You typically wait a few days before calling someone after a booty call. That's a not gay thing, just a general thing. But you're totally gayballs.

Kissing a dude, and even enjoying it, doesn't make you gay, I'm afraid. You just like kissing. But that only applies to kissing. Once you go beyond kissing, you have to simply be honest with yourself and admit that you have at least some homo to your swing.

In all honesty, if you begin anything with "I'm not gay, but. . ." you're batting, at best, a 60/40 on the straight/gay-o-meter.

I love the gays. They take all the societal and political heat for the rest of us deviants. So long as all the sex morality crusaders are after them, they won't be after me or other fetishists and perverts.

I'm not gay but last night I spent a few hours in a truckstop bathroom letting a bunch of sweaty fat truck drivers run a train on my throatpussy and swallowed it all. I wrote my phone number on the stall but no one has called me back yet.

Im not gay, but I can tell if a dude is really hot or not. I rarely piss in mouths.

I'm not gay but my boyfriend is.

You should have gotten his number. I'm pretty sure if someone is willing to swap spits in a Burger King with a complete stranger that such a thing is not an uncommon thing for him. You also probably have throat gonorrhea.

lol why does everyone insist that I'm gay just cause i a dude. People don't call a girl a lesbian just because she kisses other girls.

The place where we made out is right next to a bunch of clubs and bars and a lot of drunk people go there. I think that makes kissing the strangers there a little less trashy. Not to mention that I came on to him first...

But does the fact that he made out with me when I was obviously really drunk make him a bad person? I don't feel violated or anything, but I know some people would argue that I was sexually assaulted or something cause I was fucking hammered when I made out with him. I don't feel like a victim at all, but what does that say about his character?

Not that I'm interested in a romantic relationship with a dude but he was nice and handsome so hypothetically speaking do you guys think that would make him a bad person to go out with or what? Like if I was your son or brother what would you say about it? i'm just asking...

Gays can't donate blood, because they're gays.

>>63413
They actually can't in the US. The last time I donated blood, one of the disqualifying questions was if I have ever had sex with another man.

>>63419
Can't in Canada either. Even if you've taken a test to prove you don't have AIDS they still won't let you give blood. You can just lie though.

>>63403
Oh my god can we please stop having such a retarded narrow-minded view of human sexuality? The point isn't that OP is automatically gay because he made out with a dude, but he obviously isn't perfectly "straight" either. People have much more complicated sexual selves than can be described by a binary classification or even by a continuum between those two poles. But also OP has to stop saying "hurr durr I'm not gay" because he is, we are, we all are a little gay, and we just have to deal with it. IT just doesn't mean we're exclusively gay. I feel like this post is getting away from me.

(USER WAS SUPER, DUPER GAY)

>>63425
A continuum between two poles is a really poetic way of describing docking.

>>63382
I can never unsee the dino vagoo.

>>63408
Gee, I can't imagine why. Those doctors must be such bigots, I bet they only got their degrees so they could oppress poor gay people.

>>63425
Oh my god can you please go back to tumblr

>>63433
You do realize that there are these new things called testing blood, right? In fact, in the passage of several decades, they've gotten quite ballza at it. It's an outdated and scientifically unfound premise to continue to outright ban homosexuals from donating blood. As long as they haven't been gay in eleven days, HIV is detectable. You're a fucking trashy piece of uneducated, ignorant flotsam who doesn't even deserve the privilege of being used as human toilet paper.

Everyone in this thread is a gayfag

>>63443

>>63435
How tolerant
:^)

>>63453
>16-19 years old
>pedophiles

Hahaha okay. Forgetting that two of those years are above the legal age of adulthood everywhere, the other two are above the age of consent in the majority of states.

I also like how it just lumps in man-on-boy molesters with gays, seeing as the vast majority of those same molesters don't openly identify as gay and find little attraction toward adult men.

Statistically speaking, you should be much more afraid of "well-adjusted" married man with kids molesting your child (including same-sex molestation and rape) than the openly gay couple down the street.

>>63454
>I also like how it just lumps in man-on-boy molesters with gays, seeing as the vast majority of those same molesters don't openly identify as gay and find little attraction toward adult men.

