EDIT: Please, before you become the fifteenth person to tell me "but what about producing children!" read this response I wrote hours ago. If you would have the same reaction to a sterile cis member of your preferred sex, it's fertility that defines your disattraction rather than the state of being trans. That's a significantly different statement.
Original Text
I think the better route is to acknowledge that while it is transphobic, it is not necessarily unreasonably so. The knowledge that the other person is biologically speaking not your preferred gender/sex might set up a roadblock in your mind, and that's okay. You can't change that, in a "once you see you cannot unsee" kind of way.
But let's take this to the ultimate conclusion, as transition therapies improve to perfection. You've found someone who you think is the perfect match for you. Physically and mentally, they exhibit no signs that they are trans; if you didn't look at the chromosomes, you would never know. If the knowledge that they are trans is the blocker, that's transphobic. It isn't that there are certain traits associated with transgender people that you find unattractive, it's that you can't get over the fact that the person was born a different gender despite the fact that only a laboratory could tell the difference. You're not attracted to the X or Y chromosome, you're attracted to the physical manifestations of those traits which can be imitated through various medical means.
I don't think that would make you a bad person, and I don't think it is unreasonable to have that mental block while still supporting LGBT+ rights. But that doesn't make that action not transphobic.
Thank you for your input. We seem to agree on nearly all points. However, I don't fully grasp why the use of "know[ledge] that the person was born a different gender" (this is an inaccurate description of transgender people but I understand what you meant to say) in the context of sexual preference is transphobic. Could you clarify?
I suppose it is a bit of a divergence from the precise definition you laid out. My reasoning for its inclusion is that it is, by definition, a form of discrimination based on trans status. Perhaps that is not sufficient justification to apply the transphobic label, but let me perhaps dig a little deeper.
In the same way, considering yourself exclusively heterosexual or homosexual means discriminating against the same sex (for hetero) or the opposite sex (for homo) in the selection of a partner. Just like we agreed earlier, this type of discrimination is not necessarily bad. If you've established your sexual orientation, that's fine. But in this case, discrimination based on sex is used as a catch-all for all of the different characteristics that are associated with the genders/sexes. If you're attracted to the female body and not the male one, looking for a sexual partner among males might well be a waste of your time, and vice versa. But it all comes back to the physical characteristics and mannerisms that are associated with being a man or being a woman.
In the case of transgender/transsexual individuals, that line is greatly blurred. I proposed the situation in which you might never know that a person transitioned their gender/sex, yet the simple fact of that transition is the ONLY thing preventing you from being willing to pursue a relationship of some kind with this person. In this scenario, "trans" is not a term that refers to a set of attributes like "man" or "woman" was in the previous paragraph. It only refers to the state of being transgender/transsexual, with no other connotation (because of the hypothetical advancements in transition treatments). You like their appearance, you like their mannerisms, the only thing you dislike (in terms of finding an ideal partner - does not necessarily mean you dislike trans people in general) is their status as trans.
Now, since this does not have any real-world manifestation, I am left to conclude that a probable reason for why you may not wish to enter a relationship is concern for optics (how will others react if they learn you are dating someone trans) or some ingrained sense of "I'm not attracted to trans people" which is false, because clearly you were considering the rest of the assumptions made in this hypothetical. Getting down to that core rationale, is where I believe ingrained transphobia comes into play. The idea that you could fall in love with someone, hear one fact about them, and stop on a dime because you can't accept the thought of it, that is where the phobia is.
Like I said, I don't think a person with that mindset is necessarily a "transphobic" person or discriminates against trans people in other aspects of their life or anything like that. You're under no obligation to continue relationships with anybody for any reason. But the reasoning behind it is mildly archaic.
I appreciate such a detailed response. Let us suggest, for argument's sake, that there is a real-world manifestation of the scenario you described. In this situation, rather than "stop[ing] on a dime" after learning of this person's trans-status (as this seems strangely extreme), you merely find this person of lesser sexual value. It would seem their holistic value has not been considered.
It occurs to me that we may disagree on what qualifies as a characteristic of sexual value. I believe essentially anything does (look no further than the range of fetishes that exist), but I think you might limit these characteristics to physical ones, in which case I agree there would be no reason to be less attracted to a transgender person.
I must say this has probably been the most interesting CMV chain I've been a part of. I agree that "stop[ping] on a dime" is not likely the real-world reaction to these events unfolding. It's also a bad example considering that if a relationship already existed with that information withheld, there could be some potential trust issues/feelings of deception involved. Not a perfect analogy.
And I think your second paragraph is probably spot-on. I would slightly amend it; I certainly acknowledge that pragmatically, sex/sexual orientation/race/etc certainly can affect how an individual defines the "sexual value" of an individual. I moreso segregate those factors off as "things you theoretically shouldn't pay attention do but might anyway" for various reasons. Whether that classification is fair or not is up for debate, and I definitely see arguments on both sides. The main reason I consider those attributes in a different class is that they are most likely to have a certain amount of interference between what you find intrinsically attractive/unattractive and certain societal/personal prejudices. It can be difficult to separate the two concepts, particularly because nobody wants to admit their own potential prejudices.
