Why Sex Isn’t a Spectrum

The word “sex,” as in whether you are male or female, is not unrelated to the word “sex,” as in getting busy in the bedroom. Sex organs are named for their function–they are used in sex. Sex is the process by which a species reproduces. For humans, sex also may (or may not) be a jolly fun time for its participants, but such entertainment potential does not inform its scientific labeling.

Reproduction in humans is a process that involves exactly two roles and only two roles. Someone provides the gamete called sperm and someone provides the gamete called ova (and in humans, gestates the offspring in a womb). There is not a third gamete.

A given individual can play the male role in reproduction if equipped, the female role if equipped, or neither role if their sex organs are dysfunctional or anomalous. Being “equipped” depends upon normal chromosomal and other development.

Intersex conditions represent a disorder of sex development, not an introduction of new and additional kinds of sex development. They don’t provide a third gamete or perform a third role, much less a “spectrum” of gametes or roles.

The idea that sex is a spectrum comes from the view that a person’s sex is primarily interesting or erotic or an impetus for self-expression, and overlooks its function. It’s an ideological concept, not a scientific one.



Teen Vogue Anal Sex Guide: Fixed it for You

Does my version seem unlikely, absurd, perverse?

That’s because we view women’s bodies as public property and men’s as sacrosanct. He doesn’t “belong” in her bottom any more than she “belongs” in his, but society understands who is and isn’t for violating, and changing that script is always shocking.

Not every heterosexual couple is having, or wants to have, “penis in the vagina sex.” If your boyfriend is finding that using his penis during sex is not for him, it’s helpful to know the facts.

I have got him covered. Without all the run-of-the-mill hoopla, here is the lowdown on everything your boyfriend needs to know about receiving anal sex from you, his girlfriend.

Why anal?

Anal sex, though often stigmatized and shamed, is a perfectly natural way for your boyfriend to receive sexual activity. Men have been receiving anal sex since the dawn of humanity. Seriously, it’s been documented back to the Ancient Greeks and then some. So, if he’s a little worried about receiving anal, or is having trouble understanding the appeal, just let him know that it isn’t weird or gross.

Just because you have a vagina does not mean your boyfriend’s anus is off limits. The anus is not as malleable as a vagina, which has the ability to accommodate an infant’s head by design. The anus is very tight, so he’ll have the unique feeling of having something in his rectal area. It is often described as a feeling of fullness which can be delightful for him.

How to ask your boyfriend if he’s ready to receive anal

Asking to perform anal on your boyfriend can be a bit daunting. Have a one-on-one with your boyfriend and let him know that inserting something into his anus is something you want to try. Be honest about your feelings about it. In a healthy relationship, you should be able to discuss anything openly.

Start slow, seriously

Here is the real deal. Your boyfriend can’t just decide he’s going to start receiving anal one day and then go for it, anchors away!

You need to start penetrating him slowly. The anus is a muscle that needs to be worked up to having larger objects inserted. Start by inserting your finger or a small (I do mean v small) butt plug to warm him up. As he feels more aroused and comfortable, work the object inside. Gently move it around to loosen up the area.

Lube is a must

Lube is absolutely required, but condoms aren’t. You can’t get an STI by inserting objects into your boyfriend’s anus.

Original Link




I just had the good fortune of making an emotional, spiritual and sexual connection that I did not know was in my universe of possibilities, with someone I deeply respect and who challenges me to be a better person.

That has filled me up to the top of my soul, to the extent that it’s distracting me from my current priority. That’s ok. I’ll get back on track.

“Love is what anchors us to the Earth,” says Ann Patchett. I remain baffled that someone would give up something so precious for dogma.

But this is not about that. This is about her. My gratitude to the universe for making her exist.

Sexuality: Anything but Sex

Back in the days when folks were less troubled by identity woes, we started with three sexual orientations that encompassed the only three ways someone might relate to the two sexes (sexes being defined as people with particular sex organs):

  • homosexuality
  • heterosexuality
  • bisexuality

And then these inspired people to make up new words in the same vein that aren’t actually about sexuality (as they are unassociated with and exist outside the sexes):

  • demisexual
  • sapiosexual
  • pansexual
  • etc

Then, “cotton ceiling” rhetoric and the myth that sexuality is an attraction to a gender instead of a sex erased at least two of the “original” sexualities (homosexual and heterosexual), calling both bigoted, and permitting only the existence of bisexuals who are unparticular about sex organs but who can be organized into those who like lipstick and those who like neckties.

Thus, it’s now only ok to be sexual with something other than sex organs.

The definition of fetish is:

Sexual arousal from the use of nonliving objects or a highly specific focus on non-genital body part(s).

And so with transgender ideology, sexuality has been wholly replaced with fetish.





I Don’t Support Patriarchy

This is dedicated to my LGB friends and allies who are getting shouted down on social media for wishing a happy pride day to LGB friends without mentioning the “T.”

Women don’t have to support patriarchy.

I don’t support any philosophy that enshrines harmful gender stereotypes and rejects gender nonconformity. Such a philosophy is a patriarchal one.

I don’t support it when it comes from right-wingers or Christians who say, “You’re right, patriarchy, men don’t wear dresses, so men should stop wearing dresses and put on some manly clothes.”

And I also don’t support it when it comes from liberals who say “You’re right, patriarchy, men don’t wear dresses, so a man in a dress is actually a woman.”

Yes, it’s important. And no, we women don’t owe support to this philosophy, no matter how many progressive clothes it tries to dress itself up in and no matter how many bullies yell at us for not supporting it.

It would not be the first time men yelled at women for not supporting patriarchy.

