traps arent gay

File: 1486780847825.png (692KB, 1077x675px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 1077x675px

>>5403723
s a u c e

CUTE

File: Aaaaa.jpg (128KB, 1077x675px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1077x675px

>>5403869
S a U c E

File: R14kkDj.png (13KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 657x527px

>>5403723
the dick makes it cute, desu.

Your fortune: You will meet a dark handsome stranger

File: shot-World is Mine [Anime PV] [720p] [Ecchi]-Fq1vVwI86QI.mkv-00:00:39.250.jpg (155KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1280x720px

>>5403879
NEVER SEEN BREASTS BEFORE?

>>5403723
"gay" is just a word, and the entire argument over whether or not traps are gay is semantical silliness. The entire thing would go away in a day if two things happened:
1. The people arguing defined what they mean by gay and then explained why they think traps do or do not fall into that definition.
2. People stop being so scared of being defined as "gay" because it puts them into the same group as people that like full on muscle-dude gay porn. If these people realized that being called "male" also put them into a group alongside some of these people they'd probably freak out, so don't tell them.

>>5403907
Anon, please!....You'll make it hard....

File: tmp_9927-__drawn_by_shinozuka_jouji__sample-ccce2f1b5069808eccd415475c616f4d307290015.jpg (438KB, 850x1175px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 850x1175px

>>5403988
Nice dubs! As a reward...

You can reveal the spoilers for some lewd bewbs and lewd text. *slutty eyes*

We'll jack off your rather meaninglessly huge penis until your eyes turn white, become all sloven, and cum until you can't keep self-conscious. Then take pictures and send it around to everyone."

>>5403723
who is this qtpi?

>>5403912
but traps ARE gay

>>5404021
maybe but fucking them isn't

>>5404025
men having sex with men is literally gay

having sex with a post-op ftm "transsexual" is less gay than having sex with a trap

>>5404021
Define "gay".

>>5404016
Goodness....Thank you anon...I'm jerking it...

>>5404035
traps aren't men they're feminine boys.

I am a man, and so it's straight.

File: ftm transexual.jpg (94KB, 450x675px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 450x675px

>>5404035
>having sex with a post-op ftm "transsexual" is less gay than having sex with a trap
That is completely delusional. You must be either completely ruled by dogma or using a completely untenable definition of the word "gay" to believe this. What a stupid thing to say.

>>5404062
>boy
>not a male
pick one you closet homo

>>5404071
what part of dominating a feminine boy with my manly cock is gay you enormous idiot?

>>5404075
gay = attraction to males regardless of looks.
if it has 1 X and 1 Y chromosome, its a male

>>5404080
gay = you

LOLE

>>5404080
So if I'm attracted to this
>>5404065
I'm not gay?
Whew, that was close!

>>5404065
Absurd, you have supplanted biological reality with your own personal dogma. If that is an "ftm" then it is still a woman, no matter how many hormones have been pumped into it and how many sex organs have been removed.

>>5404082
It doesn't matter if you're attracted to it or not, if you are male and you have sex with an ftm then you are having heterosexual intercourse.

>>5404086
"gay = attraction to males regardless of looks."
"It doesn't matter if you're attracted to it or not,"
Glad we got an air-tight definition going.
>>5404083
I'm glad your definition of "gay" is so useful and in accord with how people use the word that it gives results like me having sex with this person:
>>5404065
not being gay at all.

>>5404093
I'm not >>5404080, so I will ignore your strawman. Male-female sex can quite literally never be gay. It could be the ugliest beardiest woman, if a man is having sex with her then it is heterosexual sex. In the same way that a man having sex with the femmiest-looking dude is still gay sex. You cannot refute this. It may not be pretty but that's just reality.

>>5404103
Which one are you now? Are you
>>5404083
or
>>5404086

>>5404104
or both I guess? I'm thinking both, but I want to know who I'm talking to so I'm not making mistakes here.

>>5404104
those are both my posts, neither contravenes the other

>>5404107
Great. Alright, here we go:
>>5404103
So I'll point out that your post here
>>5404086
is unnecessary, because I was critiquing the definition of gay that he gave. Your definition doesn't matter during my critique of his, making you presenting yours as irrelevant. That's the reason I thought you were the same person.
Anyway, once again, I'll say that I'm glad you have such a useful definition of gay that it gives results like that. I'm sure everyone else would agree that it's not gay to have sex with the person I posted, thus giving your definition validity. It would have sucked if your definition was completely out of touch in certain respects to how people actually use the word "gay", meaning that it's an incomplete and poor definition that, when used, will fail to communicate the concepts that you want it to, but luckily you avoided that pitfall by realizing that semantics is a science. You took to your lab, did the math, and figured out the perfect definition; I just can't refute it.

