Infertility can caused by a number of things… Rarely is it due to non-functioning or absent sex organs and sex hormones, akin to neutered animals. Something as simple as blocked Fallopian tubes can cause infertility.
We have no evidence that same-sex attraction arises any differently than opposite-sex attraction. Again, arguing otherwise contradicts what the LGB messaged to society over and over again. Just like you can’t force the straightness out of someone, you cant convert a homosexual to a heterosexual appetite. It just doesn’t work like that because the shit is hard-wired. Its biological. Its stupid to believe the basis of their attraction didn’t evolve along the same axis as heterosexuals; they are humans after all.
For all your insistence that I’m wrong, what you’re espousing fails to explain the sex habits of lesbians (and gay men). If there isn’t an organic basis for their attraction to vaginas, why are they lesbians then? Do you think they are making a political statement, despite all the stigma that comes with this identity? Do you think they are misandrist and transphobic? Do you too think they need to be shown the error of their penis-exclusionary ways and judged for not deviating from what they like?
@Miller belongs to the sex class notorious for sending out dick pics to woo female partners. Men who do this are projecting their sexuality onto women. They mistakenly assume that because they can be aroused by a picture of vagina, women should be able to get off on a picture of a disembodied penis. But it’s stupid for them to make this assumption. Women rarely send “vag pics”! They tend to send nudies–photos of not just their isolated vulva, but the whole package. They do this because they get aroused by a constellation of traits and they assume that’s how men’s brains work too. Since men can get off either way, this assumption isn’t exactly wrong.
Lesbians are no different than other women. They aren’t likely going to be aroused by the sight of vulva-looking structure. It’s the constellation that gets them off. The texture, the smell, the taste…
This conversation has made me sympathize with the lesbians who prefer cis women over trans. I think if I were a lesbian and I met a transwoman that I thought was a cutie, I would be very reluctant to let things progress. Concern over sexual incompatibility would just be one factor. I think at the top of the list of concerns would be having to have this kind of conversation over and over again. Having to explain, for the millionth time, why I feel a certain way or why I don’t do X,Y, or Z like men do. I wouldn’t want to deal with a derp who has to be constantly reminded that female and male sexuality are fundamentally different. I’d rather be lonely than deal with that kind of annoying shit day after day.
At this point we’re all just speculating, including Serano. Hopefully we can at least agree transphobia isn’t the only possible reason lesbians were more likely to reject her than straight men. (I think bisexuals being more willing to date a trans person should need no explanation.)
This is an interesting point. I’ve heard sending dick pics is actually a fairly effective way to find a sex partner, for gay men. It certainly wouldn’t have occurred to me to send anyone photos of my bits, though. Do (straight) men really think this works? I always assumed it was some form of exhibitionism.
Yes this would be utterly exhausting. “What does a home grown vagina have going for it that a surgically created approximation doesn’t?” is the kind of question that kills chemistry.
As a straight woman, I have the privilege of never being asked to justify my attraction to a “fully functional penis”. Because our culture prizes masculinity and phalluses, it’s treated as a natural given that this would be desired by most women. No one would seek to analyze why a simulated penis that lacks all the sensory qualities of a homegrown one would not be arousing to a heterosexual woman.
This has been part of my point all along. Saying lesbians require a fully functional birth canal to be attracted to someone is what I find bizarre. I’m not suggesting anyone be changed, or that it’s wrong to find the whole package attractive. Clearly some lesbians do find transwomen attractive.
And if it’s only biological, taste, texture- a picture won’t do it at all. Psychology is a part of sexuality. That’s not to suggest even remotely that it can be changed. My argument is that it’s not SOLELY chemical in nature.
Look, a dog who has been neutered still has a brain that could be activated by certain pheromones, he still has nerves, etc.
My entire point is that libido in people is different from that of dogs. Ignoring all other factors beyond a functioning vagina as a factor in same sex attraction is frankly insulting, yet this had been turned around to the people in this thread who believe that it’s not a bio-chemical response ALONE are somehow setting back the LBQ community’s progress.
I’ve known people who felt far less interested in sexual activity (or lost interest completely) after emotional trauma. Their brains and nerves and genitalia remained fully functional. Some people are attracted to things that don’t produce sexual chemicals at all (occasionally there’s an article about someone attracted to cars or animals or… Whatever) people are aroused by cartoons. Some people are attracted to very young children. Perhaps all of these cases are biological in origin. Or perhaps there are factors beyond the biochemical.
ETA I quoted this badly, hopefully this makes it more clear.
It is very male-centric to view one wet hole (a vagina) as interchangeable with another (an artificial opening that kinda-sorta looks like a vagina). If you’ve got a penis, you can have sexy fun times with either. You might have a preference for the “real” one, especially if you like to give oral. But it’s not like the “fake” one can’t do anything for you.
It doesn’t work like this for people without penises, who really love giving oral.
Seems to me that folks are viewing the world through a hypothesis they’ve accepted as true. The hypothesis being “People are attracted to gender expression, not biological sex.” This hypothesis is being tested. Data are being generated. The data are suggesting that while the hypothesis may be true for some people, there are others that respond more to biological sex over gender expression.
We’re running a experiment. Experiments are exciting. And it’s OK to look like at the preliminary results and speculate what they mean. Some folks seem to think the available evidence indicates pervasive transphobia, so they think inculcating people with the “sex isn’t real” hypothesis is what we should be doing. But as a scientist, I think it makes much more sense to question the hypothesis that prompted this experiment in the first place. We don’t have to throw the hypothesis completely away. We can just tweak it by adding some nuance.
