The Cookout

[Bruh Man]

yo this is a long video and I don’t want anyone think I surf the webs looking for tranny videos but this is crazy. This a lil documentary that talks about how some transformers be straight up lying or trying to bully their way into straight dude’s pants. The video is timestamped with one transformer kissing a straight dude who didn’t even know.

What do yall think about this nonsense? How would you feel if this happened to you?

Timestamp where the transexual violated the straight man

 

[Kanu]

Unless you're wasted there's no way to "fool" a man. If he messing with trannys he's into that shit.

 

[sourgrapes]

I am sure this is not the case for all trans women but plenty of them have been public saying they won't tell a dude they are trans or they think men who won't date them are being transphobic. I have no issue with people mind their own business and doing what they want with their bodies but when you start infringing on other people or trying to force them to say, do, or act according to your needs, that is where I draw the line. The only kind of man who would date a trans woman is a bi-sexual man or another trans person.

 

[Lamont]

I am sure this is not the case for all trans women but plenty of them have been public saying they won't tell a dude they are trans or they think men who won't date them are being transphobic. I have no issue with people mind their own business and doing what they want with their bodies but when you start infringing on other people or trying to force them to say, do, or act according to your needs, that is where I draw the line. The only kind of man who would date a trans woman is a bi-sexual man or another trans person.

This is my stance as well. Everyone's rights and freedoms should be respected as long as your rights and freedom do not encroach on anyone else's rights to do the same. A vocal mass of LGBT+ do not want tolerance, they want the right to do as they please with who they please because they want to. If that group is not checked within the LGBT society, it'll result in a mass rebellion against the entire movement.

 

[Czharcus]

I think if the mass rebellion happens, it will NOT depend on what the LGBT community is actually doing. It will be based on perception/projection.

 

[Jay]

I think if the mass rebellion happens, it will NOT depend on what the LGBT community is actually doing. It will be based on perception/projection.

Well what do you think about situations like MTF transsexuals trying to bully straight men into dating them by calling them transphobic.

-or-

MTF transexuals competing against women in sports or going into female spaces with their penis exposed?

Do you feel that we have to work together as a community to make sure that everyone is comfortable? By that, I don't mean it in the context that White people say to us where comfort for them means us shutting up about oppression. What I mean is that we have a healthy dialogue about how to accept and provide space for LGBT+ issues, concerns, etc while also respecting straight people's rights too like females being able to have private spaces without people with penises in them.

I think if we push too far where women cannot have a safe space then we will definitely see a revolt. Or if we have situations where straight men are shamed for not wanting to date MTF Transsexuals then we will see a revolt there too. How can we find a middle ground where there is respect and tolerance all the way around?

What are your thoughts?

 

[Czharcus]

Well what do you think about situations like MTF transsexuals trying to bully straight men into dating them by calling them transphobic.

I'd have to look at why anyone would want someone that doesn't them. An extremely easy task as I have "fallen for" pretty much ONLY straight/unavailable men. There is a lot of sadness and anger there.

Simultaneously, there is a reason something like this would happen to a straight man, probably to help his other Self or reveal to himself there is sadness and anger in him as well.

MTF transexuals competing against women in sports or going into female spaces with their penis exposed?

Do you feel that we have to work together as a community to make sure that everyone is comfortable? By that, I don't mean it in the context that White people say to us where comfort for them means us shutting up about oppression. What I mean is that we have a healthy dialogue about how to accept and provide space for LGBT+ issues, concerns, etc while also respecting straight people's rights too like females being able to have private spaces without people with penises in them.

I think if we push too far where women cannot have a safe space then we will definitely see a revolt. Or if we have situations where straight men are shamed for not wanting to date MTF Transsexuals then we will see a revolt there too. How can we find a middle ground where there is respect and tolerance all the way around?

Growing pains.