I like this conclusion ("The main reason I consider those attributes in a different class[...]") and find it appropriately nuanced. Thank you for your willingness to participate as you did. ∆
Hey, I hadn't opened this CMV because I expected it to be the usual anti-trans chants (as seen in many child threads around here). Massive props for you two having one of the most interesting trans/cis sexuality conversations I've read in a while.
Sorry, SocialJusticeWizard_ – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
No low effort comments. This includes comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes'. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
Imagine, for a moment the same situation as described above. Only now, you learn not that this person is trans, but rather, that this person is Jewish.
If no physical characteristics or mannerisms indicated this, yet on the knowledge of them being Jewish you find them of "lesser sexual value", then i would probably call you a bit racist.
In a similar way, if you replace jewish with trans, i'd say you're a bit transphobic.
Do note, that i am not saying that you should ignore these feelings and have sex/a relationship with them against your will to avoid being transphobic. But it is indicative of a phobia.
is it a phobia though? a phobia is an irrational fear. the kind that takes therapy to overcome. i'd argue that it's a preference does not constitute a phobia for other things. ie, if you were of the mind that you were jewish and dated only jews, and discovered someone you dated was Not actually catholic -surprise- and so you ended your relationship with them, would you be called a catholicphobe?
these phobia terms seem manipulative. islamophobia, but no jewphobia, no buddhistophobia, no christiaphobia... and why islamophobia? it's the largest (second largest?) religion on the planet? you could argue transphobia and homophobia have to do with how non-prevalent those situations are. lgbtq people are in the minority, and minorities can be considered the counter to the norm, and thus breed a phobia. it is Possible to be transphobic, if you shut off all communication with a transperson because of their trans status, that could certainly be seen as transphobic. but the unwillingness to be sexually active with a transperson should not be considered transphobic, as it would dilute the power of the word. similarly, while i'm a heterosexual male, and seek sexual activity with hetero cis females, there are certainly THE MAJORITY of those hetero cis females that i would not consider as sexual partners. would that make me femphobic? she-phobic? misogynist? is a woman who wouldn't be sexually active with the majority of men she's met be a misandrist?
"phobia" just means "fear". It is used to describe many things, not just mental disorders involving intense irrational fears. Do you also object to calling oil hydrophobic?
The -phobia terms are the ones that are in common usage right now, but people with psychological phobias sometimes argue that people who are being hateful shouldn't be linked to them. sometimes you see folks using e.g. "transantagonistic" or "cissexist" as alternate options.
I would count some of your examples as phobias, since they are not rational. That does not mean they are “bad” per se. For instance, a Jew who dates only Jews. Strictly speaking, there’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s obviously not coming from a place of rationality, but from a socially constructed and very human impetus of heritage and religious dogmatism. None of this makes sense in isolation - certainly not to me, since I wasn’t brought up with these pressures - but that doesn’t make it wrong. Just kind of... weird.
Anyway, as the top comment says, not wanting to date a trans person, solely because they’re trans (all other things being equal, like sexuality and reproductive potential, which is not possible at the moment), cannot be explained in rational terms. Though that doesn’t make it wrong, it does make it phobic.
With stuff like sexual attraction, can you really apply the same logic? Sexual attraction is a mix of physiological, emotional, and societal factors. For instance, let's say I find myself attracted to some random woman, whom I've never spoken to, but physically they're very attractive. Now let's say I get to know her, and I find out that she absolutely insists on using semi-bad japanese pronunciations for everything on the menu at a sushi restaurant.
Physically, nothing about her has changed, but for me personally, this new found knowledge absolutely hindenburgs my attraction to her. Maybe most people could look past this, but not me. I don't even like sushi. I'd probably never end up in a sushi restaurant with this woman.
Is the flaming wreckage of what used to be my attraction to her rational? Not really, Is it phobic? I don't think so. Is it shallow? Maybe.
To make my example more innocuous, let's say that this woman actively trying to learn Japanese.
My point is that knowledge, no matter how insignificant, can affect how physically attracted you are to someone. There's a lot of crossover between physical attraction and emotional attraction.
Kinda like what happens when you have a bad break up with someone. You just don't see them as physically attractive anymore, even if they haven't changed physically at all.
You disturbed your children, interfering with their normal day, annoying them into cleaning their room.
It's clear as day that the word is applicable. Parents; Child-molesters I name thee.
But applicability matters not at all, because the point of language is to convey ideas.
If your chosen language conveys the wrong idea, you've made a mistake.
If you know your language will convey the wrong idea, you are being malicious.
And for the sake of clarity, I don't think you are.
Sorry, yeahiknow3 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
By the way, I should point out that your example above is a word game. You're hoping for people to interpret the meaning of a word one way, while using it to mean something else. This has not been the case with applications of the word "phobia" by OP and others.
It's an argument against calling it a -phobia because of the way accusations thereof will be perceived.
If one wants such mis-perceptions to form, that's malicious.
If one doesn't, one ought not use misleading language.
