The Only Thing They Fear Is Truth

[theonlythingtheyfearistruth]

Transcels need to stop shaming incels for their inability to have sex with women

Last time we checked, you couldn't either. No, transbianism doesn't count. That's sex with biological men according to the shaming logic you're using.

You need to stop using "sex with biological women" as a weaponized standard, because if we look through the tapes, you weren't good enough to pull one either.

Be better.

[theonlythingtheyfearistruth]

The Trans Community Needs to Stop Demonizing Transgirls Who Date Cis Women: Here’s Why

1. Not All Trans Women Are Attracted to Men—And That’s Okay

The narrative that trans women must date men to be valid plays into heteronormative and misogynistic ideals that erase lesbians and bisexual trans women. By shaming trans girls who want to date cis women, we’re forcing a narrow view of transness that excludes countless valid identities. Love and attraction are diverse, and trying to police who trans women are “allowed” to love is oppressive and self-defeating.

2. Anti-AGP Rhetoric is a Tool of Bigots

When the trans community parrots Blanchardian rhetoric to vilify trans women who love women, we’re doing the work of bigots for them. Conservatives, TERFs, and white supremacists love to weaponize the idea of AGPs as “fake women” to divide and conquer the trans community. By attacking our own, we weaken our solidarity and give our enemies the ammo they need to delegitimize all trans identities.

3. This Division Only Strengthens Oppressors

Every time the trans community alienates AGPs or any subgroup, we hand power to conservatives and white supremacists who thrive on our division. Anti-AGP rhetoric is steeped in misogyny, misandry, and puritanical sexual panic—exactly the tools these groups use to control and oppress marginalized people. Unity is our strength, and that means accepting all trans girls, no matter who they love or how they express their gender.

Stop demonizing trans girls who date cis women. It’s not progressive, it’s not feminist, and it’s playing right into the hands of people who want to see all trans people erased.

[theonlythingtheyfearistruth]

The Blanchardian typology, which divides transgender women into Homosexual Transsexuals (HSTS) and Autogynephilic Transsexuals (AGPs), has deeply influenced attitudes within and outside the LGBT community, leading to harmful dynamics that alienate and condemn AGPs while venerating HSTS. Breaking this down:

1. HSTS Tricking Straight Men and Facing Violence

HSTS are often celebrated in LGBT circles for their femininity and ability to "pass" as cisgender women, but this veneration comes with its own dangers. Many HSTS, particularly those in precarious socioeconomic situations, resort to survival strategies that sometimes involve engaging with straight men who may not realize they are trans. When the truth is revealed, these interactions often escalate into violence, reinforcing transphobic stereotypes and putting their lives at risk. Disclosure is important, and groups that encourage HSTS to not disclose have malicious intent most times.

2. AGPs Are Common but Gatekept

AGPs, by contrast, are far more common than is often acknowledged, yet they face systemic gatekeeping within both the medical establishment and LGBT spaces. Many AGPs struggle to access hormones, surgeries, or community support because their experiences of gender are framed as invalid, fetishistic, or perverse. This gatekeeping perpetuates feelings of isolation and shame, preventing them from living authentic lives and contributing to the community.

3. AGPs Demonized for Attraction to Women

The demonization of AGPs is further exacerbated by their attraction to women. Their femininity, coupled with their interest in women, is often pathologized as a sexual kink rather than a legitimate expression of gender. This double standard erases their humanity, framing them as deceptive or predatory, while HSTS are viewed as more "pure" for conforming to heteronormative expectations.

4. Blanchard's Types Are Harmful

Blanchard’s typology itself is deeply flawed and harmful, as it reduces complex experiences of gender into rigid, binary categories. It ignores the social, cultural, and psychological factors that influence gender identity and imposes a reductive lens that forces trans women to prove their validity. This framework sows division within the transgender community, as individuals internalize its harmful stereotypes and turn against one another.

5. Misandrists and Radfems Weaponize Blanchard’s Types

Misandrists and radical feminists have latched onto Blanchard’s framework to further other and dehumanize AGPs, branding them as "fake women" or invaders in women’s spaces. By vilifying AGPs and using the typology to draw lines between "real" and "fake" trans women, these groups perpetuate division and stigma within the LGBT community. This rhetoric harms all trans women, as it reinforces the idea that their identities are contingent upon external validation rather than intrinsic self-awareness.

