Trans men In bathhouses

[topblkmale]

I'm enjoying the pushback from gay males regarding gay male spaces.

2 hours ago, ErosWired said:

 

The transman is nothing like this. He is coming into a men’s place as the male he is. No issue. Now, I think there is some validity to the point raised above, that a transman who is pre-transition, or who has opted to forego surgery, probably does have some obligation to disclose the nature of the difference in genitalia to prospective partners in this context, as the exclusive nature of the venue gives rise to an expectation of consistency; it is best to avoid surprises.

 

Trans men are men not males.

[Bugnutty452]

No and no…massive turnoff

[FetishNW]

Trans men are men so should be welcomed into men only spaces. 

Would I fuck a trans man? Absolutely, if I'm in a top mood. Would I get fucked by a trans man with a strap on? Absolutely. 

I'm 100% gay and only attracted to men. This includes trans men. 

For those 'turned off' by trans men - nobody is forcing you to fuck them if they are in the same space as you. 

[NWUSHorny]

On 11/30/2023 at 5:32 PM, akula said:

hell yes love to see some trans men at the baths

I've fucked a few FTM transmen at Steamworks in Seattle, or if you ever get to Portland there are almost always 1 or 2 of them at Hawks on a Saturday night. They really aren't that hard to find in the PNW, but I don't remember encountering one at a bathhouse anywhere else.

[BootmanLA]

7 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

Born with a cock that works

I don't understand this attitude of getting offended by my statements when there are guys who reject a cock smaller than 7", and in their profile they go on and on how much the only want XL guys.  It's so obvious that the whole thing revolves around masculine men, hard-ons and cum so I don't understand being surprised by my comments.

I don't have a problem with anyone's personal preferences for sex partners (assuming, of course, we're talking legally-aged consenting partners). If a guy wants only hung guys, or only black guys, or only guys under 30, that's his business, and while I may have an opinion on the appropriateness/silliness/wisdom of making such a declaration, I'm pretty much going to keep it to myself (or at least, within a small, closed circle of friends in whom I may or may not confide private opinions like that.

Put more simply: "I like X" or "I want X" is fine. "People want X" or "Gay men want X" or "Real men have X" is not.

What I have an issue with is declaring categorically what other people want, or deciding that you and you alone are the arbiter of what a "real" anything is. If you only are interested in men who were "born with a cock that works", by all means, say that. Declaring that those are the only "real men" is rude.

[viking8x6]

For the various people contributing to this topic who have denigrated trans men as "not real" or the like:

As others have said, this is rude. But also, it's absurd. Many trans men are in fact extremely masculine - because they have gone to great effort and expense to become so, in spite of the biological disadvantage they started with. And many of the "real" men you would supposedly welcome in bathhouses are far, far less masculine! I'm talking about all of those exclusive bottoms, self-declared "sissy faggots", and persons with what they refer to as a "clitty", about whom you can read extensively elsewhere on BZ.

None of the posts you all have made are against the rules (inasmuch as they haven't been ad hominem so far). Yes, you can say those things here. But if you choose to say it, you can expect to be criticized (and appropriately so) for saying something idiotic. Saying "I don't like seeing that in a bathhouse" is a reasonable personal response to the topic. Saying "That isn't a real man" or "Nobody would want to see that" is not.

 

 

[Close2MyBro]

11 minutes ago, viking8x6 said:

For the various people contributing to this topic who have denigrated trans men as "not real" or the like:

As others have said, this is rude. But also, it's absurd. Many trans men are in fact extremely masculine - because they have gone to great effort and expense to become so, in spite of the biological disadvantage they started with. And many of the "real" men you would supposedly welcome in bathhouses are far, far less masculine! I'm talking about all of those exclusive bottoms, self-declared "sissy faggots", and persons with what they refer to as a "clitty", about whom you can read extensively elsewhere on BZ.

None of the posts you all have made are against the rules (inasmuch as they haven't been ad hominem so far). Yes, you can say those things here. But if you choose to say it, you can expect to be criticized (and appropriately so) for saying something idiotic. Saying "I don't like seeing that in a bathhouse" is a reasonable personal response to the topic. Saying "That isn't a real man" or "Nobody would want to see that" is not.