It would be great for us to work together as a community to make sure were all comfortable, but as long as we see each other as separate, that's gonna be difficult to pull off. I know you don't mean it in the way that white people have said, but that is inevitably what will happen. Cis (as we are called) will never be able to treat transgendered as equals as long as we believe they are separate from us. They will be oppressed (unconsciously).

I think you make a really good correlation when comparing the STRUCTURE (not content) to that of the relationship between white and black people. It is exactly the same. White people are simply unable to treat us as equals because they see us as separate from them. It's unconscious so in many ways they cannot see what they are doing to oppress us. Likewise would happen between cis and transgendered.

I think you are right, if pushed too far too fast, there will be revolt BUT it won't be because of them pushing too hard and too fast. Reference your previous structure comparison: should we have pushed lighter and slower to end slavery? (I'm still talking about structure here, I'm just using some content to help illustrate). Should we push lighter and slower now? It's unreasonable. You saying "justice for all" but I got to wait for you to be comfortable with giving me justice. Like white people, it's actually us who are behind the ball in this case.

In the case of men going in female spaces exposed, it's the same problem of separation. If he saw those women as himself in female bodies, he would not do that because he knows he wouldn't want it done to him.

The middleground of respect and tolerance is like saying "how can we make this lie more palatable?" The idea we are separate simply is not true. I understand the masses won't get this. Hell, I recognize oneness is the truth but I still behave as if it wasn't, but if I recognize it, that means the truth is in the collective mind (God). While it will appear messy, we are moving in one direction which is the realization of the truth. In other words, there's nothing wrong here. Everything is going according to plan.

In the meantime, I think our best weapon to make it not so messy looking is compassion. Recognize the messiness is just God not knowing who he is. It's a mistake.

 

[Jay]

I'd have to look at why anyone would want someone that doesn't them. An extremely easy task as I have "fallen for" pretty much ONLY straight/unavailable men. There is a lot of sadness and anger there.

Simultaneously, there is a reason something like this would happen to a straight man, probably to help his other Self or reveal to himself there is sadness and anger in him as well.



Growing pains.

It would be great for us to work together as a community to make sure were all comfortable, but as long as we see each other as separate, that's gonna be difficult to pull off. I know you don't mean it in the way that white people have said, but that is inevitably what will happen. Cis (as we are called) will never be able to treat transgendered as equals as long as we believe they are separate from us. They will be oppressed (unconsciously).

I think you make a really good correlation when comparing the STRUCTURE (not content) to that of the relationship between white and black people. It is exactly the same. White people are simply unable to treat us as equals because they see us as separate from them. It's unconscious so in many ways they cannot see what they are doing to oppress us. Likewise would happen between cis and transgendered.

I think you are right, if pushed too far too fast, there will be revolt BUT it won't be because of them pushing too hard and too fast. Reference your previous structure comparison: should we have pushed lighter and slower to end slavery? (I'm still talking about structure here, I'm just using some content to help illustrate). Should we push lighter and slower now? It's unreasonable. You saying "justice for all" but I got to wait for you to be comfortable with giving me justice. Like white people, it's actually us who are behind the ball in this case.

In the case of men going in female spaces exposed, it's the same problem of separation. If he saw those women as himself in female bodies, he would not do that because he knows he wouldn't want it done to him.

The middleground of respect and tolerance is like saying "how can we make this lie more palatable?" The idea we are separate simply is not true. I understand the masses won't get this. Hell, I recognize oneness is the truth but I still behave as if it wasn't, but if I recognize it, that means the truth is in the collective mind (God). While it will appear messy, we are moving in one direction which is the realization of the truth. In other words, there's nothing wrong here. Everything is going according to plan.

In the meantime, I think our best weapon to make it not so messy looking is compassion. Recognize the messiness is just God not knowing who he is. It's a mistake.

I knew it was going to go here.


Well reasoned response but I think there is a logical gap here that I will try to expose. You see, I think what we pushed for during the Civil Rights Movement was to be treated like human beings and be given the right to participate in society economically, socially, etc.

