-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Transgaf: 'cause boys will be girls (and vice versa)
- Thread starter lexi
- Start date
Android18a
Member
Ultimately, we need to get recruiting <3
Android18a said:
Hm, I might have to get you to make graphics for me in the future. All of them have been stellar so far.
Gaborn said:
G man slides in for the kill. I love it. So smooth in the delivery.
Android18a said:
Apparently I'll be joining in a page or two. Keep your eyes peeled. :lol :lol
border said:
I have a problem with this line of thought: because someone might like the same sex, what makes you think you're even attractive to them? There are already rapes going on in the military (male to female), even if we do separate the genders. How does it make sense to think that someone would suddenly want to rape the same sex if you knew they were homosexual or TG?
It's just outright fear, the kind that isn't even rational. Fear of the unknown. They aren't like you, so they must be bad. This policy has gutted our military. We've lost key translators, key field operators, and key commanders because of this policy, and that has made us 50% weaker than we could be. It's a policy that has no bearing on reality (there would be no greater or less rapes or leers if you knew someone was homosexual or TG), and one that does far more harm than it ever has done good.
So why not just let men and women shower and live together? Just because they're heterosexuals doesn't mean they'll be attracted to each other! I've said nothing of rape, just that people don't like the sense that they're being judged and leered at......it does not let you build trust or form a cohesive team. If you can understand why a woman might not want to be naked around a bunch of guys, it's probably not that hard to understand why a man might not want to be naked around homosexual males. I guess you could call it homophobic -- does that make the woman heterophobic, though?Alfarif said:
Once you get past that level of enlisted grunts it probably makes less sense to make a distinction on sexuality. For officers out of basic training I'm not sure if there's much point to it, other than being a homosexual probably has a detrimental effect on your ability to command respect.
RiskyChris
Banned
border said:
Uh a straight guy seeing a straight girl in the shower is different than a gay guy seeing a straight guy in the shower.
border said:
The whole "attracted people showering together!" line of argument would make a LOT more sense if most high schools didn't make people shower after gym class. :lol :lol For that matter I wasn't give a choice of roommate assignments in College either, there were 4 of us sharing a room, the other 3 were all straight.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
This thread is already consciousness raising... I never really thought about trans people before this. Someone on facebook posted something about an encounter with a trans-woman yesterday as an obvious "joke".. and I cringed. I don't think I would have noticed that before reading this thread.
Its just nativity... At one point, people thought you could make a joke along the lines of "gay people exist lol", while now most of us would find that suggestion offensive. Now its time for transgendered awareness to make that leap...
Its just nativity... At one point, people thought you could make a joke along the lines of "gay people exist lol", while now most of us would find that suggestion offensive. Now its time for transgendered awareness to make that leap...
lexi said:
Thanks baby girl, but maybe I just like watching cute blondes with their all over blush...
Border - the difference between a straight girl and a gay guy being in close quarters is that gay guys generally grow up learning to be discreet and respectful around guys. The LAST thing we want to do is make a straight guy uncomfortable, and in general there's a lot less of the taboo factor with us, it's not like we don't regularly see a penis anyway since we own one ourselves.
Besides, frankly most guys aren't nearly as hot as they think they are, and if they were 99% of the time we're not going to tell you.
RiskyChris
Banned
border said:
It just is, the distinction in showers is pretty arbitrary no matter what arbitrary way you slice it.
border said:
A difference, you mean.
Another difference is the fact that high school kids are, y'know, kids, barely trusted with their dad's car. Whereas military men are supposed to be adults, trusted with deadly weapons and missions to use them responsibly.
If a man can't handle knowing that a guy in his company is gay, I'm not sure I like the idea of him running around in Iraq with an assault rifle.
EDIT: Wow, sorry; completely forgot what thread this is in. Sorry for contributing to derail; posting out of reflex, I suppose.
Been meaning to post my support in here, but not sure what else to say. Just one more member of cisgaf sayin' I hope you ladies (and any gentlemen who might be out there as well) find peace, I suppose?
border said:
You do know that co-ed bathing was extremely common in Japan until the West convinced them that it was "wrong", and that there are still public co-ed baths in Japan to this day, correct?
People who are raised to not believe that co-ed showering is and sort of big deal will, funny enough, grow up to no think of it as any sort of big deal. Is there still some percentage of people that may try something (like rape) due to the situation that is provided? Of course, but that possibility is always going to happen, no matter the time or place. If people are raised to see co-ed activities like that as being nothing but normal and common, after a while that's how people would see it and it wouldn't be such a taboo idea as it is now.
border said:
It seems as if you're under the assumption that someone who is homosexual wouldn't feel any attraction, if there was any, with DADT in place. Regardless of a policy, that will happen, the same as attraction between males and females. Yet no one questions male and female soldiers hooking up. Someone's sexuality isn't going to change how they perform their duties, and whether you know it or not isn't going to change how they view you. For the record, most homosexuals don't have any interest in hetero men and women. There's a line of respect that they do not cross. It's the same for male and female relationships, unless we'd like to paint a broad brush and say that all men, when rejected, will continuously hit on and try to coerce females into falling for them. We don't, and homosexuality and TG is no different.
lexi said:
Oh, yes, I think I'm falling for him already. :lol :lol :lol
Gaborn said:
It's like men have this inflated sense of self. You ever wonder why it takes a hetero male so long to get into a woman's pants unless she's pretty open? Because "They just aren't that into you." If guys were nearly as good looking and charming as they thought, women would be dropping their panties all over the place to jump on the pogo stick. It's just not happening. Hetero men believing that gay men would be all over them should remember that we are the equivalent of women in their eyes. If a gay male wants to get into a hetero man's pants, you either 1) rape him or 2) have to do a long winded courtship that, chances are, will have ZERO pay off. Since sexuality does not equate to your morals, if you are a moral person, you're not going to rape someone. That doesn't change because someone is into their own gender. It's simply not worth it when there is someone who will be into you and into your lifestyle just around the corner.
