What Do You Think About Pattaya Ladyboys?

[basjke]

I would like to remind some of the bigots in here that this forum has at least one VERY respected member that is transgendered.

So does that mean that EVERYBODY has to follow his opinion.

Where did he mention that you should follow his opinion? He was basically telling the bigots to give it a break.

Ok,then I want to remind those bigots that a lot more VERY respected members are straight.

[tropo]

.

Transexuals are not confused about their sexual orientation, they were just born with the wrong body type.

So you want to say that a transexual is something natural.Then let's talk about nature.Can you point me to,or have you ever seen,a bull or a cock or any male animal which considered itself to be born in the wrong body.

You're putting words in my mouth. How about you read over my replies again and point to where I said that transexualism is "something natural" as you stated. That's a different topic, but of course transexualism is natural. Anything that nature produces is natural.

Did you have a point? Your cock and bull story is just that: Cock & Bull.

[tropo]

I would like to remind some of the bigots in here that this forum has at least one VERY respected member that is transgendered.

So does that mean that EVERYBODY has to follow his opinion.

Where did he mention that you should follow his opinion? He was basically telling the bigots to give it a break.

Ok,then I want to remind those bigots that a lot more VERY respected members are straight.

Bigots are bigots whether straight or not, unfortunately straight people who feel "normal" are usually the most bigoted of all...and you're a good example of that.

What's your point? Run over the opinions of minorities? Don't give them any respect? Cleanse them from society? Wipe them out?

[basjke]

.

Transexuals are not confused about their sexual orientation, they were just born with the wrong body type.

So you want to say that a transexual is something natural.Then let's talk about nature.Can you point me to,or have you ever seen,a bull or a cock or any male animal which considered itself to be born in the wrong body.

You're putting words in my mouth. How about you read over my replies again and point to where I said that transexualism is "something natural" as you stated. That's a different topic, but of course transexualism is natural. Anything that nature produces is natural.

Did you have a point? Your cock and bull story is just that: Cock & Bull.

So now you start talking with double tongue.How about you read over my replies again and point to where I said that transexualism is "something natural" as you stated. but of course transexualism is natural.

And no my cock and bull story isn't b_llshit.Animals are the best reflection of real nature.Please point me to some facts of male animals attracted to other male animals.

[basjke]

I would like to remind some of the bigots in here that this forum has at least one VERY respected member that is transgendered.

So does that mean that EVERYBODY has to follow his opinion.

Where did he mention that you should follow his opinion? He was basically telling the bigots to give it a break.

Ok,then I want to remind those bigots that a lot more VERY respected members are straight.

Bigots are bigots whether straight or not, unfortunately straight people who feel "normal" are usually the most bigoted of all...and you're a good example of that.

What's your point? Run over the opinions of minorities? Don't give them any respect? Cleanse them from society? Wipe them out?

No I just try to point out that straight people are considered synonymous to normal unless you can prove the opposite.

[tropo]

So now you start talking with double tongue.How about you read over my replies again and point to where I said that transexualism is "something natural" as you stated. but of course transexualism is natural.

And no my cock and bull story isn't b_llshit.Animals are the best reflection of real nature.Please point me to some facts of male animals attracted to other male animals.

Now you're changing the subject to homosexuality. You're fixated on that aren't you?

You're very confused. You're confusing "normal" and "natural".

There is no "best reflection of real nature". All nature is a reflection of nature...good or bad, usual or unusual, common or uncommon.

What are you trying to prove with all this cock n' bull?

Edited February 26, 2009 by tropo

[Jingthing]

Please point me to some facts of male animals attracted to other male animals.

You don't get out much, do you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm

It says homosexuality has been observed among 1,500 species, and that in 500 of those it is well documented.

You can't win with the anti-gay haters. First they will say it isn't natural. Then you show them it is natural. Then they will say gays are like animals. Like I said, you can't win.

