Comments on: The Spanking That Dares Not Speak Its Name

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:17:58 +0000

Wow!

I have to say, I agree with you 100% Bacchus.

If you have a dick. You’re a guy. It’s a pretty simple concept. I don’t think there should only be the antiquated male/female roles, but gender is really not a continnuum. How you feel about it, might be, but the gender itself isn’t.

If you want to feel feminine and frilly, that’s fine. But that doesn’t make you a woman. If you want to self-identify as being female, that’s fine too. But it doesn’t make you female.

Dress how you want. Talk how you want. Have whatever emotions you want. But, please don’t change the English language just to suit your own needs.

By: Flame

Flame — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:17:43 +0000

I guess I need to clarify. I’m not disagreeing with you. Quite the opposite. What I’m attempting to convey (badly I guess) is that a person with a penis is not a female. I am not speaking of someone who is biologically/chromosomally female and just happened to have been born with a larger than usual clitoris,or even a case of someone who truly is born ambiguously gendered. I’m speaking of those who were originally biological males. So Chicks with Dicks is a misnomer, perpetuated by money grubbers, and people who feel some sort of guilt for finding trans-gendered people sexually attractive. I think Boys with Boobs is a more accurate term (if one must be coined) to describe pre-op M to F transsexuals. Plainly put, I don’t consider someone a girl or a boy until they’ve made the final step. If a person is still sporting the genitals of their prior biological gender incarnation, then they are a lovely blend which is fine in and of itself, but which is not female (or male), no matter what they may want to call themselves.

Did I clear my comment up, or just make it muddier?
::sighs, considers getting more sleep, or taking a remedial English course.

By: Bacchus

Bacchus — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:58:21 +0000

I get the idea, but I stand by what I’ve written.

By: Flame

Flame — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:13:29 +0000

Bacchus, FWIW, I agree with you, and have had this very conversation many times with others. Let’s call a spade a spade. Or is that not PC?

In my experience, calling transgendered people “Chicks with Dicks” is the *real* insult, meant to cater to people who are so uncomfortable with their own sexuality that they cannot admit to themselves that they might not be 100 percent heterosexual, thereby alleviating any social guilt they might feel over finding a person of the same gender attractive, as in “Hey, I’m not really gay! She has boobs!”

Which brings up another point that dovetails nicely with the comments of some of the transgendered posters above: I find it mighty insulting that the porn producers in question define people strictly by their secondary sexual characteristics. Does having breasts and long hair make a person female? Does this mean that if I have a mastectomy and short hair I’m not a woman?

Much like race, gender is a social construct. The reality is, these porn producers are pandering to the “taboo” aspect that is exacerbated by labeling folks. They are doing nothing to promote understanding of the trans community, and are in effect only perpetuating misunderstanding and discontent, all in the name of the almighty dollar.

But what else is new?

Gods forbid we should foster an accepting tolerant mindset that encourages people to explore and embrace their sexuality…why then it wouldn’t be “forbidden” and therefore tittilating and money generating! The producers probably wouldn’t make nearly as much money selling trans related porn to people with a healthy view of their own sexuality as they do marketing it to Homophobe Harry who bashes trans and gay people publicly, but privately loves nothing better than to slap his bishop around while watching some trans related erotica. Forbidden fruit is always the sweetest.

Argh. I’m rambling. You get the idea.

By: Holly H

Holly H — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:38:00 +0000

A real wordsmith understands that his words describe an ambiguous, uncertain, and mutable world; that words and definitions can try to pin down meanings and realities, but often fall short, just as our understanding of many subjects outside of our experience often falls short.

You’re really falling short on this one, and it’s disappointing for people who have enjoyed your writing about sex so far.

By: WordSmithNWesson

WordSmithNWesson — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:27:00 +0000

some wordsmith you are. if you really did your homework then you would realize that the science of biology only recently chose to make a qualitative distinction between “male” and “female” sex organs. you see human “facts” have history because they are constructed by humans and that means they’re meanings are transient. current biological “facts” delineate five sexes. medical “facts” see only two. this is because they *choose* to interpret human anatomy these different ways. you choose your own way. all of these ways f— people who disagree with their interpretations.

By: ChickWithADIck

ChickWithADIck — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:58:00 +0000

your defintion of the word “woman” does radical violence everyday to female-assigned babies who are born with clitorises/penises that exceed an allowable size limit. since having a “penis” makes people “not women” these infants are subjected to genital mutilation so that we don’t have any “chicks with dicks” running around confounding your definitions of gender.

By: name

name — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:45:00 +0000

So you’re saying words are more important than people?

By: Bacchus

Bacchus — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:09:00 +0000

There’s a difference between not listening and not agreeing. Having penises does indeed make people “not women”. To dispute that claim, you have to do radical violence to the meaning of the word “woman”. Redefine the word, if you like, for your own sexual or political reasons, but you don’t have any right to expect others to agree with you or follow your radical new usages.

I’m also entertained to be accused of “attacking” in one sentence, and of being “defensive” in the next sentence. Which is it?

By: transliberation

transliberation — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:40:00 +0000

You don’t seem to be listening to concerns others are raising. People who consume all sorts of porn fetishize and exoticize peoples bodies for a lot of reasons which are often racist and transphobic, among other things. In the case of porn advertised as “chicks with dicks”, pre-operative and non-operative trans women are often fetishized for the fact that they have a penis. This, however, does not make them not women in any way what so ever! They are not “dudes in skirts with dicks”! Don’t confuse the projected desires of people who consume porn with the people who are featured in the porn. In doing so, you ARE attacking all trans communities.
Try educating yourself rather than getting so defensive…http://www.transgender.org/transcend/ has some good info on it, for example.