Okay, so now we've moved well beyond things that are "your prerogative" as I said earlier; these are no longer opinions, now you're just... incorrect.
I'm not saying all gays are transgenders, I am saying all transgenders are gay.
No, they're not.
I am sure there a lot, maybe most, gay men who feel strong, tough, manly, and certainly identify as masculine and male, but simply prefer the romantic and sexual company of other males.
But what I am saying is, those people who feel as if they are women trapped in a man's body, they have to be gay.
No, they don't.
Because part of being a woman is seeking romantic and sexual relationships with males.
No, it isn't.
Sex.
Gender.
Sexual orientation.
Three different things. Related, yes, but different.
Learn how this works, and get back to us. Otherwise, continuing this discussion is pointless.
So if some man said they felt as if they were really a woman, oh but they don't want a relationship with a man... I have no way of possibly relating to that. It's as alien to me as saying that you feel like you're a square, but a square that has no corners. to which I raise my hand and say "wouldn't that make you a circle?" and you say "nope, just a cornerless square in a circle's body." And it would be like that scene from DS9 when Sisko is trying to explain to the wormhole aliens about linear time, and it is so far removed from their comprehension he lacks a strong foundation for an explanation.
Your problem is that you are tying up those three things I mentioned above. Being female =/= wants to have sex with guys. Being male =/= wants to have sex with women. Obviously there are many for whom that IS true, but it's not automatic.
I consider transgender to be an aspect of homosexuality, like I consider a rottweiler to be an aspect of dogs, it's a smaller part of the larger whole, but it isn't separate.
Yes, it is separate. The relationship between "homosexual" and "transgender" is really not analogous to the relationship between "dog" and "rottweiler", as much as you might want it to be.
And therefore, I don't believe in the existence of a transgender person, transsexual yes, but not transgender.
Tough. Reality is what it is.
For a man to feel like a woman, yet not want sex with men, basically means he's just a soft effeminate male, or a sissy as they used to be called. If you claim there is something in between, than I am at a total loss to understand what you mean.
Like wise a woman who feels like a boy, yet does not want a relationship with a girl, isn't transgender either; she's a tom boy. Again, you're a sissy or a tomboy, but your not transgender, and if you feel like your a woman in a man's body and you want sex with men, than you're not transgender either, you're a homosexual, who happens to be very effeminate.
Nice, this is very regressive. You're either a STRONG MANLY MAN or a sissy.
And a tomboy is not the same thing as a transgendered female.
Ah, yes, good 'ol "liberal crap." Why am I not surprised.
like "race is a social construct". No, it isn't, transgenderism is a social construct. And one of the reasons it was constructed was to broaden homosexuality to be more inclusive and overly complicated for the purpose of sewing confusion so that it becomes easier to nit pick and argue against hetero-normality, for the purpose of trying to push homo-normality. that's why when I hear all this terminology, I just string it all together, and stick it on the side of the fence called LGBT, or "gay" for short.
You know what? Never mind, I don't care if you do learn and come to understand what I said above or not (spoiler: you won't). This discussion is well BEYOND pointless.
