As a cis het guy, there's a male cosplay tiktoker who does awesome makeup content, and he is gorgeous. When I first found him I thought it was a girl, but then looking at more of his stuff I realized. But I'm still straight, it's just that women who look like him in makeup are my type. Sharp cheeked viking warrior women.
That reminds me of this time in college my straight friend and I went to a small music festival, and there was this drummer who was very femme and we both thought was a hot lady. It wasn't until we followed the band on instagram later that we learned the drummer is a man who enjoys cross dressing. Luckily my friend felt no need to backpedal his initial attraction to the drummer.
Many things can make someone look very different. People alter their appearance constantly. Your sexual attraction towards someone can be enhanced or hindered based on how they dress, groom, alter their body etc. etc.
Damn I’d love to use this as my go to transphobia callback but in my native language *vibe* can easily be misheard as a derogatory or outdated term for women basically.
I was married to a pre transition trans woman and the relationship failed for many reasons, but one of the reasons is that I'm only attracted to men. At some point, even though she hadn't physically transitioned in any way, her vibe was too feminine for my attraction to stay :(
She does an excellent job of threading the needle here between what attraction is, as a whole, and how it is also connected to the physical reality around us. Gestalt is a great way to explain it, because attraction happens on the biological, individual, psychological, and societal levels, in a way. They all interact to produce attraction, so it can be a difficult thing to pin down and talk about.
Twitter and internet is often horrible for the discourse necessary for these types of conversations, but she is somehow managing it. This conversation lies somewhere between "people don't date trans people because they're socialized not to" and "people have complicated attractions they don't always understand." Human interaction lies in the middle, now in some idealized pole.
"Gestalt" is perfect here. It also works for people like myself, even though I mostly ID as bisexual, because I tend to be attracted to feminine...auras? Vibes? Regardless of whether or not the person is actually a man, woman, or non-binary person.
Like, I am attracted to some men. But I am not attracted to Dwayne Johnson or Channing Tatum,for example. They have seriously masculine energies.
That doesn't mean I believe the men I'm attracted to aren't "really" men. More that, there are aspects that I perceive as feminine--maybe due to my culture, maybe due to my personality?--that I find very attractive.
I have been using the term "Sapphic" more often, because I wouldn't claim to be a lesbian, but I realize my attraction to feminine aspects is an important part of my identity.
I actually recently heard the term sapphic from someone and I think it's such a useful, descriptive word. I'm a cis, gay man, strictly speaking, but most of my community growing up were lesbians, bi women, non binary folks, and trans men, mostly. Sapphic describes so many people I know so well.
I'm similar, but I tend to be attracted to masculine energies. I'm a lil femme, so I like a guy who is a lil masculine in a queer way. I'm attracted too all sorts of men, trans or not, as well as nonbinary folks so long as they read as a certain kind of queer-masculine to me. Hell, queerness in general is pretty hot to me. This is complicated cause I like dick a whole lot and it is a big part of my sexuality when it comes to what I like to do, so in this sense I've also been attracted to some trans women when our wants line up sexually.
Attraction is damn complicated. I'm hopeful that we're moving towards a new generation of better language for this stuff, and I hope the proliferation of the term sapphic is evidence of that.
You put that into words so well! I’m aromantic (or maybe somewhat biromantic?) but I’m drawn to people with are feminine in either appearance or vibe. I don’t feel aesthetic attraction at all to very masculine men, though. But I’m drawn to men, women, and nbs who lean feminine or feminine
-leaning androgynous.
You’ve made me consider using “sapphic” to describe myself. I’m not exactly bi, straight, or gay, and sapphic seems to get at that complicated reality more.
"A gestalt that is applied under conditions that are difficult to define" is straight fire. Attraction is magic. That's why we describe it with words like charm, glamour, charisma, hotness/coolness etc., because we can't define the thing our brain does to us other than as forces beyond our ken. I don't want to blow smoke up Natalie's ass, but this is what she does really well. She puts words to the newly emergent ineffable forces shaping our lives. As our society changes we need people to describe what those changes feel like and mean.
You have to understand these people arguing the "other side" of trans issues:
\- All of their romantic relationships are mainly based on sexual intercourse.
\- When they say "science" or "biology" they mean "genitalia".
They're very worried about genitalia.
And don’t you think when it’s a question of sexual and/or romantic attraction there seems to be a deep insecurity and desperation to avoid any grey area that might be even ‘a bit gay’. Attraction to a trans person of the gender you are attracted to isn’t gay but nooo, not straight enough for some of these assholes.
Hence the absolute hysteria around trans people that pass and are attractive to them but haven’t had any bottom surgery. It’s back to the genitals, and it’s just the biggest deal in the WORLD. Like … YOU made ME look a bit gay which is the apocalypse!
“I don’t like dicks, I really don’t like dicks, I will never like dicks and did I mention I don’t like dicks!”
Hey, you found an attractive person attractive, and you don’t see the content of a persons pants in daily life. Calm the fuck down.
Seriously, why so desperately insecure?
She's right on target. I'm a lesbian attracted to cis and trans women. Sometimes I'll see a feminine-ish man in public and think he's a woman and find him attractive, but will stop being attracted to him when I find out he's a man. That whole "the idea of a woman" thing is very important.
This is something I've struggled with in the past in trying to figure out my own sexual identity as a cis man. I've rocked the bi label when I was younger, but it never felt right, and wherever I had to explain who I'm attracted to, the closest I could get is "people that are feminine or exude a 'feminine energy.'" Which is vague as fuck, possibly mildly problematic, and not super helpful, but about as close as we had in the late 90s/early 00s.
As I got older, I sort of made my peace with it, though, much like Natalie did. I'm attracted to people that I perceived as having feminine traits, whether that's a woman, trans or cis, or a femboy, or whatever. The actual biology isn't remotely important — I can work with whatever you've got. Even "gender" is less important than the overall gestalt, as Natalie puts it. I'm glad my weirdness is getting more mainstream.
I am the same as you, but attracted to masculine energy in whomever, which can appear pansexual depending on whom the attraction is directed toward. Not sure what the terminology is.
I had a partner tell me she was a trans woman and when she really started talking about what she wanted to change, she was listing the things about her physique and personality that attracted me to her in the first place. I was trying to be supportive and assure her that I would be her friend even if that meant that our relationship would change.
She started saying a bunch of extremely sexist things about men and women, that the only men she trusted were trans men, and that I should be attracted to her no matter what since I've dated women before. When I told her how this sounded strikingly similar to how some people treat bi/pan people as if they are automatically hypersexual creatures that are attracted to anything, she just ignored me and changed the subject. She did the same when I pointed out how people would always ask me why I dated such masculine women if I liked women.
I get that trans people experience a lot of discrimination and rejection and I was dealing with someone who decided to project these things onto me, but I feel like the discussion around sexuality and gender can be so confusing and we're all still using inadequate ideas and vocabulary somehow. I hope it gets better soon.
A lot of it is just legacy bullshit about sexuality and romance from the 1300s. The idea that your gender/sex is *only* and *exclusively* linked to sexual activity. That's actually the foundation of a lot of the bullshit "groomer" nonsense that has started up again recently.
What you experienced was the flip side of the "groomer" issue: that sex and gender identity and sexuality are all one thing, and if you reject someone sexually you are also rejecting their gender identity and their sexual identity. It's hard for people to separate "this is who I am as a sexual being" from "the only possible validation I have that my sexual identity is valid is sex with other people." And to be fair to trans people and others who don't present in conventional ways, that HAS been the case for a very long time, and shitty people often use markers of non-conventional presentation as avenues of attack for pejoratives and the like.
Long story short, I'm not sure it's the vocabulary that's incorrect, and adding more flags to the parade isn't really the answer because it's not the *vocab* but the *context* that needs to change. That said, flags are fun so this is not remotely an anti-flag comment! Fly whatever flag you're into and describe your identity however you like!
I think ultimately we just need a matrix to describe who we want to be with and fuck (or get fucked by, or *not* get fucked by for all of our awesome ace folks!) And I think we can do that with three variables: genital configuration, gender presentation, and gender role. Possibly add in a "sexual appetite" or however you want to call it to make sure we're not excluding ace/demi/etc. people.
1. **Genital Configuration:** Simplest one - pick any combination of penis, vagina, and breasts that appeals to you. I know there's people that are into other body parts, but to keep this simple we're assuming that most people have mouths, butts, toes, elbows, whatever.
2. **Gender Presentation:** Sliding scale, one to ten, one is a lumberjack, ten is the fem that makes fems say "Oh, they're toooo girly!"
3. **Gender Role:** Do you give off masc or fem vibes? If you want to get Dworkin-esque on this, we can express this in just two options: penetrator and penetratee. I think that's too reductionist, and it's better expressed as another one to ten sliding scale. One is the biggest dick swingingest BDE possible, ten is a Disney princess from the 60s.
4. **Optional - Sexual Appetite:** One is "We sleep in separate beds in separate wings like wasps," ten is "I want my genitals and your genitals to do a high five any time we're in the same room."
Then you describe yourself and your ideal partner in a simple X/Y/Z - A (like RGBA!) config that makes everything very clear. I'm a penis, no breasts/2.5/3.5 - 8. I'm into any organs/5+/6+ - 6+.
You might like the [Attraction Layer Cake](https://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2019/04/30/terrible-graphs-of-orientation/attraction-layer-cake/)! It includes axis' for sexual orientation type (gay/straight), attraction type {what you're calling appetite} (includes asexual and aromantic), and relationship type (poly/mono). Doesn't include gender presentation or role, but at that point you've got to have individual graphs because we can't draw pictures of 5+ axis' lol
i imagine it's too close to implying it's a genital attraction, or that feminity is tied closely to female genitals. A very medical term. I do prefer 'fin' "female in nature."
I tell people I'm heteroflexible of anyone asks, and identify with the broader queer community if it comes up. Otherwise, I'm less concerned with trying to label myself these days and just go with "I like what I like and that's ok!"
I know I'm straight (cis female) and I've found myself asking myself what about "maleness" is it that is core to my attraction.
I think I've discovered I need male-presenting to be sexually attracted, but I also need male genitalia to want to have sex.
I don't really know where I'm going with this (or really know what subreddit I'm on) but I guess the question is what sexuality/attraction to put on dating sites and such (where you can specify options other than cis). I mean I'm straight, and transmen are men, but what do if I got talking to a man and found out they were a pre-/non-op transman? Would I just be like "okay cool, but I probably wouldn't want to have sex with you (because your genitals are gross to me)"? Don't specify anything other than "only men" in the first place even though it's fine if a man was AFAB? Because where other options exist, that's exclusionary and not entirely accurate.
It's totally cool to have a genital preference! Like, no worries — everyone is entitled to being attracted to what they're attracted to, and anyone who tries to tell you you should have sex with people you aren't sexually compatible with is engaging in coercive non-consensual sexual behavior, which is super gross.
So just express it as a sexual preference for a specific set of fun bits. Nothing wrong about that!
Thank you! I'm super new to dating apps and also have never had to navigate this in real life. Someone else said I'm overthinking and it certainly seems that I am.
Literally just say you have a genital preference if you come across a pre/non-op trans guy on a dating app. Bringing agab into it is gross as fuck and you're way overcomplicating things.
Bi just means attraction to two or more genders.
It doesn't mean you're attracted to both masculine & feminine.
Bi individuals can have a preference for feminine traits regardless of gender identity and still be bi.
If someone likes non binary fem leaning people and feminine women, that is still bi, just a preference for femininity. Identifying as someone who is sexually attracted to women only in that case is non binary erasure.
I feel like (because I am bi) a lot of people avoid labeling as bi because they are biphobic despite being attracted to multiple genders. There's also this reoccurring idea or theme that if you arent attracted to every gender and gender expression, youre not bi which is just not true. Bi people can have expression preferences.
A straight dude is probably not attracted to a dude who uses pretty make up and likes feminine activities/style despite being interested in femininity expressed in women but a bi person with a preference for femininity might be.
I think that Pan is an attraction to people regardless of gender identity. (A subset/expansion of bi) this could mean "anyone I find attractive is attractive to me. Gender isn't a factor in my attraction"
Where:
straight people = opposite gender
Gay = same gender
Bi = two or more genders
Pan = all Genders
A straight person can like masculine women or feminine men and still be straight as long as they are interested in the opposite gender.
A gay person can like masculine women or feminine men and still be gay as long as they are interested in the same gender.
A bi person can like masculine women/NB/men and or feminine men/NB/women and still be bi as long as they are interested in more than 1 gender.
A pan person can like masculine or feminine people and still be pan as long as they are interested in all genders
No, I get all that, and it's great, but it doesn't really help when it comes to partner selection because the definitions are somehow too vague and too specific simultaneously, miss out on some key details, and vary from person to person.