[basjke]

So now you start talking with double tongue.How about you read over my replies again and point to where I said that transexualism is "something natural" as you stated. but of course transexualism is natural.

And no my cock and bull story isn't b_llshit.Animals are the best reflection of real nature.Please point me to some facts of male animals attracted to other male animals.

Now you're changing the subject to homosexuality. You're fixated on that aren't you?

You're very confused. You're confusing "normal" and "natural".

There is no "best reflection of real nature". All nature is a reflection of nature...good or bad, usual or unusual, common or uncommon.

What are you trying to prove with all this cock n' bull?

Of course all nature is real nature and that's my point.And at the end homosexuals and transexuals are sitting in the same basket.

You still didn't point me to an example where in nature any creature denies its real gender.

[tropo]

No I just try to point out that straight people are considered synonymous to normal unless you can prove the opposite.

Why didn't you use the word "normal" then, instead of beating around the bush with "cock n' bull"?

You're starting to sound like a bigoted christian.

Straight people like to think they are normal, but everything else that nature dishes up is normal too. We're all normal within the variations of nature.

BTW, here is a list of more than one hundred animals that display homosexual behaviour. There's even a list of insects for your perusal.

Animals displying homosexual behaviour

Even the domestic chicken is on the list.

Here's another article for you to enjoy:

Homosexuality in animals

Edited February 26, 2009 by tropo

[basjke]

Please point me to some facts of male animals attracted to other male animals.

You don't get out much, do you?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm

It says homosexuality has been observed among 1,500 species, and that in 500 of those it is well documented.

You can't win with the anti-gay haters. First they will say it isn't natural. Then you show them it is natural. Then they will say gays are like animals. Like I said, you can't win.

Did you notice that the "gay animals" mentioned in the bbc article are among the animals with the smallest brain volume.

[tropo]

Of course all nature is real nature and that's my point.And at the end homosexuals and transexuals are sitting in the same basket.

You still didn't point me to an example where in nature any creature denies its real gender.

Why should we talk about animals? It's just your side track from the issue of human transexuality/homosexuality. It wouldn't prove a point in that everything is natural anyway, despite variations.

Anyway, since you had to ask, here's a story about a transexual hen in Sweden:

TRANSEXUAL HEN

Edited February 26, 2009 by tropo

[tropo]

Did you notice that the "gay animals" mentioned in the bbc article are among the animals with the smallest brain volume.

My list includes:

African Elephant

Common Dolphin

Elephants have huge brains and dolphins are pretty smart.

Here's the full list from the link I provided earlier:

African Buffalo

African Elephant

Agile Wallaby

Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)

American Bison

Antelope

Asian Elephant

Asiatic Lion

Asiatic Mouflon

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin

Australian Sea Lion

Barasingha

Barbary Sheep

Beluga

Bharal

Bighorn Sheep

Black Bear

Blackbuck

Black-footed Rock Wallaby

Black-tailed Deer

Bonnet Macaque

Bonobo

Bottlenose Dolphin

Bowhead Whale

Brazilian Guinea Pig

Bridled Dolphin

Brown Bear

Brown Capuchin

Brown Long-eared Bat

Brown Rat

Buffalo

Caribou

Cat (domestic)

Cattle (domestic)

Cheetah

Collared Peccary

Commerson's Dolphin

Common Brushtail Possum

Common Chimpanzee

Common Dolphin

Common Marmoset

Common Pipistrelle

Common Raccoon

Common Tree Shrew

Cotton-top Tamarin

Crab-eating Macaque

Crested Black Macaque

Cui

Dall's Sheep

Daubenton's Bat

Dog (domestic)

Doria's Tree Kangaroo

Dugong

Dwarf Cavy

Dwarf Mongoose

Eastern Cottontail Rabbit

Eastern Grey Kangaroo

Elk

Euro (a subspecies of wallaroo)

