I grew up in a redneck, rural town. From a very young age I observed an interesting but not unusual pattern of machismo in the teenage boys in my town.
Insults between two males could, and often did, imply that the one doing the insulting had performed penetrative sex upon the one being insulted (or would do so in the future). These insults, much to my confusion as a kid, did not imply that the insulter was gay, but did imply that the insulted was gay. This type of insult was beyond common in my neighborhood.
Although a particular teenage boy was definitely not gay-tolerant and would have been utterly horrified to be thought of as gay, it was completely cool and indeed masculine for him to say, during a match of insults, something along the lines of “that’s not what you said when my dick was in your mouth last night.”
Indeed, I once observed a particularly fast-paced insult match in which one boy kept implying he’d ruined the other’s ass some evening prior, and after many rounds, when he slipped up and said “my ass” instead of “your ass,” the watching crowd gasped in horror and declared him the loser of the match.
How curious it seemed to me at the time that only one party of a homosexual sex act between two people should be considered gay.
At some point later, when I’d grown up, left town, and given up on wondering why macho redneck men do what they do, I came across an interesting point in some article which I’ve now lost track of: that men bond by subjugating women.
This bit of wisdom turned on a light bulb in my head. This was why men took their male coworkers and clients to Hooters. It was an opportunity to belittle women, not an opportunity to risk what I thought should have been the potentially embarrassing experience of becoming aroused in the presence of casual acquaintances.
This was why men had strippers at bachelor parties. This was why men watched porn at parties.
In this light, I understood why gang bangs and “sharing” women among friends, which I’d also heard rumor of in my small town and at college, did not trigger gay panic in male participants.
The message here is clear: the definition of sex is subjugation.
As long as you are putting someone in their place, you are performing sex in the way required and approved for men. It doesn’t matter if other men are present. It doesn’t matter if other men are who is getting put in their place.
As a logical corollary, men who have receptive sex are women.
This is a patriarchal view that does not see the participants in any sex act as equals.
“Straight men who have sex with transwomen aren’t gay,” I heard a MtF say recently, and not for the first time. The point he meant to make was that transwomen are women, which I take issue with.
But for those who define sex as subjugation, this statement turns out to be correct.
As is my ex’s apparent definition of womanhood as “sexually submissive.”
All of which forces me to concede that perhaps the claim “transwomen are women” is, at least for some, less a logical inconsistency (as I characterized it here) and more a hatred of women.