Rejecting Blanchard’s reductive and divisive framework is essential for fostering inclusivity and understanding within the LGBT community. Embracing diverse experiences of gender and challenging these harmful narratives can pave the way for solidarity and mutual respect.

[theonlythingtheyfearistruth]

WHY DYSTOPIA MUST BE BORING TO SUCCEED

The "Boring Dystopia Strategy" is a highly strategic and often subtle method employed by those in power to create an enduring, all-encompassing authoritarian government. The genius of this approach is that it doesn't look like a dystopia at first glance. Each step toward oppression is disguised as a necessary solution to a societal problem, creating a series of small, unassuming changes that collectively transform society into a high-surveillance, debt-ridden, and highly regulated landscape. The result is a quiet but relentless march towards a government structure that controls nearly every aspect of daily life, cloaked in the language of safety, responsibility, and "public good."

Key Components of the Boring Dystopia Strategy

Enhanced Surveillance as Crime Prevention Surveillance systems are marketed as tools to make communities safer. The rationale is straightforward: if there are cameras everywhere, criminals are less likely to act. At first, this seems like a good idea. However, as surveillance expands, it reaches a point where privacy no longer exists—every action and interaction is tracked and recorded. People's movements, purchases, conversations, and even thoughts (through social media and data mining) become data points in a government database. The population is conditioned to accept surveillance under the guise of crime prevention, even though the surveillance network eventually exists to deter any resistance to the growing system of control.

Financial "Disincentives" as a Form of Behavior Control Insurance companies, incentivized by government policies, implement "dynamic" pricing models that penalize risky behavior. Drivers with even minor infractions, young drivers, or anyone with imperfect credit face skyrocketing insurance costs. While it’s presented as a means to reward safe drivers and reduce accidents, it’s ultimately a method of forcing people into line. Over time, these small financial penalties accumulate, and as people find themselves unable to afford the rising costs, they are pushed further into debt or forced to depend on the very government that created the conditions of their hardship.

The Department of Bureaucracy: A Growing Web of Useless Jobs New laws and regulations are introduced to solve every conceivable social issue, resulting in bloated departments filled with superfluous workers whose roles add no real value to society. The justification is often to create jobs and stimulate the economy, but these positions end up creating layers of bureaucracy that slow down meaningful progress. This web of inefficiency puts financial strain on both the government and the people, leading to higher taxes and fees. With each new law or regulation, the cost of compliance grows, straining both businesses and individuals who can't afford to play by an ever-increasing list of rules.

Rising Cost of Living as an Inevitable "Economic Shift" As government regulations add costs to every industry, prices naturally increase. This is explained away as the cost of progress or as an unfortunate byproduct of addressing critical social issues, like "ethical sourcing" or "green initiatives" that are actually revenue-boosters for corporations. As inflation rises and wages stagnate, the lower class is squeezed financially. Each attempt to improve their situation—whether by taking a second job or reducing expenses—is offset by further price increases or surprise taxes. This creates a cycle where economic mobility is nearly impossible, locking the lower class in place.

Debt as a Tool for Control As the cost of living rises, debt becomes unavoidable for many. Loans, credit cards, and financing options are promoted as solutions, pushing people into a system of lifelong debt repayment. With growing financial obligations and little hope of ever breaking free, individuals are forced to work harder, often taking on additional jobs, which leaves them with less time and energy to question or resist the system. Debt chains the population to the very system that oppresses them, creating a sense of dependency on government stability, even as that stability is the source of their financial despair.

The Final Stage: Disempowerment Disguised as "Efficiency"

As the population is weakened by financial strain, endless surveillance, and a tangled bureaucracy, the final stage involves introducing measures to "simplify" governance. This might mean fewer elected officials, streamlined decision-making processes, and the merging of regulatory bodies for "efficiency." In reality, this final stage centralizes power even further, leaving those at the top with almost unchecked authority, a situation that the people, too exhausted and indebted to resist, accept as necessary.

The Boring Dystopia Strategy works because it does not announce itself as an authoritarian takeover. Instead, it subtly shifts the balance of power by presenting every oppressive measure as a solution to a social ill. And because each step is introduced slowly, over decades, the population becomes accustomed to the new reality, accepting surveillance, debt, and regulation as the normal costs of a safe and responsible society. By the time people realize the extent of their powerlessness, the dystopian state is fully entrenched, with every escape route closed off.

