What do you all make of this argument?
To my understanding it's basically a separate category for gay people, usually gay men if I'm not mistaken. I don't think the gay men
need to be necessarily feminine to be categorised like this, they just need to be gay, because that in itself is seen as gender non conformity. They don't 'fit' in like they should, so they are 'other' and there needs to be some explanation for them.
I'm not sure how these cultures view this in context (apparently these gay people were seen to be highly enlightened but that's only what I've been told by TRAs so take it with a pinch of salt), but in the western world, I'd say it was a wee bit homophobic - the idea that someone
has to be straight to be a man or a woman and if not, they're something else (kinda mirroring the transing of gay people just a tad).
I mean, if you believe that gay men have 'women's souls' or were women in a past life, good for you, but I don't think it's exactly "progressive". But then again, we all know TRAs are only hiding under the name of progression, but they actually aren't, which is why they love citing this kinda thing. For people who are obsessed with talking about "cissexism" they really don't see how the classification of gay people like they're talking about is maybe....I dunno....a bit hetero-centric? Hetero-sexist? Probably not the words I'm looking for but you get the idea.
Think about it though. The only explanation for a gay man is that he has the soul of a woman rather than he's just gay? TRAs love that stuff. They love enforcing this kind of thing. It's just another aspect of their bizarre contempt for homosexuality.