Socialization and Privilege: Not Optional

Refuting this poorly-written article, Still Think Trans Women Have Male Privilege? These 7 Points Prove They Don’t, is like shooting fish in a barrel, which is why I haven’t done it in the year and a half since it came out. But it came up again in one of my social media feeds, indicating that there are apparently people out there who think it has some merit. And that’s just annoying.

I’m baffled that Everyday Feminism consistently publishes dear-diary-quality ramblings by people who clearly haven’t attended a 101-level sociology course or heard of a basic logical fallacy. I’m not baffled that they publish misogynist tripe, because I understand that’s their schtick now, but can’t they find any halfway intelligent misogynists to write for them? Like the ones that write for Playboy? Maybe not?

And the hubris. I’m reminded of the trans activists who’ve recently tried to “critique” two people leagues greater than themselves, Margaret Atwood and Lou Reed. Embarrassing, really.

But here we go.

To begin, let’s look at what socialization is, as described by sociology.org. It’s not a college course, but it’s a start:

“…Socialization is not a politically, socially, or even spiritually neutral process. That is, the things you are a taught and the ways you are to behave are not random. When you are born and the socialization process begins, it is not just about you and your family, it is about the social and political order within which you are born into. In other words, socialization teaches you the social order. And note, it is not voluntary… Whatever society you are born into, whatever the sex of the body you happen to inhabit, you are given no choice about what you will learn. Immediately after you are born, and long before you have the intellectual capacity to understand what it is that is happening to you, the process of imposing the social order begins.”

The article starts with just a grab bag of trans ideology snippets that ramble on and have nothing to do with the alleged topic, which is not only poor writing but underscores the degree to which EF is really committed to its virtue-signaling agenda. So we’ll skip that and move on to the “seven” points.

1. Trans women are real women, therefore we cannot receive male privilege.

This is known as the Equivocation Fallacy. The entire point of this article is to discuss whether or not trans women are raised with a particular type of socialization, namely, the one intended for children assumed to have penises, typified by such experiences as being punished for playing with Barbie dolls. Without accepting that such socialization exists, there’s no point in an article dedicated to whether trans women experience it. Simply declaring that the commonly used name for this phenomenon — “male socialization” — is objectionable, says nothing about whether or not it is occurring.

2. Trans Women Are Not ‘Socialized as Men’

“Most trans feminine children experience being treated as male extremely differently from cisgender boys.”

This very sentence, ostensibly placed to argue that trans women aren’t socialized male, admits that trans women are socialized male. In order for a trans woman to “experience being treated as male differently,” the trans woman has to experience being treated as male. That’s male socialization.

3. Trans Women Experience Misogyny Before They Present as Women

“But every time I picked up or even looked at a Barbie, I was called ‘fag’ or ‘gaylord’ by the other boys, reprimanded by my teachers, and punished by my parents.”

This is not misogyny. Little girls are not punished for playing with Barbie. If you were being treated as a girl, a prerequisite for receiving misogyny, then your attempts to play with Barbie would have been well-received.

Punishment for playing with Barbie is reserved for males. The punishment you received for playing with Barbie is exactly the same punishment a “cis” boy would have received if he had played with Barbie. Kids don’t come out of the womb knowing if they’re supposed to play with Barbie or not; they’re taught. Girls are taught it’s ok. Boys are taught it’s not. You received the “boy” lesson, exactly as expected.

Not only did you receive male socialization, but you were in fact its specific target. Male socialization exists to punish boys who play with Barbie and reward boys who play baseball, in the hopes that when they grow up, they’ll play baseball instead of Barbie.

If, as you presume, there’s a baseball-loving “cis” boy out there who’s never picked up a Barbie, then he will need less of this socialization than you, not more. It is you who is targeted for “correction,” by design. Male socialization exists not to train boys to do what their “nature” was already going to direct them to do, but to train them to do what the social order requires of them.

The fact that socialization is painful proves that it’s happening, not that it’s not happening. Training is painful. Studying for a test is painful. Lifting weights is painful.

Saying that painful socialization isn’t socialization is like claiming that if you walk away with aching arms from a session with a personal trainer who forced you to do 50 push-ups, the push-ups must not have really happened.

And this socialization was, contrary to what you believe, highly successful. You so thoroughly internalized the message that boys don’t play with Barbie, that you changed your beliefs about your own nature to avoid challenging it. Instead of facing the inescapable fact that boys do in fact play with Barbie, as you knew first-hand, you redefined yourself as a girl so as not to contradict your training. Who knew that socialization could be so successful as to make people deny the information of their senses.

Also, point 3 is just a restatement of point 2. You don’t get to count it twice.

4. Trans Women Don’t Experience Less Violence or Discrimination Than Cis Women

This has nothing to do with male socialization or male privilege. Stay on topic.

Also, it’s not true.

5. Trans Women Who Aren’t Perceived as Femme Don’t Experience More Privilege Than Those Who Do

This is just incoherent.

First of all, it’s a “manufactroversy.” Secondly, it’s answered with wholly invented baseless assertions. Not even worth it.

6. Trans Women May Participate in Misogyny, But They Do So as Women

Ugh, train wreck. Let me count the ways:

  • Misogyny from women isn’t a thing, just as “reverse racism” isn’t a thing. It depends upon a power dynamic.
  • No, they don’t.
  • Has nothing to do with the claim in the article title.

7. It’s Not Up to Cis People to Define Trans Women’s Experiences

Again, this has nothing to do with the claim in the article title. Or is the author claiming the entire field of sociology is up for grabs to be redefined by whoever feels like it?

And this final nugget of wisdom:

“And isn’t self-determination, even in the midst of a complicated and violent world, the point of feminism?”

No. No, it is not.