[theonlythingtheyfearistruth]

Bad Girls and Transphobia towards Transmasc/Transmen

Trans men and transmasculine individuals often face unique social dynamics with modernized urban women, who are influenced by popular culture’s glorification of beauty standards, assertiveness, and material success. These women may admire or even ally with trans individuals on the surface, offering praise or support for appearances. However, when it comes to competition for social power, attention, or dating prospects, a more complex tension often emerges. This clash is shaped by both the pressures of current social trends and the ambiguous acceptance of transmasculine individuals within these spaces.

1. Hyperfocus on Conventional Attractiveness and "Biological Realness"

In many urban social circles, physical attractiveness and biological "advantages" are often prioritized, with personality traits influenced by figures like female rappers, social media stars, or reality TV personalities like those on Baddies. Many of these women may outwardly support or compliment trans men and transmasculine individuals, yet place a high social value on "realness" or "naturalness" that can create a quiet hierarchy. Trans men may thus feel that they’re perpetually seen as "second-class" in social standings where genetic markers of femininity or masculinity are idealized. Their identity and attractiveness can be questioned or treated as less valid, with subtle forms of transphobia that erode authentic connections in these communities.

2. False Praise and Performative Support

Urban social circles often embrace a "performative support" attitude, offering acceptance or encouragement to trans people as long as they don’t challenge the group’s status quo. While trans women might be welcomed as long as they serve as friends or supporters rather than competition, trans men may be acknowledged only superficially. This can manifest as seemingly supportive comments that actually reflect underlying biases, like emphasizing how "bold" trans men are without fully treating them as peers. Many women in these circles reserve authentic validation for those who fit rigid, traditional ideas of sex and gender, especially if social power or romantic competition is at play.

3. Transphobia as a Means of Social Leverage

The reality-show-influenced ethos, marked by values like confidence and hyper-competitiveness, sometimes encourages a cutthroat mentality. If trans men or transmasculine individuals are seen as competitors—be it socially, romantically, or professionally—some women feel justified in using transphobia as a tool of exclusion. This transphobia often goes unchecked, even within spaces that otherwise claim to be progressive, due to society’s current tolerance for aggressive, dominant personalities. This double standard allows some women to employ transphobic remarks without facing the same backlash that men might, as society has come to revere assertive, "no-nonsense" women who defy convention, even if that defiance includes transphobic behavior.

4. Reverence for Hostile Feminine Archetypes

Many women’s identities are increasingly shaped by icons of assertiveness and dominance, from rappers and reality TV stars to influencers who embody an unyielding confidence that resonates with their followers. This cultural shift glorifies a style of femininity that is both unapologetic and intolerant of perceived competition, which can be wielded against trans men or transmascs who are perceived as encroaching on their social turf. This leads to a hostile environment in which trans men might be treated with a patronizing level of "support" that masks a readiness to dismiss or compete with them if it suits the woman’s interests.

5. Implicit Hierarchies and Social Power Dynamics

Even in urban social circles that pride themselves on inclusivity, implicit hierarchies around biological sex and attractiveness often remain. In environments shaped by ideals of conventional beauty and biological advantage, AFAB individuals who transition to masculine or androgynous identities might struggle with having their attractiveness or gender identity fully accepted. Their presence in the social landscape can threaten these women's sense of control over their social sphere, particularly when their male identity disrupts traditional expectations of gendered hierarchy. This can manifest in passive-aggressive behaviors, like exclusion from certain social activities or dismissive comments that question their "authenticity."

6. The Challenge of Competing in Romantic and Social Spheres

In dating or romantic settings, trans men may face even more pronounced hostility or dismissal, as they’re often seen as less desirable than cis men and somehow "stealing" a woman’s choice by entering heteronormative dynamics. Romantic rivalry can bring out underlying biases, with trans men being told they’re "not real men" or subtly undermined by women who compete with them for attention or social capital. The normalization of these hostile reactions reflects the contradictory position trans men occupy in urban social circles: they’re tolerated in theory but undermined when their presence disrupts pre-existing dynamics around male competition or female camaraderie.

In sum, the intersection of social competition, beauty standards, and progressive performativity creates a challenging space for trans men and transmasculine individuals among modern urban women. While these individuals are often praised in public, the reality of competition or social rivalry brings out the fault lines in acceptance, where transphobia can become a weapon used against them. Addressing these dynamics requires an honest recognition of the biases and double standards that persist even in seemingly inclusive spaces, as well as a commitment to fostering authentic allyship across the gender spectrum.

