X-critic also against Transsexuals

**loveboof** · 12-29-2012

Krissy, sweetie. Why are you assuming that I agree with Franklin?

I have found almost every addition you have made to this thread to be condescending or rude to somebody - I have been talking to you in kind. It turns out you don't really like it very much. Nobody does.

You believe there is a difference between transvestites and transsexuals. I agree. Do you think it is right to present TV's under the guise of TS porn?

Because this is what I am saying. It is irrelevant whether I can define transgenderism to your liking because my point does not depend upon me knowing the difference between TV/TS on sight. It depends upon the fact that Seanchai has already told us TV's have been used on occasion for his websites.

Now Seanchai doesn't see a problem with this because of his definition of the word 'Shemale'. Fine. It's not my problem...

I agree that the models used in this industry are people first and foremost. They also form a product. It is sold to us, so it is a commodity. If you have a issue with that, then don't work in the porn industry.

In this specific example, I have been using phrases relating to your analogy interchangeably. This does not change my actual point.

I do not believe that all TS women who I find unattractive are TV's. But that doesn't mean that some of them are not. Do you understand what I am saying?

In regards to Franklins views, I have simply been arguing that he has a right to them and should be able to express them without ridicule and censorship!

**christianxxx** · 12-29-2012

poor dumb Franklin has the same delusion that many fans on many porn forums have. they think somehow that the vocal minority constitutes more of a say-so for companies than the silent majority. This is incorrect. If Shemale-Yum has 2000 members and Franklin and 5 other people hate a scene or model, there are still 1995 other possible members who love it or said nothing. Franklin is not privy to sales, statistics, or numbers.

Many obsessive porn fans seem to think their voice means more than the 1 of however many members a site has, simply because they decided to speak up. Hilarious.

Its extremely insulting because it assumes Seanchai is too stupid or ignorant to run his own sites and make them profitable. Get this through your thick skulls - Seanchai wants to make as much money as possible - ergo he personally and specifically tailors his entire network to maximize that amount of money. Telling him how to run his own business is absolutely retarded. He has been the TS industry leader for 15 years now at least. If I were him I would be so pissed off at Franklin's stupid nonsensical rants.

**GroobyKrissy** · 12-29-2012

Originally Posted by loveboof

Krissy, sweetie. Why are you assuming that I agree with Franklin?

I have found almost every addition you have made to this thread to be condescending or rude to somebody - I have been talking to you in kind. It turns out you don't really like it very much. Nobody does.

You believe there is a difference between transvestites and transsexuals. I agree. Do you think it is right to present TV's under the guise of TS porn?

Because this is what I am saying. It is irrelevant whether I can define transgenderism to your liking because my point does not depend upon me knowing the difference between TV/TS on sight. It depends upon the fact that Seanchai has already told us TV's have been used on occasion for his websites.

Now Seanchai doesn't see a problem with this because of his definition of the word 'Shemale'. Fine. It's not my problem...

I agree that the models used in this industry are people first and foremost. They also form a product. It is sold to us, so it is a commodity. If you have a issue with that, then don't work in the porn industry.

In this specific example, I have been using phrases relating to your analogy interchangeably. This does not change my actual point.

I do not believe that all TS women who I find unattractive are TV's. But that doesn't mean that some of them are not. Do you understand what I am saying?

In regards to Franklins views, I have simply been arguing that he has a right to them and should be able to express them without ridicule and censorship!

I will take your points one by one:

I assume you agree with Franklin because typically when one defends another person's argument, it is taken as implied approval. If that was not your intention, best to say so at the beginning. As in, "I don't agree with everything Franklin says but he has the right to say it."

I don't care how you speak to me. I've responded in that effect only to illustrate that is not how discussions should be handled. And you're wrong. Just because I press strongly on a point and am unwilling to give it up if not addressed, how does that make it "condescending and rude"? As you say you have done, I have responded in kind to those as well.

Quote me ONE instance when I STARTED OFF by insulting someone who had already not insulted me? Even you, who says, you did not, started off your first post here to me by calling me "obtuse". How is that a conversation starter?

You see, you take discussion as discussion only if someone agrees with you, and everything else as condescending or rude. It is not condescending or rude to point out the flaws of logic that someone has in a train of thought. It is called discussion. Nor of course, is it condescending or rude if it comes from your hallowed mouth. Only when it comes from someone else. This is the very definition of hypocritical.