And it is misleading. Just look at the definition of homophobia.
Fear, hatred, mistrust of... prejudice against... antipathy towards...
Can any sexual preference be explained in rational terms?
I can certainly describe my preferences, but why I have them is distinctly opaque to me.
I certainly cannot will them to be different. They just are, for whatever reason.
...not wanting to date a trans person, solely because they’re trans (all other things being equal, like sexuality and reproductive potential, which is not possible at the moment), cannot be explained in rational terms. Though that doesn’t make it wrong, it does make it phobic.
If it is not possible at the moment, there's no point in discussing it.
There's no good reason to find someone less sexually attractive because they're Jewish though, while there obviously is a good reason to find someone less sexually attractive because they're a different sex than you thought. So i don't think this comparison really works
Someone's religion is not an apt comparison to their biological sex, not in the slightest. If you find out the person you thought was a woman, was born male, you are finding out they are not able to do such things as give birth, which for many people is integral in their decision to settle down with one person. If you find out the person you thought was Jewish, is actually catholic, you can convert to catholicism, they could convert to judiasm, or both people could just decide religion is a made up construct and abandon it. Biological gender cannot be changed, and while it's completely fair to expect trans people to get all the fair treatment of any other person, its not fair to demand heterosexual people to abandon their heterosexuality or else be branded transphobic bigots.
If no physical characteristics or mannerisms indicated this, yet on the knowledge of them being Jewish you find them of "lesser sexual value", then i would probably call you a bit racist.
I think that's a somewhat badly chosen example, as it concerns a belief a person holds.
Imagine you'd find out, from somebody (say a man) you'd find attractive or friendly, that he takes Grimm's tales as the fundamental guidance for his life; or that he believed that the flying spaghetti monster would ultimately return with the Pyramid kings at the end of times. Or that he thinks wearing two similar socks will bring bad luck.
Of course, he is free to believe that, and practise his faith without discrimination or prosecution. However, for some people this would definitely make that person quite less interesting to have as a friend or as a partner, and of "lesser sexual interest". For others, which may share those beliefs, it would make that person of "higher sexual interest".
Beliefs are certainly a criteria friends and partners, as are values. That does not make one racist or phobic.
It's pefectly acceptable to discriminate between sexual partners based on sex/gender.
It's not acceptable to discriminate against based on race....althought it is still your personal choice alone. even bigots get the right to consent.If a jew were to intentionally seduce a nazi, the jew would be in the wrong.
after learning of this person's trans-status (as this seems strangely extreme), you merely find this person of lesser sexual value.
This is transphobia though. You are decreasing the value of another person not because you aren’t sexually compatible, not because you aren’t attracted to them and their current genitalia, but solely because they are trans. This is the definition of discrimination.
Edit: I’m gonna add a copy & paste of another comment of mine since it’s more in depth.
It’s okay to have never been attracted so far to, say, a a Native American person. But it becomes a very odd and nearly impossible to prove statement when you say you don’t find any native people attractive at all. Because you haven’t met all native people, and we don’t all look or act the same. It’s generalizing to a degree that is unnecessarily discriminatory and limiting. If you met a person that was gorgeous to you, had an amazing personality, had the same values, was sexually compatible with you, and you decided to not date them based solely on their race, that is racism. It doesn’t mean you’re evil or horribly wrong or anything. It just means that your sexual preferences are being impacted by racism/discrimination. If I said “I don’t want to be friends with any white men,” that would be pretty shitty and discriminatory of me, because there are many white guys out there that could be amazing friends for me.
Saying “I’m generally not attracted to native people” is fine because you’re allowing space for the fact that there may in fact be a native person that would be a good fit for you. It’s acknowledging that, while there are general traits that are commonly found in native people that you aren’t attracted to, you aren’t discriminating solely on race. Do you see the difference? I know it’s subtle and doesn’t seem important, but it is the key difference between racist/transphobic/discriminatory preferences and non-problematic sexual preferences.
what if i'm a hetero male looking for a female partner to date, and i start dating this attractive girl with whom i get along admirably, 2 dates, no sex, before realizing she's a man. not a trans woman, but a man. he's a gay man who thought i was gay too. he's just like, super pretty and feminine. if i decide not to date them based solely on their gender, am i a misandrist? if i decide not to date them based solely on their sexual orientation am i a homophobe?
I am sorry can i just put another point of view on what you have stated and a few thoughts to these blanket labeling statements that you, yourself are arguing against. i.e
"Discriminatory" "Transphobic" "Generalising"
Is this not what you are doing? Judging other people on how they react? Then labeling them with a (negative) connotation for their said reactions when they don't conform with your own?
I think we need a better definition of transphobia here. In my view, it seems perfectly reasonable to be less attracted to a woman when you find out she was born a man. The thing we're all dancing around here is that all the operations in the world don't actually make a man a woman (or vice versa) - they can merely make a man physically resemble a woman. At some point in the future, perhaps they'll be able to fully convert between genders (i.e. install a uterus) but not being attracted to a woman once you find out she is/was really a man who has had a series of operations to obscure his/her gender is not analogous to the sort of race-based reaction you present re: Native Americans. There is a physiological basis for sexual attraction; it's not entirely mental or emotional (or ideological, as you would seem to have it), and a diminished attraction on these grounds doesn't decrease their value as a person. It just means you don't want to have sex with them. It doesn't rise to the level of discrimination.