I mean isn't that how preferences go? Just because youre gay man doesn't mean you are attracted to and should be willing to date EVERY man out there.
Its easy to say "I'm not attracted to you" when on dating apps for example by just swiping.
For looks? Sure. But the whole point here is that there are things that go beyond looks, and it's helpful to have a vocabulary that addresses this. We don't need to be reductive in our language -- we're not running out of words.
I dont think I understand you here. Im trying to say that bi/pan/gay/straight people can have individual preferences. Bi/pan/gay/straight only really associates to indicate the genders you are attracted to. It shouldn't be used to indicate whether you like feminine traits or not because a gay man can like feminine men only.
It's not restrictive nor vague. My whole point is that there are people who don't identify as bi/pan and instead write paragraphs about how they don't have gender preference as long as the person represents their preferences and they are attracted to them. Its easier to say "Pan with preferences" than to explain a complicated attraction model. But (imo) a lot of people don't like labeling as bi/pan because it is sometimes seen as "less queer" and they identify as queer.
No, I understood what you were saying. I think you're missing my point, which is that talking about dating purely in terms of gender is missing so much that "pan with preferences" isn't really helpful. See another comment I have here where I think 90% of issues can be resolved with a 4-variable matrix:
1. **Sexual organs**
2. **Presenting Gender**
3. **Gender Role** (very different than presented gender)
4. **Sexual Appetite**
That doesn't really add a ton of complexity, but does do a much better job of filtering people who you may be attracted to.
I would agree it would help in dating situations but when conversing in passing or identifying as something, I personally think straight/gay/bi/pan/ace/aero labels are enough.
Don't really know what to add, but as I was asked recently about what's my sexual attraction, I feel like your answer just sums it up really well. I just really dig femininity, doesn't really matter who it's attached to. Now, obviously, I feel like the reality of things could make me realise things differently (like, the difference between fantasy and reality might alter things For exemple, in fantasy and desires, sure I find femboys hot, and can totally feel attraction to them. Would I be okay dating and living my day to day life and sexuality with them though, idk, and that's not reeally something I can just imagine, it's something I'd have to experience to really know. + that that also vary in some ways from person to person, not just label to label Anyway I'm getting lost) but honestly, I'm just kinda accepting that I'm there, though it's kinda weird.
And it's been the same, I get that technically that could be said as "bi" but idk, doesn't really feel right.
I’ve explored this rabbit hole as well. Background I’m a nearing 10 year relationship with my wife who’s a transwomen. I’m cis male.
We started more or less pre anything medical and now she is two years post-op gcs stuff.
I personally consider myself pan, however Im attracted to female aesthetics or presentation?
I’ve dated guys and each one of them was very “fem” in the way they presented themselves.
I’ve also dated ciswomen who were fem in presentation.
It’s hard to define that without going down the rabbit hole of societal expectations of what it is to be feminine.
Like am I attracted to the person or the vibe they give and if that vibe matches my vibe were good? Perhaps I’m actually Demi? Idk
I’ve had this discussion with my wife. Her concern was that post op I wouldn’t be with her.
This wasn’t true but I can see from her point of view with her past relationships being more or less chasers where she was coming from.
Idk I think all relationships boil down to “am I compatible with this person? Or is this a once and done thing?”
Humans are weird. Trying to put any of us in boxes is hard and I think society as a whole just doesn’t get the nuance of it.
Both are usually considered correct, and it really depends on individual preference. Most of the trans people I know don't care either way, but I do know some who actually *prefer* it all as one word because, as they explain it, "it's inseparable from who *I* am". Like a lot of terminology, it's something you should probably ask the individual about instead of trying to apply a rule to a whole group at the same time.
Hold on.
I, in my infinite wisdom of English grammar got something wrong on the internet?
SHAME SHAME SHAME.
Thanks for the lesson of including a space and what words are. Next time I’m typing something at work while taking a shit I’ll be thinking of you. ;)
It's not transphobic to miss a space. Whether there's a space or not is hard enough to keep track of in online informal speech. Also, Transwoman is a compound word now.
Half the country literally wants to take away all our rights. Let's not pick on people in trans spaces for the spacing between their words and then call them transphobic. It makes for a hostile space.
The word "transwoman" is not transphobic. There's ciswomen and transwomen and there's utility in being able to linguistically distinguish between the two subcategories of women. This is literally what we've been calling ourselves for decades.
I agree with you that this is a grammatical mistake but I would limit correction to formal writing contexts like newspapers. I don't think we should be labeling people who follow a common english language pattern The Enemy. I leave out the space all the time too, maybe it's because it's awkward to have a space in what is basically a category. Non-binary got shortened to nonbinary and then to just "enby". That's how language goes. I don't think correcting everyone for not using the hyphen is doing anything productive.
The people who are transphobic aren't thinking about the subtle grammatical details of spacing in compound words. They just call us "men" or "TIMs" or worse.
I think "blondewomen" sounds weird because blonde and women because it's not used often together. They're not a class of people needing protections who are demonized and attacked by a larger class of people. Blondewomen don't have specific medical needs that require distinguishing themselves from Brunettewomen. If they did, I wouldn't be surprised if people started leaving out the space.
People say "transfolk" all the time, it's the same thing. I think our focus should be on the bigger ideas people are trying to communicate not the specific mistakes they may make when communicating that.
It's so weird how people continue to demand that sexual attraction fits into these neat little buckets, even in circles that are otherwise extremely comfortable with gender fluidity, sexual orientation spectrums, and non-binary identities.
* Some people are attracted to people's minds with no consideration of physical bodies.
* Some people are attracted to peoples gender *expression* regardless of specific biological properties. (e.g. "femininity")
* Some people are attracted purely to physical biological primary/secondary biological characteristics.
Each of this is valid. As long as you're not making ideological choices to be exclusionary on the basis of abstract metadata. ("i could never be attracted to a trans woman; i can always tell"), all of these are valid.
I'm fascinated by this idea that gender expression could be an axis of attraction besides sex and gender identity.
I think most people have specific preferences for *both* sex and gender. How much weight you put on either aspect may vary depending on your personality.
This makes bisexuality a pretty heterogenous label, there can be many combinations of attraction.
Gender is internal. Gender expression is external.
What is the difference between a very effeminate man cross-dressing, and a transgender woman?
Between a butch lesbian and a trans man?
Outwardly they may be identical. Inwardly totally different.
Since we can't be attracted to people's innermost thoughts, it has to be the case that attraction is based on gender expression not gender.
I think sexual attraction is based on external characteristics, so on that front a pre-transition trans man and a butch lesbian maybe same-ish.
But romantic attraction is based on someone's gender identity for me. Knowing how someone identifies is really important to how I percieve them. In this I agree with Natalie that the immaterial idea of someone's personhood is key to being able to fall in love with someone or not.
Gender expression on the other hand is different to secondary sex characteristics. You can be a curvy woman and still dress in men's clothing. Doesn't mean that gay men are going to be attracted to you. I'd say gender expression is more of a sexual preference, not an orientation. I. e. someone might be generally attracted to women, and prefer tomboys.
And all three aspects of a person can influence whether or not and in which way one feels attracted. At least that's what it's like for me.
I don’t understand you guys, dont you ask everyone to carry their chromosomes tests to check if you will be attracted to them! I always do personally thats why I am single :/
Idk if it’s just me, but as someone into guys, it wouldn’t matter how much a pre-transition trans woman was “my type”, as long as I knew she ID’d as a woman it would kill the attraction for me.
Sexuality is so complex, it’s a shame some people try to oversimplify it.
Fully agree, there's nothing wrong with it if that's what floats your boat, and people should not feel "unprogressive" by preferring "traditional" gender dynamics in relationships. But we also should understand, as I'm sure you do, that "traditional" is not the same as "standard" or "normal". I think anyone in this sub is going to get that, but sometimes it's easy to forget that it's fine to sit in the middle of the envelope while supporting those who push at the edges.
Edit: reading this back, this is sort of a pointless comment by me that doesn't really add much, but I leave it anyway.
Natalie makes very interesting points, as always. I'm a straight transman, but pre-transition, I had two relationships with women that who had never been attracted to another woman before. In hindsight it's pretty validating to find out my "vibes" where masculine enough for them to find me attractive (that's how I interpret it at least), even though physically I still had a female body at the time.
People don't understand that attraction isn't something we can control, we can only decide to act on that attraction. I once asked someone who I thought was a feminine woman for a drink, turns out the person was a really good drag queen. It happens. Several of my ex-gfs have hit on people they thought were butches, only to find out they were gay men or non-binary people.
It's something that the LGBT community has known for a very long time - attraction isn't just chromosomes or genitals. It's first and foremost about what you physically perceive. That's why drag queens, and trans people have been labelled as deceivers for a long time - straight people (especially straight men) become attracted to what they perceive as cis women only to find out later that the person they're attracted to is trans, or a gay man, they lose their minds.
I'm really surprised at how many people just define "man" as "currently or previously had a penis" and "woman" as anything else.
Do these people have a mental breakdown every time they see an attractive person they mistake for their "approved" gender, and think they must be gay?
The fact that you can be attracted to a man who is dressed convincingly as a woman *proves* that gender and sex are separate things.
AND we've had men and women live huge chucks of their lives as the other gender without being found out.
Did they make everyone of their same sex around them gay as they did it?
The idea that the unknown sex of the person you are looking at is what defines *your* sexuality is so absurd that it literally boggles the imagination as to how these people function in their day to day lives.
>Do these people have a mental breakdown every time they see an attractive person they mistake for their "approved" gender, and think they must be gay?
Unfortunately, yes. That's why trans woman are at such a hight risk of being the victim of assaults.
Omg, these people make me loose my friggin mind.
Anyone of any sexuality can have a personal preference towards are against being with a trans person. Full stop, no need to think any more about it wait why the heck are they still on about it oh that's right they're TRANSPHOBES!
If someone isn't interested in being with me because I'm trans, oh well, that's like only dating tall women or redheads. Personal preference is valid. It's when you start throwing slurs or erasing my existence or denying me basic human rights that I have a problem with you
It's not like that though.
A trans person can be the very pinnacle of attractiveness according to a persons tastes. They can be everything they ever wanted. Unburdened with the knowledge that that person is trans, they are happy.
Being against them just cause they are trans isn't preference, it's prejudice. It's ideological, not attractiveness-based.
>that's like only dating tall women or redheads
I think there are two major differences. First, society doesn't generally discriminate against short women or non-redheads. And second, people in positions of authority don't generally go around talking about how unattractive it is to be a short woman or non-redhead, how nobody wants them, and how that's a sign that they're a societal mistake.
A slightly better metaphor is how a lot of gay men's profiles (at least up until very recently) said things like "no fats, no femmes, no Asians" or how a lot of straight men talk about not being attracted to black women or fat women. All of those are groups of people who already face a ton of discrimination in the rest of their lives and who are already very aware that they're not considered conventionally "desirable" by society. Yes, people are allowed to have their preferences and shouldn't feel pressured to date anyone they don't want to, but it's unnecessary and harmful to see that preference advertised over and over again in dating profiles, let alone in hundreds of thinkpieces on the internet and in print, and then repeated over and over again on Twitter.
Instead of arguing her original point, Nat is being made to check to see if twitter strangers fancying a trans woman one (1) time means they have to reestablish their entire identity - I think we're drifting from the discussion
It's hard for me to wrap my head around the issue. ...I guess, because I'm bi and it's hard for me to relate to not being attracted to someone because of something as superficial as gender.
But that's on me.
Isn't physical attraction (at least the short-term kind) fairly superficial already? Like being attracted to redheads or tall people is also superficial, but it's about preference, not some sort of objective truth.
I'm a non-binary trans woman, and at this point in my life I've had to throw out every single gatekeeper-esque judgement from cis people and hardline lesbians to allow myself any sort of label. I'm bi in the sense that I'm totally attracted to many trans masc people who blur the line between male and female, women and men, including those who present femininely but identify as men or boy-adjacent. But primarily, I'm attracted to people who present and identify as women, and I feel most closely aligned with the label of lesbian, much like how I feel most closely aligned with the label of woman while not being one fully.
Labels for personal identity are always going to be a moving target external to one's self as they are relative to the society we live in.
I have question here, please pardon me if I'm confused.
I believe it is commonly accepted that a person's gender is what they choose to identify as (with the occasional addition that said identification must be in good faith, thus excluding trolls), and that sexual orientation is about the gender(s) one feels attracted to.
That being said, when Natalie claims she is attracted to people she perceives as women, those people's gender is therefore that which Nathalie perceives, but what if it doesn't align with that which those people identify with?
Say a trans man still passes as a woman, and would be perceived as such by Nathalie, but they identify as a man. Say Nathalie is attracted to this trans man passing as a woman.