Transsexuals at this time already have all of the above, what they are deprived of is social acceptance so it is my opinion that comparing the two is disingenuous and belittles the true plight of Black Americans in the USA.

With that said, I don't see transsexuals or any other person as an "other", I see them as people just like me. Societies have rules and those rules govern the actions of people, and so since I see transsexuals as people, I think they should be governed by the same rules.

Now, do we need to evolve rules as society progresses, absolutely. But when we evolve the rules we shouldn't make it at the expense of others unless those others were enriched by the previous disenfranchisement.

So what does that mean in this case?

• It means that making women have to compete against MTF transsexuals is unfair especially when the MTF athlete converted post-puberty. That's unfair.
• It means that we shouldn't subject young girls to penises because the person with the penis feels like they are the same sex as the little girl.
• It means that eventhough someone is transsexual, others have their right to have a preference so their unwillingness to date you isn't them being toxic.

When I say that we all need to be comfortable is that we need to have conversations to figure out how we can make transsexuals feel included in our society without making anyone feel excluded unjustly. Instead of MTF in Female spaces, why not have Female only spaces and then have everything else be Gender-neutral. That way little girls and women don't have to be subject to penises in their private space.

Instead of letting MTFs compete against Females, why not have them compete against other MTFs in their own divisions? That way there doesn't have to be a discussion about unfair advantages. So I'm not asking the LGBT community to wait, I'm asking them to not push too far to where it starts to take freedoms away from others. Women shouldn't have to be subject to men genitalia in their spaces, and we should find away to accommodate both the Females and MTFs.

 

[sourgrapes]

I'll just say it like it is, I have a problem with people born as males competing with people born as females in sports. I have seen so many girl's and women's dreams get tarnished because of a trans girl/woman competing against them. I have compassion and I understand wanting to fit in and be accepted but you have to realize there will always be an unfair advantage there.

You can take the physically weakest dude and put him up against a pretty fit woman, and in many sports (not all but many) the dude will come out on top. Men or "males" have more muscle mass and more strength than their female counterparts.

 

[Czharcus]

Well reasoned response but I think there is a logical gap here that I will try to expose. You see, I think what we pushed for during the Civil Rights Movement was to be treated like human beings and be given the right to participate in society economically, socially, etc.

This is where the disconnect usually happens, at the conflation of content and structure. All of the things you mention here are content, in which case I would agree with you. But, I was speaking to structure, which can and does have any and all types of Content. Although I did use a content reference (acknowledged in context) to highlight the structure.

I'm speaking to the structure that is the relationship between dominant group and subordinate group. The content does not speak to the structure. It's like a Mr. Potato Head. The body with the holes is the structure. The content is the features (the eyes, ears, nose, etc.) you plug into the holes.

If you saw my house and said "your house is just like mine" and I replied "no it isn't, I have a rug imported from China in the family room, a picture of MLK over the fireplace and my dining room table is handcarved" you would look at me like I was crazy. In this case, it's pretty much universally understood you were talking about structure and not content.

It's completely understandable that we conflate the 2 when someone says something like "the gay struggle is like the black struggle" because white supremacy does in fact use structural similarities to manipulate our perception of content. This was not my intent and possibly not even there's. I say that because of this:

I knew it was going to go here.

This says to me you've overlaid at least parts of a previous conversation/understanding on top of my response. This caused you to look for keywords to confirm rather than comprehending my words as fresh new ideas. Even if you read the whole response, you decided you already knew what it meant before you read it so the nuances of my response were overlooked. I'm not judging or blaming, this phenomenon is completely unconscious, 99.9% of us do it in different forms 100% of the waking hours of our day. (Not an ounce of judgment because How could God judge God in another form)

, I don't see transsexuals or any other person as an "other", I see them as people just like me.

This is the tree of oppression. They are not people like you, THEY ARE YOU. The mind resists this truth. There is a lot of latitude between fighting for someone like you and fighting for yourself. It's all unconscious. Our oppression continues because we fight to be treated like them instead of fighting for the collective understanding that we ARE them.