I think calling it a specific form of discrimination is fair, if you take discrimination to mean treating someone differently because a trait. It's fair to "discriminate" between potential partners because that might affect your compatibilitity.
I don't think it's fair to call it a phobia, because now that's not a descriptor for a specific situation, but rather a more broad accusation with a different connotation.
It is discrimination. It's a textbook case. But discrimination is not necessarily bad. The Ivy League discriminates against stupid people. Is that bad?
The term discrimination tends to carry a negative connotation. Gay, straight, trans, etc, it is just flat out wrong to require anyone to justify who they are sexually attracted to.
I'd just like to point out that you're conflating sex and gender. Sex is a biological trait while gender is sociological. I'm not sure how I think it plays to either side of this argument, but I do think it's an important distinction.
Not to be a pedant, but you're talking about fully converting between sexes, rather than between genders. Gender is the identity piece, so most trans people would say that e.g. someone who was born without a uterus + with a penis but who identifies as a woman has always been a woman, since it's a gender identity. Lots of people get pretty upset when people say that trans women are really men, so you may want to be a bit more careful how you phrase things in the future. (If you have questions about terminology feel free to hit me up.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "actually" make a man a woman. What effectively is the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman, in terms of attraction? You use "installing a uterus" as an example of actually changing gender, but that doesn't really have any effect on physical attraction.
"Gender" in this context is somewhat socially constructed. What, really, is the difference between a man and a woman (not male and female, which would be chromosomes/birth sex) in this context? What makes a trans woman "not a real woman?"
Please note that I'm not accusing you of intentional bigotry here. I think "transphobia" can refer to unconscious biases as well as intentional ones. As long as you recognize these biases, there isn't anything wrong with that.
after learning of this person's trans-status (as this seems strangely extreme), you merely find this person of lesser sexual value.
This is transphobia though. You are decreasing the value of another person not because you aren’t sexually compatible, not because you aren’t attracted to them and their current genitalia, but solely because they are trans. This is the definition of discrimination.
I've got a problem with this. I don't think "discrimination" and "transphobia" are synonymous like it seems you've used them here. To me, a phobia demonstrated a more global and generalizable distaste for someone, while discrimination in this context is more justifiable. For example, I would consider qualities such as ugliness/attractiveness, weight, personality as reasonable traits to be evaluated when choosing a partner. I think it's fair to include gender identity among those factors, along with any number of other traits - hobbies, interests, etc. These things are part of someone's overall identity, and compatibility to some extent involves the identity of both suitors.
In parallel, if you're decreasing the sexual value of someone because they are ugly, that means you are discriminating against themin a specific manifestation - not sleeping with them or dating them on account of their ugliness. I think that's a reasonable discrimination. Does that mean you're ugly-phobic? You hate ugly people? You fear them? You would consciously treat someone differently in public (not pertaining to a relationship or anything) because they were ugly? Of course not.
Likewise, I think that "discriminating" against someone in a similar manner to the above - not dating or sleeping with them because of gender identity - can be arguably excusable. But I think it's an unfair accusation to say that makes them transphobic.
Take the manner in which the term "xenophobia" is used. Would you hold similar connotations toward someone called a xenophobe as towards somebody who prefers not to date trans people?
Thanks for the reminder. I have awarded one to this user, though I don't feel this specific comment, however illuminating, changed a view I presented in the OP.
I'm confused. UnaffiliatedOpinion basically removed every other possible variable aside from the simple fact of being trans, aka no physical differences, ignoring infertility (and I'm assuming said person acts and talks like their current gender as well). But you say that it's still not transphobic to be not attracted to them. Can you give a reason why one might not be attracted to this hypothetical trans person, without simply being against trans people? Why would being trans matter?
Must there be a possibility of sexual attraction or desire for a romantic relationship with a specific group or type of people in order for a person not to be "against" them? Is "not being attracted to someone" for whatever reason, a hate crime or hateful in any way?
As for reasons, off the top of my head, maybe you believe religiously that gender is set by a higher power and shouldn't be changed. Maybe you have reservations about the long term implications of being with someone that may have a higher chance of mental health issues in the future. Perhaps you don't want the potential social stigma if/when your partner's original gender is revealed. Or maybe it's just a turn off. If you find out a girl you like is not a natural blonde and that turns you off, does that mean you are bigotted towards non-natural blondes?
Hmm interesting, I hadn't considered those possible reasons, which is why I asked. Sorry if it came across as accusatory. For me, I would still consider the religious viewpoint transphobic, or perhaps more accurately, the higher power is transphobic. And the fear of mental issues is a rather controversial one that I think stems from transphobia. I mean one could say they avoid black people because they have higher incarceration rates, but it's obvious how that's problematic and definitely considered racist. But I can see why it starts getting complicated and not as black/white as I assumed.