>>5404112
it's not an incomplete or poor definition if it is correct.

gay sex is sex between two men. >>5404065 is not a man, therefore sex with that person cannot be classed as gay sex, hence why I critiqued >>5404082 with >>5404086, since you originally posted >>5404065 in response to >>5404035, which specifically had to do with gay sex.

I can tenuously agree (with many reservations, see below*) that sexual attraction to male features is gay, as you posit here >>5404082, but having sex with an ftm, no matter how male she looks, cannot be classed as gay sex, since one participant is male and the other is female.

*Considering that there are heterosexual men who are attracted to women with "male features" (body hair, defined musculature, etc.), I think sexual attraction is itself not critical to a hard definition of homosexuality, which I understand to simply define sexual intercourse between two people of the same sex. It is certainly quite possible that there exist straight men who are sexually attracted to >>5404065, but not sexually attracted to men.

>>5404149
"it's not an incomplete or poor definition if it is correct."
What makes a definition correct?
"I think sexual attraction is itself not critical to a hard definition of homosexuality, which I understand to simply define sexual intercourse between two people of the same sex"
That is not the typical definition of homosexuality. Homosexuality is the state of being gay, which we have differentiated from gay sex.
"I can tenuously agree (with many reservations, see below*) that sexual attraction to male features is gay,"
"having sex with an ftm, no matter how male she looks, cannot be classed as gay sex"
So we can create a situation where how gay an individual is has zero bearing on whether or not they will engage in gay sex? Hell, it sounds like we can create one where it has opposite bearing on it. By this logic I can make situations where the gayer you are the less likely you will be to have gay sex. This is why I don't respect this definition.

File: laughing snorks.jpg (13KB, 237x212px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 237x212px

>>5404149
>>5404163
why are you so gay

>>5404169
i dunno man i cant help it

>>5404163
there is no differentiation. "the state of being gay" occurs only during same-sex intercourse. this includes the activities of same-sex romantic relationships that bear sexual intent. this is why same-sex affection (such as hugs and kisses) is not inherently gay, unless it occurs in the context of a sexual relationship.

the example of logic you gave is based on the erroneous assumption that gayness is somehow a discrete non-sexual quality, which is absurd considering that gayness is defined by one's sexual interaction with someone of the same sex. By your logic, it's possible to "be gay" without actually being gay. With mine, it's just possible to have gay sex, or not have gay sex. All you have to do is have sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex, or have sexual intercourse with someone who is not your sex.

>>5404178
"there is no differentiation. 'the state of being gay' occurs only during same-sex intercourse."
Where are you getting this from? What if I jerk it to gay porn? The reason that same-sex affection is not inherently gay has to do with the lack of sexual pleasure derived from it, same as why it's not incestuous to hug your mother.
"gayness is defined by one's sexual interaction with someone of the same sex."
What if a person is confined to a room with a computer that can access either gay porn or straight porn. Say they never have a sexual interaction with anyone else, but masturbate to exclusively gay porn daily. Are they gay? Has the state of being gay never occurred for them?
"the example of logic you gave is based on the erroneous assumption that gayness is somehow a discrete non-sexual quality"
Could you expand on this?
"By your logic, it's possible to "be gay" without actually being gay."
and this.

File: pixiv61671805_7.png (286KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1000x1000px

tfw im a male who likes females.
Feels pretty good tbh even tho females dont like me
B-)

>>5404224
Technically speaking, the act of solo masturbation is neither gay nor straight, as no partner is involved.

By my definition, sexuality occurs in discrete episodes classed dependent on the sex of the participants. Therefore the person confined to his room jacking off to gay porn, never having sex with another person, has experienced neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality, even though they have developed a masturbatory predilection toward pornography and fantasization involving homosexual sex. This man could leave the room and go have sex with another man; this would be gay sex, and so long as that relationship continues he would experience the state of being gay. Or he could go and have sex with a woman; this would be straight sex, and so long as that relationship continues he would experience the state of being straight.

Under my definition, it doesn't matter if a person *thinks* of themselves as "gay" or "straight." All that matters is their sexual interaction with another person, and whether that interaction can be classed as homosexual or heterosexual depending on that person's sex.