I would be very happy to have an honest discussion about this... but people aren't willing to be honest... which is my point. You cannot have a conversation about the "TV vs TS" thing unless you admit that you judge that criteria based upon looks alone. If you don't start there, you simply don't have a leg to stand on and all subsequent arguments are invalid.

Yes. I believe there is a difference between TV and TS.

BUT NO, there is no "moral" implication (right vs wrong) in presenting TVs under the guise of Shemale porn. As has already been said, it is a descriptor open to many interpretations. Sites have tours. Tours (especially SMY, which has one of the largest tours around) give a glimpse of the sites overall content. If you don't like what you see, then don't join it. If you do, you probably have a fair idea of what is to be seen on the site.

Now, would I be sympathetic to girls who are TS to voice concern about being featured alongside people they consider to be TV? Sure. Frankly, it is why I am strongly considering not attending this year's Tranny Awards for the first time since it began. It is awesome to be considered and nominated for so many categories, but I am well aware that my name is probably pretty suspect to many involved. I want the TA's to succeed because it is good for the genre as a whole. If that means I don't attend so it isn't looked on as a "joke"... then so be it. It is a truth that I can accept and live with.

You do not have to define what TS means to my liking. What I am stating is that by not having ANY definition down in writing about what you believe, you are leaving it open to interpretation and allowing yourself to say whatever you want. That is cowardly.

As I've already stated... NUMEROUS TIMES NOW... I don't care at all about if you judge a person's TS status on looks. I care when you get high and mighty about it and start calling people TVs publicly who identify as TS, as Franklin has done here.

I've already answered the "...then don't work in the porn industry"... point in my already written answer. The porn industry is different.

I understand what you're saying about unattractive TS not being TV. That is not (logically implied) what Franklin has stated. In defending his views, I took that as approval and agreement. If that is not your though process, then fine. I take your word for it and apologize for mixing the two of you together.

I have at NO TIME called for any sort of censorship or that he (or anyone) should stop expression views... and I never will. But, you've got to realize that some views will have strong reactions from other people. If you're willing to express the views to begin with but don't want any of the consequences, can't defend them, or just are going to devolve into name calling and demeaning insults, then you've got no place expressing them in the first place.

Clearly, I am tough on people I disagree with. But, contrary to popular belief, I do read through EVERY word of EVERY post that I'm involved in quite carefully.... something which others do not do. And again, contrary to popular belief, I think about and digest what has been written before I write a response. I do not rely on memory. I have dual monitors so I have exactly what was written on the other screen as I type a response.

If you had stated somewhere SIMPLY that you disagreed with some of Franklin's views but had a right to say them, I would not even have entered into your conversation timeline. YOU addressed me... I did not initiate a conversation with you.

**loveboof** · 12-29-2012

Yeah, well fair enough. My initiation into this discussion was after Seanchai deleted a comment from Franklin - which I happened to have read before it was removed.

It was derogatory, but not slander. Franklin was simply stating his opinion.

It was around this time that I did actually differentiate my views from his on certain things by placing qualifiers around a few sentences but I have not felt the need to directly assert my views into the thread.

Your attitude has been consistently condescending and you have called almost everyone who has engaged in discussion with you 'stupid' on multiple occasions.

I too read every word of a post before replying, but I still misread or misinterpret things every now and then. So do you. It happens - nobody's perfect.

I also happen to be a bit of an arrogant know-it-all in these sort of discussions, so we have something in common

In this instance, you are arguing for the sake of it. You are fueling disagreement and dressing it up as a desperate attempt at an honest discussion. We don't all need to agree to have a discussion, but there does have to be common ground. Stop snatching away olive branches and snapping them under the weight of your disapproval...

**GroobyKrissy** · 12-30-2012

Originally Posted by loveboof

Yeah, well fair enough. My initiation into this discussion was after Seanchai deleted a comment from Franklin - which I happened to have read before it was removed.

It was derogatory, but not slander. Franklin was simply stating his opinion.

It was around this time that I did actually differentiate my views from his on certain things by placing qualifiers around a few sentences but I have not felt the need to directly assert my views into the thread.

Your attitude has been consistently condescending and you have called almost everyone who has engaged in discussion with you 'stupid' on multiple occasions.

I too read every word of a post before replying, but I still misread or misinterpret things every now and then. So do you. It happens - nobody's perfect.

I also happen to be a bit of an arrogant know-it-all in these sort of discussions, so we have something in common

In this instance, you are arguing for the sake of it. You are fueling disagreement and dressing it up as a desperate attempt at an honest discussion. We don't all need to agree to have a discussion, but there does have to be common ground. Stop snatching away olive branches and snapping them under the weight of your disapproval...