[theonlythingtheyfearistruth]

The legacy of eugenics, including its impact on marginalized groups, remains a point of tension and controversy. For progressives, the association with intersectional values like racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ equity has been a way to foster a sense of inclusivity and support for diverse identities. However, the remnants of eugenic ideologies and selective population control policies have a complex history that can create challenges. Here are five ways that progressive spaces may inadvertently create a false sense of security for intersectional individuals, partly rooted in unresolved associations with past eugenicist beliefs:

1. Selective Population Control in Healthcare

Progressive advocacy for reproductive rights and population control sometimes intersects with eugenics in subtle ways, particularly regarding healthcare policies targeting certain groups. Reproductive initiatives, particularly in low-income communities and communities of color, have occasionally been framed as empowerment but can also echo past policies of limiting population growth among marginalized populations. This approach, even unintentionally, can give intersectional individuals the impression of agency and choice, while underlying policies may subtly discourage growth within their communities, echoing eugenicist sentiments about "desirable" and "undesirable" populations.

2. Focus on "Improving" Genetic Outcomes

Although modern progressive ideologies promote equality, certain narratives around genetic “improvement” (such as prioritizing genetic counseling, selective IVF, and gene editing) can inadvertently align with historical eugenics ideologies. By presenting genetic "improvement" as a solution to disability or health issues, these discussions may imply that some genetic traits are less "worthy" of existence. For intersectional individuals with disabilities or specific health conditions, this can create a contradictory space where inclusion is celebrated in theory but subtly discouraged on a genetic level.

3. Environmentalism and Population Control

Many progressive environmental movements emphasize population control as a response to resource conservation and climate change. While often framed as voluntary and necessary, this population-control narrative has echoes of past eugenic policies that targeted specific demographics for “control.” Communities of color, for example, may feel a false sense of security from these green movements that promote sustainability, yet find themselves disproportionately affected by policies or suggestions that hint at population limitation. This can subtly communicate that some lives, particularly those in high-density or developing areas, are seen as more burdensome to the planet.

4. Implicit Bias in Progressive Employment and Social Programs

Progressive employment programs and diversity initiatives often advocate for equity across gender, race, and ability. However, when these initiatives incorporate implicit biases about who is "fit" or "suitable" for certain roles, they inadvertently reinforce eugenic-like sorting that ranks people by societal desirability. Intersectional individuals, especially those who fall outside traditional norms (such as neurodiverse, disabled, or gender-nonconforming individuals), may find these spaces supportive on the surface but subtly discriminatory in their practices. Programs may encourage diversity but still uphold hierarchical systems that favor certain characteristics, inadvertently reinforcing the idea that some people are inherently more "useful" to society.

5. Support for Technological Advancements in Reproductive Health

Progressive advocacy for accessible reproductive technologies like IVF, gene editing, and prenatal screening aims to empower individuals. Yet, this emphasis on reproductive “choice” often echoes eugenic ideologies, particularly when it comes to the choices people are encouraged to make about which genetic traits to pass on. Programs that advocate for screening out “undesirable” traits subtly suggest that certain lives are less valuable. Intersectional individuals may feel supported by access to these technologies, yet the underlying message may still imply a hierarchy of desirable and undesirable traits, creating a dissonance between the ideals of inclusivity and the practice of selective reproduction.

While progressives generally advocate for inclusivity and diversity, this unexamined historical association with eugenics complicates these ideals, sometimes leading to spaces that feel supportive on the surface but still subtly communicate exclusionary or hierarchical values. Recognizing and addressing these inconsistencies can help foster genuinely inclusive communities that embrace diversity without the lingering influence of eugenic ideology.

[theonlythingtheyfearistruth]

How the Blanchardian Binary is harmful to the LGBTQIA

The AGP (autogynephilia) and HSTS (homosexual transsexual) dichotomy, introduced by researcher Ray Blanchard, has had a lasting and divisive impact on how transgender women are perceived both inside and outside the LGBT community. This binary categorizes trans women as either HSTS, who are predominantly attracted to men, or AGP, who are purportedly driven by a sexual desire to embody femininity. By defining trans identities this way, Blanchard’s model has inadvertently fueled anti-trans rhetoric, framing AGP individuals as “fetishists” rather than valid trans women, while casting HSTS as sympathetic figures locked in a tragic struggle for acceptance. This harmful dichotomy has bled into progressive spaces, including radical feminist circles, reinforcing stereotypes and creating divisions that hinder genuine inclusivity for all trans people.

