Gay men's private campground

[drscorpio]

1 hour ago, myDNA4u said:

The majority of women only campgrounds do not allow trans women. No one seems to be complaining about that. So I see a level of hypocrisy in complaining about one campground being exclusively for cis-gendered males. And would anyone complain about any place that was only for trans people of either type? I think not.

This is patently untrue. Women-Only spaces excluding transwomen is such an issue that there us even a term for it: TERF - trans exclusionary radical feminist. You may have seen that word applied to JKRowling. 

[blackrobe]

1 hour ago, myDNA4u said:

As  someone who actually knows the owners of Camp Boomerang, I can without doubt state that they are not transphobic and do indeed totally support trans rights. That being said Mr. Quinn's comment was extremely insensitive and way off the mark. However having been to a large number of gay campgrounds the majority of which are clothing optional men only places, I can tell you that the sexual energy in those places is very high. Inddeed all but one that I have been to have one or more areas specifically set aside as "play" spaces. At some sexual activity goes on virtually everywhere, think outdoor bathhouse. For me personally no matter how attracted I might me to a guy (and I have a weakness for men of shorter stature which trans men often are) the minute the pants come off and there's no penis, I have absolutely zero sexual interest. 

The majority of women only campgrounds do not allow trans women. No one seems to be complaining about that. So I see a level of hypocrisy in complaining about one campground being exclusively for cis-gendered males. And would anyone complain about any place that was only for trans people of either type? I think not.

Can you clarify the founders reason/s for excluding transmen? From your post it seems like you're saying it's to protect men from being disappointed a guy doesn't have a dick. 

[myDNA4u]

2 hours ago, blackrobe said:

Can you clarify the founders reason/s for excluding transmen? From your post it seems like you're saying it's to protect men from being disappointed a guy doesn't have a dick. 

While I've never discussed this specifically with the owners, it's more than merely being disappointed. In a highly sexualized environment, there are more than a few cis gay males who would be very uncomfortable with a trans man being present.  That in and of its self doesn't make someone transphobic. Otherwise straight people who are totally supportive of gay rights but don't want to be around guys while they're having sex with each are homophobic. Is it really so wrong for there to be a place for cis gay males who want to spend some time in a place that is exclusively for them especially when nearby there are other options available?  One can carry "wokeness" to silly extremes

 

[myDNA4u]

3 hours ago, drscorpio said:

This is patently untrue. Women-Only spaces excluding transwomen is such an issue that there us even a term for it: TERF - trans exclusionary radical feminist. You may have seen that word applied to JKRowling. 

I would jave to disagree with you on that. The women only campground in Michigan while not coming right out and saying, it,, makes it abundantly clear that they only allow cis gendered females.

However I will agree with you in that in the lesbian community there is way more TERF, than the reverse situation with gay men. 

[Spunkinmyarse]

It’s a difficult issue on many levels.  Excluding gay trans men entirely does seem unfair, but at the same time I think that all groups, including cis gender gay men, have a right to carve out and police their own spaces as they see fit.

Would it be possible to compromise and offer trans-friendly weeks at various points throughout the season at campgrounds such as these?  That’s the route that some UK saunas seem to be taking, and although it won’t satisfy the most extreme “SJW’s” (new term for me: thanks @MuscledHorse!), it seems like a sensible workaround.

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, myDNA4u said:

While I've never discussed this specifically with the owners, it's more than merely being disappointed. In a highly sexualized environment, there are more than a few cis gay males who would be very uncomfortable with a trans man being present.  That in and of its self doesn't make someone transphobic. Otherwise straight people who are totally supportive of gay rights but don't want to be around guys while they're having sex with each are homophobic. Is it really so wrong for there to be a place for cis gay males who want to spend some time in a place that is exclusively for them especially when nearby there are other options available?  One can carry "wokeness" to silly extremes

 

Of course there is a place for cis gay males who want to spend time in a place exclusively for them. It's called "their own house".

Let's swap out your post's wording with ones based in race instead and see what we get.

"While I've never discussed this specifically with the owners, it's more than merely being disappointed. In a highly sexualized environment, there are more than a few white males who would be very uncomfortable with a black man being present. That in and of its self doesn't make someone racist. Otherwise white people who are totally supportive of racial equality but don't want to be around blacks while they're having sex with each are racist. Is it really so wrong for there to be a place for white men who want to spend some time in a place that is exclusively for them especially when nearby there are other options available?  One can carry "wokeness" to silly extremes."

See how that sounds?

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, myDNA4u said:

I would jave to disagree with you on that. The women only campground in Michigan while not coming right out and saying, it,, makes it abundantly clear that they only allow cis gendered females.

However I will agree with you in that in the lesbian community there is way more TERF, than the reverse situation with gay men. 