>>5404264
I don't think your definition is in accordance with how most people use the word, hence when discussing whether or not something is gay or straight (e.g. traps), your input will only confuse the discussion.

>>5404308
I disagree with how most people use the word, since it causes a tremendous amount of confusion and allows for a great deal of semantic fuckery where there should be none, ultimately perverting the science of sex.

The question of whether or not traps are gay becomes very simple when you accept that male-male and female-female relationships are gay, while male-female is straight. No matter the circumstances. This is the strictest adherence to the realities of human biological sex in the context of which sex pairings are capable of reproduction and which are not. This is not to say that all male-female relationships will produce viable offspring - especially in the case of post-op "transsexuals", who have mutilated their sex organs - but without serious genetic manipulation, it is physically impossible for m-m and f-f to reproduce, while only m-f have the possibility of being viable reproductive partners.

And in the future, when we reach the level of technology where gay couples can produce offspring through genetic manipulation of their cells, it doesn't change the homosexual nature of their relationship, since they are unable to procreate naturally; and when in the future we create a human-derived species that is able to reproduce naturally regardless of biological sex, without the help of drugs and equipment, then we will no longer be talking about humans and the gay-straight dichotomy will be irrelevant for that species.

>>5403723
anon in other thread said t on f porn is hetero

>>5404341
"I disagree with how most people use the word,"
Too bad that's what defines it. In the future come to the discussion with "I think it would make more sense if we defined it like this" and then explain, rather than just saying things with no context. How is anyone supposed to know your special definition? If you don't define your definition of gay and then just jump into an argument with people who have completely different definitions talking about whether or not something is gay, how does that help at all? It's only once you get down to the deeper level of defining "gay" that you can have an actual conversation with them that isn't completely incoherent.
Anyway, if in the future people started using your definition of the word, then that would be fine, but if we agree right now that that isn't how people tend to use the word, then that's not what the word means, and if it doesn't mean that, then why are you so intent on making it mean that? Why not direct your energy to the creation of a new word with that definition? I think it would be a good word to have, but not nearly as good as the word "gay", which I think gets into what people are attracted to and can be very useful for self-examination and self-definition (whereas your definition is sort of shit for that).

File: gayest.jpg (55KB, 799x526px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 799x526px

saged

hidden

>>5404387
Because most people's definition of gay is unscientific and defined by feelings, and the only way to challenge that is by challenging that muddled definition with the reality of biological sex, even if that might seem incoherent at first to the listener. What I want is a hard gay definition that can't be twisted to mean anything whatsoever. It doesn't matter to me if it enters common parlance, so long as it adheres to scientific principles instead of wishy-washy aphorisms, it will be the proper definition. My participation in this conversation was also intended to help me develop the definition in greater detail. I apologize if I came across as unfriendly or aggressive, that was not my intention.

>>5404384
it is hetero, if the "trans" is male.

futanari is also not gay if the character is biologically female and has a vagina in addition to a penis

File: 1473306436111.png (116KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 350x350px

oh yeah I'm coming soon

>>5404415
"Because most people's definition of gay is unscientific"
This is utterly confusing. We use words to discuss concepts; most people's definition of gay gets to the heart of a concept I think is very important (i.e. what you are and are not attracted to, which for a very large amount of people splits up fairly nicely into male and female traits, though as you mentioned earlier there are people that like some masculine traits in the context of an overall feminine form). I can't see anything wrong with this. I'm not even sure that I know what you mean by a definition being unscientific. Do all definitions need to be "scientific"? What is the science behind the definition of a chair, for instance? Also I didn't think you were aggressive or unfriendly, but as you mentioned it might be, it was just really incoherent for a bit.

>>5404235
lol. based.

>>5404235
this guy gets it.

>>5404235
Truuuuuuuuu

>>5404496
>>5404500 (dubs)
>>5404503
why are you doing this

this is nice /pol9b/ molestation session

Your fortune: Good Luck

>>5404474
If most people's definition of gay truly "got to the heart of the concept", then this thread wouldn't even be a thing. In fact the widely-accepted definition of gay is so poor and vague that it will mean something very different depending on who you talk to. There is no scientific grounding for homosexuality, when there should be, since it ties specifically into the conversation about biological sex, which I perceive to be a fairly hot topic in contemporary science, what with the majority of the mainstream unable to accept that there are only two biological sexes and that gender is not a real concept.