“People in general are attracted to gender expression AND biological sex. The relative importance of each is likely highly correlated to sexual orientation, with bisexual/pansexuals/romantic asexuals falling more on the ‘gender expression’ end of the spectrum and straight/homosexuals falling more on the ‘biological sex’ end of the spectrum.”
This is how science works. We start off with a parsimonious hypothesis and expand it as we get more information.
Instead of a rational approach like this, I’m seeing an emotional-based one. “TRANSPHOBIC LESBIANS HOW DARE THEY NOT GIVE WITH THE PROGRAM!”
No way I am going to support this. It’s not only anti-woman, it’s anti-intelligence.
No, it really isn’t. The differences between them are minuscule compared to the similarities. If you can’t trust a goddamn “horse doctor” to know this, then I don’t know who you can.
You obviously aren’t a biologist. You’ve crudely likened infertility to castration. You don’t seem to understand that sexual reproduction and sexuality co-evolved with one another. Why should anyone put stock in what you are saying?
You still haven‘t explained how your assertions about the nature of sex shine any light on Serano’s lack of success with lesbians. “Lesbians are biologically oriented toward vaginas; Serano doesn’t have one” seems to be a pretty sane hypothesis. Is your theory that they are just prejudiced?
I am neuroatypical. I have a developmental disorder. I am also asexual. I do not think these two things are a coincidence. I think it is very possible that my brain is different from my twin sister’s (@YWTF, for those who don’t know) in a way that explains why I don’t have a sex drive and she does (she happens to be more gender conforming than I am…and I don’t think this is an accident either).
You can’t see what’s going on in people’s brains, which is why it is so easy for you to think they are overriding their biology. But that is the same kind of narrow-minded thinking that leads to shaming of the mentally ill, the learning disabled, and the neuroatypical. People are carrying out their own individualized biological-based programming. It doesn’t matter that the programming doesn’t make evolutionary sense (e.g., it isn’t adaptive). It is still biological. It is still intrinsic to a person. It cannot be “shamed” away.
I don’t know what you’re disagreement with me or @YWTF rests on, to be honest. Neither one of us said that reproductive fitness is the basis for all sexuality. Just that a biological underpinning to sexual orientation is rooted in our evolutionary history (going back to our single-celled ancestors). Vaginas coevolved with penises. They didn’t just spring up in their own individual vacuums. They were shaped by each other, and so were the brains they are wired up too. When people say that sex is real, they are implicitly referencing this coevolution.
I don’t think the vagina thing is at the heart of this issue. I’m not a lesbian or a woman, but I don’t get the sense that women care as much about the plumbing as much as they care about the emotional connection, companionship, and other subtle aspects. Men are much more about the sex act itself and those other aspects are more minor. A woman seems to be looking at the total package when deciding to have a relationship, so it’s not surprising that if her preference is genetically XX people, a genetically XY person will have lots of qualities that she may not find desirable. Even if the genetically XY person had a reconstructed vagina and breasts that were indistinguishable from the most perfect genetically XX examples, that’s just a small fraction of what she’s looking for in a romantic partner that it wouldn’t matter.
Good Lord. This was not the statement I objected to. Biologically oriented =/= lesbians want fully functioning vaginas. My point is and has been that it’s more complicated than one lone body part.
No, not a biologist, or a vet. Someone who objects to same sex attraction being boiled down to one factor.
If we assume all things are equal between transwomen and women except for their genitals, I’m saying that one difference alone is enough to explain why a same-sex attracted women would choose to not date a transwoman.
So I think you’re wrong. Sexuality abuts with sex organs. If we wouldn’t dismiss the salience of penis-attraction to straight women or gay men, we shouldn’t dismiss the salience of vagina-attraction to lesbians and straight men.
I’m not a lesbian, but I can totally get how a lesbian cruising lesbian bars has a very different goal in mind than the average woman flipping through the discount bin at Ross. I think that you’re right that the average woman is more interested in those things you listed than on getting the plumbing exactly right (though the plumbing still matters to her, especially if she wants kids). But a lesbian cruising a lesbian bar isn’t looking just for someone who can deliver witty pillow talk. They are looking for uncomplicated, awkward-free sex, first and foremost.
Another part of that is that all women are not equal and are not interchangeable. Just because I like women doesn’t mean I like all women equally. I may prefer a woman with simple desires who likes hiking and camping over a woman who is all about dressing up and entertaining. I also am not likely to have a relationship with a woman who is very into religion, comes from a culture where the extended family has a lot of involvement, is a member of certain political parties, or a variety of other completely arbitrary things which have nothing to do with her genitals. Like, I’m not going to have a relationship with a faithful Mormon woman because there are going to be too many incompatible differences for me. It doesn’t mean I hate Mormonism. It’s just that there’s no reason for me to go down a path where I’m pretty sure things aren’t going to work out. It doesn’t seem at all unreasonable for a ciswoman lesbian to unconditionally reject genetically XY people from her dating pool. Life is too short to spend time in relationships where there are likely to be many incompatibilities.
I agree 100%. It just doesn’t make sense to politicize and moralize the decisions people make when selecting romantic partners. People shouldn’t be pressured into justifying why they want what they what, especially an oppressed sexual minority that has a good reason to literally fear this form of interrogation.
If Serano’s commentary and @Miller’s defenses of it are representative of what lesbians are dealing with, then “transphobe” shirts are a wholly predictable response. I see it as a cry for help.