Matt Forney
Spread the Word!

Using Language to Describe Gays and Trannies

gay

This is a guest post by Blair Naso.

I remember when the pregnant man came out and was a media sensation in 2007. This man was missing a Y chromosome due to the unfortunate fact that he was born with a Pikachu instead of a Diglett, but that’s beside the point. He said in an interview that he was “secure in [his] masculinity” and didn’t see any way that pregnancy would make him less of a man.

As much as I have adopted the term “secure in my masculinity,” I have bad news. We men don’t do that. If you made a list of the top five things all men have in common, “not shit out children” would be number one. Yes, even “having a penis” would rank lower, since some lose theirs in unfortunate farming accidents. If you’re going to play in the boys’ clubhouse, then you can’t be acting like a girl. After all, you swore to us that girls were nasty, remember?

Of course, one is inclined to call her gay, but the modernist will quickly stop you. “He clearly likes women!” No, he is clearly a she, as evidenced by her ability to sue for child support. Men got the brains and the power, and women got societal pity. That’s the arrangement from the beginning of time. The pregnant trans-man is screwing a comparatively normal woman, and therefore she is gay. Logic and semantics will always trump 20th century Eurocentric liberalism.

And don’t give me this “pronoun-slash-pronoun” nonsense. It’s too wordy. Either call the person by the person’s “cisgender” [snorts like a feminist writer] pronoun, “it,” or avoid pronouns altogether.

Vogue Psychology Shows Our Lack of Education

Another word I hate: “homosexual.” This word is actually very recent, dating to a little more than a hundred years old. The nerdy reader can tell since it is a mix of Latin and Greek roots, once a taboo but now commonly accepted in our modern and amoral world of televisionautomobiles, and neuroscience (all of those are biracial words). Another sign of our decadence and general stupidity.

Beyond that, the problem with “homosexual” is that it implies there is something compulsory about it. “Oh, my bad. Can’t help getting anal fissures considering I was born this way.” True, you can’t help whom you lust after, but sex is a choice: supposedly most gay marriages are open marriages, but I don’t care to do the field journalism to confirm.

In the old days, there were no laws against sexual orientation. What there were was anti-sodomy laws, meaning that you could hold hands in the park all you want, but keep your dirty thoughts in the confessional booth where they belong.

And don’t think I am merely gay bashing. Manosphere writers talk all the time about how much they enjoy anal with a woman, and it’s fucking disgusting. Do you really want to get shit all over your dick? There is something deeply unnatural about that, no matter how much you enjoy it.

A Better Solution

The word “homosexual” is just not descriptive enough. Really, it is the wrong description. The Latin “sex” refers to anatomy, not the action. So what does “same genitalia” mean? I prefer drinking with men instead of women, so am I a homosexual? No, I’m normal. The better (and racially pure) word would be “homoeroticist,” meaning “lustful desire for the same.” Yes, I stole this straight out of the liberals’ playbook.

See, it sounds like it’s the same thing but carries a special connotation not to be lost, shifting the focus from biology and inclination to desire and action. No longer will we have this “they love just like straight people do!” With this new word, we will put aside the idea that sodomy is anything other than masturbation, and we will not need a dozen different categories like bisexual, transsexual, asexual, pansexual, omnisexual, aequalisexual, unisexual, consexual, and others to describe the same basic aberrancy. Every year they add new letters to the end of “LGBT,” and I’m just not compassionate enough to give a damn about remembering.

We rail against leftists for making up new words and then immediately abusing them like a dog to make a political point, but at least “homophobic” is of a pure racial lineage. Still, “homophobic” leaves something lacking. I do not fear gays, because it’s not like they are going to mug me at gunpoint. Nor do I have a problem with two queers holding hands in the park.

No, what bothers me is that there is not a word to describe hatred of gays. And I do not mean that I hate men deforming their bodies to play make-believe sex, because that’s largely benign to society. I hate the kind of queer who wears neon shoes and makes an effort to raise his voice by a half-octave. They don’t make men like that outside of modern Western society, and it’s the difference between the words “faggot” or “gay” and the word “homosexual.” Hell, the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t even have a word for someone who has erotic attraction or activities with someone of the same sex, even though Plato’s Symposium is “the” classic work on homoeroticism.