By scientific I mean empirical, that is, adhering to the scientific method, which encourages the testing of hypotheses and the development of theories. Empirical evidence suggests that with very little variation the human sexes are male and female, and that while male-male and female-female relationships do occur in nature, only the male-female relationship has the potential to be reproductively viable. Therefore in theory there is a sexual relationship dichotomy, with same-sex (homosexual) relationships being gay, and different-sex (heterosexual) relationships being straight.

Obviously no definition is going to be exactly perfect, as we can grasp from ancient conversations about featherless bipeds, but when the definition of something becomes fodder for philosophical navel-gazing, it is the aim of scientific thinking to at least attempt to clarify what is meant by a given word or concept.

If the generally-accepted definition of a chair were to ever become so vague that society itself was being harmed by misapprehensions about chairs, then it would be a reasonable scientific mission to try and definitively define what constitutes a chair so as to alleviate cultural confusion.

>>5404507
Cant help it that people agree with me
┐( ˘ ､ ˘ )┌

>>5404523
This.

>>5404523
Truth! LOL

File: 1489255001152.gif (604KB, 264x264px) Image search: [Google]

604KB, 264x264px

Does that mean that OP isnt Gay
OP pic is Nice
Be a Nice

>>5404514
A majority is not the entirety. Most people's can hold a definition of something that gets to the heart of a certain concept, but that doesn't mean that there won't be people that hold a different definition and will argue for that definition, like you. I agree that there's a vagueness to it, but I think there are less things about how I'm defining it that people would disagree with than how you're defining it, that there are fewer people that will take your black/white definition, particularly when put up against the scenarios I've laid out, than would go with the masculine/feminine features definition, which is closer to the general definition people hold.
Anyway, I'm glad I am understanding your impetus a little bit more with this post. but honestly, I go back to what I was saying before: make a new word. This one is taken; forcing a definition on a word that isn't in keeping with the public's widespread definition is only going to serve to confuse the discussion further. I know it's annoying that some of the typical connotations of the word "homosexual" are near to the concept that you want to put in a word, but it's not going to work to just change the whole thing. Make a new word.
Also, while homosexuality is a serious issue, I don't think that people thinking traps are/are-not gay is harming society. This is largely a fringe discussion; I'm not sure what harm is happening by misunderstandings about what a person means when they say "I'm gay".

>>5404598

I will point out that the word gay once carried a very different meaning than it does now, and has mutated in less than a century into its current form as a vague representation of the homosexual lifestyle. But I digress. To me this is less about "reclaiming" the word and more about reducing the ways in which it can be abused to the detriment of society.

For example, the common belief that anal intercourse is "gay" regardless of the sexes of those partaking. This leads to ignorance of anatomy and therefore health, and precludes a fairly effective form of contraception.

With regard to traps specifically, there is also the major issue of gender dysphoria, which is not at all helped by the assertion that male-male sex is "not gay" if one of the males is pretending to be female, an online trend that to me seems like a purposeful distortion of reality. For some time I would have agreed that this is a fringe discussion, but with more and more publications pushing the idea of "gender identity" as if it is a legitimate scientific topic, I believe it would be irresponsible to not provide some kind of counterpush and remind the public of the very basic biological tenants they seem to have forgotten. The definitions of gay and straight, words so embedded in the public consciousness, seem like perfect targets for discussion, since as it stands the public is having difficulty accepting the boundaries that exist between sexes, but they can at least somewhat acknowledge the boundaries between sexualities. I fear however that there will come a time when that is no longer the case, and we will be left with a nebulous morass that is in no way a reflection of reality, and those who try to speak out against it will be shouted down by zealots. Hence the need to be proactive.

>>5404658
"I will point out that the word gay once carried a very different meaning than it does now, and has mutated in less than a century into its current form as a vague representation of the homosexual lifestyle."
Sure, words do change; I don't disagree.
"For example, the common belief that anal intercourse is "gay" regardless of the sexes of those partaking."
That's not a common belief. Very, very few people believe that a man performing anal sex on a woman is gay. I've actually never even heard that before. Maybe what you mean is the belief that pegging is gay? I.e. woman-on-man strap-on sex. I guess that's a fair point, but once again sort of a fringe thing, and I'm not sure how many people would even explicitly say that it's gay.
"not at all helped by the assertion that male-male sex is "not gay" if one of the males is pretending to be female" (I am going to add "and looks like a female" i.e. has many feminine traits, in here as well)
From the perspective of the fucker, under the definition I hold it would be less gay than if the person he was fucking had many masculine traits. However, the "trap" being fucked is still gay, because his sexual partner has many masculine traits. Also, you know that some people do say it as an attempt at a purposeful distortion of reality, right? It's like the old "if the balls don't touch" thing; it's a meme. I don't purport to know a lot about gender identity, but it seems like it's an attempt to describe a legitimate phenomena. I mean, even in a trivial world where everyone has the gender identity of their birth sex, then it would still be a thing. You would still identify as a man or a woman, in the same way you identify as a human. The fact that there are these people that say they identify as a woman or man enough to undergo hormone treatment and even sex reassignment surgery (not to mention them dealing with the stigma of their choice as well as the day to day shit of trying to live as the opposite sex when you
(1/2)