You made DrScorpio's point for him. He said that it IS an issue that women's only spaces DO often discriminate against trans women, and it's a huge issue in the women's community, dividing those who recognize and respect all women vs. those who only recognize and respect cis women.

[BootmanLA]

12 hours ago, Spunkinmyarse said:

Haha- wise move, mate!  You’ll be torn to pieces and maybe even ‘cancelled’ if you deviate one iota from the accepted political line on this 🤣

Here's the thing: I haven't heard one reason for this kind of policy other than "there are gay men who are icked out by vaginas so we're banning them". 

If someone can present a more rational basis for such a policy, I'd certainly take that basis under consideration. But "We don't like that around" (which is what this boils down to) doesn't cut it for me. Sure, you're welcome to think that. But don't be surprised when people point out that it is, in fact, transphobic.

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, MuscledHorse said:

It's SJW's looking for the next thing to be outraged over. I am not surprised at a male's only establishment where the requirement is a cock between your legs. It's not unique to this establishment or bathhouses/sex clubs by any stretch. Last time CLAW occurred (2019) there was a huge uproar over the fact Flex bathhouse had the same requirement.

I'm not surprised either, just as I'm not surprised when I find out that, in the 21st century, there are still bars and nightclubs that systematically exclude black people (through bogus and poorly enforced dress codes or any other means they can use to initially evade scrutiny). Lack of surprise that an abhorrent practice is ongoing is not a defense of said practice continuing.

[Spunkinmyarse]

53 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Of course there is a place for cis gay males who want to spend time in a place exclusively for them. It's called "their own house".

Let's swap out your post's wording with ones based in race instead and see what we get.

"While I've never discussed this specifically with the owners, it's more than merely being disappointed. In a highly sexualized environment, there are more than a few white males who would be very uncomfortable with a black man being present. That in and of its self doesn't make someone racist. Otherwise white people who are totally supportive of racial equality but don't want to be around blacks while they're having sex with each are racist. Is it really so wrong for there to be a place for white men who want to spend some time in a place that is exclusively for them especially when nearby there are other options available?  One can carry "wokeness" to silly extremes."

See how that sounds?

You cannot  substitute race and gender (whether cis or trans) in this way: they are not equivalent.

Apart from a few minor physiological differences such as skin colour, racial differences are almost entirely in the mind, phantom perceptions that are the result of ignorance and cultural bias.  The entire fight for racial equality is about shining a light on this and showing racial difference to be the myth that it is.

Gender difference is very real, at least to the vast majority of humans in every culture that has ever existed. The fact that we have (and largely accept) separate toilet facilities for men and women is proof of this, while separate toilet facilities for different races have been consigned to history, thank God.

Gender is far more complex than race, and how we as humans respond to gender is similarly complex. There is no equivalent of ‘trans’ in race.

Conflating race and gender as you have done in the above post is wrong, and appears to be motivated by a desire to make @myDNA4ulook like some kind of bigot.  Please don’t reduce this topic to mere identity politics, when an issue as complex as this deserves to be treated with care and thoughtfulness.

[blackrobe]

I have friends and colleagues who are transmen. Not going along with discrimination against transmen doesn't make me a "social justice warrior", it makes me a decent friend to those men. It should not take having a trans/black/gay/disabled/etc. friend for us to feel and act on our responsibility to others. Tactically, I don't think using the extreme right wing's "SJW" rhetoric helps anyone make a credible pro-separatist argument. 

From what I can see, it seems the objections to gay transmen in gay male spaces have more than a small whiff of misogyny about them.

Here's a useful thought experiment to explore that more: Would men in women's clothes be welcome? Would transwomen who haven't had bottom surgery be welcome?

In both cases they have a penis, but their overall gender presentation is feminine.  I think the responses will be illuminating.

Edited February 25, 2021 by blackrobe
Corrected typo.

[blackrobe]

8 minutes ago, Spunkinmyarse said:

You cannot  substitute race and gender (whether cis or trans) in this way: they are not equivalent.

Apart from a few minor physiological differences such as skin colour, racial differences are almost entirely in the mind, phantom perceptions that are the result of ignorance and cultural bias.  The entire fight for racial equality is about shining a light on this and showing racial difference to be the myth that it is.

Gender difference is very real, at least to the vast majority of humans in every culture that has ever existed. The fact that we have (and largely accept) separate toilet facilities for men and women is proof of this, while separate toilet facilities for different races have been consigned to history, thank God.

Gender is far more complex than race, and how we as humans respond to gender is similarly complex. There is no equivalent of ‘trans’ in race.

Conflating race and gender as you have done in the above post is wrong, and appears to be motivated by a desire to make @myDNA4ulook like some kind of bigot.  Please don’t reduce this topic to mere identity politics, when an issue as complex as this deserves to be treated with care and thoughtfulness.