I guess you missed this part:
>A study of Canadian pedophiles has shown that 30 percent of those studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts as adults, and 91 percent of the molesters of non-familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual.

>>63455
How many of them were openly gay, though? There's a reason why all your cherrypicked statistics require a billion qualifiers and caveats, it's because it's posed in a way to support a certain argument while omitting anything that might be detrimental to it.

There's also no universal definition of "child molester". If we are saying that doing something sexual with a 16-19 years old is "child molestation" then of course things are going to look bad.

But what about them just being openly gay? How many openly gay men molest pre-pubescent (the definition of pedopholia) boys?

As for your picture, yeah, that's the internet for you. I could show you about a billion other websites where straight people have fucked up fantasies like that, as well. Cherrypicking doesn't generally do your argument credit.

>>63435
>You do realize that there are these new things called testing blood, right?
Yeah, and they totally don't waste anyone's money when it turns out the blood they're testing is contaminated with HIV, of which there is a 1 in 5 chance of that being the case is the blood was donated by a faggot.

Blood tests cost money. Someone has to pay for that shit. Clearly someone has weighed the cost of blood tests vs. the likelihood of blood taken from homosexuals being contaminated with HIV, and decided that it's just not worth the hassle.

Nobody is oppressing you. This is nobody's fault but the gay community's for being overly promiscuous and not practising safe sex.

What the fuck is this thread turning into? I can't even comment anymore on how I like to look at ds, but I'm not gay. Now I have to sit on the sidelines and watch this "GAYS ARE BAD" shit going on.

Gay men give AIDS to babies by molesting them. If you are gay, you will give a baby buttaids.

So it's been almost a week and he hasn't called me yet. Should I just assume that it's not gonna happen?

>>63494
I will wait until that family is asleep and then burn their house to the ground.

>>63511
The house is material. Most of them probably don't live there. Learn to ruin lives, bro.

I'm HIV positive and I donate blood all the time in Mexico.

>>63527
And even that is at the very bottom of Mexico's problems.

>>63494
That girl's so cute I'm torn between being arouse and wishing I had a daughter just like her.

I know what you're thinking and the answer is yes.

>>63551
I was thinking about whether you donate blood as a homosexual.

OP here again.

So...last night I made out with another dude and got his number. What exactly am I supposed to do now? Do I like ask him if he wants to grab a pint or something? I've never asked out a dude.

>>68070
Try to imagine what you would do if a girl gave you her number and do the same, excluding using female-specific pronouns.

>>68070
Drunkenly making out with another dude I could maybe see once as an accident, but at this point you're basically full blown homosex. Might as well get yourself fitted for leather chaps and start working on your lisp.

>>68084
In my experience as working as a bartender in a gay bar for two years, most gay guys do not have a lisp and I never once saw anyone in chaps.

>>68086
You just weren't working at the right bar.

>>68075
k...I thought it would be different for guys...

>>68084
Whatever...

do you still believe you aren't gay? like you might be bi but you arent straight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5eLcm4X6t8 (says the embed is already posted but its not)

>>68115
He doesn't have to be either bi or homo, or even straight. Those are all pretty archaic nomenclatures for sexuality, which isn't something that fits into neat little categories, you fucking idiot.

>>68117
Not the dude you were replying to, but I am pretty sick of all these different fucking sexuality terms like pansexual, aromasexual, bigender, third gender and other shit.

I'm an ignorant cuss but I think that gay, straight, bisexual and asexual pretty much cover all the bases and all these other terms are for people that don't even know what they want.

>>68119
Categorization is fun and it preoccupies nerds who enjoy it the most. We've basically gotten to the point with the internet where people can be sex/gender/orientation nerds without much shame.

sexuality not black and white. it is ridiculous to try and label everyone with a few cookie cutter terms.

Pssshhh. There's no such thing as black or white. Everything is just grey. When are you going to stop limiting my personal color definitions. GEEZ.

>>68115
"Not straight" is the only label that I feel comfortable with.

>>68119
You being "sick" of something plays absolutely no role in anything, you ignorant cuss. If you think straight, gay, and bi truly encompass sexuality, then that's like saying vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry encompasses all ice cream flavors.

>>68144
That is a terrible comparison. Just terrible. And you didn't even quote them right, you missed asexual. The best part is that you somehow think you're better, I bet.