Tumblr and similar online progressive spaces are known for their support of LGBT issues, but they also tend to promote a restrictive, desexualized image of trans women that aligns with certain radical feminist (radfem) perspectives. Many radfems in these spaces have personal histories involving sexual trauma, which often shapes their perceptions of male sexuality as inherently invasive or harmful. For them, male sexuality—including expressions like crossdressing and certain gender-fluid behaviors—can evoke discomfort. HSTS individuals, who typically embody more conventionally feminine traits and seek heterosexual relationships with men, are therefore seen as “safe” and non-threatening in these communities, since their gender expression aligns with traditional female heterosexual norms.

Conversely, AGP individuals are often perceived as suspect or even predatory by radfems who adhere to Blanchard’s binary. This perception is rooted in the belief that AGP trans women retain a form of heterosexual male desire, albeit directed at themselves. AGP individuals’ attraction to women and self-feminization is viewed with suspicion, as it is perceived to disrupt radfem ideals of gender and sexuality. There is an underlying fear that AGP trans women may at some point desire romantic or sexual relationships with AFAB individuals, which threatens to expose radfem biases against trans women and their tendency to view them as “failed men” rather than true women.

In the radfem lens, this boils down to an implicit hypocrisy. While radfems may profess to support trans women as an oppressed group, their biases against AGP trans women reveal a rigid adherence to heteronormative dating standards. Many radfems openly prefer masculine men as partners, dismissing feminine men and non-binary people as dating options—preferences that reveal the same “rigid binary” thinking they claim to oppose. The result is an environment where AGP trans women feel unwelcome, and where HSTS trans women are “accepted” only insofar as they conform to a non-threatening, traditionally feminine role.

Blanchard’s binary, then, serves as a harmful legacy within the LGBT community, one that continues to divide trans women into “acceptable” and “unacceptable” categories. To move forward, these spaces must dismantle this false binary and its implications. Acceptance should not be conditional on adhering to any specific narrative or expression, but rather on a commitment to the diversity and authenticity of each individual’s gender journey. Ultimately, progress within the LGBT community will mean embracing all trans people on equal footing, free from the constraints of Blanchard’s binary or any rigid gender expectations.

[theonlythingtheyfearistruth]

Transgirls and Transcels, How Passing Affects Dating in the LGBTQIA

One of the most challenging aspects of transcel identity within progressive spaces is the pressure to meet cultural expectations around attraction and social desirability—standards originally developed within a male-dominated culture that prioritizes dating success as a marker of social worth. In male circles, attracting a woman is often seen as a badge of status, confirming one's place in a hierarchy where “undesirables” are mocked or sidelined. While incel-shaming has become normalized due to the overt misogyny of many incels, transcels find themselves in a similar bind: unable to fulfill their desire to date AFABs (assigned female at birth), they face a kind of “soft exclusion” that subtly mirrors the social ostracism of incels.

In progressive and liberal circles, there is an unspoken obligation not to criticize trans individuals for traits like non-passing or perceived unattractiveness. While this may be intended as a measure to protect trans people from discrimination, it can lead to a culture of over-validation where some trans women are led to believe they have a higher dating value than they might in practice. This discrepancy between perception and reality can be difficult for transcels, who may be unwittingly set up for disappointment and frustration when AFAB partners—many of whom are even LGBT-friendly—avoid dating them or view them as a less desirable choice.

The irony lies in the progressive double standard: although these spaces are dedicated to inclusivity, many individuals within them still subscribe to conventional notions of attraction. Thus, the “undesirability” that has often been weaponized against straight incels is, in a subtler way, applied to transcels, even though it is less explicit. Transcels may find themselves surrounded by people who, while theoretically supportive, hold an unconscious bias that dating or being romantically involved with a non-passing trans woman is “dating down.”

This situation leaves transcels in a difficult position: while they may receive validation as members of the community, they also experience a kind of romantic and social gatekeeping that denies them full inclusion. This pattern can lead to a cycle of disillusionment and resentment, not unlike the negative mental health effects seen in incels, where prolonged rejection fuels self-doubt, bitterness, or even hostility toward the same community that claims to welcome them.

To address this, progressive spaces would benefit from recognizing these implicit biases and striving toward a more holistic inclusivity that doesn’t simply validate trans identities in theory but actively examines the contradictions that limit acceptance in practice. Fostering open conversations about dating preferences and biases—and how they intersect with trans inclusion—could be a step toward creating spaces where transcels feel genuinely valued and aren’t left to navigate a hidden hierarchy of desirability. True inclusivity will mean not just accepting trans people but also examining the ways we can deconstruct these ingrained biases to create a more supportive environment.