 

 

No amount of hormone replacement therapy is going to change an XX chromosome set to an XY or vice versa. We're all entitled to our own opinions. I would consider it absurd to expect everyone else to adopt a false science simply because you and others may choose to. You can "identify" with whatever you choose to, but that choice will never change the truth. If I wanted to identify as a tree, that's my right, correct? But that will never make me a tree.

[viking8x6]

45 minutes ago, Close2MyBro said:

No amount of hormone replacement therapy is going to change an XX chromosome set to an XY or vice versa. We're all entitled to our own opinions. I would consider it absurd to expect everyone else to adopt a false science simply because you and others may choose to. You can "identify" with whatever you choose to, but that choice will never change the truth. If I wanted to identify as a tree, that's my right, correct? But that will never make me a tree.

I'm hardly adopting false science. Quite the contrary, I'm agreeing with established science which clearly demonstrates that chromosomes are not 100% correlated with phenotype. This is hardly news, it's been known for nearly a century at this point.

Also, you miss the point I was making (perhaps I was too subtle) - that gay men in general can be (and are, by some people) construed as not being "real" men, because they don't fuck women, they do get fucked, and they don't procreate. So are we going to throw them out of the bathhouse, too?

Blanket generalizations don't work well in this sort of discussion.

 

To view the whole thing from a different angle, the question under discussion in this thread is trans men in bathhouses. Therefore, the relevant consideration is whether they are appropriate people for the activities the discussion participants prefer to engage in at a bathhouse. It's for each of us to decide how much bearing their chromosomes, their musculature, their body hair, and their genitalia (as well as all their other characteristics) have on that. But to decree that one particular characteristic or another is the only one that matters for all the people in the conversation is absurd. You may care about the dude's chromosomes when you're getting hot and heavy, but I assure you I don't give a flying fuck. And I say that with firsthand experience to back up my assertion for my own opinion in this case (although said experience was not in a bathhouse).

In other words, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, who cares if it's really a coot, a grebe, or a loon? Apart from the game warden, of course.

[BootmanLA]

41 minutes ago, viking8x6 said:

You may care about the dude's chromosomes when you're getting hot and heavy, but I assure you I don't give a flying fuck.

Not to mention, of course, that none of the people bleating about "real" men have any fucking idea what someone else's chromosomal makeup is. 

[ErosWired]

4 hours ago, topblkmale said:

I'm enjoying the pushback from gay males regarding gay male spaces.

Trans men are men not males.

I fail to understand the distinction. Are you then saying a transman is a female man? That’s an absurdity.

 I have to assume you’re drawing upon the technical/scientific definition of male that specifies an organism that is born with the ability to produce sperm and fertilize gametes. This is not, however, the only way the word is used or understood in the lexicon, and broadly bears the meaning of “belonging to or relating to men or boys”. It is even extended to inanimate objects by virtue of their ability to be inserted into something else, as in the male end of an electrical cord.

But if we focus expressly on the question of human male sex characteristics, it is only the primary characteristics that are not inherent to transmen. With the application of testosterone, for example, secondary sex characteristics that are associated with males begin to be expressed, which means they were inherent in the body all along - the increase in the hormone did not create them, but merely enabled their expression. From that perspective they have the innate male physical potential; to say, then, that the one thing that disqualifies them from being considered ‘male’ is the lack of a natural penis is to suggest that a penis is the sum total of what makes a man - which brings us right back to absurdity.

[BootmanLA]

The bigger picture in all of this, of course, trumps silly angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin debates over what "real" men are and things like chromosomes (which none of us can see, in evaluating another person).

What it really boils down to, in no uncertain terms, is "I don't want to have to look at people like that."

There aren't enough trans men interested in bathhouse sex to create any real obstacle to anyone else getting laid - except insofar as some of the potential partners one might desire avoiding the place out of bigotry. And I have no doubt that if everyone were hooked up to a lie detector, we'd learn pretty quickly that someone likely feels that way about the loud complainers here - that they don't want to see overweight or thin or less-than-endowed or smooth or sweaty or Black or Asian or whatever other characteristic some people find unappealing. The difference is that we (mostly) understand that there will be other people in such a setting who aren't our cup of tea, and we just manage to avoid them when it comes to sexual contact.