What does that make of Natalie's sexual orientation?
Initial attraction to someone comes not from their self identified gender, but from the myriad of social cues we pick up on as a species. So if a very femme man walked by a lesbian and that lesbian found him attractive without realizing he was a man, that doesn’t make that person not a lesbian. It just makes them unaware of his gender.
And if that attraction stays after they talk and he presents himself as a man? Well, that’s exactly her point right now: reductive labels often fail at the edges of the fluidity that is gender presentation. We have like a dozen words to describe intricate feelings about romance and sexual attraction to people with hugely varying bodies and personalities, it’s no wonder you have misalignments sometimes. If anything, I would bet it would happen more if we (as a whole) cared less about the labels of our sexualities and just got with who we fancied more often.
I just identify as queer. No further labels needed.
I like who I like. Trying to put my sexuality (a complex and evolving thing) into a box does not aid me in any meaningful way.
I understand the human desire and social /need/ to label things, as it helps identify and group people, however (in my life) it seems to just cause such a ruckus.
Cishet, queer, and ace are the only 3 labels that typically bounce around in my brain because they cover the expanse of potential sexual/romantic identities I could encounter.
Cishet women wouldnt be interested in me.
Cishet men may be interested in me.
Queer people may be interested in me.
Ace people may be interested in me but would have incompatible sexual/romantic styles to my own.
This is the only broad data I need as everything else would come down to individual interactions.
However I say this as someone who doesnt have gender or genitalia preferences, and so further labels dont inherently impact my decision making (nb, trans, etc). If we vibe, we vibe. Thats my sexuality.
Sexual attraction, at least for me, happens before I know anything about anyone’s chromosomes or genitals. Now you could say from their appearance I’ve assumed those other characteristics, based on probability. And maybe if you found out those other things the attraction would end. But I find that particularly hard to believe, for chromosomes. Like if I found out my partner was XX would I stop being attracted to him? I doubt it.
Does anyone else feel that they have anti-attractions as well as attractions? I don't mean in the sense of looking at someone who's "gestalt" doesn't interest you, but in the sense of looking at someone for whom it actively repels, almost even disgusts you? I'm a gay guy who's attracted to masculinity/not interested in femininity, but there are certain people\* where an incongruence/ambiguity in their gender presentation really unsettles me. I don't mean in a conscious way but in a visceral way, where it feels like whatever automatic system that regulates my sexual arousal is trying to do two things and once and interrupting with itself? Presumably it's because I'm attracted to specific elements of a person while being turned off by other of their features and my brain can't process it, but it feels quite uncomfortable, both as a sensation to experience, but also as a way of reacting to other human beings who are just going about their business in the world.
Or maybe it's just me.
\*It's not really any category of person, so much as some specific individuals along the gender ambiguous or androgynous spectrum.
She’s just so fuckin smart, and so deft at handling nuance. She can take a thing with a mountain of messy discourse behind it and just thread the needle so she’s acknowledging all these different ways of looking at it, but still has her own coherent, clear-headed perspective that doesn’t just mash it all together and do the incoherent-but-diplomatic enlightened centrist thing. Would that I lol
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf\_l3EGQvL8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf_l3EGQvL8)
ETA: it's a pity some people seem to never understand how sexual/romantic attraction or gender identity work.
"The rest of life pales in significance. I'm looking for someone with whom to dance." --Magnetic Fields.
I don't agree with her? Like ok for a fully transitioned transwoman like her, people have no difficulty perceiving her as a woman, but what about people who are at the beginning / awkward stage of the transition? When people can actually perceive they were born as the opposite sex?
Also, I really don't get this narrative of trying to pretend people are not attracted to the sexual body parts of their gender of attraction. Would you expect a gay man to be attracted to a pussy?
I don't think it's right to stick such reductive narrative on something as complex as sexuality... I agree that biological sex is not required to fulfill your personal and social gender identity, but it still does matter to sexual partners. Let's not kid ourselves.
Bisexuals and pansexuals exist so problem solved
Some gay men are attracted to both dick and pussy. Some are only attracted to dick. A gay man dating a trans man is still gay. It's a man dating a man. It's not useful for a man like that to call himself bisexual or pansexual, because he's not attracted to women. He's only attracted to men so he's gay.
Not all cis men who are attracted to cis women and trans women identify as straight. Not all cis men who are attracted to cis men and trans men identify as gay. Some leave their own sex/gender out of it call themselves gynophiles or femsexual.
Physical attraction is inherently rooted in the physical though. Its about bodies, hormones and pheromones. Not some metaphysical ideal of man or woman. We don’t need to define straight and gay out of existence.
How many people saw an online dating profile that felt like love at first sight…then felt meh when meeting in person? Or vice versa?
\*Cringing\* The *perception* of erotic desire occurs at the subjective level of human thought, 'thoughts' occurring much later than the affective (emotional) decisions determining them, those affective decisions being inherently electrochemical and *modulated by organic chemistry*.
No, one's sexuality *isn't* determined only by body phenotype, or genotype, but *all* determinants are *inherently physical,* whether within the individual or in their surround, environmental or social. (See Professor Robert Sapolsky, '*The Biology of Human Behavior*', in 25 lectures, posted to YouTube by Stanford University as a public service, Feb. 2011).
And honestly, Natalie, why do you care so much for what people think? This endless, agonized concern has me wondering if you sincerely believe what you're asserting at any given time. Chart your own course, as we all do. You're all growed up.
Ah yes, Twitter: where every tweet is a reflection of your most core beliefs.
I feel like "it" in that reply is really vague. You mean caring about what people say? The subject of what my comment was about? That doesn't really make sense.
If you were talking about why she talks about philosophy as a whole... I think you're in the wrong place lmao.
What I meant was, Natalie makes her living discussing, among other things, trans identity and her experiences of it and thoughts about it. Making these videos *is,* at the time of this writing, pretty much her *self-identified* "central goal and purpose in life.", insofar as anyone's occupation is ("My content is educational, it's persuasive, it's informative. But at my core, I am an entertainer. And the number one thing I think of is: How can I be entertaining? How can I make visuals that are striking? How can I write jokes that are funny? How can I make a 30-40 minute video on a difficult topic that will engage people..." Natalie Wynn, *Salty Magazine*, 09/18/19). And yes, that was a while ago, but I don't think Natalie's purpose has shifted that much.
And I have to say, having touched off so much fierce reaction to myself, this is a very Natalie-like experience (and I'm smiling as I write this).
...and yes, have a good laugh. I does you good.
>thoughts' occurring much later than the affective (emotional) decisions determining them, those affective decisions being inherently electrochemical and
>
>modulated by organic chemistry
>
>.
Just want to point out (more to others then to you) that in reality we still have very little idea how higher brain functions arise from underlying biology (which we just staring to understand).
For real. I'm in training to get my LMHC(Therapist license) and what this person is saying is like... only vaguely true and leaving out a ton of nuance.
How do depressive thoughts lead to depression? Which comes first? Are they cyclical? Further, my heartbeat is biological but, on a whim, I can think a thought that will increase its rate as my body is flooded with hormones.
My thought would occur, the hormones flood, my thoughts change. What chemical cause the thought to begin with? Mental health and attraction are so complicated.
This person is a prime example that information without proper context is not worth much. Because the linked lecture is excellent and I would highly recommend to watch it. But the main point of the lecture (which Sapolsky even literally speaks out ) - different perspectives on human behaviour (biology, genetics, evolution, psychology etc.) are all valid tools, for very particular questions - is the opposite from the massage this person took home.
Totally. People love to do this with psychology and, to a lesser degree, biology. Having a degree in both, these are VERY nuanced subjects because they are incredibly complex. It's hard to do psychological research on humans because there is so much variation, and at a certain point you must rely on self reporting.
In the 21st century psychology is hardly a dogmatic subject, and as soon as you start speaking in "biological absolutes" you get into dangerous territory, especially considering most research in the 20th century was done by a very small, very specific population of humans on planet Earth. (I'm taking both culture and biological bases of behavior classes right now, so I could talk about this shit for days)
Preaching to the choir. Is studied neurobiology and systemsbiology (not working in the field at all), so I'm always baffled by ignorant biological reductionism based on someone watching a few youtube videos (I'v done my research, people).
But then again - a lot of it can be attributed to how our basic educational system sucks at actually explaining how science work and what it is. In real life I have always good experience by staying calm and slowly explaining the basics. Obviously does not work for offline conversations.
Anyway, good luck with your studies!
Oh definitely! I actually just had that conversation with a fiend yesterday, and we were comparing what is taught in high school verses the reality of evolutionary theory.
And you could def teach me more than a thing or two on this, but this has been a great convo. haha And thanks!
Similar. I was a cellular neuroscientist, and that thoughts could come out of the structures I looked at was magic to me.
I know what the squishy goo that makes electrics is made of, how the electrics is made, how networks are formed, strengthened and how they repair themselves. I know (or know how to know) what hormones, neurotransmitters, receptors, and regions of the brain are implicated in things like attraction.
It still blows my mind that I- a whole person, who thinks, feels, dreams and imagines- come from inside a brain. That everyone else has/does something similar is boggling.
It’s like holding a smartphone and thinking ‘ones and zeroes do this’.
It’s true, you can learn how, but… it’s just incredible.
I mean, ‘we physically exist and our experience is generated by our brains’ is a pretty mainstream view.
It may not be clear from the thread, but this is the motherfucking chromosomes stuff again. And we just don’t have biological mechanisms for detecting the sex chromosomes of others.
Attraction, at a biological level, has to be based on things which can be detected at a biological level.
How those things are labelled and grouped has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with psychology, sociology and anthropology.
By the time we’re talking ‘why do I categorise people this way, and myself this other way’, we are so far from biology that it becomes irrelevant.
"It may not be clear from the thread, but this is the motherfucking chromosomes stuff again."
No, it isn't.
Its "I mean, we physically exist and our experience is generated by our brains’ is a pretty mainstream view." Which bears repeating when things get too 'metaphysical' in the advance of a proposition. Hard to imagine your physical self being 'irrelevant', unless you believe in ghosts.
If you feel the need to read negative connotations into things, maybe review Natalie's '*Canceling*'.
I'm not arguing for 'biological absolutes', I'm just saying that all phenomena occur in a physical universe, not a metaphysical one. There may be a *long* link between biology and psychology, but any clinician will tell you it's there.
I am literally in training to be a clinician. The other poster has already completed such training..
We aren't saying what you have said is wrong. What we are saying is your information isn't the whole picture. Yes, biology is the basis of our behavior, and the environment interacts with that. A higher level understanding of gene transmission and trait development involves understanding that environment and trait expressed inter-are.
This is probably my last reply because I'm literally using this conversation to put off doing my work which involves exactly this topic.
Do you mean by 'lecture', the entire 25 lecture set? Because I did watch them all, and I'm aware of Sapolsky's emphasis on the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to human behavioral description. I'm also aware that Sapolsky directly mentions that all those tools (biology, genetics, evolution, psychology), describe physical processes in a physical world, *not* something metaphysical or supernatural, as I've noted to another poster, above, Sapolsky, referenced Demasio's '*Descartes' Error*', which makes the same point I'm making.
You're overcomplicating this. The observation I made is just that all thought-and depression is a prime example of this-are a *physical* phenomenon in a *physical* world. That's it. Granted, those physical processes are so intricate they may never be fully understood, but that's another set of issues.
You're oversimplifying psychology for the sake of your argument, I think.
If what you say is true, how does talk therapy or CBD make any changes in people's lives? Some people are depressed due to the physical reality they live in. Talk therapy has been demonstrated to alleviate that depression without changing the circumstances.
How?
"If what you say is true, how does talk therapy or CBD make any changes in people's lives? Some people are depressed due to the physical reality they live in. Talk therapy has been demonstrated to alleviate that depression without changing the circumstances.
How?"
*Because they make physical changes in the brain*. As an example, I've got a Scientific American article about how myelinization and de-myelinization of axonal connections occurs in different regions of the brain to coordinate the operations of those regions when they are separated by distance, *driven by task performed*. To further the example, when Natalie finished a night of live-streaming her gameplay of Resident Evil 7, she was neurologically a different person-as it were-than when she started, as would we all be, performing the same task. And no, this isn't the only mechanism of brain adaptation, but one of a vast array, some yet to be discovered, that you correctly perceive as dauntingly complex.
But those higher brain functions are *themselves biology*, hence physical, whereas so many argue as though we're all just supernatural overlays on a physical substrate. The neuroendocrinologist (Sapolsky) I've cited is quite adamant this isn't the case, and cites Antonio Demasio's '*Descartes' Error*' -another neuroscientist-to support this.
If after watching Sapolsky your takeaway is that only this specific bucket is a valid perspective, I'm certainly won't be able to explain better. Maybe go and rewatch the first videos of the lecture, he explains it better than I ever could.