[theonlythingtheyfearistruth]

Transcels: Acceptable but not Dateable?

The challenges transcels face in the LGBT community partly stem from societal standards that continue to influence even the most progressive spaces. Trans people are expected to overcome deeply ingrained cultural norms regarding attraction, relationships, and gender identity, but these expectations often come with a heavy dose of contradiction. Although progressive communities are generally supportive, they also carry biases, subtly reinforcing ideas that may leave transcels feeling isolated or "othered."

For transcels, this exclusion often arises from unspoken assumptions about attraction and "dating up" or "dating down." Many AFAB (assigned female at birth) individuals in progressive circles may avoid dating transcels, not necessarily out of open hostility but because of a cultural preference for partners who embody conventionally attractive, typically masculine traits. This covert rejection, often wrapped in polite language or boundary-setting, makes transcels feel distanced from the very communities they seek acceptance from. The result is a kind of indirect gatekeeping that maintains transcels' social isolation within these groups.

The progressive community’s focus on inclusion can sometimes inadvertently emphasize traditional dating norms, undermining its own ethos. In theory, progressive spaces champion a departure from heteronormative and rigidly masculine-feminine dynamics. Yet, when it comes to dating and attraction, these communities can replicate mainstream preferences, leading to a disconnect for transcels who might feel encouraged to express their gender freely but are then subtly reminded of the social hierarchy that still values conventional attractiveness and masculinity.

This implicit hierarchy not only contributes to transcels’ isolation but also creates a feedback loop. In response to rejection, some transcels may embrace anti-male rhetoric and anti-masculine subcultures, reinforcing their alienation from men and women alike. The tension between striving for inclusivity and clinging to ingrained standards reveals a paradox in progressive spaces, where people are encouraged to break free from social norms but may quietly adhere to them in their personal lives.

The solution lies in fostering spaces where genuine acceptance is prioritized over merely performative inclusivity. Transcels benefit greatly from environments that not only welcome their identities but encourage real, reciprocal connections. Building these spaces requires active reflection and intentional dismantling of biases from all community members, emphasizing empathy, understanding, and authentic integration within the LGBT community.

[theonlythingtheyfearistruth]

Are Transcels Real?

The phenomenon of "transcels," or trans incels, highlights a complex and often divisive issue within the LGBT community. Transcels, primarily trans women (MTF, AMAB), may carry over toxic attitudes and behaviors from their lives before transitioning, particularly those characteristic of the incel subculture. In this context, some transcels exhibit resentments and entitlement that can strain their relationships with cisgender and trans communities alike.

A major issue is that many transcels approach therapy or mental health support with minimal self-reflection or willingness to address underlying issues. Without engaging in meaningful therapy or adopting positive coping mechanisms, they often retain the antagonistic attitudes toward society, relationships, and sexuality that marked their pre-transition life. This lack of introspection frequently manifests in antagonism towards men they perceive as "Chads"—archetypal masculine, conventionally attractive men who are romantically or sexually successful. This adversarial mindset often leads to one-sided feuds, with transcels seeking to undermine or antagonize men who represent what they simultaneously envy and reject.

Further, transcels may adopt counter-cultural stances on traditionally "masculine" activities, such as sports, firearms, and automobiles, not necessarily out of genuine disinterest but as an act of defiance against men they associate with these hobbies. This can create friction, especially when they present these preferences as moral or ethical stands, inadvertently alienating members of the LGBT community who might enjoy these activities.

One of the most telling characteristics is their tendency to use "virgin-shaming" as a weapon. Transcels may attempt to align themselves with promiscuous individuals, specifically women, and criticize their "enemy's" sexual status, despite often struggling with their own romantic or sexual success. This behavior is part of a broader problem where some transcels, unable to date cisgender women, develop sensitivities or insecurities around the topic of attraction from cis women, leading to resentment and feelings of inadequacy.

The transcels' behaviors are harmful because they perpetuate divisive, misogynistic, and often homophobic ideologies within a community striving for acceptance and inclusivity. Rather than fostering growth and mutual support, these attitudes can erode solidarity, making it difficult for others to fully welcome individuals who, instead of healing, project hostility and entitlement. By engaging more deeply with therapy, self-reflection, and community support, transcels can work towards healthier relationships and more positive integration within the LGBT community.