In this context, the content of fighting for something like Reparations for the descendants of slaves is not lost but strengthened. "Look at what you doing to YOURSELF, you are denying YOUR SELF justice." Is a better argument than the one we use (generally) because it is a TRUER argument.

So I'm not asking the LGBT community to wait, I'm asking them to not push too far to where it starts to take freedoms away from others.

The abolition of slavery was literally taking freedoms away from others. I highlight this CONTENT in this specific way only to illuminate the piece of the STRUCTURE that says freedom to the dominant group isn't the same as freedom to the subordinate group. I am in no way speaking to the CONTENT. I am not saying whether the CONTENT of women being exposed to male genitalia in their spaces is wrong or right.

I've been keeping my responses free of speaking to content up to this point because if we cannot decipher structure from content, as the dominant group, we will always make oppressive content. Personally, I believe one reason God Universe has not relinquished to us the CONTENT that is Reparations is because we have not yet learned how to avoid the STRUCTURE of a dominant group that gives way to oppression. Take the Jews for an example of a subordinate group that gained dominance but did not understand the STRUCTURE of what dominance entails, therefore they became the oppressors themselves.


I'm talking about understanding God. The STRUCTURE is a manifestation of God. We make hateful or loving CONTENT based on our understanding or lack of understanding of the STRUCTURE.


That being said, there is unloving content being created in the form of exposing genitalia to individuals who seek out a safe space from such things or unfair advantages in sports. I believe the answers are in much of what you say, communication, but I would add communication with the understanding that I am communicating with myself in another body. From the angle of we are not talking to people like ourselves but actually to ourselves, there can be nothing but compassion and all parties put forth their best efforts to solve the problems without the STRUCTURE unconsciously undermining us.

 

[Jay]

This is where the disconnect usually happens, at the conflation of content and structure. All of the things you mention here are content, in which case I would agree with you. But, I was speaking to structure, which can and does have any and all types of Content. Although I did use a content reference (acknowledged in context) to highlight the structure.

I'm speaking to the structure that is the relationship between dominant group and subordinate group. The content does not speak to the structure. It's like a Mr. Potato Head. The body with the holes is the structure. The content is the features (the eyes, ears, nose, etc.) you plug into the holes.

If you saw my house and said "your house is just like mine" and I replied "no it isn't, I have a rug imported from China in the family room, a picture of MLK over the fireplace and my dining room table is handcarved" you would look at me like I was crazy. In this case, it's pretty much universally understood you were talking about structure and not content.

It's completely understandable that we conflate the 2 when someone says something like "the gay struggle is like the black struggle" because white supremacy does in fact use structural similarities to manipulate our perception of content. This was not my intent and possibly not even there's. I say that because of this:

This is overly verbose and I hope you're not insinuating that I'm in the dominant group in this context. It's not true, a Transsexual can claim discrimination at the hands of a Black person and ruin that Black person's life but a Black person cannot do the opposite to the Transsexual. A transsexual can do the same to a White person and unless it's the most egregious form of discrimination the white person will go untouched.

This says to me you've overlaid at least parts of a previous conversation/understanding on top of my response. This caused you to look for keywords to confirm rather than comprehending my words as fresh new ideas. Even if you read the whole response, you decided you already knew what it meant before you read it so the nuances of my response were overlooked. I'm not judging or blaming, this phenomenon is completely unconscious, 99.9% of us do it in different forms 100% of the waking hours of our day. (Not an ounce of judgment because How could God judge God in another form)

This is not true and most likely projection. I want to state, I'm not taking any offense to what you are saying and I hope you feel the same. I just want to have a dialogue with you. If any of this is triggering let me know and we'll part ways amicably.