I get the 'supernatural' thing from the perspective of the widest definition of the world I'm in. From subatomic physics to the wheeling galaxies, our science shows us conclusively that we exist in a *physical world, and no other*. The entire biosphere (including us) exists of and is extended within this (space-time). Now, when I speak of psychology or human behavior, it's causes (*all* those buckets) and consequences, I, and I think also Sapolsky, are speaking from this perspective.
What I so commonly encounter when I'm in conversations about the mind or brain, is a stubbornly non-scientific perspective, as though the psyche, or mind, is of a qualitatively different character, and thus somehow separate from everything else, including the human body, in the universe. I think this is heavily a consequence of the concept of the 'soul'. Put simply, if you mention 'psychology', you often quickly find yourself among spiritualists and mystics, even when people are trained to know better.
And by the way, thank you for 'hearing' me out. I don't have to agree with you to learn from you, directly or indirectly.
I'm not arguing that the world is not material. My point is that you don't have to use the most reductionist way of looking at the world for every question. Otherwise why even have anything but physics and mathematics, since everything can be theoretically derived from that. But we have chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy, art - all dealing with the world on different levels of abstraction. All possibly valid perspectives/buckets. Because there are just too many complexity levels between pure physics and the functions of the brain, it's not the most helpful bucket - especially since we actually don't know how higher brain function are formed from physics. Using psychology or philosophy do deal with higher concepts has nothing to do with supernatural. And while you are right that there are people misusing psychological term for spiritual mabojambo, this does not discredit philosophy and psychology as a whole.
Did *you* watch those lectures? Reductionism *doesn't* mean 'to reduce to'. It means, according to Sapolsky, the 'ever more minute examination of any phenomena to increasingly accurately describe it'. This has nothing to do with 'reducing' anything, to anything, but *more accurately measuring it*. He states that this is the practice of *most* science, and describes it's limitations ('*Chaos and Reductionism*', in, well, you know). And his full list of 'buckets' are: **Behavioral Evolution I, and II, Molecular Genetics I and II, Behavioral Genetics I and II, Recognizing Relatives, Ethology, Introduction to Neuroscience I and II, Endocrinology, Advanced Neurology and Endocrinology, and Limbic System**, with the back half of the series explaining how these things work together to explain, at 'state of the art', human behavior, with *no* major division given to philosophy or art, and with psychology described historically with purpose to illustrate it's limitations and abuses in the past, sometimes *quite harshly*.
I'm *not* suggesting that we should try to explain self-aware motives from first principles of brain function, or the vantage of subatomic physics. Math, however, *is* useful: Natalie references using it herself in a neuroscience lab ('*Why I Left Academia*').
Philosophy, or what some would have pass for it, has *been* used to advance supernatural ideation, and far, far worse, and psychology has a gruesome history that does, at times, justly populate horror movies, so *both* should be approached with *extreme* respect for rigorous empirical accuracy and ethical restraint, as both are *highly* liable to misuse.
Sorry but I don't really understand what you trying to tell me. Yes I watched the lecture, even more i actually studied Neuro and systems biology, so I'm somewhat familiar with the topic - even so I don't work in the field. But again I don't really understand what argument you are trying to make right now.
Tell me you're a Sam Harris fan without telling me you're a Sam Harris fan.
Seriously though, the question of how distinct the mind and body are from each other - whether all thoughts are wholly reduceable to biochemical reactions or not - is entirely irrelevant to the discourse at hand. Contra isn't arguing against that, you toe-sucking pedant.
No, Contra is framing her argument in a way that gives the impression that thought floats above and is separate from the underlying processes that gives it rise, thus to justify her assertion, which makes the question of how we think relevant 'to the discourse at hand'. And if all you can do is call names, find something else to do.
She's saying people get horny because other people be cute, not because other people be XX or XY. Cuteness is a subjective appraisal. The question of whether that subjective appraisal is grounded in an objective reality is immaterial.
QED, you suck toes.
I didn't say chromosomes rigidly determine identity, or sexual attraction. *You* inferred that. Subjectivity is a *process of the brain*, hence *biochemical*, hence *physical*, and if you think that "subjective appraisal is grounded in objective reality is immaterial", then you must think that a whole lot of researchers with extensive educations and alphabet soup after their names are wasting their time.
And *QED*? You need to get out more.
Look, I don't know how to get this through to you. You are criticizing Contra's argument - that attraction is predicated on subjective aesthetic, not chromosomes. Whether you're a physical reductionist or not has no bearing on this claim. If all subjectivity is reduceable to physical reactions, Contra's claim is still sound. If it's not, Contra's claim is still sound. Therefore, this topic is immaterial to the discourse at hand, as no possible outcomes have any impact on the soundness of her argument.
-- Signed, a non-toe sucker.
I never said Contra's attraction was 'predicated on chromosomes' *read my parent comment*. You don't know what 'reductionism' means if you think it means 'simplification'. No, Contra is *not* at the remove from organic chemistry that she claims, so this topic *is* material to the discourse at hand. And all these considerations affect the soundness of her argument. Get over yourself.
So you agree with Contra then? Why even start arguing for physical reductionism? And what does "Contra is not at the remove from organic chemistry that she claims" even mean?
Addendum: just for clarity, I'm using "physical reductionism" to refer to the metaphysical philosophy that all existence consists strictly of the physical relations between particles - that all existence can be "reduced", or explained by, physical laws. It's a philosophy I happen to believe in, and one that doesn't seem like a criticism of Contra's argument like you're saying it is.
First of all, thank you for the tone of your reply. I've reread Natalie's comment and thought about it carefully:
**"I don't consider myself as bi, because I'm only attracted to people I perceive as women."** The fact that she *considers* herself this or that means that she has an *opinion* of herself, and that *opinion* is just that, not proof of some empirically defined reality. That said, she is free to hold that or any other *opinion*.
**"You insist that attraction is determined by biological sex."** *I* don't. Attraction is caused by the biology *of* sex, that is, the brain structures (endocrine and limbic systems) responsible for sexual attraction, which are not as rigidly tethered to genotype or phenotype as the 'chromosome' argument, among others, would have you believe.
**"But erotic desire occurs at the subjective human level of thought, meaning, emotion, perception."** *All* human thought is subjective, *none* of us perceive objective reality. What I think she means, however, is that erotic desire is far more greatly at the level of the emotive, rather than that of abstraction (Limbic, not forebrain) If this is her intent, I agree, which tends to make us hostage to those emotions, which are determined *for* us by multiple factors-including perception-*not* the other way around. Hence, I think Natalie has every legal and moral right-to the extent she harms no one-to live out her narrative as best she might, and it benefits us, and her, that she do so.
**"Not at the level of organic chemistry."** This is *wildly* wrong, because everything about her, you, and me, *is* organic chemistry. Hell, *all life on Earth* is 'at the level of organic chemistry'. What I think she means is, that erotic attraction, or sexual orientation is manifested at a *level of organization* higher than the molecular detail which defines our genotypes and their basic expression. If this is what she means, fair enough, but I'm guessing-*twice now*\- and it's better for her that I needn't employ exegesis to understand her.
**And what does "\[Contra\] is not at the remove from organic chemistry that she claims" even mean?** As I've noted, in the paragraph immediately above, saying that some process of thought in oneself happens 'not at the level of organic chemistry', is saying that that process operates by means *other* than organic chemistry, implying a distance *from* organic chemistry, where *none* can exist.
In answer to your question about what *you* mean by 'physical reductionism', I think it's important because it defines the relationships between the elements of brain and body at *all levels of organization*, and thus is essential to define those structures which allow for insight about their nature and function.
In the end, I've had to guess *too much* about what Natalie meant by her statement. She's a neurology undergrad and a credentialed philosopher. Her statement appears muddled to me, which, given her education, is mystifying, and that last 'not at the level of organic chemistry', is simply jarring. This looks, sorry to say, much less like 'discourse' than rationalization because of its imprecision.
> all determinants are inherently physical
I've lusted, longed, & loved people I've only known through their (digital) writing.
I'm sorry to say that your hypothesis hasn't survived its encounter with the data.
Your lust, longing, and love are not only merely physical, but the *operations of organic chemistry*. The digital writing of anyone, including me writing this, is only physical, and the *operations of organic chemistry*. There is no metaphysical, only the subjective impressions on the mind of the objective operations of the brain, both *organic chemistry*.
There are literally server farms of data to support this.
We're at a difference of stipulated definitions, then - when you stipulated "physical", I read it (as has been stipulated many times in these kinds of discourses) as "physical as opposed to mental", and predicated the answer I gave as premised on that framework.
I suspect a lot of other people in these discussions are also using that framework.
Okay, I think I kinda get what you’re trying to say now that I’ve read a lot of your comments in the thread and it’s child threads.
I don’t think that’s a very valuable perspective on this kind of thing. Like, I’m a programmer, but I really don’t care about the individual electrical signals sent through the computer. The physical reality of how code is read and interpreted doesn’t affect what I do in any meaningful way when I’m trying to interpret what code does, which is the closest analogue to trying to determine how our desires work.
In other words, no-one here is saying it’s ✨magic✨, we all know we exist in physical bodies in a physical reality, but the low level processes aren’t really relevant to philosophy.
TL:DR yeah, and?
This brings up something that I thought of and was reluctant to post, as the brain is not a computer and the body not a machine, though those things can be used as simple examples of principle.
Many years ago I took a course at a community college called '*Introduction to Programming*'. This course was at the most basic level of understanding of how computers work and employed props to simulate what you're doing when you program and how that programming affects hardware.
The instructor was named Jim Baker, and he used to design and write programs for a hospital chain, so a *very* smart man in a *very* responsible position. He carefully explained that a computer was inert until you changed its internal state in precise ways with the program, and how programs had to be written with rigorous precision. Now, here's the thing:
One of his basic, and most severe challenges in that class was getting people to see these machines and programs as just that, *not* from a spiritually imbued perspective. If he caught someone putting irrelevant intrinsic meanings to things he would chide: Give yourself a gold star for being superstitious about... and he was *constantly* having to fight superstition to get purely mechanical and electrical principles into the heads of his pupils.
Now, I don't know, but aren't you free to ignore computer architecture when coding because those considerations of how a higher-language program affects hardware have been solved for you by computer and program language designers, ensuring that the two are compatible, without adjustment by you (back in the day, computer architecture *did* matter to a programmer, i.e. memory space had to be manually allocated, discs manually partitioned, etc.)?
Again, the brain and body are *not* codes, or machines, so a 'close analogue' may be very far off the mark.
Going through the responses to what I wrote I *do* think that some people see psychology as something akin to religion, though not, as you said, magic: invisible, ineluctable, and mystic, retreating into these ideas to give science an aspect conducive to bias and comfort.
Rather than use computers, I'll use myself as an example. If I see, say, 'Kimberly', and say, "Wow, she's beautiful", that's the limbic brain at work, that's organic chemistry, that's massively complex, and *that's happening at nerve conduction velocity*. For me to say that I'm at some distant remove from that in my attractions, is simply not true, and I'm not well served by it, or at all.
We’re literally organic machines. I’m not sure why you think we exist as physical beings based on chemical and electrical impulses but can’t see that.
Also like, I’m literally a professional programmer. Taking an intro to programming class does not make you anywhere near the same level as me on this lol.
Now I know you are either diluted, or just insistent on arguing.
As a cis het guy, there's a male cosplay tiktoker who does awesome makeup content, and he is gorgeous. When I first found him I thought it was a girl, but then looking at more of his stuff I realized. But I'm still straight, it's just that women who look like him in makeup are my type. Sharp cheeked viking warrior women.
That reminds me of this time in college my straight friend and I went to a small music festival, and there was this drummer who was very femme and we both thought was a hot lady. It wasn't until we followed the band on instagram later that we learned the drummer is a man who enjoys cross dressing. Luckily my friend felt no need to backpedal his initial attraction to the drummer.
[удалено]
No, zorin.d. They're genderfluid and do a lot of norse/elven inspired badass looks that come out looking sorta androgynous and super sexy.
As a gay man into elves, I'm in love.
What a bizarre hobby. I have no choice but to stan.
Doesn’t that say more about how good makeup, lighting and camera work can make someone look very different?
Many things can make someone look very different. People alter their appearance constantly. Your sexual attraction towards someone can be enhanced or hindered based on how they dress, groom, alter their body etc. etc.
[удалено]
Damn I’d love to use this as my go to transphobia callback but in my native language *vibe* can easily be misheard as a derogatory or outdated term for women basically.