I have several gay male friends, and while they've complimented me on my looks, they have never been forward, never tried to get into my pants, and never once thought they had a chance. It's not my thing, they know that, and they know they won't get me to change. That's simply the way it is. That doesn't change if we're soldiers, either.
The policy exists more to keep heterosexuals comfortable than it does to prevent homosexuals from being attracted to mates in their platoon. It's less about preventing fraternization and more about keeping things cohesive.Alfarif said:
This was a line I've always failed to believe -- that people can just turn their sexuality on and off like that if they know the orientation of the person they are gazing at. I wouldn't coerce or hit on a lesbian, but if I had one in her panties in the bunk across from mine you'd better believe I'd be glimpsing at her out of the corner of my eye.
RiskyChris
Banned
border said:
Straight male stares at sexual objects, wohaoa.
Gaborn said:
When I came out to my close group of friends, one of them was telling his wife - which, by the way, was funny: he braced her for this "very serious discussion," and then of course not only was his wife not in the slightest shocked by the whole thing, but she was totally happy for me.
Anyhow, while telling her, he admitted to her that the part that was bothering him the most was, what if I decided at some point that I liked men, and what if I was attracted to him. His wife, point blank, said, "Are you seriously egotistical enough to think that if shidoshi ends up liking guys that out of every possible guy out there he's going to go after you?"
So, yeah, that's where a lot of the fear comes from in regards to men, on both the gay and trans sides: men think way, way too highly of themselves, and assume that everybody is going to be hot for them. *laughs*
RiskyChris
Banned
border said:
I know plenty of men period that don't do that, so it's not like only gay guys can "turn it off."
So then you're contradicting your original statement that it's somehow "different" for straight men to be around nude-or-partially clothed women? If someone can turn their sexuality on and off like a switch, then why segregate even by gender?RiskyChris said:
HINT: Because some people can't turn it off, and even those that do don't entirely trust everyone else.
Alfarif said:
shidoshi said:
I think you both hit the nail pretty much on the head.
Border, it's not that we "turn off" our sexuality, it's just that because we're exposed to the "equipment" on a daily basis it doesn't hold that "mystique" for us. Sure will we notice a nice ass is a nice ass? Of course. But that doesn't mean we'd tell you that any more than you'd tell a random girl her ass was nice.
Would we look at it? We wouldn't ignore it, but frankly whenever I shower I'm there to shower, not to stare at other guys. It's just not that important to me, and most guys look more or less the same anyway.
border said:
Cohesive to exclude all who do not adhere to an archaic line of thought. We are in agreement that all it does it exclude "all the girls from the boys' club." It has no reason for existing. They only reason heterosexuals would be uncomfortable is because 1) religion or 2) an inflated sense of self.
Wait, so now your wandering eyes account for everyone else's? I love women as much as the next man, but if a woman is a bunk mate, I'll see her as I would another guy. How hard is it to not even pay attention to someone in their skivvies?
But this is the TG thread and I want to swing the discussion back in that direction: how does DADT make any sense in "protecting" people or keeping "cohesion" when someone takes their personal business OFF the base? Under what circumstance would it matter who they are with, as in the case of PFC Barry Winchell?
Furthermore, if a TG is in transition, and has everything but the genitalia, what would it matter that they are bunked with the gender they are transitioning into? If a FtM has everything but the penis, and is as masculine as they come, why would it matter that he showers with his bunk mates while still having a vagina? Why would it matter, also, whom he had sex with? The same with MtF.
RiskyChris
Banned
I'm not contradicting anything. I said it was arbitrary as hell. It absolutely is different because you're talking about two genders (one sexuality) vs. one gender (two sexualities). It's a silly line of discussion.
RiskyChris said:
When was the last guy who ran around with a raging boner trying to have sex with everything under the blue moon? Is that not looked down upon? Or do males hit on every single woman they see? Because I'm pretty sure that's sexual harassment.
I don't "turn off" my sexuality. (What does that even mean?) I don't make it apparent that I want to have sex with people. I don't wear it on my sleeve. And I certainly don't grope women because I'm attracted to them.
Because nobody else here is using their own personal, anecdotal evidence and stories? I'm not saying I'm representative of an entire orientation or gender, but I'm sure as hell not an some weird outlier. If I could stop myself from thinking sexually about women who wouldn't sleep with me, then I'd hardly be thinking of any women at all *rimshot*Alfarif said:
Or they just don't like worrying about being eyed up by someone that could possibly be attracted to them? Like I said, it's more about people's distrust of others than it is about what will actually happen. If a woman said she didn't want to bunk with men, would you blow her off and accuse her of having an inflated sense of self-worth?
I don't think orientation has any bearing on ability, it's just a hurdle because people are uncomfortable in close quarters when they believe their bunkmates are attracted to them.
Strangely I think it'd go easier for transexuals, just allowing them to bunk with whatever gender they associate with. Most squadmates would see their transsexuality as sufficient proof that their attractions are elsewhere.