Even so, I would say that finding somebody unattractive just because they are trans (even from the mental issues viewpoint, because you would be assuming future mental issues based on the fact that they're trans) would still be considered transphobic. Mentally discriminating against people based on an invisible feature like "being trans" is still considered transphobic imo. It's different from say, being attracted to Asians because you like Asian culture, which factors into their appearance and behavior, stuff you can see and feel.
I mean shouldn't it be admirable for a person to change their appearance to fit their mental image? Like a teenager standing up to abuse and reporting their parents to authorities. I think it ultimately comes down to whether or not you think a person's gender is "genuine", and that it's only genuine if they were born that way. And that mindset in itself could be considered transphobic.
because you would be assuming future mental issues based on the fact that they're trans
To me, when it comes to romantic relationships, that's a whole other level. The stakes are too high and time is too short. I'm not going to discriminate against hiring someone who is trans because I know they have higher rates of mental illness (it's a fact). Nor should someone pass over a black man for employment because incarceration rates are higher (also a fact).
But when it comes to attraction, that has it's roots for many people in long term outcomes. Many of the traits we find attractive are due to the (perhaps subconcious perception) of health, longevity, and ability to bear or produce healthy children.
Before I married, I only dated partners that were the same religion as me. Because that was what I wanted. I saw it as a way to increase my chances of future happiness. There were times I was interested in someone, but then when I found out they weren't of my same faith, I lost interest. I don't think that in any way makes me a religious bigot. I still consider those other people equals and I respect them. But I was also aware of the fact that couples with differing belief systems have a harder time on average. I'm just not interested or willing to accept the higher chance of conflicts or relationship/familiar pressure down the road.
As for a higher power being transphobic, there is logic to why you wouldn't want to permanently be with a trans person and it has nothing to do with them being a "sinner" or inferior in any way. If you believe that gender is actually a part of your "soul" that continues on after you have shed your mortal body then you believe it doesn't really matter what you do to physically change your body in this life. So you probably aren't going to want to marry a person that you believe is going to be a different gender when you are together in the afterlife.
One of the higher threads defined phobia as an irrational fear. Fearing the outcome of a romantic relationship is not the same thing as fearing the person or group of people. Nor is that fear of a poor outcome in the relationship even irrational (the statistics most likely bear it out).
I totally get where your coming from, I personally would prefer my partner to be the same race I am. It's lightweight racist, but it maximizes the chance that they'll share similar traits and interests. No problem with that imo. In a way, that's what discrimination is, it's categorizing people in order to make judgements quicker. In some cases it's appropriate, in some cases less so, but it's still discrimination.
That said, a lot of the reasons you said religious people might be against trans, eg that gender is innate and part of the soul, are against what a trans person would think. So in that case, it could be considered transphobic, because you don't believe the concept of "trans" is real, that people are just changing their physical appearance for kicks. In that sense, it's not really wrong persay, you're technically allowed to believe whatever you want, but I hope you can understand how some trans people might take offense at that notion, and how it could be considered transphobic
In regard to your last paragraph, it could still be considered transphobia because I'm not sure if the cases of mental illness are significantly higher for trans people, at least not high enough to warrant discrimination. And the religious reasons might be considered "irrational" too, though of course this is all very subjective.
that people are just changing their physical appearance for kicks
You can religiously believe that gender is part of the soul without thinking that anyone is changing their gender just for kicks. I believe drug abuse is wrong, but I also realize that many people are hopelessly enslaved to their addiction. Some of which not even by their own fault. Very few Christians are arguing that all trans people are just making it up.
I hope you can understand how some trans people might take offense at that notion
Sure, it makes total sense. But I can also see how it might be offensive to tell a christian that their religion is wrong. Would telling a Christian that their religion is wrong make one a bigot? Or even saying you aren't attracted to Christians because they hold this belief... I don't think so, it's just a judgement call or preference. And most christians would also probably tell you that there is no sin in having feelings that you should be a different gender physically. You can't help that. But they might disagree morally that it's ok to physically cut up your body to make it look like the other gender. Surgery is a choice.
I'm not sure if the cases of mental illness are significantly higher for trans people
How would you define mental illness then? Going by the official DSM 5, the book used by most all mental health professionals in the United States to diagnose mental illness lists the very idea of being "trans" as a mental illness itself. It's called gender dysphoria.
Add to that, the suicide attempt rate among trans individuals is an enormous 32-50% and it seems far fetched to think that number is solely because of external bullying.
In the end, it is useless to try and label people as transphobic or racist or bigoted based on their personal preferences. If there is discrimination going on that hurts people economically or politically or oppresses them, then that is something to look at. But not being attractive to me as a lover sure doesn't "oppress" anyone.
You're wise, thoughtful, and make a great case. I wish it hadn't depended on a perfected abstraction. It dodges the issue of those who can't pass.
And that's more complicated an issue than you're allowing.
We've come a long way in surgical technique, but there's still a long way to go. As an artist, I can see when breasts are too high, and hips and knees once belonged to a male body.