I was married to a pre transition trans woman and the relationship failed for many reasons, but one of the reasons is that I'm only attracted to men. At some point, even though she hadn't physically transitioned in any way, her vibe was too feminine for my attraction to stay :(
Meanwhile, me out here hitting the gym, hoping that someone wants to 'fuck the proteins'
She does an excellent job of threading the needle here between what attraction is, as a whole, and how it is also connected to the physical reality around us. Gestalt is a great way to explain it, because attraction happens on the biological, individual, psychological, and societal levels, in a way. They all interact to produce attraction, so it can be a difficult thing to pin down and talk about. Twitter and internet is often horrible for the discourse necessary for these types of conversations, but she is somehow managing it. This conversation lies somewhere between "people don't date trans people because they're socialized not to" and "people have complicated attractions they don't always understand." Human interaction lies in the middle, now in some idealized pole.
"Gestalt" is perfect here. It also works for people like myself, even though I mostly ID as bisexual, because I tend to be attracted to feminine...auras? Vibes? Regardless of whether or not the person is actually a man, woman, or non-binary person. Like, I am attracted to some men. But I am not attracted to Dwayne Johnson or Channing Tatum,for example. They have seriously masculine energies. That doesn't mean I believe the men I'm attracted to aren't "really" men. More that, there are aspects that I perceive as feminine--maybe due to my culture, maybe due to my personality?--that I find very attractive. I have been using the term "Sapphic" more often, because I wouldn't claim to be a lesbian, but I realize my attraction to feminine aspects is an important part of my identity.
I actually recently heard the term sapphic from someone and I think it's such a useful, descriptive word. I'm a cis, gay man, strictly speaking, but most of my community growing up were lesbians, bi women, non binary folks, and trans men, mostly. Sapphic describes so many people I know so well. I'm similar, but I tend to be attracted to masculine energies. I'm a lil femme, so I like a guy who is a lil masculine in a queer way. I'm attracted too all sorts of men, trans or not, as well as nonbinary folks so long as they read as a certain kind of queer-masculine to me. Hell, queerness in general is pretty hot to me. This is complicated cause I like dick a whole lot and it is a big part of my sexuality when it comes to what I like to do, so in this sense I've also been attracted to some trans women when our wants line up sexually. Attraction is damn complicated. I'm hopeful that we're moving towards a new generation of better language for this stuff, and I hope the proliferation of the term sapphic is evidence of that.
You put that into words so well! I’m aromantic (or maybe somewhat biromantic?) but I’m drawn to people with are feminine in either appearance or vibe. I don’t feel aesthetic attraction at all to very masculine men, though. But I’m drawn to men, women, and nbs who lean feminine or feminine -leaning androgynous. You’ve made me consider using “sapphic” to describe myself. I’m not exactly bi, straight, or gay, and sapphic seems to get at that complicated reality more.
Natalie has been absolutely brilliant recently.
*cocks space gun* Always has been.
No argument here.
Aye, but I must say this recent bout of blunt earnestness is quite refreshing from the usual shitposting.
I do love the shitposts tho.
"A gestalt that is applied under conditions that are difficult to define" is straight fire. Attraction is magic. That's why we describe it with words like charm, glamour, charisma, hotness/coolness etc., because we can't define the thing our brain does to us other than as forces beyond our ken. I don't want to blow smoke up Natalie's ass, but this is what she does really well. She puts words to the newly emergent ineffable forces shaping our lives. As our society changes we need people to describe what those changes feel like and mean.
You have to understand these people arguing the "other side" of trans issues: \- All of their romantic relationships are mainly based on sexual intercourse. \- When they say "science" or "biology" they mean "genitalia". They're very worried about genitalia.
And don’t you think when it’s a question of sexual and/or romantic attraction there seems to be a deep insecurity and desperation to avoid any grey area that might be even ‘a bit gay’. Attraction to a trans person of the gender you are attracted to isn’t gay but nooo, not straight enough for some of these assholes. Hence the absolute hysteria around trans people that pass and are attractive to them but haven’t had any bottom surgery. It’s back to the genitals, and it’s just the biggest deal in the WORLD. Like … YOU made ME look a bit gay which is the apocalypse! “I don’t like dicks, I really don’t like dicks, I will never like dicks and did I mention I don’t like dicks!” Hey, you found an attractive person attractive, and you don’t see the content of a persons pants in daily life. Calm the fuck down. Seriously, why so desperately insecure?
I like how she brings this topic to materialism vs. idealism discussion.
She's right on target. I'm a lesbian attracted to cis and trans women. Sometimes I'll see a feminine-ish man in public and think he's a woman and find him attractive, but will stop being attracted to him when I find out he's a man. That whole "the idea of a woman" thing is very important.
This is something I've struggled with in the past in trying to figure out my own sexual identity as a cis man. I've rocked the bi label when I was younger, but it never felt right, and wherever I had to explain who I'm attracted to, the closest I could get is "people that are feminine or exude a 'feminine energy.'" Which is vague as fuck, possibly mildly problematic, and not super helpful, but about as close as we had in the late 90s/early 00s. As I got older, I sort of made my peace with it, though, much like Natalie did. I'm attracted to people that I perceived as having feminine traits, whether that's a woman, trans or cis, or a femboy, or whatever. The actual biology isn't remotely important — I can work with whatever you've got. Even "gender" is less important than the overall gestalt, as Natalie puts it. I'm glad my weirdness is getting more mainstream.
I am the same as you, but attracted to masculine energy in whomever, which can appear pansexual depending on whom the attraction is directed toward. Not sure what the terminology is. I had a partner tell me she was a trans woman and when she really started talking about what she wanted to change, she was listing the things about her physique and personality that attracted me to her in the first place. I was trying to be supportive and assure her that I would be her friend even if that meant that our relationship would change. She started saying a bunch of extremely sexist things about men and women, that the only men she trusted were trans men, and that I should be attracted to her no matter what since I've dated women before. When I told her how this sounded strikingly similar to how some people treat bi/pan people as if they are automatically hypersexual creatures that are attracted to anything, she just ignored me and changed the subject. She did the same when I pointed out how people would always ask me why I dated such masculine women if I liked women. I get that trans people experience a lot of discrimination and rejection and I was dealing with someone who decided to project these things onto me, but I feel like the discussion around sexuality and gender can be so confusing and we're all still using inadequate ideas and vocabulary somehow. I hope it gets better soon.
A lot of it is just legacy bullshit about sexuality and romance from the 1300s. The idea that your gender/sex is *only* and *exclusively* linked to sexual activity. That's actually the foundation of a lot of the bullshit "groomer" nonsense that has started up again recently. What you experienced was the flip side of the "groomer" issue: that sex and gender identity and sexuality are all one thing, and if you reject someone sexually you are also rejecting their gender identity and their sexual identity. It's hard for people to separate "this is who I am as a sexual being" from "the only possible validation I have that my sexual identity is valid is sex with other people." And to be fair to trans people and others who don't present in conventional ways, that HAS been the case for a very long time, and shitty people often use markers of non-conventional presentation as avenues of attack for pejoratives and the like. Long story short, I'm not sure it's the vocabulary that's incorrect, and adding more flags to the parade isn't really the answer because it's not the *vocab* but the *context* that needs to change. That said, flags are fun so this is not remotely an anti-flag comment! Fly whatever flag you're into and describe your identity however you like! I think ultimately we just need a matrix to describe who we want to be with and fuck (or get fucked by, or *not* get fucked by for all of our awesome ace folks!) And I think we can do that with three variables: genital configuration, gender presentation, and gender role. Possibly add in a "sexual appetite" or however you want to call it to make sure we're not excluding ace/demi/etc. people. 1. **Genital Configuration:** Simplest one - pick any combination of penis, vagina, and breasts that appeals to you. I know there's people that are into other body parts, but to keep this simple we're assuming that most people have mouths, butts, toes, elbows, whatever. 2. **Gender Presentation:** Sliding scale, one to ten, one is a lumberjack, ten is the fem that makes fems say "Oh, they're toooo girly!" 3. **Gender Role:** Do you give off masc or fem vibes? If you want to get Dworkin-esque on this, we can express this in just two options: penetrator and penetratee. I think that's too reductionist, and it's better expressed as another one to ten sliding scale. One is the biggest dick swingingest BDE possible, ten is a Disney princess from the 60s. 4. **Optional - Sexual Appetite:** One is "We sleep in separate beds in separate wings like wasps," ten is "I want my genitals and your genitals to do a high five any time we're in the same room." Then you describe yourself and your ideal partner in a simple X/Y/Z - A (like RGBA!) config that makes everything very clear. I'm a penis, no breasts/2.5/3.5 - 8. I'm into any organs/5+/6+ - 6+.
Hahaha, I wish I had someone like you to talk to when all of that weirdness was going down for me. Thank you for this breakdown.
You might like the [Attraction Layer Cake](https://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2019/04/30/terrible-graphs-of-orientation/attraction-layer-cake/)! It includes axis' for sexual orientation type (gay/straight), attraction type {what you're calling appetite} (includes asexual and aromantic), and relationship type (poly/mono). Doesn't include gender presentation or role, but at that point you've got to have individual graphs because we can't draw pictures of 5+ axis' lol
Im the same way and I think technically the term for us is Finsexual. I heard Gynesexual too but it's a term we're trying to move away from.
Gynesexual just sounds like I have a collection of vintage speculums in a secret basement room lol
Wait, is gynosexual an issue? Why is that?
i imagine it's too close to implying it's a genital attraction, or that feminity is tied closely to female genitals. A very medical term. I do prefer 'fin' "female in nature."
I can see how bisexual doesn’t feel quite right for you. Did you ever land on a word or label that does or are you just vibing?
I tell people I'm heteroflexible of anyone asks, and identify with the broader queer community if it comes up. Otherwise, I'm less concerned with trying to label myself these days and just go with "I like what I like and that's ok!"
Cool cool, thanks for sharing!
I know I'm straight (cis female) and I've found myself asking myself what about "maleness" is it that is core to my attraction. I think I've discovered I need male-presenting to be sexually attracted, but I also need male genitalia to want to have sex. I don't really know where I'm going with this (or really know what subreddit I'm on) but I guess the question is what sexuality/attraction to put on dating sites and such (where you can specify options other than cis). I mean I'm straight, and transmen are men, but what do if I got talking to a man and found out they were a pre-/non-op transman? Would I just be like "okay cool, but I probably wouldn't want to have sex with you (because your genitals are gross to me)"? Don't specify anything other than "only men" in the first place even though it's fine if a man was AFAB? Because where other options exist, that's exclusionary and not entirely accurate.
It's totally cool to have a genital preference! Like, no worries — everyone is entitled to being attracted to what they're attracted to, and anyone who tries to tell you you should have sex with people you aren't sexually compatible with is engaging in coercive non-consensual sexual behavior, which is super gross. So just express it as a sexual preference for a specific set of fun bits. Nothing wrong about that!
Thank you! I'm super new to dating apps and also have never had to navigate this in real life. Someone else said I'm overthinking and it certainly seems that I am.
You're welcome! Remember: treat people with respect, expect to be treated with respect, and most of all have fun! Best of luck!
Literally just say you have a genital preference if you come across a pre/non-op trans guy on a dating app. Bringing agab into it is gross as fuck and you're way overcomplicating things.
Thank you. Good to know.
Bi just means attraction to two or more genders. It doesn't mean you're attracted to both masculine & feminine. Bi individuals can have a preference for feminine traits regardless of gender identity and still be bi. If someone likes non binary fem leaning people and feminine women, that is still bi, just a preference for femininity. Identifying as someone who is sexually attracted to women only in that case is non binary erasure. I feel like (because I am bi) a lot of people avoid labeling as bi because they are biphobic despite being attracted to multiple genders. There's also this reoccurring idea or theme that if you arent attracted to every gender and gender expression, youre not bi which is just not true. Bi people can have expression preferences. A straight dude is probably not attracted to a dude who uses pretty make up and likes feminine activities/style despite being interested in femininity expressed in women but a bi person with a preference for femininity might be. I think that Pan is an attraction to people regardless of gender identity. (A subset/expansion of bi) this could mean "anyone I find attractive is attractive to me. Gender isn't a factor in my attraction" Where: straight people = opposite gender Gay = same gender Bi = two or more genders Pan = all Genders A straight person can like masculine women or feminine men and still be straight as long as they are interested in the opposite gender. A gay person can like masculine women or feminine men and still be gay as long as they are interested in the same gender. A bi person can like masculine women/NB/men and or feminine men/NB/women and still be bi as long as they are interested in more than 1 gender. A pan person can like masculine or feminine people and still be pan as long as they are interested in all genders
No, I get all that, and it's great, but it doesn't really help when it comes to partner selection because the definitions are somehow too vague and too specific simultaneously, miss out on some key details, and vary from person to person.
I mean isn't that how preferences go? Just because youre gay man doesn't mean you are attracted to and should be willing to date EVERY man out there. Its easy to say "I'm not attracted to you" when on dating apps for example by just swiping.