The abolition of slavery was literally taking freedoms away from others. I highlight this CONTENT in this specific way only to illuminate the piece of the STRUCTURE that says freedom to the dominant group isn't the same as freedom to the subordinate group. I am in no way speaking to the CONTENT. I am not saying whether the CONTENT of women being exposed to male genitalia in their spaces is wrong or right.

I addressed this when I said "But when we evolve the rules we shouldn't make it at the expense of others unless those others were enriched by the previous disenfranchisement." There were people making fortunes off the enslavement and disenfranchisement of Black Americans and so they deserved to have their freedoms taken away. That's why I also said people should have the right to exercise their freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's right to do the same. Someone's freedom to enslave takes away someone else's freedom to pursuit life and liberty.

I've been keeping my responses free of speaking to content up to this point because if we cannot decipher structure from content, as the dominant group, we will always make oppressive content. Personally, I believe one reason God Universe has not relinquished to us the CONTENT that is Reparations is because we have not yet learned how to avoid the STRUCTURE of a dominant group that gives way to oppression. Take the Jews for an example of a subordinate group that gained dominance but did not understand the STRUCTURE of what dominance entails, therefore they became the oppressors themselves.

It is intellectually dishonest to create your own goal posts and or framing of the conversation unbeknownst to others and then use it as the standard to uphold replies. The entire conversation has been about content, to interject structure as the critical component and then judge me for not look to it is a nice tactic but it doesn't promote understanding.

That being said, there is unloving content being created in the form of exposing genitalia to individuals who seek out a safe space from such things or unfair advantages in sports. I believe the answers are in much of what you say, communication, but I would add communication with the understanding that I am communicating with myself in another body. From the angle of we are not talking to people like ourselves but actually to ourselves, there can be nothing but compassion and all parties put forth their best efforts to solve the problems without the STRUCTURE unconsciously undermining us.

I understand this metaphysically but once again these are things that have to be framed. Nowhere in the thread have we had a conversation about inter-connectedness in a higher dimension and how we are all figments of the godhead. We are talking about the conversation within our reality frame or better yet, within the confines of the 3 dimensions and laws of physics that govern our current temporal experience.

 

[Bruh Man]

This is where the disconnect usually happens, at the conflation of content and structure. All of the things you mention here are content, in which case I would agree with you. But, I was speaking to structure, which can and does have any and all types of Content. Although I did use a content reference (acknowledged in context) to highlight the structure.

I'm speaking to the structure that is the relationship between dominant group and subordinate group. The content does not speak to the structure. It's like a Mr. Potato Head. The body with the holes is the structure. The content is the features (the eyes, ears, nose, etc.) you plug into the holes.

If you saw my house and said "your house is just like mine" and I replied "no it isn't, I have a rug imported from China in the family room, a picture of MLK over the fireplace and my dining room table is handcarved" you would look at me like I was crazy. In this case, it's pretty much universally understood you were talking about structure and not content.

It's completely understandable that we conflate the 2 when someone says something like "the gay struggle is like the black struggle" because white supremacy does in fact use structural similarities to manipulate our perception of content. This was not my intent and possibly not even there's. I say that because of this:

This says to me you've overlaid at least parts of a previous conversation/understanding on top of my response. This caused you to look for keywords to confirm rather than comprehending my words as fresh new ideas. Even if you read the whole response, you decided you already knew what it meant before you read it so the nuances of my response were overlooked. I'm not judging or blaming, this phenomenon is completely unconscious, 99.9% of us do it in different forms 100% of the waking hours of our day. (Not an ounce of judgment because How could God judge God in another form)


This is the tree of oppression. They are not people like you, THEY ARE YOU. The mind resists this truth. There is a lot of latitude between fighting for someone like you and fighting for yourself. It's all unconscious. Our oppression continues because we fight to be treated like them instead of fighting for the collective understanding that we ARE them.

In this context, the content of fighting for something like Reparations for the descendants of slaves is not lost but strengthened. "Look at what you doing to YOURSELF, you are denying YOUR SELF justice." Is a better argument than the one we use (generally) because it is a TRUER argument.