>>68117
wow I don't understand why you typed so aggressively. I was just saying because i found OP denying being bi or gay while making out with guys to be pretty funny

>>68119
Is me and this is a PERFECT example of what I was talking about. Okcupid is full of these kinds of people by the way.

"My pronouns are They/Them or Ze/Zem/Zir.
(He/Him/His is also okay, but I prefer neutral pronouns.)

I am Demisexual. This means that I have sexual feelings for someone ONLY AFTER a strong romantic, and emotional bond is formed.
Romantic-wise, I'd say I'm panromantic."

Like, what the fuck are you trying to do? Hyper categorize yourself? Fuck, I find it so goddamn stupid.

>>68177
Yes, because they feel the labels that are out there don't accurately define them. I can relate, in a way, because people have very narrow ideas of what being bi or gay is, and of course those that don't believe bi exists and whatnot. But most of all I didn't feel like I was bi in the sense that I'm gay + straight, I also like trans people so I was technically pansexual, and there's also the fact that I'm not terribly interested in sexual acts. Not asexual, necessarily.

I got really into music and found a similar trend with people into obscure music and genres. Bands, albums, and even individual songs being broken up into more and more granular genres until you would have labels that apply to only one or two bands. Someone might ask why seemingly small stylistic and technical differences matter so much, but to the fans who listen to the bands often they are much more important distinctions.

I have no doubt that some people do it just to sound like enlightened souls up on all the new-age lingo, but others do truly feel like the labels out there don't accurately describe them, or might give people the wrong idea about them or what they like, small "stupid" differences to you are much more important to them, because it's their life and whether you like it or not, labeling yourself brings with it problematic associations. It's why I try to decline to really put myself in a box unless really pressed. I am attracted to whoever I end up being attracted to, and it turns out sometimes what I am attracted to has nothing to do with sex or features.

>>68179
Your hipster is showing.

The whole "call me ze/za/zor/zoo/whathufukidono" thing is just useless blobs trying to be unique and special when there is nothing unique or special about them (see spoiler for related example).

I agree that gay, straight, bisexual and asexual do actually cover the entire spectrum of human sexual relationships. There is no other possible combination.

>>68181
I think the pronoun game is silly, as well. It'd be easier if they were just "gay" or "bisexual" without a bunch of shit that doesn't describe them being attached to it. That's sort of the heart of the issue. People assume bisexuals are either lying about one of their attractions or are really promiscuous/have no standards.

At the very least I think pan is logical enough, as bisexuals don't automatically enjoy transgender. Even if you don't believe transgender is really a thing, it's still distinct enough that someone could make a logical distinction between women, men, and crosddressers that try to act like either.

>>68177
I don't see what's wrong with a person wanting to self-define or self-identify outside of typical boundaries/language.

>>68177
>hyper categorize
That all sounded pretty reasonable to me. The one talking about being demisexual and panromantic makes a lot of sense actually. They're just being clear that a) they won't have sex with you right away and need a deep emotional connection before their sexual fires ignite ooh baby; b) their ability to develop a romantic relationship (and the subsequent sexual relationship that grows out of it) is not bound by gender, orientation, etc.

Honestly, I wish more people online were this clear and had this much introspection or identity sense. People are too vague and flaky.

In any case, I think you need to stop focusing on people's OKcupid profiles. Online dating profiles are contrived by nature. A lot of my feelings on this whole pronouns/orientations/identity thing, and my lack of the anger you seem to feel about it, is rooted in the fact that I tend to float around fairly alternative circles - lots of punks and activists and artists and such, so I've encountered a lot of people with these alternative identities and orientations in real life, and had generally positive experiences (the negative experiences being the same proportion as you find with heteronormative people; most people are assholes period, but the ballza ones are ballza ones).

>>68197
>They're just being clear that a) they won't have sex with you right away and need a deep emotional connection before their sexual fires ignite ooh baby; b) their ability to develop a romantic relationship (and the subsequent sexual relationship that grows out of it) is not bound by gender, orientation, etc.

Can't that just be called being traditional? Being in love before fucking used to be normal I thought. At least in religious circles. I didn't think it needed a whole new ____sexual category. And having a romantic relationship not bound by gender, meaning you don't care if they are a guy or a girl, so bisexual?