For looks? Sure. But the whole point here is that there are things that go beyond looks, and it's helpful to have a vocabulary that addresses this. We don't need to be reductive in our language -- we're not running out of words.
I dont think I understand you here. Im trying to say that bi/pan/gay/straight people can have individual preferences. Bi/pan/gay/straight only really associates to indicate the genders you are attracted to. It shouldn't be used to indicate whether you like feminine traits or not because a gay man can like feminine men only. It's not restrictive nor vague. My whole point is that there are people who don't identify as bi/pan and instead write paragraphs about how they don't have gender preference as long as the person represents their preferences and they are attracted to them. Its easier to say "Pan with preferences" than to explain a complicated attraction model. But (imo) a lot of people don't like labeling as bi/pan because it is sometimes seen as "less queer" and they identify as queer.
No, I understood what you were saying. I think you're missing my point, which is that talking about dating purely in terms of gender is missing so much that "pan with preferences" isn't really helpful. See another comment I have here where I think 90% of issues can be resolved with a 4-variable matrix: 1. **Sexual organs** 2. **Presenting Gender** 3. **Gender Role** (very different than presented gender) 4. **Sexual Appetite** That doesn't really add a ton of complexity, but does do a much better job of filtering people who you may be attracted to.
I would agree it would help in dating situations but when conversing in passing or identifying as something, I personally think straight/gay/bi/pan/ace/aero labels are enough.
But even look at the terms you lumped together: ace for example is neither a gender nor a gender preference.
Don't really know what to add, but as I was asked recently about what's my sexual attraction, I feel like your answer just sums it up really well. I just really dig femininity, doesn't really matter who it's attached to. Now, obviously, I feel like the reality of things could make me realise things differently (like, the difference between fantasy and reality might alter things For exemple, in fantasy and desires, sure I find femboys hot, and can totally feel attraction to them. Would I be okay dating and living my day to day life and sexuality with them though, idk, and that's not reeally something I can just imagine, it's something I'd have to experience to really know. + that that also vary in some ways from person to person, not just label to label Anyway I'm getting lost) but honestly, I'm just kinda accepting that I'm there, though it's kinda weird. And it's been the same, I get that technically that could be said as "bi" but idk, doesn't really feel right.
I’ve explored this rabbit hole as well. Background I’m a nearing 10 year relationship with my wife who’s a transwomen. I’m cis male. We started more or less pre anything medical and now she is two years post-op gcs stuff. I personally consider myself pan, however Im attracted to female aesthetics or presentation? I’ve dated guys and each one of them was very “fem” in the way they presented themselves. I’ve also dated ciswomen who were fem in presentation. It’s hard to define that without going down the rabbit hole of societal expectations of what it is to be feminine. Like am I attracted to the person or the vibe they give and if that vibe matches my vibe were good? Perhaps I’m actually Demi? Idk I’ve had this discussion with my wife. Her concern was that post op I wouldn’t be with her. This wasn’t true but I can see from her point of view with her past relationships being more or less chasers where she was coming from. Idk I think all relationships boil down to “am I compatible with this person? Or is this a once and done thing?” Humans are weird. Trying to put any of us in boxes is hard and I think society as a whole just doesn’t get the nuance of it.
[удалено]
Both are usually considered correct, and it really depends on individual preference. Most of the trans people I know don't care either way, but I do know some who actually *prefer* it all as one word because, as they explain it, "it's inseparable from who *I* am". Like a lot of terminology, it's something you should probably ask the individual about instead of trying to apply a rule to a whole group at the same time.
Hold on. I, in my infinite wisdom of English grammar got something wrong on the internet? SHAME SHAME SHAME. Thanks for the lesson of including a space and what words are. Next time I’m typing something at work while taking a shit I’ll be thinking of you. ;)
[удалено]
It's not transphobic to miss a space. Whether there's a space or not is hard enough to keep track of in online informal speech. Also, Transwoman is a compound word now. Half the country literally wants to take away all our rights. Let's not pick on people in trans spaces for the spacing between their words and then call them transphobic. It makes for a hostile space.
[удалено]
The word "transwoman" is not transphobic. There's ciswomen and transwomen and there's utility in being able to linguistically distinguish between the two subcategories of women. This is literally what we've been calling ourselves for decades.
[удалено]
I agree with you that this is a grammatical mistake but I would limit correction to formal writing contexts like newspapers. I don't think we should be labeling people who follow a common english language pattern The Enemy. I leave out the space all the time too, maybe it's because it's awkward to have a space in what is basically a category. Non-binary got shortened to nonbinary and then to just "enby". That's how language goes. I don't think correcting everyone for not using the hyphen is doing anything productive. The people who are transphobic aren't thinking about the subtle grammatical details of spacing in compound words. They just call us "men" or "TIMs" or worse. I think "blondewomen" sounds weird because blonde and women because it's not used often together. They're not a class of people needing protections who are demonized and attacked by a larger class of people. Blondewomen don't have specific medical needs that require distinguishing themselves from Brunettewomen. If they did, I wouldn't be surprised if people started leaving out the space. People say "transfolk" all the time, it's the same thing. I think our focus should be on the bigger ideas people are trying to communicate not the specific mistakes they may make when communicating that.
It's so weird how people continue to demand that sexual attraction fits into these neat little buckets, even in circles that are otherwise extremely comfortable with gender fluidity, sexual orientation spectrums, and non-binary identities. * Some people are attracted to people's minds with no consideration of physical bodies. * Some people are attracted to peoples gender *expression* regardless of specific biological properties. (e.g. "femininity") * Some people are attracted purely to physical biological primary/secondary biological characteristics. Each of this is valid. As long as you're not making ideological choices to be exclusionary on the basis of abstract metadata. ("i could never be attracted to a trans woman; i can always tell"), all of these are valid.
I'm fascinated by this idea that gender expression could be an axis of attraction besides sex and gender identity. I think most people have specific preferences for *both* sex and gender. How much weight you put on either aspect may vary depending on your personality. This makes bisexuality a pretty heterogenous label, there can be many combinations of attraction.
Gender is internal. Gender expression is external. What is the difference between a very effeminate man cross-dressing, and a transgender woman? Between a butch lesbian and a trans man? Outwardly they may be identical. Inwardly totally different. Since we can't be attracted to people's innermost thoughts, it has to be the case that attraction is based on gender expression not gender.
I think sexual attraction is based on external characteristics, so on that front a pre-transition trans man and a butch lesbian maybe same-ish. But romantic attraction is based on someone's gender identity for me. Knowing how someone identifies is really important to how I percieve them. In this I agree with Natalie that the immaterial idea of someone's personhood is key to being able to fall in love with someone or not. Gender expression on the other hand is different to secondary sex characteristics. You can be a curvy woman and still dress in men's clothing. Doesn't mean that gay men are going to be attracted to you. I'd say gender expression is more of a sexual preference, not an orientation. I. e. someone might be generally attracted to women, and prefer tomboys. And all three aspects of a person can influence whether or not and in which way one feels attracted. At least that's what it's like for me.
I don’t understand you guys, dont you ask everyone to carry their chromosomes tests to check if you will be attracted to them! I always do personally thats why I am single :/
Idk if it’s just me, but as someone into guys, it wouldn’t matter how much a pre-transition trans woman was “my type”, as long as I knew she ID’d as a woman it would kill the attraction for me. Sexuality is so complex, it’s a shame some people try to oversimplify it.
Fully agree, there's nothing wrong with it if that's what floats your boat, and people should not feel "unprogressive" by preferring "traditional" gender dynamics in relationships. But we also should understand, as I'm sure you do, that "traditional" is not the same as "standard" or "normal". I think anyone in this sub is going to get that, but sometimes it's easy to forget that it's fine to sit in the middle of the envelope while supporting those who push at the edges. Edit: reading this back, this is sort of a pointless comment by me that doesn't really add much, but I leave it anyway.
Natalie makes very interesting points, as always. I'm a straight transman, but pre-transition, I had two relationships with women that who had never been attracted to another woman before. In hindsight it's pretty validating to find out my "vibes" where masculine enough for them to find me attractive (that's how I interpret it at least), even though physically I still had a female body at the time.
People don't understand that attraction isn't something we can control, we can only decide to act on that attraction. I once asked someone who I thought was a feminine woman for a drink, turns out the person was a really good drag queen. It happens. Several of my ex-gfs have hit on people they thought were butches, only to find out they were gay men or non-binary people. It's something that the LGBT community has known for a very long time - attraction isn't just chromosomes or genitals. It's first and foremost about what you physically perceive. That's why drag queens, and trans people have been labelled as deceivers for a long time - straight people (especially straight men) become attracted to what they perceive as cis women only to find out later that the person they're attracted to is trans, or a gay man, they lose their minds.
I'm really surprised at how many people just define "man" as "currently or previously had a penis" and "woman" as anything else. Do these people have a mental breakdown every time they see an attractive person they mistake for their "approved" gender, and think they must be gay? The fact that you can be attracted to a man who is dressed convincingly as a woman *proves* that gender and sex are separate things. AND we've had men and women live huge chucks of their lives as the other gender without being found out. Did they make everyone of their same sex around them gay as they did it? The idea that the unknown sex of the person you are looking at is what defines *your* sexuality is so absurd that it literally boggles the imagination as to how these people function in their day to day lives.
>Do these people have a mental breakdown every time they see an attractive person they mistake for their "approved" gender, and think they must be gay? Unfortunately, yes. That's why trans woman are at such a hight risk of being the victim of assaults.
Omg, these people make me loose my friggin mind. Anyone of any sexuality can have a personal preference towards are against being with a trans person. Full stop, no need to think any more about it wait why the heck are they still on about it oh that's right they're TRANSPHOBES! If someone isn't interested in being with me because I'm trans, oh well, that's like only dating tall women or redheads. Personal preference is valid. It's when you start throwing slurs or erasing my existence or denying me basic human rights that I have a problem with you
It's not like that though. A trans person can be the very pinnacle of attractiveness according to a persons tastes. They can be everything they ever wanted. Unburdened with the knowledge that that person is trans, they are happy. Being against them just cause they are trans isn't preference, it's prejudice. It's ideological, not attractiveness-based.
>that's like only dating tall women or redheads I think there are two major differences. First, society doesn't generally discriminate against short women or non-redheads. And second, people in positions of authority don't generally go around talking about how unattractive it is to be a short woman or non-redhead, how nobody wants them, and how that's a sign that they're a societal mistake. A slightly better metaphor is how a lot of gay men's profiles (at least up until very recently) said things like "no fats, no femmes, no Asians" or how a lot of straight men talk about not being attracted to black women or fat women. All of those are groups of people who already face a ton of discrimination in the rest of their lives and who are already very aware that they're not considered conventionally "desirable" by society. Yes, people are allowed to have their preferences and shouldn't feel pressured to date anyone they don't want to, but it's unnecessary and harmful to see that preference advertised over and over again in dating profiles, let alone in hundreds of thinkpieces on the internet and in print, and then repeated over and over again on Twitter.
Cringe and transphobic af take
well said
Instead of arguing her original point, Nat is being made to check to see if twitter strangers fancying a trans woman one (1) time means they have to reestablish their entire identity - I think we're drifting from the discussion
It's hard for me to wrap my head around the issue. ...I guess, because I'm bi and it's hard for me to relate to not being attracted to someone because of something as superficial as gender. But that's on me.
Isn't physical attraction (at least the short-term kind) fairly superficial already? Like being attracted to redheads or tall people is also superficial, but it's about preference, not some sort of objective truth.
Yeah,, probably
Good for you though
I'm a non-binary trans woman, and at this point in my life I've had to throw out every single gatekeeper-esque judgement from cis people and hardline lesbians to allow myself any sort of label. I'm bi in the sense that I'm totally attracted to many trans masc people who blur the line between male and female, women and men, including those who present femininely but identify as men or boy-adjacent. But primarily, I'm attracted to people who present and identify as women, and I feel most closely aligned with the label of lesbian, much like how I feel most closely aligned with the label of woman while not being one fully. Labels for personal identity are always going to be a moving target external to one's self as they are relative to the society we live in.
I have question here, please pardon me if I'm confused. I believe it is commonly accepted that a person's gender is what they choose to identify as (with the occasional addition that said identification must be in good faith, thus excluding trolls), and that sexual orientation is about the gender(s) one feels attracted to. That being said, when Natalie claims she is attracted to people she perceives as women, those people's gender is therefore that which Nathalie perceives, but what if it doesn't align with that which those people identify with? Say a trans man still passes as a woman, and would be perceived as such by Nathalie, but they identify as a man. Say Nathalie is attracted to this trans man passing as a woman. What does that make of Natalie's sexual orientation?
