"This chair from my doll's house isn't manufactured for humans to sit on, tee hee."
The problem is that they don't argue in any attempt to get to the truth, just to "win" by always having a retort. The only good way to argue with these people is to show onlookers how vacuous, self-serving and self-contradictory trannyism is. That's why "superstraight" was so good, it showed the contradiction between "all fetishes are valid, don't kinkshame" and "genital fetishes are literal Nazism", as well as the fact that people were using trannyism as a way of demanding sex. Similarly, Matt Walsh's argument with the faggot professor of women's studies - the professor looked like an idiot when he rigidly adhered to his "self-identifying" beliefs by asking if Matt was a black man.
If someone really did try to use the argument that "A doll's chair isn't made for humans to sit on" then we all know that that's because it's not a chair, but a toy chair, and a toy X is not an X, just like a trans woman is not a woman.
I mean technically they are straight. Studies have shown that men who are attracted to trannies have little to no demonstrable attraction to masculine stimuli. It's best understood as a heterosexual paraphilia. The scientific term for it is gynandromorphophilia (GAMP). A significant portion of GAMP men are autogynephilic themselves.
This is the study, the full text was uploaded to
researchgate. (For opsec reasons don't log in to either one, just download the pdf.)
First, nobody should believe "A peer-reviewed study says it, I believe it, that settles it". You'd have to believe thousands of contradictory things, for a start.
The graph shows that GAMPs and AGPs were both more attracted to tranny porn than porn of women, it's just the amount wasn't statistically significant. It's important to understand that real effects will fail to register as statistically significant if the sample size is too small, statistical significance is really a measure of "is the sample size big enough to distinguish the result from a difference by random chance". For the "genital arousal" part of the study, as depicted in the graph, there were 16 autogynephiles, 23 GAMPs, 14 heterosexuals and 16 gays.
Regarding the similarity of GAMPs and AGPs, it shows that the attraction of AGPs was similar to GAMPs and the discussion section of the paper says: "Among our present sample of 27 autogynephilic men, all but three reported GAMP". So they couldn't find enough non-GAMP AGPs to show a difference. Maybe there aren't any, maybe they weren't looking in this right place. (Why is the 27 higher than 16? Well, 11 of the group had broke dicks and showed no detectable arousal. The AGP group was older than the other three and recruited by a different method.)
The discussion section of the paper has the statement: "With respect to arousal patterns, the similarity of autogynephilic men to heterosexual men is consistent with the idea that autogynephilia is a type of misdirected heterosexual attraction, albeit one that complicates and competes with typical heterosexual attraction to women on the outside".
Well, all sexual attraction is misdirected heterosexual attraction, because the biological purpose of sexual attraction is to ensure reproduction (just like the biological purpose of hunger is to obtain energy from food etc.). Attraction to someone of
the same sex is by definition
homosexual. This study doesn't in any way rule out the idea* that there is some process that causes GAMPs to be attracted to other men, but not so much that it annihilates their attraction to women, but if it proceeds further produces the men from the gay group, who are attracted to anatomically normal men and repelled from women (but still with some residual attraction to GAMs, i.e. men with tits). Back when buggery was illegal, GAMPs and gays moved in the same circles. What ended this was that (the successful part of) the gay rights movement rested their argument for legalisation on the existence of men who were obligatory homosexuals (and only interested in other adult obligatory homosexuals). Hence the idea of "normal" homosexuality and the requirement to deny the existence of both bisexuals and GAMPs (never mind other things like pederasty).
*This is not an idea I'd say must be true, there could be other reasons why we have GAMPs and gays, but it doesn't rule it out so we cannot say the study shows that "GAMPs are straight".
The authors of these studies are well aware of the possibility of ruining the potential for future studies by pissing off the people you're studying. Remember that studies on how AIDS spreads among men who bum each other in public toilets have to call the participants "men who have sex with men" (or MSM) because these men are adamant that they are in no way whatsoever "gay". Gays don't want to be associated with GAMPs and GAMPs want to be considered straight (after all, they aren't attracted to macho men), so neither would participate in a study that calls them both homosexual, no matter how correct that might be in its literal meaning.
However, reading the study provoked a thunk for me: Perhaps the reason we have activists pushing the "it doesn't matter what's in your pants" point of view is that they are like the GAMPs and AGPs in the study, they are attracted both to women and to men with tits, but mistakenly believe they are straight, and therefore don't understand that normal heterosexual attraction exists and think heterosexuals are just rigid adherents of orthodoxy and tradition.
