thinks that female bodybuilders look transgender or want to be men. They think that guys who like them are gay. They're laughing their ass off at all of us, and making fun of all of us.
Instead of fighting back against those sentiments by being more accepting and inclusive, some dudes on here simply want to push out the goalposts. "Normies think that Vladi looks like a man, but I think she's hot so she's a woman. But I'm not attracted to Paige Dumars, so she's officially too masculine"
I also have yet to get any kind of clarity on trans men. If men can't become women, then women can't become men. So if someone is born a woman, they are a woman forever.. no matter what they do, correct?
Can my homie down here be posted on the site? This person, Ayran Pasha, was born a woman, takes a massive amount of male hormones, and lifts weights...
Functionally, what is the difference between Ayran and someone like Rheta West? They have the same genitals. Ayran has short hair, Rheta has no hair and is wearing a wig. Neither of them have any breasts that I can see. Their supplement and PED use most likely looks very similar. They're both on a ton of testosterone and GH.
Ayran has facial hair. You can bet your ass that Rheta would as well if she'd didn't zap it with laser or electrolysis. That's the case for most of the bigger girls. Heavy testosterone simply be like that... whether it comes from testacles or a vial.
COULD IT BE THE PRONOUNS THAT THEY USE? If it's okay to post Rheta, is it okay to post Ayran too? According to "biological sex," Ayran is female right? They'd be using the ladies' bathroom in an increasing number of states.
So sad. A female-born woman bombed with transphobic hate. How ironic. Sorry for her...
It’s so ironic that Vladi - our unofficial Queen of muscle girls - is regularly bombarded with transphobic hate and ridicule ever time she’s featured on a mainstream page.
They’d certainly consider you gay or trans-attracted for liking her.
Idk, I sleep with guys and girls so doesn’t bother me at all, but must be funny to consider that from your perspective.
I could draw a Venn diagram and you guys would have a nice bit of overlap with the commenters here.
Absolutely not. Female bodybuilders are regularly maligned with comments that they are looking too masculine, so to add transgender into this forum, would in my opinion create much controversy and disagreement. I'm sure someone will start up a unique forum to cater for their social media interests.
Seems to me that many average people have an icky feeling about biological men who want to be women. One thing we could do is explore and explain the reasons for this ick and then attempt to address them, rationally and at face value, one by one, and see where we get. But I doubt this is going to happen, is allowed to happen or is even necessary to make happen, as long as the big answer is already no.
Then there is the ubiquitous misuse of the word hate, whose real meaning can range from avoidant dislike, which is practically always the case, to willingness to commit mass murder. The key being that people who have an avoidant dislike get accused of willingness to commit mass murder. But this is an example of the general tendency of trans rights activists to be on the attack and employ copious false accusations.
Most of the things said there are best ignored. Most of the things said amount to wishful gaslighting. But for the benefit of alarmed and confused onlookers I think a few things need to be said.
Beauty can be defined in two ways that I know of. First one is to consider it synonymous with desirable. This does not say a lot. But the Aristotelian concept contains three parts that are called clarity, integrity and consonance. I think men to women trans fail in all three. No matter if they can fool some people totally and many people initially, there is a gut feeling of confusion and ugliness and lack of purpose about the whole issue. I have no idea why trans activists talk here about fear, except as part of some kind of power fantasy.
I think what people really fear is a certain kind of toxicity. People fear the verbal aggression, false accusations and gaslighting will not end until the trans activists get their way. Though this is what they're probably counting on. That people would want to buy their silence by giving in.
Then again the concept of "hate speech". If voicing a personal dislike is considered "hate speech" then hate speech is a human right and any attempt to silence it is a human rights violation. I have no clue why trans activists are so much in love with these "sliding scale" concepts, whose only utility is in making false accusations. It takes all meaning away from language and makes rational discussion impossible.
Ignorance is not a substance or type of energy. It is a state of not knowing something that is presumably true. Disagreeing with someone is not the same thing as being ignorant, though practically always when someone is accused of ignorance he is in reality being accused of disagreeing with the accuser.
To paraphrase: These trans activists aren't juicing the ad numbers. They make the place look worse and feel worse. They're a buzzkill for anyone trying to get turned on by photos. I actually can't imagine any rationale as to why they're given so much deference.
I actually haven't seen anyone been given any kind of deference. It's a simple choice between two alternatives. Nobody really knows the reasons. Maybe it's ad revenue. Maybe it's some big principle or someone's peace of mind. Maybe something else. But usually when minorities get their way in things like this, it's due to unmerited deference. And cowardice. It's absolutely a sign of courage to not give in in the face of aggressive activism and false accusations.
The opposite of ignorance is to pretend to know something one possibly can not know in reality. It is actually possible that 100 % of what you quoted is not only false but the direct opposite of reality. Real knowledge is a balance between not knowing and knowing falsely.
Probably the only way to find out would be to set up a sister site and call it transwithmuscle or something. There would only be two problems. The more obvious one is I believe the site would not get much traffic. This for the simple reason that people want to see muscular biological women. Pay no attention to what they say but where they click. There is no getting around this. It is their sexuality. Trans activists basically consider themselves entitled to meddle with not only their own but especially other people's sexuality. The other one being that this meddling is the whole point of the bid and the exercise, so this is why a parallel site would not give them what they want. It would not fool anyone into taking biological men for women.
It's no more complicated than that I know what I want to be turned on by. If someone wants to fool me into being turned on by a biological male, then I naturally think that's disgusting. If he were to momentarily succeed but eventually fail then he may think he has proven something. But this is like arguing that since rape victims sometimes get turned on by the physical activity, no matter how much and consistently they object to it otherwise, then they must secretly like it. No doubt people also object to this meddling mentality or rape mentality.
Some women may think that I am not a handsome and desirable guy. But do I wish there was a law that entitled me to pass off as handsome and desirable to whichever woman I want, under the pain of wholesale destruction of her career, finances and other relationships? Or is she somehow entitled to not consider me handsome and desirable? Might I even call that hate? Or would you be so cruel as to tell me to simply learn to live with it?
So if some of you are into muscular trans,what are the nicknames ?
Recently i stumbled upon:
jean_sneider
https://www.reddit.com/user/AKeenBeanQueen/
THE point.
Dude enjoy your transgender bodybuilders to your hearts desire but comparing and using race/ethnicity to justify a sexual fetish is some sick shit.
Since you touched the subject in this very womanly way, I'll bring the REPEAL THE 19th AMENDMENT subject and see what you, FREYA, have to say.
;-)
It's a good discussion.
I don't mean this in an internet troll kinda way, but please go outside and touch some grass, breath some fresh air, instead of thinking about what random women on the internet have down there
Same energy as "Lmao you blacks want to vote? You should be grateful we don't enslave you anymore!"
(obv different situation as this is just an obscure website, but the underlying logic is the same)