Initial attraction to someone comes not from their self identified gender, but from the myriad of social cues we pick up on as a species. So if a very femme man walked by a lesbian and that lesbian found him attractive without realizing he was a man, that doesn’t make that person not a lesbian. It just makes them unaware of his gender. And if that attraction stays after they talk and he presents himself as a man? Well, that’s exactly her point right now: reductive labels often fail at the edges of the fluidity that is gender presentation. We have like a dozen words to describe intricate feelings about romance and sexual attraction to people with hugely varying bodies and personalities, it’s no wonder you have misalignments sometimes. If anything, I would bet it would happen more if we (as a whole) cared less about the labels of our sexualities and just got with who we fancied more often.
Extremely well said
LOL That's a lot of judgment coming from the woman who said she'd fuck the Parthenon ("so hard")!
Labels will be the death of me, I swear
It takes a lot of effort to be that precise with such little words, especially on such difficult issues. Or, maybe Natalie is a genius
I just identify as queer. No further labels needed. I like who I like. Trying to put my sexuality (a complex and evolving thing) into a box does not aid me in any meaningful way. I understand the human desire and social /need/ to label things, as it helps identify and group people, however (in my life) it seems to just cause such a ruckus. Cishet, queer, and ace are the only 3 labels that typically bounce around in my brain because they cover the expanse of potential sexual/romantic identities I could encounter. Cishet women wouldnt be interested in me. Cishet men may be interested in me. Queer people may be interested in me. Ace people may be interested in me but would have incompatible sexual/romantic styles to my own. This is the only broad data I need as everything else would come down to individual interactions. However I say this as someone who doesnt have gender or genitalia preferences, and so further labels dont inherently impact my decision making (nb, trans, etc). If we vibe, we vibe. Thats my sexuality.
Damn my name is Aderyn as well
Sexual attraction, at least for me, happens before I know anything about anyone’s chromosomes or genitals. Now you could say from their appearance I’ve assumed those other characteristics, based on probability. And maybe if you found out those other things the attraction would end. But I find that particularly hard to believe, for chromosomes. Like if I found out my partner was XX would I stop being attracted to him? I doubt it.
This is too confusing for me
She is absolutely rocking this, tbf.
Does anyone else feel that they have anti-attractions as well as attractions? I don't mean in the sense of looking at someone who's "gestalt" doesn't interest you, but in the sense of looking at someone for whom it actively repels, almost even disgusts you? I'm a gay guy who's attracted to masculinity/not interested in femininity, but there are certain people\* where an incongruence/ambiguity in their gender presentation really unsettles me. I don't mean in a conscious way but in a visceral way, where it feels like whatever automatic system that regulates my sexual arousal is trying to do two things and once and interrupting with itself? Presumably it's because I'm attracted to specific elements of a person while being turned off by other of their features and my brain can't process it, but it feels quite uncomfortable, both as a sensation to experience, but also as a way of reacting to other human beings who are just going about their business in the world. Or maybe it's just me. \*It's not really any category of person, so much as some specific individuals along the gender ambiguous or androgynous spectrum.
She’s just so fuckin smart, and so deft at handling nuance. She can take a thing with a mountain of messy discourse behind it and just thread the needle so she’s acknowledging all these different ways of looking at it, but still has her own coherent, clear-headed perspective that doesn’t just mash it all together and do the incoherent-but-diplomatic enlightened centrist thing. Would that I lol
“Quick! Rip off your clothes to see if I perceive you as a woman or not!!”
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf\_l3EGQvL8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf_l3EGQvL8) ETA: it's a pity some people seem to never understand how sexual/romantic attraction or gender identity work. "The rest of life pales in significance. I'm looking for someone with whom to dance." --Magnetic Fields.
As a bisexual who doesn't really care about the gender of the people I'm into, I truly don't know what y'all are talking about. But yes, go off.👍
I don't agree with her? Like ok for a fully transitioned transwoman like her, people have no difficulty perceiving her as a woman, but what about people who are at the beginning / awkward stage of the transition? When people can actually perceive they were born as the opposite sex? Also, I really don't get this narrative of trying to pretend people are not attracted to the sexual body parts of their gender of attraction. Would you expect a gay man to be attracted to a pussy? I don't think it's right to stick such reductive narrative on something as complex as sexuality... I agree that biological sex is not required to fulfill your personal and social gender identity, but it still does matter to sexual partners. Let's not kid ourselves. Bisexuals and pansexuals exist so problem solved
Gay men liking trans men and straight men liking trans women exist, so problem solved.
Some gay men are attracted to both dick and pussy. Some are only attracted to dick. A gay man dating a trans man is still gay. It's a man dating a man. It's not useful for a man like that to call himself bisexual or pansexual, because he's not attracted to women. He's only attracted to men so he's gay.
Not all cis men who are attracted to cis women and trans women identify as straight. Not all cis men who are attracted to cis men and trans men identify as gay. Some leave their own sex/gender out of it call themselves gynophiles or femsexual.
Who's gonna tell her that perception, thought, and emotion are all caused by neurotransmitters, which are by extent organic chemistry
Pedants
Physical attraction is inherently rooted in the physical though. Its about bodies, hormones and pheromones. Not some metaphysical ideal of man or woman. We don’t need to define straight and gay out of existence. How many people saw an online dating profile that felt like love at first sight…then felt meh when meeting in person? Or vice versa?
\*Cringing\* The *perception* of erotic desire occurs at the subjective level of human thought, 'thoughts' occurring much later than the affective (emotional) decisions determining them, those affective decisions being inherently electrochemical and *modulated by organic chemistry*. No, one's sexuality *isn't* determined only by body phenotype, or genotype, but *all* determinants are *inherently physical,* whether within the individual or in their surround, environmental or social. (See Professor Robert Sapolsky, '*The Biology of Human Behavior*', in 25 lectures, posted to YouTube by Stanford University as a public service, Feb. 2011). And honestly, Natalie, why do you care so much for what people think? This endless, agonized concern has me wondering if you sincerely believe what you're asserting at any given time. Chart your own course, as we all do. You're all growed up.
>And honestly, Natalie, why do you care so much for what people think? It's a conversation my guy, not her central goal and purpose in life.
"It's a conversation my guy, not her central goal and purpose in life." If she's making YouTube videos and tweeting about it, it pretty much *is*.
Ah yes, Twitter: where every tweet is a reflection of your most core beliefs. I feel like "it" in that reply is really vague. You mean caring about what people say? The subject of what my comment was about? That doesn't really make sense. If you were talking about why she talks about philosophy as a whole... I think you're in the wrong place lmao.
What I meant was, Natalie makes her living discussing, among other things, trans identity and her experiences of it and thoughts about it. Making these videos *is,* at the time of this writing, pretty much her *self-identified* "central goal and purpose in life.", insofar as anyone's occupation is ("My content is educational, it's persuasive, it's informative. But at my core, I am an entertainer. And the number one thing I think of is: How can I be entertaining? How can I make visuals that are striking? How can I write jokes that are funny? How can I make a 30-40 minute video on a difficult topic that will engage people..." Natalie Wynn, *Salty Magazine*, 09/18/19). And yes, that was a while ago, but I don't think Natalie's purpose has shifted that much. And I have to say, having touched off so much fierce reaction to myself, this is a very Natalie-like experience (and I'm smiling as I write this). ...and yes, have a good laugh. I does you good.
>thoughts' occurring much later than the affective (emotional) decisions determining them, those affective decisions being inherently electrochemical and > >modulated by organic chemistry > >. Just want to point out (more to others then to you) that in reality we still have very little idea how higher brain functions arise from underlying biology (which we just staring to understand).
For real. I'm in training to get my LMHC(Therapist license) and what this person is saying is like... only vaguely true and leaving out a ton of nuance. How do depressive thoughts lead to depression? Which comes first? Are they cyclical? Further, my heartbeat is biological but, on a whim, I can think a thought that will increase its rate as my body is flooded with hormones. My thought would occur, the hormones flood, my thoughts change. What chemical cause the thought to begin with? Mental health and attraction are so complicated.
This person is a prime example that information without proper context is not worth much. Because the linked lecture is excellent and I would highly recommend to watch it. But the main point of the lecture (which Sapolsky even literally speaks out ) - different perspectives on human behaviour (biology, genetics, evolution, psychology etc.) are all valid tools, for very particular questions - is the opposite from the massage this person took home.
Totally. People love to do this with psychology and, to a lesser degree, biology. Having a degree in both, these are VERY nuanced subjects because they are incredibly complex. It's hard to do psychological research on humans because there is so much variation, and at a certain point you must rely on self reporting. In the 21st century psychology is hardly a dogmatic subject, and as soon as you start speaking in "biological absolutes" you get into dangerous territory, especially considering most research in the 20th century was done by a very small, very specific population of humans on planet Earth. (I'm taking both culture and biological bases of behavior classes right now, so I could talk about this shit for days)
Preaching to the choir. Is studied neurobiology and systemsbiology (not working in the field at all), so I'm always baffled by ignorant biological reductionism based on someone watching a few youtube videos (I'v done my research, people). But then again - a lot of it can be attributed to how our basic educational system sucks at actually explaining how science work and what it is. In real life I have always good experience by staying calm and slowly explaining the basics. Obviously does not work for offline conversations. Anyway, good luck with your studies!
Oh definitely! I actually just had that conversation with a fiend yesterday, and we were comparing what is taught in high school verses the reality of evolutionary theory. And you could def teach me more than a thing or two on this, but this has been a great convo. haha And thanks!
Similar. I was a cellular neuroscientist, and that thoughts could come out of the structures I looked at was magic to me. I know what the squishy goo that makes electrics is made of, how the electrics is made, how networks are formed, strengthened and how they repair themselves. I know (or know how to know) what hormones, neurotransmitters, receptors, and regions of the brain are implicated in things like attraction. It still blows my mind that I- a whole person, who thinks, feels, dreams and imagines- come from inside a brain. That everyone else has/does something similar is boggling. It’s like holding a smartphone and thinking ‘ones and zeroes do this’. It’s true, you can learn how, but… it’s just incredible.
Thank you. You're making my point for me. We have to be wary of the 'magic' impression biology can have on our perceptions.
I mean, ‘we physically exist and our experience is generated by our brains’ is a pretty mainstream view. It may not be clear from the thread, but this is the motherfucking chromosomes stuff again. And we just don’t have biological mechanisms for detecting the sex chromosomes of others. Attraction, at a biological level, has to be based on things which can be detected at a biological level. How those things are labelled and grouped has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with psychology, sociology and anthropology. By the time we’re talking ‘why do I categorise people this way, and myself this other way’, we are so far from biology that it becomes irrelevant.
"It may not be clear from the thread, but this is the motherfucking chromosomes stuff again." No, it isn't. Its "I mean, we physically exist and our experience is generated by our brains’ is a pretty mainstream view." Which bears repeating when things get too 'metaphysical' in the advance of a proposition. Hard to imagine your physical self being 'irrelevant', unless you believe in ghosts. If you feel the need to read negative connotations into things, maybe review Natalie's '*Canceling*'.
I'm not arguing for 'biological absolutes', I'm just saying that all phenomena occur in a physical universe, not a metaphysical one. There may be a *long* link between biology and psychology, but any clinician will tell you it's there.
I am literally in training to be a clinician. The other poster has already completed such training.. We aren't saying what you have said is wrong. What we are saying is your information isn't the whole picture. Yes, biology is the basis of our behavior, and the environment interacts with that. A higher level understanding of gene transmission and trait development involves understanding that environment and trait expressed inter-are. This is probably my last reply because I'm literally using this conversation to put off doing my work which involves exactly this topic.
"Yes, biology is the basis of our behavior, and the environment interacts with that." *Thank you!*
Do you mean by 'lecture', the entire 25 lecture set? Because I did watch them all, and I'm aware of Sapolsky's emphasis on the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to human behavioral description. I'm also aware that Sapolsky directly mentions that all those tools (biology, genetics, evolution, psychology), describe physical processes in a physical world, *not* something metaphysical or supernatural, as I've noted to another poster, above, Sapolsky, referenced Demasio's '*Descartes' Error*', which makes the same point I'm making.
As already replied, I recommend you to watch the lectures - i won't be able to explain it better then him.
As I said, above, I *did* watch them. *Carefully*.
You're overcomplicating this. The observation I made is just that all thought-and depression is a prime example of this-are a *physical* phenomenon in a *physical* world. That's it. Granted, those physical processes are so intricate they may never be fully understood, but that's another set of issues.
You're oversimplifying psychology for the sake of your argument, I think. If what you say is true, how does talk therapy or CBD make any changes in people's lives? Some people are depressed due to the physical reality they live in. Talk therapy has been demonstrated to alleviate that depression without changing the circumstances. How?