The abolition of slavery was literally taking freedoms away from others. I highlight this CONTENT in this specific way only to illuminate the piece of the STRUCTURE that says freedom to the dominant group isn't the same as freedom to the subordinate group. I am in no way speaking to the CONTENT. I am not saying whether the CONTENT of women being exposed to male genitalia in their spaces is wrong or right.

I've been keeping my responses free of speaking to content up to this point because if we cannot decipher structure from content, as the dominant group, we will always make oppressive content. Personally, I believe one reason God Universe has not relinquished to us the CONTENT that is Reparations is because we have not yet learned how to avoid the STRUCTURE of a dominant group that gives way to oppression. Take the Jews for an example of a subordinate group that gained dominance but did not understand the STRUCTURE of what dominance entails, therefore they became the oppressors themselves.


I'm talking about understanding God. The STRUCTURE is a manifestation of God. We make hateful or loving CONTENT based on our understanding or lack of understanding of the STRUCTURE.


That being said, there is unloving content being created in the form of exposing genitalia to individuals who seek out a safe space from such things or unfair advantages in sports. I believe the answers are in much of what you say, communication, but I would add communication with the understanding that I am communicating with myself in another body. From the angle of we are not talking to people like ourselves but actually to ourselves, there can be nothing but compassion and all parties put forth their best efforts to solve the problems without the STRUCTURE unconsciously undermining us.

Say breh you wise I like that and I have a simple question. Is it possible in your opinion for me to be Pro-LGBT but not also agree with er’thang? I feel like people in the community be like “agree 100 or you hitler” and that be low key turning me away from the whole convo.

 

[Rollie Forbes]

I am sure this is not the case for all trans women but plenty of them have been public saying they won't tell a dude they are trans or they think men who won't date them are being transphobic. I have no issue with people mind their own business and doing what they want with their bodies but when you start infringing on other people or trying to force them to say, do, or act according to your needs, that is where I draw the line. The only kind of man who would date a trans woman is a bi-sexual man or another trans person.

IMO, that should be legally considered sexual assault.

 

[Czharcus]

I concede some of your argument here. I recognize the biggest flaw in my arguments is speaking "above my pay grade". If I truly understood the STRUCTURE embedded in our dialogue, I likely would not have made the missteps I did that caused many misunderstandings.

We are governed ONLY by what we cannot see.. The things we see that we take to be real are illusions. I want to see nothing but what is real so I speak about what is real and deny what is false as much as possible.

Witnessing the back-and-forth of this argument that doesn't lead anywhere (because the content is illusory) makes me want to advance the conversation, but I have not advanced myself enough to do it.

I know if we don't come at this from the angle of these people, "victims" and "perpetrator", are MYSELF in different bodies, none of the conclusions/answers we derive matter. They'd only reconfigure the problem.

But we (God) often learn through pain and discomfort so the problem was see here isn't a problem (illusion) it's a love process.


I've enjoyed conversing with God. Thank you.

 

[Czharcus]

Say breh you wise I like that and I have a simple question. Is it possible in your opinion for me to be Pro-LGBT but not also agree with er’thang? I feel like people in the community be like “agree 100 or you hitler” and that be low key turning me away from the whole convo.

Thank you.

Of course it is, just depends on who you're talking to and what you talking about. For example, "I don't agree with homosexuality" is offensive because you are literally denying reality, triggering the past/current experience of being denied complete/equal humanness many homosexuals experience. You are essentially saying their humanness is dependent upon whether you agree with it or not. Doing this might elicit negative backlash, but it's not really about you.

Of course, in this circumstance, you have your on issues to deal with like "why am I resisting this part of reality?" So you saying that doesn't actually have anything to do with them.

Basically, neither person in this situation is actually reacting to the other person, but something within themselves. Both parties would benefit from self inquiry.

 

[Bruh Man]

Thank you.