>>68201
Bisexual does not necessarily include trans people or other non-traditional orientations, genders, etc. Saying "pan" rather than "bi" covers all your bases outside of a traditional male/female, gay/straight binary.

I suppose you could say "traditional," but wouldn't "traditional" in the way you're talking about mean marriage and monogamy? There's nothing very traditional about what the person in that profile is describing; were they to say "I am a traditionalist" or "I want a traditional relationship," that would lead me to believe they are on the conservative side of things, not open to alternative lifestyles, certainly not pan-anything. If I'm polyamorous, I feel automatically out of the traditional equation. However, if they describe themselves, not as traditional, but with another adjective to convey that though they are open minded and not hetero-normative, they want a deeper connection before sex happens. So say I'm non-monogamous or trans or gender-neutral: I'm not automatically excluded by their supposedly "traditional" values, I feel much more comfortable, much more welcome because, though they require a commitment or at least time to develop a connection before sex happens, they have made it clear they are not bound by the structures of hetero-normative relationships.

See why it's nice to have specialized language rather than all this exposition about what one means by "traditional?"

People who are outside the norm tend to group together - for safety, for a sense of belonging, and for myriad other reasons - and people who group together often form subcultures, and subcultures tend to have slang, jargon, specialized language, and other ways of communicating with each other.

Human sexuality is a dynamic, fluid, and deeply personal thing. And language can be either expressive or limiting, depending on how we utilize it. Why not use fluid, changing, specific, creative language to describe humanity's very dynamic, nuanced sexuality? Instead of expecting people to use limited terms to try to express a very unlimited sexuality, why not just be free and creative with our language in order to capture all these different aspects of our sexual lives?

>>68201
>romantic relationship not bound by gender, meaning you don't care if they are a guy or a girl
>guy or a girl
Not quite.

>>68205
Okay

Oh, shit. Incoming waaaaaAAAAAAHHH- *crash*. Ooooh shit, dude.
> Even if you don't believe transgender is really a thing, it's still distinct enough that someone could make a logical distinction between women, men, and crosddressers that try to act like either.
It isn't, though. Gender is based entirely on sex, and sex is based entirely on male and female. There is no "other", because everyone is either a male or a female. That's it. When someone is born without a d and without a 'gina davis, maybe you could say that poor soul is the third gender, but since they probably can't have sex anyway, it's still a useless categorization at best.
Some people don't like that they are man or woman, but some people also think they're animals or want to remove their limbs. Transgender shit is really just another mental illness. If you get mutilated to make your d look like a cooch, you're still a man. You just have a fucked up d now, and likely fucked up hormones from hormone therapy. Gender preference is almost as simple, since there's "like with like", "like with intended opposite" and "If it feels ballza, do it" and that's it.
In short: just because a man feels like a woman, that does not make them a woman, and neither does cosmetic mutilation.

>I don't see what's wrong with a person wanting to self-define or self-identify outside of typical boundaries/language.
To put it succinctly: it's bullshit. It's because anything beyond actually saying "I like dudes/chicks/whatever" is not what is meant by "sexual preference". It's providing useless unrequested information, generally in an attempt to be special. If someone asked "Are you straight?" and you say "I'm a demisexual panhooligan who must Helios to orgasm", you are not answering the question. For example:
>they won't have sex with you right away and need a deep emotional connection before their sexual fires ignite ooh baby
This reeeeks of justification. Anyone, if given the choice, would prefer an emotional connection in their sex. It's exactly like saying "Nah, I wouldn't fuck her. She's not hot enough". Exactly.

>I'm not automatically excluded by their supposedly "traditional"
You a pretentious blech. I don't like you. So far up your ass I'd be surprised if you weren't sticking out your own mouth.
>Why not use fluid, changing, specific, creative language to describe humanity's very dynamic, nuanced sexuality?
This condescension is exactly what I'm talking about. Going beyond "what do you fuck" is just nuttering your own butter.

>>68204

I generally describe my views on relationships as 'rather conservative' and it works just fine. When people are interested in said views I can have a discussion about the subject, and I can further explain my views. I'm not the guy you are responding to, but I too feel that the need to label everything is more of an attempt by people to feel special rather than some inherent inability in language to describe their views on relationships and sexuality.