The Way Homoeroticism Actually Works

Furthermore, the concept of sexual orientation or identity is a fairly new phenomenon and specifically of Western origin. Before a little more than a hundred years ago, nobody on the planet had this notion of “I’m attracted to [x] sex.” If a man had any homoerotic inclination, what it was was, “I need a wife to make children, but since women are stupid and crazy, I’d rather bang men unless God tells me not to.” Read Plato’s Symposium [actually, don’t], and you’ll see very few parallels with today’s queer-normative culture.

All Athenian aristocratic men were pedophiles, but you do not find many men today rising in the streets demanding the right to molest children, which would make sense if sexual inclination was a genetic quirk found in all human societies. And while the gays are welcoming to trannies (who have precious little in common), we find them giving pedophiles the boot, even though both just want the right to love whom they want. Every social movement has a mythology, not in the sense of “falseness” but of “teaching a story,” and the idea that people have always been secretly gay and oppressed is as ridiculous as the idea that men have always had it awesome and women were too oppressed to break free.

So don’t use the words “sexual orientation” or “sexual identity,” even if you believe that there is a biological component. I am inclining towards “sexual preference,” but you may prefer “sexual inclination.” Kinsey scale, right? Three-quarters of professed lesbians have had sex with a man before. At any rate, although I will concede that there are likely biological triggers, I seriously doubt it is merely biology for anyone. Social pressure, childhood trauma, and other outside factors could cause one to become curious, like a door that is opened and never can be closed.

It’s About More Than Just the Sex

And again, being homoeroticist in America is not merely about love and sex. These people are fascists, clinging to their own dogma. Consider the way they try to silence any studies showing that their lifestyle is destructive to their children. But even without that, just look at their parades! Why would we allow this in our streets? You can claim that you are a salt-of-the-earth person just like me, or you can claim that you have a unique culture, but you cannot have it both ways (pun intended). At least the feminists give a weak “not all feminists are like that,” but the queers do not even bother. It is like they are trying to give us a reason to hate them. I would hire a salt-of-the-earth-type homoerotic man any day, but the faggot can hit the door and find a bar to dance in.

One thing I have never understood which my gay friends never try to explain to me is what they want and need in a partner. Men like beauty and domesticity and women like status and provision. Both sexes have a special need that can only be met in the other. It’s a beautiful way of the two becoming one, each augmenting the others’ life in a way the one cannot get from his or her self.

So which is the homoeroticist searching for? Whether Christian or atheist, I don’t see how anyone could think that’s a healthy lifestyle physically, mentally or emotionally. I don’t need the Bible or the APA to tell me that; it is pretty manifest as is. And it is no surprise such a presence of homoeroticism arose when the feminists began pushing that traditional sex roles were a mere social construct and should be discarded.

So no, I am not going to use the currently acceptable words, because I do not find them correct. They may fit some people’s vogue worldview, but they do not fit mine, and to quote their own ethical rulebook, “just be yourself.”

Blair Naso blogs at The BN Blog and is also a columnist for Return of Kings. Check out his literary anthology, The Death of Ideology.

Read Next: Why Trannies Should Stop Trying to Fuck Us

  • megatherium100 .

    Why would anybody with an ounce of self respect be homophobic is beyond my comprehension. Why would I be afraid of something so pathetic?

  • Yo Matt, let me write a guest post for you. I can sound as angry and as far-right as you want.

  • To be fair nobody really is afraid, it’s the liberal retards that started mislabeling “dislike” as “fear”.

  • John Dunkerley

    To continue an ‘opression’ narrative. Very few people are oppressed in the Western world.

  • John Dunkerley

    What Matt speaks of, if I may give an interpretation is to use an old term, ‘Flamers’. Those are the types who have to shove things in peoples’ faces. it was more of a thing it seems pre-90s before the modern feminist wave. There is now a Gaybro culture, intent on being just salt of the earth, and a space where they talk amongst themselves, versus being in peoples’ faces about it.
    As far as gay marriage protesters. You want marriage rights? Go ahead. Then you can bitch through a divorce when it doesn’t work out, and potentially lose your stuff. The lawyers and the courts win. So, congrats you can get married now, with the rights to be miserable, post divorce.
    On another note, proof that women can be just as bad as men. Lesbian couples, married or cohabiting, shows this. Most likely to have domestic violence issues, have less sex on average that straight couples (down to about once on average a month, after a few years in a relationship), more likely to cheat on a partner than straight couples. Women can be just as shitty. Interestingly, gay male couples are on the other end of the spectrum on average lower, in at least domestic disputes. There’s data out there on this. Interesting to someone into studying human behaviour like I am I guess anyways.

  • And ‘opression’ comes in degrees…