Anti-trans bigots are roughly in the place that anti-Black bigots were in 1960; it was still considered acceptable by some to express those opinions, but society was moving quickly in the direction of recognizing that bigotry for what it is. We're doing the same here, but sadly, we're still in the earlier stages of this change. 

[topblkmale]

18 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

 

Anti-trans bigots are roughly in the place that anti-Black bigots were in 1960; it was still considered acceptable by some to express those opinions, but society was moving quickly in the direction of recognizing that bigotry for what it is. We're doing the same here, but sadly, we're still in the earlier stages of this change. 

Wait for it!

Yeah, I knew a reference to 'black' would come along in this thread.

Race, sex/gender ARE DIFFERENT. I can't change my race.

(although I have identified as a white power bottom previously) 😀👍

Lastly gay men who DO NOT fuck trans (men or women) are not bigots.

[ErosWired]

4 hours ago, topblkmale said:

Race, sex/gender ARE DIFFERENT. I can't change my race.

A transperson cannot change their feeling that they are in the wrong body, and an attempt to live as themselves draws adverse reaction from the people around them.

A homosexual cannot change his homosexual nature anymore than you can change your skin. Gays suffer from prejudice, bigotry, discrimination, and violence.

I’m Autistic. I can’t change it, and wouldn’t even if I could, even though the Neurotypical majority has made my existence hell for most of my life because of it.

There are other human conditions besides race that pose intractable challenges in dealing with the prejudice of others. There’s no prize for being the most marginalized - this isn’t the Suffering Olympics.

[BootmanLA]

13 hours ago, topblkmale said:

Lastly gay men who DO NOT fuck trans (men or women) are not bigots.

No. But people who say "trans (men or women) do not belong in this space that I like" are.

[ErosWired]

This discussion raises a question in my mind that I would ask, out of my own ignorance and hope for better understanding, of any transman willing to share a perspective.

We hear here at least one FTM view that observes what he considers phallocentricity among gay men, to which I replied above, essentially, of course they’re cock-focused - they’re men. It has been my experience as a male (even by the most technical definition) that the penis becomes an omnipresence in the lives of the vast majority of men, not only gay but straight as well, simply by virtue of being one of the most sensitive receptors of stimuli on our anatomy. It’s constantly sending a barrage of subtle signals from plain friction, so it’s constantly reminding us, at a subconscious level, that it’s there. When it’s stimulated to its full extent, the result is one of the most pleasurable experiences (usually) a man can experience, and for most men the phallus is the quickest, and often the only, way to get there. Every biological male experiences the nature of this organ from babyhood on; it’s just sticking out there waiting to be triggered. It is an experience so universal to the gender that I would argue it as defining.

A transman faces the predicament of feeling a dissonance between what he perceives as his naturally masculine psyche and the body he occupies by mischance. There is no reason not to accept his self-assessment at face value; he is, after all, the world’s most knowledgeable resource on himself.

The question that occurs to me, however, is whether the transman’s perception of maleness is actually the same as the sense that biological males have by virtue of being male. That is to say, when the transman says, “I’m a man inside,” but does not get why cocks are so important to men, how does that color the sense of the man he perceives himself to be? We agree he is a man, but is he a different kind of man? He certainly isn’t a woman.

There are those among the men on this forum for whom our own phallus has ceased to be our primary focus of sexual energy; a good many especially among the total bottoms, myself included, are more orifice-centered, and may not even become erect when aroused. But I suspect this may have little resonance with a transman’s experience and sensibility, as it begins to approach a female way of being that the transman is trying to become distant from.

The question is potentially fraught. The very, very, very last thing we need is still one more reason to divide people from one another, yet differences that are not addressed and talked about have just as much potential to sow discord. I am particularly aware of this as an Autistic person - we are just like everyone else, and no one would know the difference, until we open our mouths and ‘normal’ people realize that, to our perception, they are bizarre. It all goes downhill from there. Yes, I’m a human, but what kind of human am I? I’m not just like all the others. I’m not mentally ill, just as a transperson isn’t mentally ill - we’re just wired differently.

 I ask for guidance on these questions from our trans members, as my knowledge is lacking and I do not wish to presume. The first girl I ever dated, the first girl who was ever sexual with me in any way, now goes by George. That person is dear to me, and for his sake as much as for a more inclusive world, I want to understand.