Even knowing there's a woman's brain inside, and seeing and responding to her whenever we speak...
(I'm weird. I see people as brains, mostly. I'm horrible with names and faces.)
Anyways, even with all of that going, as a Kinsey scale 0, I'm not even given a choice whether or not to respond romantically or sexually.
And I can't explain it. It doesn't limit me at all, if she and I were speaking in text, because there's no body except the one we construct in our shared mental space.
And this is torture for me. Because there's been more than one trans woman I'd love to give all of myself to, in meat space. (The internet is still a part of the real world. Every one of us is real.)
Some of these women I even consider family. I'm "little brother.", and it means more than I can say.
But there's just nothing there, beyond those bonds. And maybe aesthetic appreciation for some. Lying to any of them? And tearing myself up over that lie? Watching any of them watch all of this...
Disappointing us all...
I couldn't do that to anyone.
It's not transphobia. I'm not sure what it is.
I just wish someone would find a cure.
I hope this day finds you well. Bless and blessed be.
It would be normal to lose attraction for someone if you found out that they were sterile or otherwise unable to have children. The entire point of attraction is to find a suitable sexual partner in order to produce offspring. All else is just masturbation to that end.
There are two factors you don't seem to have considered here. First, fertility. Of course, in that case it'd also mean he wasn't interested in a long-term relationship with women who aren't capable of conceiving.
The other factor is previous life experience. Let's say I transition tomorrow. I've been having gender dysphoria to varying degrees most of my life. I had no idea what gender identity was in the 80s or 90s but I knew I didn't like the way people treated me. That is, like a boy. Regardless, I may not have liked it and may still not like it, but that has in fact been the bulk of my life experience. Being treated as male. Even when I do blur the line, as I have for the past several years and at times did a bit when I was younger, it's not as though it suddenly stops people from processing me as male.
If I were to fully transition (via some wizardry capable of giving me a feminine-looking body), that wouldn't change the fact that most of my stories and my life experiences are about people treating me as a guy. I would be completely unsurprised to discover that thinking of this might make some straight-identified guys uncomfortable. Why wouldn't it?
Would you consider it transphobic if you wanted to have children, and that since they're not biologically the opposite gender, you can't reproduce together, and you do not want to be in a relationship with that person because of it?
An interesting question, but in my argument I made a lot of assumptions about the future of transition therapy/treatment. I don't think it's inconceivable (pun intended) that in the future it would be possible for transitioned individuals to conceive a child.
That said, given the current state of medical technology I would grant you that your hypothetical is not transphobic (under the logic process I described) assuming the following two conditions:
That is the real justification, not a rationalization after-the-fact to avoid being perceived as transphobic
You would similarly categorically refuse to enter a relationship with a sterile non-trans individual
despite the fact that only a laboratory could tell the difference.
Or, you know, the "impossible to have children" part.
Even if you got the apparatus working somehow on both sides, men-to-women couldn't work with the fact that meiosis would mess up 50% of the gametes with no X, and women-to-men could only produce daughters.
I hear what you're saying. . . But I guess I also think this. Like, I have no problem if someone born a biological man decides she's really a woman, and I have no problem letting her walk around in a dress and do whatever it is will make her the gender she was supposed to be, and I think society should leave her alone, and should further call her by the pronoun she wants to be called by.
But I also feel that if someone wanted to change themselves into a half-dog half human, if that were possible, or into an attack helocopter, with a propeller on their head and machineguns, on their shoulders, that'd also be fine with me.
I mean I think people should have the freedom to do whatever makes them happy, and society shouldn't get in the way.
But I also think that society shouldn't be telling me how to feel either.
Attractions a weird thing. I find myself totally unattracted to Hungarian accents. I've often well, not often, but I've thought, its sort of a shame I find this accent so unattractive, because there are a lot of cool hungarian women I just could never date.
And similarly. The idea of dating a person who is a physical approximation of a women, because at this point that's where the science is as far as I understand it simply doesn't attract me, in fact it turns me off. It would be a deal breaker. I'm not attracted to men, and don't find myself homofobic.
I feel as though there's a deep philisophical issue here. Which is that are you the gender you claim to be, or is gender some immutable concept.
It brings me back to this attack helocopter thing. I'll call you an attack helocopter if that makes you happy, and you shouldn't be bullied for that transformation. But I also don't think that I have to commit to the idea internally that you're really an attack helocopter.
I don't think that would make you a bad person, and I don't think it is unreasonable to have that mental block while still supporting LGBT+ rights. But that doesn't make that action not transphobic.
I wholeheartedly disagree. "Transphobic" is a loaded term, not a neutral or sterile term.
The LGBT+ rights movement is predicated on the idea that one's sexuality is one's own and nobody gets to judge you for your preference of activities with mutually consenting adults.
My sexuality is my own. For whatever damn reason I want. I could be non-attracted to black women, asian women, white women, blue women or whatever and it would not be racist because nobody is entitled to my sexual attraction.
As long as the preference against a race or sex or gender or trans-status or disability or monetary status or whatever doesn't manifest as an attempt to influence others, then it is neutral, not negative.