European Bison

Fallow Deer

False Killer Whale

Fat-tailed Dunnart

Fin Whale

Fox

Gazelle

Gelada Baboon

Giraffe

Goat (Domestic)

Golden Monkey

Gorilla

Grant's Gazelle

Grey-headed Flying Fox

Grey Seal

Grey squirrel

Grey Whale

Grey Wolf

Grizzly Bear

Guinea Pig (Domestic)

Hamadryas Baboon

Hamster (Domestic)

Hanuman Langur

Harbor Porpoise

Harbor Seal

Himalayan Tahr

Hoary Marmot

Horse (domestic)

Human (see Human sexual behavior)

Indian Fruit Bat

Indian Muntjac

Indian Rhinoceros

Japanese Macaque

Javelina

Kangaroo Rat

Killer Whale

Koala

Kob

Larga Seal

Least Chipmunk

Lechwe

Lesser Bushbaby

Lion

Lion-tailed Macaque

Lion Tamarin

Little Brown Bat

Livingstone's Fruit Bat

Long-eared Hedgehog

Long-footed Tree Shrew

Macaque

Markhor

Marten

Matschie's Tree Kangaroo

Moco

Mohol Galago

Moor Macaque

Moose

Mountain Goat

Mountain Tree Shrew

Mountain Zebra

Mouse (domestic)

Moustached Tamarin

Mule Deer

Musk-ox

Natterer's Bat

New Zealand Sea Lion

Nilgiri Langur

Noctule

North American Porcupine

Northern Elephant Seal

Northern Fur Seal

Northern Quoll

Olympic Marmot

Orangutan

Orca

Pacific Striped Dolphin

Patas Monkey

Pere David's Deer

Pig (Domestic)

Pig-tailed Macaque

Plains Zebra

Polar Bear

Pretty-faced Wallaby

Proboscis Monkey

Pronghorn

Przewalski's Horse

Puku

Quokka

Rabbit

Raccoon Dog

Red Deer

Red Fox

Red Kangaroo

Red-necked Wallaby

Red Squirrel

Reeves's Muntjac

Reindeer

Rhesus Macaque

Right Whale

Rock Cavy

Rodrigues Fruit Bat

Roe Deer

Rufous Bettong

Rufous-naped Tamarin

Rufous Rat Kangaroo

Saddle-back Tamarin

Savanna Baboon

Sea Otter

Serotine Bat

Sheep (Domestic)

Siamang

Sika Deer

Slender Tree Shrew

Sooty Mangabey

Sperm Whale

Spinifex Hopping Mouse

Spinner Dolphin

Spotted Hyena

Spotted Seal

Squirrel Monkey

Striped Dolphin

Stuart's Marsupial Mouse

Stumptail Macaque

Swamp Deer

Swamp Wallaby

Takhi

Talapoin

Tammar Wallaby

Tasmanian Devil

Tasmanian Rat Kangaroo

Thinhorn Sheep

Thomson's Gazelle

Tiger

Tonkean Macaque

Tucuxi

Urial

Vampire Bat

Verreaux's Sifaka

Vervet

Vicuna

Walrus

Wapiti

Warthog

Waterbuck

Water Buffalo

Weeper Capuchin

Western Grey Kangaroo

West Indian Manatee

Whiptail Wallaby

White-faced Capuchin

White-fronted Capuchin

White-handed Gibbon

White-lipped Peccary

White-tailed Deer

Wild Cavy

Wild Goat

Wisent

Yellow-footed Rock Wallaby

Yellow-toothed Cavy

Edited February 26, 2009 by tropo

[Jingthing]

Did you notice that the "gay animals" mentioned in the bbc article are among the animals with the smallest brain volume.

That was inventive. Like I said, you can't win. Human non-heterosexuals are quite aware of the procreative functions and lack thereof of the various human holes. Their sexuality is not related to intelligence, but it may be partly related to genetics and differences in brain structures in some cases.