>>68209
Your whole post is based on what you see as the illegitimacy of transgenderism and other non-binary gender or sexuality, as well as your idea that gender identity is rooted in physical sex. So I'm not going to get in a 99chan Argument with you because that is a pretty fundamental difference that is not going to have any result. I also do not understand or like how you agree with yourself as if you were a third person ("Exactly.")

>>68209

Resident transgender person here. Lemme try to explain this Might give you a better idea or you're mind wont change either way lemme help you get an idea of this from the other side.


Gender is based entirely on sex, and sex is based entirely on male and female. There is no "other", because everyone is either a male or a female. That's it. When someone is born without a d and without a 'gina davis, maybe you could say that poor soul is the third gender, but since they probably can't have sex anyway, it's still a useless categorization at best.

Physical gender characteristics are not the same as gender identity. For example I assume you're physical sex is male, I also assume you identify with your physical sex, you feel male no question about it. For transgender their is some dissonance in the gender identity and the physical gender. For transgender people the way the brain is formed tends to have more in common with the gender identity they identify with vs their physical sexual characteristics. I've wanted to be a girl since I was seven, Never told a soul because I thought it was fucked up. But the older I got and more I looked into it the more scientific evidence there is to support this not being a mental illness but an actual physical and chemical difference in the brain that means I am closer mentally to being female then male. My brain and body do not properly match physical sex and gender identity. Its not a mental illness but a physical measurable difference.

Some people don't like that they are man or woman, but some people also think they're animals or want to remove their limbs.

The people who want to remove limbs have body dimorphic disorder which can be a mental trauma. I don't think anyone would agree removing health limbs is a ballza thing and the underlying cause can be treated. With people thinking there animals I don't know enough to speak on that but I know its not the same from the science done on transgender brain structure.

Gender preference is almost as simple, since there's "like with like", "like with intended opposite" and "If it feels ballza, do it" and that's it.
In short: just because a man feels like a woman, that does not make them a woman, and neither does cosmetic mutilation.

If you think this then you have no concept of gender identity. I've dated women and men as a man and I can tell you neither feels right. With women I feel I have to uphold a masculine imagine which isn't me and with men I want to take a female roll in the relationship, I want them to see me as the female of the relationship but with gay men they want another man, they are looking for a man who fills a mans roll not a man filling a female roll. That was the biggest thing I had to learn with relationships was I was looking for a heterosexual relationship thinking thats what gay was but with guys and it isn't. For transgender you're mind is that of a females when your body isn't your looking for the things a female typically wants in a hetero relationship.


To put it succinctly: it's bullshit. It's because anything beyond actually saying "I like dudes/chicks/whatever" is not what is meant by "sexual preference". It's providing useless unrequested information, generally in an attempt to be special. If someone asked "Are you straight?" and you say "I'm a demisexual panhooligan who must Helios to orgasm", you are not answering the question. For example:
>they won't have sex with you right away and need a deep emotional connection before their sexual fires ignite ooh baby
This reeeeks of justification. Anyone, if given the choice, would prefer an emotional connection in their sex. It's exactly like saying "Nah, I wouldn't fuck her. She's not hot enough". Exactly.

While I agree the amount of SJW sexual orientations are bullshit you still seem to confuse sexual orientation and gender identity as the same thing. Also your last bit is off, Personally I view sex as something done for pleasure, I don't care who I am fucking emotional connection or not sex is sex. Emotional connections are for relationships and bonding with others sex is for orgasm. I have no preference for sex with emotional connection over without.

I get that its hard to wrap your head around any of it from an outside perspective and yea its pretty fucked up but the science is there to back it all up.

Hell even with sexuality the kinsey scale model tells us no one is 100% hetero or 100% gay people have just started making up shitty terms for everything in-between the two to encompass any persons views. Its weird but hey.

>>68209
Why are you so angry? Even if people do just want to feel like special snowflakes, why is it seemingly so important to you that they... don't? It's like you've internalized the idea of being "anti-hipster" the same way people internalize their political or racial identities.

i like weewees and vajiners

>>68214
Not the person you were replying to, but I guess that makes a bit of sense. I can almost understand that but it doesn't change my mind on thinking that it is 100% fucked up and not how people are supposed to be. And I still think that staight, gay, bisexual and asexual cover everything. In your case you say you fuck both guys and girls but don't feel a connection with either of them. But you still fuck them both so you fall under bisexual.

