A question about lesbian gender bending

[SckizoBoy]

I was wondering about this; Character A is turned into a girl by a magic mcguffin andhe (now she) and really likes character B. Character B is a natural female and learns that A is normaly a guy and really likes he(r) back. Now my quesion to you, is character A, B, or both homosexuals? Keep in mind A still acts and thinks like a guy.

...?!?!

You been watching Kasimasi or something?!

...

And good grief, it's taken more than a day and a half for someone to point that out?!

 

[slipknot4]

The are people, people have sex. Why give everything a label?

 

[badgersprite]

Any discussion about this is ultimately moot because the only thing that matters at the end is how they choose to identify.

If they personally choose to call themselves straight, gay, bi, pan, or trans or whatever and they're happy to do that, then it's not really anybody else's business. People should be free to identify however they want. I have no basis on which to judge whether they're "right" or "wrong", if there even is such a thing when our perceptions and definitions of sexuality are highly subjective and not at all universal. It's not my business to impose an identity onto someone else which they may reject or which may not align with their perception of themselves. I don't have any right to make the way in which someone identifies conform with my limited external perception and classification of them.

For example, if someone has multiple passports from numerous different countries has ancestors from a wide range of different nationalities, do you have any say in which country or countries they're allowed to identify with? Is it any business of yours to determine what nationality they are allowed to claim, or what nation (if any) they must consider to be their home?

Sexuality isn't necessarily a black and white affair. It can be very complicated and it varies wildly between different people, especially once you take into account that romantic attraction and physical attraction don't coincide 100% of the time either. Categorising people just reduces our capacity to recognise others as human beings, as fully formed and three dimensional as anyone else.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Same thing as transsexuals in real life; you're technically gay and straight.

Also, you should probably be concerned that this is something you feel genuinely needs answering.

There's nothing gay about liking transsexuals. Their gender (mind as you lot are putting it) is of their gender identity and their sex (body) reflects that after HRT and SRS. Unless you're referring to transsexuals who haven't had any surgery, in which case it's debatable, but still very offensive to anyone going through that.

I didn't say a damn thing about anyone liking transsexuals, either; I was referring to transsexuals' sexual preferences (assuming they're not bisexual, though I suppose you could say that bisexuality is in itself being both gay and straight), not whomever they become physically entangled with.

Don't be so eager to cry persecution that you do so for no reason.

No that's basically the exact same thing from a different perspective. Is a transgirl gay because she likes guys? No, because she identifies as a girl and is therefore straight.

By the way if you wanted to make it seem like you weren't being offensive, writing an offensive response wasn't the way to go about it.

I'm about as interested in whether I've offended you or the next person as I am about what you had for breakfast that day. I don't speak with the intent to offend (usually), but I'm regardless not concerned with whether I did. Just so you know.

Anyway. My statement was about technicality, and technically, yeah, said statement is true. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but you're not required to.

For the record, it has nothing to do with what I or anyone else sees the person as, and I'm not saying that the technicality makes them less what they choose to see or present themselves as, or what others choose to. It's merely a technicality, and most technicalities are functionally useless.

 

[badgersprite]

Same thing as transsexuals in real life; you're technically gay and straight.

Also, you should probably be concerned that this is something you feel genuinely needs answering.

There's nothing gay about liking transsexuals. Their gender (mind as you lot are putting it) is of their gender identity and their sex (body) reflects that after HRT and SRS. Unless you're referring to transsexuals who haven't had any surgery, in which case it's debatable, but still very offensive to anyone going through that.

I didn't say a damn thing about anyone liking transsexuals, either; I was referring to transsexuals' sexual preferences (assuming they're not bisexual, though I suppose you could say that bisexuality is in itself being both gay and straight), not whomever they become physically entangled with.

Don't be so eager to cry persecution that you do so for no reason.

No that's basically the exact same thing from a different perspective. Is a transgirl gay because she likes guys? No, because she identifies as a girl and is therefore straight.

By the way if you wanted to make it seem like you weren't being offensive, writing an offensive response wasn't the way to go about it.

I'm about as interested in whether I've offended you or the next person as I am about what you had for breakfast that day. I don't speak with the intent to offend (usually), but I'm regardless not concerned with whether I did. Just so you know.

Anyway. My statement was about technicality, and technically, yeah, said statement is true. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but you're not required to.

For the record, it has nothing to do with what I or anyone else sees the person as, and I'm not saying that the technicality makes them less what they choose to see or present themselves as, or what others choose to. It's merely a technicality, and most technicalities are functionally useless.

Actually, it kind of does have to do with how you or anyone else sees the person. It kind of goes with what I said in my previous post; how we perceive sexuality and gender isn't objective at all. It can vary wildly between different cultures, times, places and people.