Of course it is, just depends on who you're talking to and what you talking about. For example, "I don't agree with homosexuality" is offensive because you are literally denying reality, triggering the past/current experience of being denied complete/equal humanness many homosexuals experience. You are essentially saying their humanness is dependent upon whether you agree with it or not. Doing this might elicit negative backlash, but it's not really about you.

Of course, in this circumstance, you have your on issues to deal with like "why am I resisting this part of reality?" So you saying that doesn't actually have anything to do with them.

Basically, neither person in this situation is actually reacting to the other person, but something within themselves. Both parties would benefit from self inquiry.

I neva said that tho. What if I ain’t down with people with penises going into bathrooms, spas, etc exclusively for people with vaginas? Wat if I was for their right to be who they are but if they have a penis but feel like a person with a vagina that they have to stay in places where penises are allowed until they have their surgery.

I ain’t against them being who they feel they are I just ain’t tryna have that around my daughter and nieces. I don’t want my niece at the gym and she see a dude in there swangin and she exposed to somethin befo her time.

 

[Troy]

I am sure this is not the case for all trans women but plenty of them have been public saying they won't tell a dude they are trans or they think men who won't date them are being transphobic. I have no issue with people mind their own business and doing what they want with their bodies but when you start infringing on other people or trying to force them to say, do, or act according to your needs, that is where I draw the line. The only kind of man who would date a trans woman is a bi-sexual man or another trans person.

I'm not with that at all. They need to be upfront about it or they will find themsleves in a jam.

 

[Czharcus]

I neva said that tho. What if I ain’t down with people with penises going into bathrooms, spas, etc exclusively for people with vaginas? Wat if I was for their right to be who they are but if they have a penis but feel like a person with a vagina that they have to stay in places where penises are allowed until they have their surgery.

I ain’t against them being who they feel they are I just ain’t tryna have that around my daughter and nieces. I don’t want my niece at the gym and she see a dude in there swangin and she exposed to somethin befo her time.

I was just using a classic example to illustrate my point. I don't know what you said to who that triggered something in them that caused them to treat you with hostility.

They may believe you are a bad faith actor who is using something that (even they don't agree with) to attack trans and/or LGBT people as a whole. Heterosexuals have a history of that. It's part of the STRUCTURE I mentioned above. Heterosexuals have conflated pedophilia with homosexuality (in the past if not still) to attack homosexuality and the LGBT community as a whole despite no evidence that LGBT people actually condone pedophilia any more than the heterosexual community. As a result, they are forced to defend what they normally would not to stay "on code."

I don't know what's up, but what you are seeing on the surface is likely not actually what's happening.

 

[Jay]

I was just using a classic example to illustrate my point. I don't know what you said to who that triggered something in them that caused them to treat you with hostility.

They may believe you are a bad faith actor who is using something that (even they don't agree with) to attack trans and/or LGBT people as a whole. Heterosexuals have a history of that. It's part of the STRUCTURE I mentioned above. Heterosexuals have conflated pedophilia with homosexuality (in the past if not still) to attack homosexuality and the LGBT community as a whole despite no evidence that LGBT people actually condone pedophilia any more than the heterosexual community. As a result, they are forced to defend what they normally would not to stay "on code."

I don't know what's up, but what you are seeing on the surface is likely not actually what's happening.

But aren't they supposed to be seeing us as one and trying to understand us too? If that person was treating @Bruh Man how you said we should be treating other "as one" then they are wrong for approaching him as such.

 

[Czharcus]

But aren't they supposed to be seeing us as one and trying to understand us too? If that person was treating @Bruh Man how you said we should be treating other "as one" then they are wrong for approaching him as such.

It would be great if we all treated each other as one with one another, but how we are is exactly how we are supposed to be in this moment. Reality is far smarter than me because it is our combined infinite intelligence. Comparatively, I don't know shit.

 

[Bruh Man]

I was just using a classic example to illustrate my point. I don't know what you said to who that triggered something in them that caused them to treat you with hostility.