>>5404658
>>5404756
didn't grow up learning the things that are [whether purposefully or nonpurposefully] taught to the opposite sex [makeup for instance]) is enough to validate the necessity of the term in my eyes. It doesn't even need to be a thing validating trans people themselves, you could define having the wrong gender identity as a mental illness with treatment via counseling and other methods instead of HRT and SRS. It's a legitimate scientific topic, and certainly a phenomena worth studying. I think you just don't like it because it has the word "gender" in it, which, I think, until recently was widely defined as synonymous to "sex". Now there's a new definition on the block with a lot of traction that puts it as gender identity instead (I dunno why they just don't go with gender identity instead of redefining gender itself, but whatever), and people, like yourself I assume, aren't very happy with it. I don't really care, personally. The concept needs a word, and since we already have "sex" I think if the one side wins out and it becomes "gender" then that's fine, but if it didn't that'd also be fine and we could come up with something else.
I'm not sure who has forgotten any basic biological tenants. Like maybe some "SJWs" or something, but I don't pay that much attention to far left politics. I think most MTF people understand that they were born with XY chromosomes, and are just trying to reach a point where they look how they want to look and their body feels how they want it to feel. Science only comes into play there by helping them to do it via HRT and SRS; basic biological tenants don't have anything to do with how they want to look and feel. You can know everything there is to know about the human body, and still decide to be trans.
Anyway, m8 I would go on but 1. this comment will become three posts long if I do, and 2. I'm going to sleep. See ya, good talk.

>>5404760
>>5404756
Night, I'm going to bed too.

I would recommend reading a little about the science behind "gender". Start with John Money - the guy who invented the term "gender identity" - and his experiments. Shit's fucked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

Gender used to not have any connection to biological sex, but that cat's out of the bag now due to linguists developing the gender theory of grammar and then sociologists like John Money co-opting their language to describe male and female characteristics in the context of society. I wouldn't have a problem with gender if it did not have a such a vague, easily abusable definition that has led to a gradual breakdown in the public's understanding of biological sex and the creation of hundreds of made-up genders by gender activists. I agree that there should have been a better word used, since when such people use the word "gender" they're actually referring to an identity signifier that really has nothing to do with their sex, but they're really pushing the identity-sex angle hard, with unfortunate results.

With regard to transgender individuals, i also agree that the phenomenon itself is worth study and that "transgender" people should be treated humanely, but the desire to "transition" shouldn't be given credence by "scientist" activists using pseudoscience to justify their claims.

As an aside, you'd also be surprised how many times I've encountered people who claim that anything involving an anus is gay. Perhaps this phenomenon is confined only to the American South and similar areas.

Good night friend. Thank you for talking in detail.

Fuck you, faggot.
Crispy isn't a trap.
She is all woman.
Sweet adorable latin muchacha.
No nudes, no lewds
Alterhacker

>>5403723
OP is a HETEROSEXUAL!

>>5404057
>Goodness....Thank you anon...I'm jerking it...

>>5403723
Eliza is no a yrap

This thread is garbage and the people that are posting in it and keeping it bumped are worthless shit because they don't understand how 4chan works or what different boards are for.

>>>/pol/

>>5403912
shut up fag

>>5405503
no u

File: garys mod.jpg (13KB, 150x205px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 150x205px

>>5405505
fart head

>>5405507
bald prick

>>5405169
probably because these idiots got rejected by the pole smokers at LGBT and they decided to come here and fuck it all up

>>5405169
>>5405220
>>5405503
>>5405505
>>5405507
>>5405508
>>5405509
>>5405509

friendly reminder to check ur're previelege :^)

Your fortune: Good Luck

File: --original-drawn-by-aogiri-penta--eaa9c30d5df6118a7b0579fa26614189.png (1MB, 1035x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1035x1440px

This, however, is very gay.

>>5405967
But it's just two girls playing with balloons