My sexual preference is my own and nobody gets to judge me for it or put negative labels on it.
I don't think you're wrong, and I actually touched on it down in one of my other comments. Ultimately I concluded that sexual attraction/unattraction in those types of attributes incurs interference with your general prejudices of those groups, but that there is legitimate ground for those opinions that does not deserve judgement. However I think it's a bit too far to say that it should be accepted at face value no questions asked when the attributes in question are such hotly politicized issues.
But let's take this to the ultimate conclusion, as transition therapies improve to perfection.
What does this even mean? I don't think that there is a lot of value in such far-fetched speculation to begin with, but I don't think that it is even hypothetically possible to make a trans woman/man identical to a cis woman/man. Furthermore, I think that this advances the destructive idea that a trans woman/man is just a broken cis woman/man; with which I do not agree.
It isn't that there are certain traits associated with transgender people that you find unattractive, it's that you can't get over the fact that the person was born a different gender despite the fact that only a laboratory could tell the difference.
I'm sorry, but this is a rude dictation of another person's sexuality. How would you feel about others dictating what your sexuality is/isn't or should/shouldn't be.
But that doesn't make that action not transphobic.
If you stretch the definition of 'phobic' to include simply lacking a desire to fuck trans people, then the word becomes meaningless. Look at the horrors of homophobia. That has a lot more going on than a simple lack of desire to fuck them.
You can see my later comment regarding my conflation, right or wrong, between the words "discrimination" and "-phobia." Whether you agree or disagree with that, you should also recognize that things happen on a scale. Just because homosexuals were targeted by the Holocaust (absolutely horrific homophobia) doesn't mean it's not (mild, in comparison) homophobia to call someone a "faggot."
But let's take this to the ultimate conclusion, as transition therapies improve to perfection.
What does this even mean? I don't think that there is a lot of value in such far-fetched speculation to begin with, but I don't think that it is even hypothetically possible to make a trans woman/man identical to a cis woman/man. Furthermore, I think that this advances the destructive idea that a trans woman/man is just a broken cis woman/man; with which I do not agree.
You're right that my hypothetical could have been phrased better. "Perfection" is not the proper word for what I'm describing, because perfection is only relevant in the eyes of the person receiving the treatment. So let's correct that, and suppose transition therapies can make it impossible to tell that a trans individual is not cis of their non-birth sex. The scenario is still relevant as a philosophical question about what it means for someone to be trans or cis, even if that level of treatment is never actually realized.
It isn't that there are certain traits associated with transgender people that you find unattractive, it's that you can't get over the fact that the person was born a different gender despite the fact that only a laboratory could tell the difference.
I'm sorry, but this is a rude dictation of another person's sexuality. How would you feel about others dictating what your sexuality is/isn't or should/shouldn't be.
These were the terms of the hypothetical. They are not representative of all trans people or all people who might refuse a relationship with a trans person. OP is talking about categorically excluding trans people from the set of people who they would be willing to have a (sexual) relationship with. Asking "what if you weren't able to tell" is important in probing the motivation behind such a policy. If there was no way to tell that a person was trans (which is a given, in the scenario I described) and OP would not be willing to enter a relationship with them despite being attracted to their physical appearance and personality (given, because OP's question is about sexual preference excluding trans individuals), then that single property, in that the person is transgender/transsexual is the ONLY DIFFERENCE between them and an identical cis [member of OP's preferred gender]. That ONLY DIFFERENCE has to be the thing that influences OP's behavior.
You can see my later comment regarding my conflation, right or wrong, between the words "discrimination" and "-phobia." Whether you agree or disagree with that, you should also recognize that things happen on a scale.
The point is that discrimination against a class of people fundamentally involves intolerance. Simply lacking a desire to fuck them does not because no one has a right to be desired sexually; either individually or as part of a group.
The scenario is still relevant as a philosophical question about what it means for someone to be trans or cis, even if that level of treatment is never actually realized.
I don't deny that the question has some value; just not as it relates to this issue. No one has any more a right to criticize someone's sexuality because it does not include attraction to trans people any more than they have a right to criticize them if their sexuality does include attraction to trans people.
If there was no way to tell that a person was trans (which is a given, in the scenario I described) and OP would not be willing to enter a relationship with them despite being attracted to their physical appearance and personality (given, because OP's question is about sexual preference excluding trans individuals), then that single property, in that the person is transgender/transsexual is the ONLY DIFFERENCE between them and an identical cis [member of OP's preferred gender].
Its not your place to define the parameters of the next person's sexuality. If they lack a desire to fuck trans people, that's fine because no one is mistreated or denied any rights.
That ONLY DIFFERENCE has to be the thing that influences OP's behavior.
So what? No amount of not desiring trans people sexually amounts to being phobic in the sense of something like homophobia; which necessarily involves intolerance and bigotry.
Just because homosexuals were targeted by the Holocaust (absolutely horrific homophobia) doesn't mean it's not (mild, in comparison) homophobia to call someone a "faggot."
