If a man named Donald identified as Donna and could pass well as a woman, he could "be" Donna. Donna would exist. Until the day, or night, came when a straight man who honestly thought Donna was a woman was going to have sex with her. When Donna's plumbing was revealed there would be a moment of truth.
If a man named Donald identified as Donna and could pass well as a woman, he could "be" Donna. Donna would exist. Until the day, or night, came when a straight man who honestly thought Donna was a woman was going to have sex with her. When Donna's plumbing was revealed there would be a moment of truth.
Perhaps if he was a, "I'll try anything once" kind of guy who decided to walk on the wild side, it would be gay sex and he would know it. He would know that Donna was not a woman. Or, more likely there would be some variation of, "Dude! WTF? A dick!" and the sex would not happen.
In both cases, Donna would indeed be destroyed. Even if Donna were to carry on and find a gay man in denial who wanted to cushion it with a man who passed as a woman, except in bed, the woman Donna would be destroyed when it came to sex or a situation where plumbing is in view. The human, Donald, has not been destroyed, but Donna has been. "Donna" knows and the nan having sex with "her" knows the truth.
This was just a stream of thought on the idea of reality being an actual destructive force. I didn't give it thought before I wrote it. Others might not agree. I might not agree when I read it tomorrow. But when they say they are destroyed by, "no, you're not" is there an element of truth in it?
"But when they say they are destroyed by, "no, you're not" is there an element of truth in it?"
Only the fiction is destroyed. Donald, Donna, that doesn't matter. If a man wants to be called Donald or Mark or Donna, what's the difference? Names are a perfect example of self ID in action. There is no biological or objective reality to a name. We just take people's word for it.
But there is a biological and objective reality to being a man or a woman. If a man wants to be called a woman, there's a big difference. And in almost all cases, we take the evidence of our eyes and ears over the claims of another person. If I tell any sane person I'm a woman, they won't believe me. Especially if they can perform a very basic check of my anatomy. And even if they do, there are objective measures of the fact that I'm lying.
So if I say, "I'm a woman," and somebody says "no, you're not," all they're doing is "destroying" my lie.
Interestingly enough, if I said, "I'm a trans woman," and somebody says, "no you're not," here, they're the ones on shaky ground. Because being a trans woman, especially today, also has no biological or objective reality. You can self ID into being a trans woman. Not into being a woman. This is just one of many reasons why I don't understand why we can't all agree that trans women are trans women.
That goes to the heart of you can't truly understand what you are not.
Homosexuals appear across a spectrum of hyper masculine to hyper feminine in appearance and mannerisms without denial of their gender. While not "truly" understanding, on an intellectual level we can understand that they have a same sex attraction. No harder to understand than we may have opposite sex attraction or preference for other characteristics. I'm not sure how wide the chasm between truly and intellectually understanding is in this case.
My initial thoughts about transgenderism were that they are homosexuals in denial. They want to be "out", but not as homosexuals for various reasons of their own that I will not try to enumerate. That is also an intellectual understanding that could be wrong.
The trans[gender of choice] who want people to accept them without the prefix and really "believe" that they are what they "feel" are unfathomable to me even on an intellectual level. I can't truly understand what I am not. Do they really believe that? Do they really believe, rather than just desire, that people believe that? That does not negate my attachment to truth, but it does point to the idea that "no, you are not" could destroy more than a lie in the mind of people like that. But politeness does not make acceptance of falsehood as truth to be a world I want to live in, and I am not suggesting such a world.
For Donna to go all the way to undressing without disclosing that he is actually a man would be unforgivably dishonest. While the straight man would not be justified to react violently, there are many who would.
It so happens I had a secondhand experience of exactly this in 1975. I knew a transvestite who was a flawless and beautiful female impersonator, superbly attractive as a woman, whom I brought to a straight club. It’s difficult not to refer to him as her, as I a never do now, but the impression of femininity was intense.
His drag name was Olivia and was not, so far as I knew, transsexual.
A man at the club wanted to bring—her—home. I watched from nearby and could see the exact moment when the truth was revealed. His astonishment, his rejection. Not disgust, not anger. Olivia wanted to go home with him and he wasn’t of the “what the hell” persuasion.
We left shortly and Olivia was deeply depressed by the experience, and drank heavily. But he had been honest. He could have, and would have, given the man a blowjob without undressing and he’d have been none the wiser. But he chose the truth.
I moved across the country a few months later, and never heard of any of my friends in Virginia ever again. I don't know if Olivia survived AIDS or COVID, and, I realize now, I never knew his real name. So I have no way to find out.