Please. Tell me WHO has offered an olive branch that I have rejected? It is pretty imagery but ends there.

To the contrary, I have stated my discussion with Giovanna_Hotel closed after his last post, considered my discussion with Sherm13 closed after his last post (with an apology for something that I said that was misinterpreted). Thus far, I am the only one actually issuing any sort of actual apology for words I have spoken.

Again, I asked for specifics which you have failed to supply. In a discussion you can't just make sweeping, broad generalities. Notice how when I say something, I follow it with an example, and typically, what I say speaks to a specific point. All you can do is make a sweeping statement that I'm condescending and rude. Again, show me where I have been that way to someone who hasn't treated me that way to begin with or called me "stupid" first. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right here, but if you can dish, then you can take.

I've not said that I don't misinterpret things... which is why I am asking for a definition... so I don't do that. If it is left undefined, then you're asking for misinterpretation. I don't understand what is so difficult to get about that.

In the future, when Giovanna_Hotel says something I disagree with in the realm of TS-related items, I know it is coming from a place of looking at TS individuals on the basis of looks. That is freeing. In the future I know to be extra careful in trying to inject humor into posts with Shrem13. That is freeing.

If anyone is arguing for the sake of arguing, it is you. You've explained your thought process. I said I took your word for it (i.e. - olive branch accepted), I apologized for lumping you together with Franklin (olive branch extended), and now, you're just throwing that back in my face and again saying that I am consistently condescending (a word you're misusing BTW) and basically just arguing to hear my own voice... So who is snapping olive branches here... you or me?

It comes down to this. If YOU are disagreed with... it is the other person (me) who is always wrong... that is true arrogance. I may come across as arrogant, I may not. Like I said, I don't dumb things down for other people... that is truly (and factually) condescending. When I have taken a condescending tone, it is because any other attempt has failed to get the point across so I literally have to spell the points out. I give people every ounce of room I can give them before going down the road of "let me spell this out for you". Sometimes, there just isn't another way.

What I do do, is when faced with something that I've said that has been misinterpreted, is provable as wrong, or has truly hurt someone's feelings, then I concede the point, move on, and make apologies if necessary. I don't see that from any other poster here at all.

Anyway, I get it. You think I am an arrogant twat in love with my own voice, stirring up trouble just to spend hours here wasting away because I have no other things to do with about 40 blogs to run, a site to run, a social life to maintain, and etc. etc. etc. Great. Just ignore the fact that if I was TRULY this person, I'd be involved in A LOT more threads than I actually am. Go through my history. Notice the threads that I do get seriously involved in. See the theme...? PEOPLE.

I engage here on subjects that I care about because I like this board. I like the people on it (everyone) and I think it is worth having these discussions. I make the points I make because they are pertinent to how girls are looked on within the industry, something that I have firsthand knowledge about. I want things to get better for those who will be there long after I have hung up the heels.

It is a sad state though that people cannot engage in dialogue here without devolving into this soup of nastiness. I was just speaking the other day with someone who once contributed here regularly but doesn't and won't anymore because people, such as yourself, basically ran her off.

Guess what... I'm not going anywhere. Fun!

**giovanni_hotel** · 12-30-2012

So annoying.
Yes you are condescending Grooby. No loveboof didn't use the word inappropriately. When people TELL YOU what they mean and you choose to interpret that meaning as something else, that my dear is textbook condescension; " You may think that's what you mean, but let me tell you what you really mean..."

You call me Giovann(a). Maybe you're the one Grooby who needs the vocabulary tutorial on condescending behavior.

For the last time, I can give you a scientific definition of transsexualism, and I can give you a definition of what a TG means to me when I look at porn. Whenever I see a pic of someone with a 5 o'clock shadow, bad lipstick, wearing a wig, no 'mone or saline/silicone breasts with a six pack and ripped muscles who looks like at best they started transitioning yesterday, I either think that person either shouldn't be on a tranny porn site, or they are really TV/CD.

Because you technically can't tell if someone is TV or TG from their appearance, in the same way you can't know if someone is a virgin or a slut from a pic, you've held on to this argument Grooby to discredit my opinion as a consumer that there are some TVs passing themselves off as tgirls for the paper in tranny porn.

Your point of view may be correct in a pedantic sense, but it denies reality.

**loveboof** · 12-30-2012