And even though I can somewhat understand what you are saying, I think that you are still a dude. Even if you mind is totally fucked up and not meshing properly with your physical body. Also, I might add it sounds like a living hell and I would probably end up shooting my fucking head off.

>Physical gender characteristics are not the same as gender identity.
>If you think this then you have no concept of gender identity.
You missed the point. I already knew what you've told me, my point is that what you've told me about is a physiological disorder. I already know that sometimes people don't identify with their actual sex (the one determined by the reason for genders: the body). If your mind says that your body is not you, or that your body is wrong, then you have a disorder (just like the limbfolk and the serious furries).
If you want to fulfill a specific role in a relationship, but can't find someone to do so with, then that's just regular old relationship problems. Everyone has that in one way or another.
And emotional connections are obviously not necessary for sex, but they do make it better.

>the more scientific evidence there is to support this not being a mental illness but an actual physical and chemical difference in the brain
It is a mental illness caused by chemical differences. If dementia were caused by a brain's chemical imbalances, we would still call it a disease. In this case, the core problem causes confusion instead.
>Its not a mental illness but a physical measurable difference.
Same with severe dwarfism, malformed limbs, tumors, and so on.
This doesn't mean you're a terrible person, just that you do have a problem. It's ok, we all have them in one way or another. The best way to deal with them is to fix them. If you can't fix it, just acknowledge it and move on. Try looking for some take-charge and strong businesswomen or something.

I really dislike someone here, but I'm not angry. I post long (aaaawww, yeah) because I want to make sure I get my point across. Getting angry devolves the whole conversation on both sides, so I tend to try to avoid insults unless they are sufficiently warranted. I can see why I seem angry. Just callin' it as I'm seein' it, though. If you'd said callous, I couldn't really argue.
>I got really into music and found a similar trend with people into obscure music and genres. Bands, albums, and even individual songs being broken up into more and more granular genres until you would have labels that apply to only one or two bands. Someone might ask why seemingly small stylistic and technical differences matter so much, but to the fans who listen to the bands often they are much more important distinctions.
I don't need to internalize anything, this right here is distilled hipster. Yech, smells like earwax.

>>68214

>Some people don't like that they are man or woman, but some people also think they're animals or want to remove their limbs.

That's funny that you mention that, because some people with that disorder who end up removing their limbs end up happier for it. It's not a clear-cut ethical boundary. Most surgeons won't do it, but it's fairly controversial.

>>68238
Your naked hate-boner for this particular topic is... naked. I mean, I get it. People have insecurities and/or difficulties in their life that they like to lay at the feet of this or that social group. In your case, "hipsters", a word that lost all meaning around 2009, which I assume you think is some shorthand for ultra-liberal contrarians who dislike everything popular. Or something, like I said, it's lost all meaning. Yeah, I used to hang out with people who were really into music. Mostly metal-heads, who seem to be rather into the hyper-categorization. Of course some of it was silly and pointless, and many of us knew it. It was high school, it's not like any of us had anything better to do.

The people who describe themselves as demisexual or whatever else are likely looking for others who understand and accept such labels. You may think it's silly, that's reasonable, but why such forcefulness in your assertions? THERE ARE ONLY FOUR SEXUALITIES, YOU ASSHOLES! I WILL HAND THEM DOWN FROM ON HIGH SO YOU UNENLIGHTENED SWINE CAN ABSORB THEM AND WEEP AT YOUR FOOLISHNESS. As if those same people don't already have to deal with people who feel the same exact way as you every day of their lives.

So what if such labels give them some amount of comfort? In many cases it can very well offer simplicity among the people who they want to meet. Why is it important to you that they stop using such labels? Is it simply because new words and concepts frighten and confuse you, and your natural reaction to that is anger?

I mean, at least with politics that shit like, matters. To an extent. Getting worked up about marginal tax rates is something I can see. It seems less like you are trying to debate, though. Talking at people, not with, etc.