There was no conflation of race and gender in @BootmanLA's post. I think what you are actually objecting to is that there was an implied equivalency, and that you'd assert the two terms are not equivalent and therefore not interchangeable or comparable. The problem with that assertion is there is a lot of anti-discrimination law written protecting race, ethnicity, and gender (among other attributes) using common language. On the face of it I don't think your assertion stands up to scrutiny. 

In response, I'd assert that the simple "attribute substitution test" that @BootmanLA used is a valid check to identify if an *act* is discriminatory independent of the attribute it's targeting.

[drscorpio]

5 hours ago, myDNA4u said:

I would jave to disagree with you on that. The women only campground in Michigan while not coming right out and saying, it,, makes it abundantly clear that they only allow cis gendered females.

However I will agree with you in that in the lesbian community there is way more TERF, than the reverse situation with gay men. 

Sorry, I didn't not express myself clearly. 

I do think that TERF positions from women-only campgrounds are equally repugnant. I wasn't disagreeing that it happens both way. I was disagreeing that I am being a hypocrite; I don't like either trans-exclusionary policy. 

I think there is more of it from lesbian women for a couple of reasons. A large number of women have been traumatized by sexual violence and/or domestic violence from men which makes them more susceptible to the notion that men might pretend to be trans to gain access to their spaces. On the other hand,  a lot of gay men seem to find transmen particularly attractive meaning they would more than welcome their presence. 

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, Spunkinmyarse said:

You cannot  substitute race and gender (whether cis or trans) in this way: they are not equivalent.

Apart from a few minor physiological differences such as skin colour, racial differences are almost entirely in the mind, phantom perceptions that are the result of ignorance and cultural bias.  The entire fight for racial equality is about shining a light on this and showing racial difference to be the myth that it is.

Gender difference is very real, at least to the vast majority of humans in every culture that has ever existed. The fact that we have (and largely accept) separate toilet facilities for men and women is proof of this, while separate toilet facilities for different races have been consigned to history, thank God.

Gender is far more complex than race, and how we as humans respond to gender is similarly complex. There is no equivalent of ‘trans’ in race.

Conflating race and gender as you have done in the above post is wrong, and appears to be motivated by a desire to make @myDNA4ulook like some kind of bigot.  Please don’t reduce this topic to mere identity politics, when an issue as complex as this deserves to be treated with care and thoughtfulness.

For what it's worth: I'm not suggesting that race and gender are "equivalent". 

But in terms of how people *respond* to them, I don't think there's a hell of a lot of difference. Toilet arguments are about a combination of privacy and safety; women legitimately worry about being molested or raped in areas where they may be exposed to a predator. Remarkably, most opposition to trans women in women's restrooms seems to come from cis MEN who think trans women are going to rape their women and children (perhaps betraying something of their own thought processes). 

In any event, at a campground like this - based on the bathroom analogy, the trans men there should be the ones most concerned about safety. The fact that they want to attend suggests that's not a concern, so the whole "bathroom" thing comes down to just another excuse.

You may think there's a huge difference between responses to gender and race. I can assure you that in much of the country, that's simply not true. I've seen cruising/play at a public place come to a screeching halt among the white participants when a black man shows up. I've seen the white participants break off into smaller groups and move further out of sight so that the black guy is discouraged from pursuing. I've been at gay bars where a group of white guys will "close ranks" from being a formerly "open" stanced group if a black guy heads in their direction.

(And conversely, just as some gay men fetishize trans gay men, I've seen some treat black men the same way - objectifying them sexually far beyond ordinary feelings of "that guy's hot.)

I'm not out to make anyone look like a bigot. I'm out to push those who say they are NOT bigots to give me a rational basis to exclude trans gay men from a gay men's event other than "I don't want to look at a vagina, anywhere, at any time, during my visit, and I feel that so strongly that instead of taking reasonable effort to ensure I don't look at them, I want them barred from being anywhere I might look."

[mikesholes]

6 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Of course there is a place for cis gay males who want to spend time in a place exclusively for them. It's called "their own house".

Let's swap out your post's wording with ones based in race instead and see what we get.

"While I've never discussed this specifically with the owners, it's more than merely being disappointed. In a highly sexualized environment, there are more than a few white males who would be very uncomfortable with a black man being present. That in and of its self doesn't make someone racist. Otherwise white people who are totally supportive of racial equality but don't want to be around blacks while they're having sex with each are racist. Is it really so wrong for there to be a place for white men who want to spend some time in a place that is exclusively for them especially when nearby there are other options available?  One can carry "wokeness" to silly extremes."

See how that sounds?

Comparing a sexual focus on penis worship to racial discrimination is absurd. Everything can't be everything to all people.