[basjke]

Of course all nature is real nature and that's my point.And at the end homosexuals and transexuals are sitting in the same basket.

You still didn't point me to an example where in nature any creature denies its real gender.

Why should we talk about animals? It's just your side track from the issue of human transexuality/homosexuality. It wouldn't prove a point in that everything is natural anyway, despite variations.

Anyway, since you had to ask, here's a story about a transexual hen in Sweden:

TRANSEXUAL HEN

I talk about animals because it is well accepted among scientists that human population originates from the animals.

If you insist I can also dig up an article about Jesus showing up in someones place regularly if that can make you believe everything written in the papers.But as I said in another post all the animals mentioned in those articles are the one known to have none or very little brain volume.If you do some more research on those same animals you will find out that they have no feelings and then I mean if you step on them or you cut off a part of their body they will not feel it.That means they could f_uck a teapot without realizing it.

So to end the story,I don't try to sidetrack from the issue.To me and I think to the majority of the members of this forum and the human population those people talked about in the OP are considered to be not normal.

[tropo]

Of course all nature is real nature and that's my point.And at the end homosexuals and transexuals are sitting in the same basket.

You still didn't point me to an example where in nature any creature denies its real gender.

Why should we talk about animals? It's just your side track from the issue of human transexuality/homosexuality. It wouldn't prove a point in that everything is natural anyway, despite variations.

Anyway, since you had to ask, here's a story about a transexual hen in Sweden:

TRANSEXUAL HEN

I talk about animals because it is well accepted among scientists that human population originates from the animals.

If you insist I can also dig up an article about Jesus showing up in someones place regularly if that can make you believe everything written in the papers.But as I said in another post all the animals mentioned in those articles are the one known to have none or very little brain volume.If you do some more research on those same animals you will find out that they have no feelings and then I mean if you step on them or you cut off a part of their body they will not feel it.That means they could f_uck a teapot without realizing it.

So to end the story,I don't try to sidetrack from the issue.To me and I think to the majority of the members of this forum and the human population those people talked about in the OP are considered to be not normal.

I'm starting to wonder about your brain capacity. You're a disgrace to the heterosexual community.

My list includes just about every basic type of animal including apes.

It doesn't matter if you're an evolutionist or a creationist (I'm a creationist), hundreds of animal species have been shown to display homosexual behaviour.

[Jingthing]

See what I mean? You can't win with the animal example because the anti-gay haters will always twist things the way they want whatever the FACTS.

[JetsetBkk]

See what I mean? You can't win with the animal example because the anti-gay haters will always twist things the way they want whatever the FACTS.

"anti-gay haters" ???

Do you mean people who hate anti-gays? or people who hate gays?

[Jingthing]

See what I mean? You can't win with the animal example because the anti-gay haters will always twist things the way they want whatever the FACTS.

"anti-gay haters" ???

Do you mean people who hate anti-gays? or people who hate gays?

Its obvious. I don't like to use the word homophobe because homophobes usually don't know the definition.

[NanLaew]

See what I mean? You can't win with the animal example because the anti-gay haters will always twist things the way they want whatever the FACTS.

"anti-gay haters" ???

Do you mean people who hate anti-gays? or people who hate gays?

Its obvious. I don't like to use the word homophobe because homophobes usually don't know the definition.

You used a double-negative when you said "anti-gay hater" when I am pretty sure you meant "anti-gay" and/or "gay-hater". However, instead of acknowledging your error, it seemed easier for you to infer that most homophobes are linguistically challenged. Talk about small minded.

Edited February 26, 2009 by NanLaew

[Jingthing]

Picky picky.

You know what I meant and Mel Gibson fan knew what I meant, so why is this an issue? I don't see the double negative but if you say so, whatever ...

antigay

adjective

1. opposed to homosexuality or homosexual individuals

hater

noun

1. a person who hates

I know for a fact that many people think homophobia only means fear of gays and Mel Gibson type fans like to brag about how they could never be afraid of a pansy.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Jingthing

[endure]

Have to agree with Nanlaew here. It's got nothing to do with Mel Gibson and everything to do with double negatives. An anti-gay hater is someone who hates anti-gays.