They may believe you are a bad faith actor who is using something that (even they don't agree with) to attack trans and/or LGBT people as a whole. Heterosexuals have a history of that. It's part of the STRUCTURE I mentioned above. Heterosexuals have conflated pedophilia with homosexuality (in the past if not still) to attack homosexuality and the LGBT community as a whole despite no evidence that LGBT people actually condone pedophilia any more than the heterosexual community. As a result, they are forced to defend what they normally would not to stay "on code."

I don't know what's up, but what you are seeing on the surface is likely not actually what's happening.

they shouldn’t be assumin that I’m anything they should be judging the content of my message.

being hostile to anyone just cuz they don’t see ish the same way is damaging to the cause

I would understand if I was just outright saying they don’t have the right to exist but that’s not what I’m sayin

 

[Finesse]

I don't care if a person wants to change their sexual orientation, but if I met a woman that I like, who turns out to be a dude, and she intentionally lied to me to get sex with me, I would be pissed. If you really think about it, I consider it to be sexual assault if someone lies about their sex in order to get with someone. Especially if it results in any sexual activity.

I remember hearing about this trans woman who said that straight men should be attracted to trans women, and it was sexist not to be. Like what? No, I'm sorry, I am only attracted to women who have female organs. There is a reason I am attracted to female women. It's also why I'm not interested in a trans women, because they have nothing I want. I can't be forced to be sexually attracted to a trans woman. That's just not how attraction works.

But yeah, it's messed up for any trans women or trans men to try and trick the person they're pursuing.

 

[Czharcus]

they shouldn’t be assumin that I’m anything they should be judging the content of my message.

being hostile to anyone just cuz they don’t see ish the same way is damaging to the cause

I would understand if I was just outright saying they don’t have the right to exist but that’s not what I’m sayin

I understand, but it's not personal. No one is ever responding to you when they respond with hostility, they are reacting to and acting from internal conditioning. How they responded actually had nothing to do with you. You just triggered conditioning in them that needs healing. No one fights anyone but themselves because EVERYONE would choose love for the other self if conditioning wasn't clouding their judgment. Overlook it.

 

[Czharcus]

they have nothing I want. I can't be forced to be sexually attracted to a trans woman. That's just not how attraction works.

I'm NOT responding to you Finesse with this part but I thought you made a perfect statement that I wanted to highlight. It made me recognize even more the perfection of Reality. Some people can't grasp homosexuality no matter what you say, but trans people give them first-hand knowledge through experience. That's just beautiful to me.

As for the situation you mention: I'm reminded of a similar experience I had years ago at the club. I spotted this fine ass nigga from across the room, got closer and realized he was a stud (masculine lesbian). I had a hearty laugh at myself. That experience helped me understand straight men when it comes to trans women. Had I picked her up (which obviously wasn't going to happen) and we got down to it, I would have been so confused.

Say she was a trans man who misled me into the bedroom, I don't think I'd be as much pissed as disappointed but I understand that inclination. Straight men just have different conditioning than gay men, generally speaking. I'd definitely label it as a form of sexual assault in either case.

 

[Bruh Man]

I'm NOT responding to you Finesse with this part but I thought you made a perfect statement that I wanted to highlight. It made me recognize even more the perfection of Reality. Some people can't grasp homosexuality no matter what you say, but trans people give them first-hand knowledge through experience. That's just beautiful to me.

As for the situation you mention: I'm reminded of a similar experience I had years ago at the club. I spotted this fine ass nigga from across the room, got closer and realized he was a stud (masculine lesbian). I had a hearty laugh at myself. That experience helped me understand straight men when it comes to trans women. Had I picked her up (which obviously wasn't going to happen) and we got down to it, I would have been so confused.

Say she was a trans man who misled me into the bedroom, I don't think I'd be as much pissed as disappointed but I understand that inclination. Straight men just have different conditioning than gay men, generally speaking. I'd definitely label it as a form of sexual assault in either case.

A stud caught you eye.