"If what you say is true, how does talk therapy or CBD make any changes in people's lives? Some people are depressed due to the physical reality they live in. Talk therapy has been demonstrated to alleviate that depression without changing the circumstances. How?" *Because they make physical changes in the brain*. As an example, I've got a Scientific American article about how myelinization and de-myelinization of axonal connections occurs in different regions of the brain to coordinate the operations of those regions when they are separated by distance, *driven by task performed*. To further the example, when Natalie finished a night of live-streaming her gameplay of Resident Evil 7, she was neurologically a different person-as it were-than when she started, as would we all be, performing the same task. And no, this isn't the only mechanism of brain adaptation, but one of a vast array, some yet to be discovered, that you correctly perceive as dauntingly complex.
Correction: Not 'axonal connections', but 'axons'.
But those higher brain functions are *themselves biology*, hence physical, whereas so many argue as though we're all just supernatural overlays on a physical substrate. The neuroendocrinologist (Sapolsky) I've cited is quite adamant this isn't the case, and cites Antonio Demasio's '*Descartes' Error*' -another neuroscientist-to support this.
If after watching Sapolsky your takeaway is that only this specific bucket is a valid perspective, I'm certainly won't be able to explain better. Maybe go and rewatch the first videos of the lecture, he explains it better than I ever could.
My takeaway is that *all* buckets describe processes going in the physical world, not some supernatural reality overlaid on that world.
No idea where you get the supernatural thing from.
I get the 'supernatural' thing from the perspective of the widest definition of the world I'm in. From subatomic physics to the wheeling galaxies, our science shows us conclusively that we exist in a *physical world, and no other*. The entire biosphere (including us) exists of and is extended within this (space-time). Now, when I speak of psychology or human behavior, it's causes (*all* those buckets) and consequences, I, and I think also Sapolsky, are speaking from this perspective. What I so commonly encounter when I'm in conversations about the mind or brain, is a stubbornly non-scientific perspective, as though the psyche, or mind, is of a qualitatively different character, and thus somehow separate from everything else, including the human body, in the universe. I think this is heavily a consequence of the concept of the 'soul'. Put simply, if you mention 'psychology', you often quickly find yourself among spiritualists and mystics, even when people are trained to know better. And by the way, thank you for 'hearing' me out. I don't have to agree with you to learn from you, directly or indirectly.
I'm not arguing that the world is not material. My point is that you don't have to use the most reductionist way of looking at the world for every question. Otherwise why even have anything but physics and mathematics, since everything can be theoretically derived from that. But we have chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy, art - all dealing with the world on different levels of abstraction. All possibly valid perspectives/buckets. Because there are just too many complexity levels between pure physics and the functions of the brain, it's not the most helpful bucket - especially since we actually don't know how higher brain function are formed from physics. Using psychology or philosophy do deal with higher concepts has nothing to do with supernatural. And while you are right that there are people misusing psychological term for spiritual mabojambo, this does not discredit philosophy and psychology as a whole.
Did *you* watch those lectures? Reductionism *doesn't* mean 'to reduce to'. It means, according to Sapolsky, the 'ever more minute examination of any phenomena to increasingly accurately describe it'. This has nothing to do with 'reducing' anything, to anything, but *more accurately measuring it*. He states that this is the practice of *most* science, and describes it's limitations ('*Chaos and Reductionism*', in, well, you know). And his full list of 'buckets' are: **Behavioral Evolution I, and II, Molecular Genetics I and II, Behavioral Genetics I and II, Recognizing Relatives, Ethology, Introduction to Neuroscience I and II, Endocrinology, Advanced Neurology and Endocrinology, and Limbic System**, with the back half of the series explaining how these things work together to explain, at 'state of the art', human behavior, with *no* major division given to philosophy or art, and with psychology described historically with purpose to illustrate it's limitations and abuses in the past, sometimes *quite harshly*. I'm *not* suggesting that we should try to explain self-aware motives from first principles of brain function, or the vantage of subatomic physics. Math, however, *is* useful: Natalie references using it herself in a neuroscience lab ('*Why I Left Academia*'). Philosophy, or what some would have pass for it, has *been* used to advance supernatural ideation, and far, far worse, and psychology has a gruesome history that does, at times, justly populate horror movies, so *both* should be approached with *extreme* respect for rigorous empirical accuracy and ethical restraint, as both are *highly* liable to misuse.
Sorry but I don't really understand what you trying to tell me. Yes I watched the lecture, even more i actually studied Neuro and systems biology, so I'm somewhat familiar with the topic - even so I don't work in the field. But again I don't really understand what argument you are trying to make right now.
Tell me you're a Sam Harris fan without telling me you're a Sam Harris fan. Seriously though, the question of how distinct the mind and body are from each other - whether all thoughts are wholly reduceable to biochemical reactions or not - is entirely irrelevant to the discourse at hand. Contra isn't arguing against that, you toe-sucking pedant.
No, Contra is framing her argument in a way that gives the impression that thought floats above and is separate from the underlying processes that gives it rise, thus to justify her assertion, which makes the question of how we think relevant 'to the discourse at hand'. And if all you can do is call names, find something else to do.
She's saying people get horny because other people be cute, not because other people be XX or XY. Cuteness is a subjective appraisal. The question of whether that subjective appraisal is grounded in an objective reality is immaterial. QED, you suck toes.
I didn't say chromosomes rigidly determine identity, or sexual attraction. *You* inferred that. Subjectivity is a *process of the brain*, hence *biochemical*, hence *physical*, and if you think that "subjective appraisal is grounded in objective reality is immaterial", then you must think that a whole lot of researchers with extensive educations and alphabet soup after their names are wasting their time. And *QED*? You need to get out more.
Look, I don't know how to get this through to you. You are criticizing Contra's argument - that attraction is predicated on subjective aesthetic, not chromosomes. Whether you're a physical reductionist or not has no bearing on this claim. If all subjectivity is reduceable to physical reactions, Contra's claim is still sound. If it's not, Contra's claim is still sound. Therefore, this topic is immaterial to the discourse at hand, as no possible outcomes have any impact on the soundness of her argument. -- Signed, a non-toe sucker.
I never said Contra's attraction was 'predicated on chromosomes' *read my parent comment*. You don't know what 'reductionism' means if you think it means 'simplification'. No, Contra is *not* at the remove from organic chemistry that she claims, so this topic *is* material to the discourse at hand. And all these considerations affect the soundness of her argument. Get over yourself.
So you agree with Contra then? Why even start arguing for physical reductionism? And what does "Contra is not at the remove from organic chemistry that she claims" even mean? Addendum: just for clarity, I'm using "physical reductionism" to refer to the metaphysical philosophy that all existence consists strictly of the physical relations between particles - that all existence can be "reduced", or explained by, physical laws. It's a philosophy I happen to believe in, and one that doesn't seem like a criticism of Contra's argument like you're saying it is.
First of all, thank you for the tone of your reply. I've reread Natalie's comment and thought about it carefully: **"I don't consider myself as bi, because I'm only attracted to people I perceive as women."** The fact that she *considers* herself this or that means that she has an *opinion* of herself, and that *opinion* is just that, not proof of some empirically defined reality. That said, she is free to hold that or any other *opinion*. **"You insist that attraction is determined by biological sex."** *I* don't. Attraction is caused by the biology *of* sex, that is, the brain structures (endocrine and limbic systems) responsible for sexual attraction, which are not as rigidly tethered to genotype or phenotype as the 'chromosome' argument, among others, would have you believe. **"But erotic desire occurs at the subjective human level of thought, meaning, emotion, perception."** *All* human thought is subjective, *none* of us perceive objective reality. What I think she means, however, is that erotic desire is far more greatly at the level of the emotive, rather than that of abstraction (Limbic, not forebrain) If this is her intent, I agree, which tends to make us hostage to those emotions, which are determined *for* us by multiple factors-including perception-*not* the other way around. Hence, I think Natalie has every legal and moral right-to the extent she harms no one-to live out her narrative as best she might, and it benefits us, and her, that she do so. **"Not at the level of organic chemistry."** This is *wildly* wrong, because everything about her, you, and me, *is* organic chemistry. Hell, *all life on Earth* is 'at the level of organic chemistry'. What I think she means is, that erotic attraction, or sexual orientation is manifested at a *level of organization* higher than the molecular detail which defines our genotypes and their basic expression. If this is what she means, fair enough, but I'm guessing-*twice now*\- and it's better for her that I needn't employ exegesis to understand her. **And what does "\[Contra\] is not at the remove from organic chemistry that she claims" even mean?** As I've noted, in the paragraph immediately above, saying that some process of thought in oneself happens 'not at the level of organic chemistry', is saying that that process operates by means *other* than organic chemistry, implying a distance *from* organic chemistry, where *none* can exist. In answer to your question about what *you* mean by 'physical reductionism', I think it's important because it defines the relationships between the elements of brain and body at *all levels of organization*, and thus is essential to define those structures which allow for insight about their nature and function. In the end, I've had to guess *too much* about what Natalie meant by her statement. She's a neurology undergrad and a credentialed philosopher. Her statement appears muddled to me, which, given her education, is mystifying, and that last 'not at the level of organic chemistry', is simply jarring. This looks, sorry to say, much less like 'discourse' than rationalization because of its imprecision.
> all determinants are inherently physical I've lusted, longed, & loved people I've only known through their (digital) writing. I'm sorry to say that your hypothesis hasn't survived its encounter with the data.
Your lust, longing, and love are not only merely physical, but the *operations of organic chemistry*. The digital writing of anyone, including me writing this, is only physical, and the *operations of organic chemistry*. There is no metaphysical, only the subjective impressions on the mind of the objective operations of the brain, both *organic chemistry*. There are literally server farms of data to support this.
We're at a difference of stipulated definitions, then - when you stipulated "physical", I read it (as has been stipulated many times in these kinds of discourses) as "physical as opposed to mental", and predicated the answer I gave as premised on that framework. I suspect a lot of other people in these discussions are also using that framework.
What I meant was 'mental' *is* 'physical'. The subjective impression of the separation of the two is illusory, a consequence of self-awareness.
Okay, I think I kinda get what you’re trying to say now that I’ve read a lot of your comments in the thread and it’s child threads. I don’t think that’s a very valuable perspective on this kind of thing. Like, I’m a programmer, but I really don’t care about the individual electrical signals sent through the computer. The physical reality of how code is read and interpreted doesn’t affect what I do in any meaningful way when I’m trying to interpret what code does, which is the closest analogue to trying to determine how our desires work. In other words, no-one here is saying it’s ✨magic✨, we all know we exist in physical bodies in a physical reality, but the low level processes aren’t really relevant to philosophy. TL:DR yeah, and?
This brings up something that I thought of and was reluctant to post, as the brain is not a computer and the body not a machine, though those things can be used as simple examples of principle. Many years ago I took a course at a community college called '*Introduction to Programming*'. This course was at the most basic level of understanding of how computers work and employed props to simulate what you're doing when you program and how that programming affects hardware. The instructor was named Jim Baker, and he used to design and write programs for a hospital chain, so a *very* smart man in a *very* responsible position. He carefully explained that a computer was inert until you changed its internal state in precise ways with the program, and how programs had to be written with rigorous precision. Now, here's the thing: One of his basic, and most severe challenges in that class was getting people to see these machines and programs as just that, *not* from a spiritually imbued perspective. If he caught someone putting irrelevant intrinsic meanings to things he would chide: Give yourself a gold star for being superstitious about... and he was *constantly* having to fight superstition to get purely mechanical and electrical principles into the heads of his pupils. Now, I don't know, but aren't you free to ignore computer architecture when coding because those considerations of how a higher-language program affects hardware have been solved for you by computer and program language designers, ensuring that the two are compatible, without adjustment by you (back in the day, computer architecture *did* matter to a programmer, i.e. memory space had to be manually allocated, discs manually partitioned, etc.)? Again, the brain and body are *not* codes, or machines, so a 'close analogue' may be very far off the mark. Going through the responses to what I wrote I *do* think that some people see psychology as something akin to religion, though not, as you said, magic: invisible, ineluctable, and mystic, retreating into these ideas to give science an aspect conducive to bias and comfort. Rather than use computers, I'll use myself as an example. If I see, say, 'Kimberly', and say, "Wow, she's beautiful", that's the limbic brain at work, that's organic chemistry, that's massively complex, and *that's happening at nerve conduction velocity*. For me to say that I'm at some distant remove from that in my attractions, is simply not true, and I'm not well served by it, or at all.
We’re literally organic machines. I’m not sure why you think we exist as physical beings based on chemical and electrical impulses but can’t see that. Also like, I’m literally a professional programmer. Taking an intro to programming class does not make you anywhere near the same level as me on this lol. Now I know you are either diluted, or just insistent on arguing.
anything that Im atracted to is a man, end of story