If a man named Donald identified as Donna and could pass well as a woman, he could "be" Donna. Donna would exist. Until the day, or night, came when a straight man who honestly thought Donna was a woman was going to have sex with her. When Donna's plumbing was revealed there would be a moment of truth.
Perhaps if he was a, "I'll try anything once" kind of guy who decided to walk on the wild side, it would be gay sex and he would know it. He would know that Donna was not a woman. Or, more likely there would be some variation of, "Dude! WTF? A dick!" and the sex would not happen.
In both cases, Donna would indeed be destroyed. Even if Donna were to carry on and find a gay man in denial who wanted to cushion it with a man who passed as a woman, except in bed, the woman Donna would be destroyed when it came to sex or a situation where plumbing is in view. The human, Donald, has not been destroyed, but Donna has been. "Donna" knows and the nan having sex with "her" knows the truth.
This was just a stream of thought on the idea of reality being an actual destructive force. I didn't give it thought before I wrote it. Others might not agree. I might not agree when I read it tomorrow. But when they say they are destroyed by, "no, you're not" is there an element of truth in it?
"But when they say they are destroyed by, "no, you're not" is there an element of truth in it?"
Only the fiction is destroyed. Donald, Donna, that doesn't matter. If a man wants to be called Donald or Mark or Donna, what's the difference? Names are a perfect example of self ID in action. There is no biological or objective reality to a name. We just take people's word for it.
But there is a biological and objective reality to being a man or a woman. If a man wants to be called a woman, there's a big difference. And in almost all cases, we take the evidence of our eyes and ears over the claims of another person. If I tell any sane person I'm a woman, they won't believe me. Especially if they can perform a very basic check of my anatomy. And even if they do, there are objective measures of the fact that I'm lying.
So if I say, "I'm a woman," and somebody says "no, you're not," all they're doing is "destroying" my lie.
Interestingly enough, if I said, "I'm a trans woman," and somebody says, "no you're not," here, they're the ones on shaky ground. Because being a trans woman, especially today, also has no biological or objective reality. You can self ID into being a trans woman. Not into being a woman. This is just one of many reasons why I don't understand why we can't all agree that trans women are trans women.
That goes to the heart of you can't truly understand what you are not.
Homosexuals appear across a spectrum of hyper masculine to hyper feminine in appearance and mannerisms without denial of their gender. While not "truly" understanding, on an intellectual level we can understand that they have a same sex attraction. No harder to understand than we may have opposite sex attraction or preference for other characteristics. I'm not sure how wide the chasm between truly and intellectually understanding is in this case.
My initial thoughts about transgenderism were that they are homosexuals in denial. They want to be "out", but not as homosexuals for various reasons of their own that I will not try to enumerate. That is also an intellectual understanding that could be wrong.
The trans[gender of choice] who want people to accept them without the prefix and really "believe" that they are what they "feel" are unfathomable to me even on an intellectual level. I can't truly understand what I am not. Do they really believe that? Do they really believe, rather than just desire, that people believe that? That does not negate my attachment to truth, but it does point to the idea that "no, you are not" could destroy more than a lie in the mind of people like that. But politeness does not make acceptance of falsehood as truth to be a world I want to live in, and I am not suggesting such a world.
For Donna to go all the way to undressing without disclosing that he is actually a man would be unforgivably dishonest. While the straight man would not be justified to react violently, there are many who would.
It so happens I had a secondhand experience of exactly this in 1975. I knew a transvestite who was a flawless and beautiful female impersonator, superbly attractive as a woman, whom I brought to a straight club. It’s difficult not to refer to him as her, as I a never do now, but the impression of femininity was intense.
His drag name was Olivia and was not, so far as I knew, transsexual.
A man at the club wanted to bring—her—home. I watched from nearby and could see the exact moment when the truth was revealed. His astonishment, his rejection. Not disgust, not anger. Olivia wanted to go home with him and he wasn’t of the “what the hell” persuasion.
We left shortly and Olivia was deeply depressed by the experience, and drank heavily. But he had been honest. He could have, and would have, given the man a blowjob without undressing and he’d have been none the wiser. But he chose the truth.
Chris. I was touched by your story about Olivia. I hope he will always value you as the true friend you showed yourself to be that night.
I moved across the country a few months later, and never heard of any of my friends in Virginia ever again. I don't know if Olivia survived AIDS or COVID, and, I realize now, I never knew his real name. So I have no way to find out.
And 35 years later I left the whole country.
I'm so sorry to hear that, Chris. Please accept my reassurance that Olivia knew you cared for him and valued him as a friend.