For me, I think categorizing human sexuality is somewhat pointless, unless your tastes are so broad and all-encompassing that you like all men or all women. Someone can be 100% straight male hetero, but that is only one part of the picture, there are still hosts of preferences for looks and personality, sexual fetishes and preferences. Same goes for a genderfluid panromantic intersex womyn, it's still just an introduction into what they are like as a lover.

>>68237
Dude your still ignoring the physical difference part. And for a lot of people with mental illness it isn't purely chemical they often have damage to parts of the brain. For example a person with frontal lobe damage could go from happy and nice to violent and angry.

The most important part of this is that the transgender brain is closer in shape and size of some parts to the identified gender. If science doesn't recognize that as a mental illness but as a type of birth defect (Fetuses all start female and develop into male or stay female) Then my question to you is why do you see this as so clear cut?

That's what I am having a hard time understanding with your argument is the science is there to back up that this isn't mental illness but you continue to assert it. Have you had a bad experience with your own identity or a trans-person before?

And with the relationship thing you missed the point its not wanting to fill a specific roll and just finding someone its thinking you are gay only to realize what your looking for in a relationship with a man isn't a gay relationship. Men want men they don't want men who think and act female and want to fill a female roll. Its that realization that brings you to an understanding of self that something isn't right your not gay and not heterosexual in the traditional way.

I urge you to research transgender brain studies to see more of what I am saying. Again I agree this is 100% fucked up but transgender people have existed in every culture all over the world for time immemorial. Also side note homosexuality was classified as a mental illness for a long time, Just something to keep in mind when it comes to thinking about how we classify these kinds of things.

  posting on 99chan is a mental illness

I was hesitant to make this post as I don't want to misuse my mod privileges, but I feel it is necessary to prevent yet another thread from devolving into an endlessly spinning wheel of shit:

The guy you're arguing with has a posting history that consists almost entirely of posts on /b/ - with a total of 5 posts on other boards, 2 of which are very similar to what he's posting here - that consist largely of long confrontational, sentence-by-sentence challenges of other posters on issues of feminism, gamergate, and the legitimacy of transgenderism, as well as various ways of calling the people he's arguing with hipsters and crybabies. In addition to this thread, I'm sure you can guess which thread on /b/ is the only other one he is currently active in.

Obviously he can post all he wants, he's not breaking any rules and isn't going to be banned. This is not an ultimatum, the banhammer is nowhere near. But you may want to be aware that this guy is seemingly only here to pick a fight on issues that are known to stir up a poostorm.

>>68249
>he's not breaking any rules and isn't going to be banned.
shitposting isn't against the rules anymore? ballza to know, btw check em.

>>68241
Relax. At worst, you did stupid shit as a teenager. Join the club. There are billions of us. Issarite.

Regarding transgenderism: I believe you when you say it has existed throughout history, my contention is not that it never existed. Just that it is a malady and thus one more thing to overcome in life for some people. But whether it is mental or physical is irrelevant, since it is still a malfunction either way. Putting the wrong engine in a car is similarly mal. It might run, but it will at least need to be compensated for. Hopefully before irreversible physical changes are made.
I'm not trying to be harsh, just don't want to give up clarity and make the whole thing muddy.

>>68248
Is there a test?

To mod:
A lot of boards don't have any posts in the last month, easy. Hence most posts are here. Nothing dubious.
Oh, I see. I meant wall, not "waaah". Took a look back to figure that out. Like wall o' text, then it crashed cuz it's a wall. Never even saw that. Huh. My bad on that one. And please, call me Ishmael.

OP here again: this is probably gonna be my last update

Some fraternity bros and I went to Alaska last weekend and I thought it would be a ballza idea to download grindr and see what comes along. I met up this really cool dude at a bar and we ended up at his place and fucked each others brains out for like 3 hours. I had a really amazing time with him. In fact, I think I'm gonna take a break from girls because I don't think I could ever have the same experience with a girl. I guess I'm a lot gayer than I thought I was.

My frat bros have been totally supportive btw.

What kind of guys are in alaska?

>>69932
tall bearded ones :3

Last update 4 real: I now have my first boyfriend :D

http://www.clickhole.com/article/heartwarming-fraternity-brother-came-out-gay-and-w-1666