Saying that a transgender person who is only attracted to one gender (whichever that may be) is both gay and straight, for example, presumes that they are both male and female. It presumes that their physical gender or the gender with which they identify are both equally true. By contrast, other people would say the physical gender doesn't count at all, and it's only how they internally identify that counts in any way, shape or form. In somewhere like Iran, they're happy to give out sex changes to people because their view is that once they've physically changed to resemble the other gender it has ceased to be gay, and has officially become heterosexual union.

Our definitions of things like homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't constant or unchanging either. Some people define it by the behaviour. Some by the attraction. Some see it as a sliding scale. Some see it as one or the other. This isn't even taking into account things like third genders, which are recognised in some cultures. So, basically, all you're really doing when you say that something is technically true of transgender people is imposing your own cultural and historical context and views on sexuality and gender onto everyone else and assuming that they're universally, objectively true, when they're not.

I'm not saying that your view is wrong or trying to lesson your opinion, I'm just pointing out that no matter what position anyone takes on a subject such as this, it is always going to be subjective, and opinions are always going to be formed based on different underlying presumptions and personal definitions that aren't universally true. Rational disagreement is thereby always likely to occur.

 

[Tharwen]

Character A likes Character B and has breasts.

 

[Kakashi on crack]

scientifically they're homosexual

mentally A is straight. As for B...? Well that depends on whether or not they would be sexually attracted to A when they are a guy.

Depending on the answer its either both are straight, or A is straight and B is Bi.


EDIT: Thinking on it nevermind, B will always be Bisexual or Homosexual, and A will always be straight (unless A likes guys, but then there's a whole array of possibilities)

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

Same thing as transsexuals in real life; you're technically gay and straight.

Also, you should probably be concerned that this is something you feel genuinely needs answering.

There's nothing gay about liking transsexuals. Their gender (mind as you lot are putting it) is of their gender identity and their sex (body) reflects that after HRT and SRS. Unless you're referring to transsexuals who haven't had any surgery, in which case it's debatable, but still very offensive to anyone going through that.

I didn't say a damn thing about anyone liking transsexuals, either; I was referring to transsexuals' sexual preferences (assuming they're not bisexual, though I suppose you could say that bisexuality is in itself being both gay and straight), not whomever they become physically entangled with.

Don't be so eager to cry persecution that you do so for no reason.

No that's basically the exact same thing from a different perspective. Is a transgirl gay because she likes guys? No, because she identifies as a girl and is therefore straight.

By the way if you wanted to make it seem like you weren't being offensive, writing an offensive response wasn't the way to go about it.

I'm about as interested in whether I've offended you or the next person as I am about what you had for breakfast that day. I don't speak with the intent to offend (usually), but I'm regardless not concerned with whether I did. Just so you know.

Anyway. My statement was about technicality, and technically, yeah, said statement is true. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but you're not required to.

For the record, it has nothing to do with what I or anyone else sees the person as, and I'm not saying that the technicality makes them less what they choose to see or present themselves as, or what others choose to. It's merely a technicality, and most technicalities are functionally useless.

Actually, it kind of does have to do with how you or anyone else sees the person. It kind of goes with what I said in my previous post; how we perceive sexuality and gender isn't objective at all. It can vary wildly between different cultures, times, places and people.

That isn't what I meant; I was saying only that the technicality doesn't affect who you are or what people see you as. You shouldn't think of yourself as a gay woman just because you're a transsexual man who has sex with women, but technically, you are. It still doesn't define you or what you're seen as.

Saying that a transgender person who is only attracted to one gender (whichever that may be) is both gay and straight, for example, presumes that they are both male and female.

Er, no, that's not what I'm saying.

Although technically...

More seriously, we all have masculine and feminine traits, so even then you could argue we're all male and female, and that the question is merely which one we're most. This is why it's probably best not to think on such things.

It presumes that their physical gender or the gender with which they identify are both equally true. By contrast, other people would say the physical gender doesn't count at all, and it's only how they internally identify that counts in any way, shape or form. In somewhere like Iran, they're happy to give out sex changes to people because their view is that once they've physically changed to resemble the other gender it has ceased to be gay, and has officially become heterosexual union.

Our definitions of things like homosexuality and heterosexuality aren't constant or unchanging either. Some people define it by the behaviour. Some by the attraction. Some see it as a sliding scale. Some see it as one or the other. This isn't even taking into account things like third genders, which are recognised in some cultures. So, basically, all you're really doing when you say that something is technically true of transgender people is imposing your own cultural and historical context and views on sexuality and gender onto everyone else and assuming that they're universally, objectively true, when they're not.

I'm not saying that your view is wrong or trying to lesson your opinion, I'm just pointing out that no matter what position anyone takes on a subject such as this, it is always going to be subjective, and opinions are always going to be formed based on different underlying presumptions and personal definitions that aren't universally true. Rational disagreement is thereby always likely to occur.

I've got no argument or agreement for you on that all of that, just that you took what I said to mean way more than I intended it. Not that you have any reason to know everything about my stances on the subject, but this isn't a one I need a lot of counseling on.

Also, everything is subjective. Everything.