[Jingthing]

Have to agree with Nanlaew here. It's got nothing to do with Mel Gibson and everything to do with double negatives. An anti-gay hater is someone who hates anti-gays.

I admit it was awkward usage but the context made the intended meaning obvious.

While I admit the awkward usage, I still don't see any double negative. Anti-gay is always an adjective, it is not a negative word like not, and hater is always a noun, also not a negative word. So I don't even see ONE negative. Grammar experts (I am obviously not) feel free to pipe in on this sizzling controversy.

BTW: Mel Gibson is a notorious anti-gay hater, scratch that ... homophobe.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Jingthing

[soundman]

What has Mel Gibson got to do with Pattaya lady boys?

[chuckd]

What has Mel Gibson got to do with Pattaya lady boys?

Could it have been his role in "Braveheart" where he wore the skirt?

[Jimmyd]

...It doesn't matter if you're an evolutionist or a creationist (I'm a creationist),...

There's no such thing as 'evolutionist' or 'creationist.'

Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism (or 'intelligent design') is religious dogma.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Jimmyd

[tropo]

...It doesn't matter if you're an evolutionist or a creationist (I'm a creationist),...

There's no such thing as 'evolutionist' or 'creationist.'

Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism (or 'intelligent design') is religious dogma.

Only from an evolutionist's point of view.

Evolution is a theory and creation is a theory. Evolution is also scientific dogma because it has been accepted as fact without proof.

Better you stick to the topic here (transexuals) and don't digress into another subject which I have no interest in discussing here.

It was only your dogmatic, arrogant anti-creation attitude which prompted a response.

[NanLaew]

Still on topic if you consider the questions, "At what point in Pattaya's creation did ladyboys evolve?" or "During what period of Pattaya's evolution were ladyboys created."

Sorry, now I have a headache.

(Can I say that and not be labeled gay?)

[Jingthing]

What has Mel Gibson got to do with Pattaya lady boys?

Absolutely nothing (though he is Jetset's avatar), but with all the English teachers hanging about I was hoping to get an authoritative opinion about whether the phrase anti-gay haters is really a double negative. I suppose this burning question could be transferred to the grammar section.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Jingthing

[tropo]

What has Mel Gibson got to do with Pattaya lady boys?

Absolutely nothing (though he is Jetset's avatar), but with all the English teachers hanging about I was hoping to get an authoritative opinion about whether the phrase anti-gay haters is really a double negative. I suppose this burning question could be transferred to the grammar section.

It's pretty obvious that "anti-gay haters" means people who hate anti-gays. It has nothing to do with double negatives.

You should have used "anti-gays" or "gay-haters" in your reply.

..but we get your original point i.e. that you can't reason with gay-haters or anti-gays no matter how much you try.

[Jingthing]

Hater is always a NOUN. There is no other possible use of the word HATER. Look it up. In English, adjectives (anti-gay is always an adjective) used before a noun refer to the noun. I think the confusion comes from people's feelings that hater is not being used as a noun, when in fact, there is no other way to use it. So the phrase means a hater who is an anti-gay person, not a person who hates anti-gays. That said, it was crappy usage because it does sound funny. People are used to usages like Wetback hater which would be assumed to be a person who hates "wetbacks" (with the term wetback assumed to be a noun, not an adjective referring to the hater) but the difference here is wetback can be used as a noun or an adjective, for example, that was a typical wetback (adjective) dinner, or be kind to the wetbacks (noun), they are people too.

You should have used "anti-gays" or "gay-haters" in your reply.

Ant-gays is meaningless because anti-gay is an adjective. That's even crappier usage than what I used.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Jingthing