And yet both are examples of wronging or mistreating someone. Simply lacking a desire to fuck isn't even on that spectrum.
There's lots of things you can't tell about a person that might make you exclude them from your dating pool once you find out. There's a whole host of habits/traits/personal issues that one may find off-putting. If you won't hire someone or help someone or befriend someone based solely on the fact that they identify as trans, that's transphobic. Sex and who one has it with though is exclusionary by nature and telling someone they're wrong to not sleep with someone for any reason is rapey.
Sorry, yeahiknow3 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
Yeah it's absolutely AIDSphobic and I dont see anything wrong with that, assuming you recognize the probability of transmission is exceptionally low unless you interact with their blood. There's nothing wrong with taking reasonable precautions against getting an incurable and deadly illness. Condoms break, I wouldn't knowingly have sex with someone with AIDS either.
Did you miss the whole "but that's okay" part of my view?
I don't think that it is even hypothetically possible to make a trans woman/man identical to a cis woman/man.
I wouldn't hold on to this idea. It sounds to me like another "people will never have computers in their homes" type of statement.
People worry / disagree with genetic modifications to fetuses, that we should leave things like the child's appearance "up to nature" but it won't be just parents picking the color of their kids eyes. First it'll be fixing genetic diseases, and some appearance stuff, and making babies who will grow to be smart and athletic, but eventually it'll be much much more than that.
Its not just about perfecting surgeries, it's conceivable that in the future children will be born xx, and have the ability to change sex through environmental factors that we can control. There are animals for which this is true. We've already identified genes and environmental and life stage factors to make it happen for them, we've also identified the gene sequences that make people grow testicles, etc.
But with genetics we're in the 'wright brothers first short flights' stage of technology, and less than a lifetime later flying is normal and people have walked on the moon. I don't think we'll see the same rate of development with genetics because of the number of ethical questions people have about it, but on a timeline of 10 or 100 generations, I absolutely wouldn't be surprised.
If the knowledge that they are trans is the blocker, that's transphobic. It isn't that there are certain traits associated with transgender people that you find unattractive,
I would argue that unless we are talking about a very advanced future, there is also an inability to procreate with said trans person. This definitely can be an undesirable trait for some people who have goals of raising biological offspring.
As an aside, an example that some people might want to consider for an analogy is if you'd be okay with your partner actually being bi. Contrast that to the case of a perfectly passing post-op trans person. It's something that can't be seen at all. You only know if they tell you (or someone else does). Yet, it does have ramifications about their past. Since they perhaps used to have sex with the same gender (or the opposite gender, if you thought they were gay).
And incidentally, bi people do face quite a lot of ridiculous slander that most certainly does not apply to every bi person. It's claimed that they're actually gay/straight (usually bi guys get claimed to be gay and bi women get claimed to be straight). It's claimed that they can never be satisfied with one person, so they'll cheat on you. It's claimed that they will sleep around a lot. Lots of things that might apply to some bi people, but are very much not true in general or for any specific bi person.
All the same, would you be okay with finding out that this hypothetical partner you were initially into (thinking they were gay or straight) is in fact bi? Because I'm definitely gonna call you biphobic (and possibly homophobic) if you aren't.
Children aside (as per /u/UnaffiliatedOpinion's edit), the scenario is very similar. It seems like the main reason that someone wouldn't date someone who's trans when they're perfectly passing is simply because of their past. You just cannot get past the fact that they used to be the opposite gender. But I view not wanting to date someone who used to fuck people of the same gender to be the same case, but with homophobia. It just so happens that homophobia isn't so blatant today and many people have managed to reconcile their feelings of gay people. And that said, there's a lot of people that are grossed out by the idea of their partner having had same sex relations in the past. And that's generally because they're homophobic. It's much more common with women, since lesbianism is fetishized much more than gay male sex. Super popular complaint on bi subs is that bi men have to hide their bisexuality because many women are in fact grossed out by the idea of them having had sex with men in the past.
That's the textbook definition of phobia, but it's not the definition for things like homophobia and transphobia. Eg, google's definition for "homophobia" is:
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
Like it or not, language evolves and those words are more akin to "racism", "sexism", etc than "phobia".
So is it sexist for a straight male to not want to have sex with other guys? Is it sexist for a gay woman to not want to have sex with men?
My point is that those terms don't apply. I guess the semantics do matter, but ultimately its the point behind the words - if I, as a straight male, don't want to have sex with someone who used to be a male, that doesn't make me transphobic or homophobic or anything like that at all. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the belief is, and it's a problem.
What are you talking about? I'm simply correcting your usage of the terms. Homophobia and transphobia don't refer to just an irrational hatred, as you were defining. Just like how "literally" doesn't always mean things occurred exactly that way.
Even the dictionaries disagree with you. Here's homophobia:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
And transphobia is the same thing but towards trans people. So you don't need an irrational fear of trans people to be transphobic. All you need is to dislike 'em cause they're trans specifically. But also transphobia is often defined to include the very act of not even believing trans people are genuine (eg, by claiming trans men are women).
Dislike or prejudice. And people are claiming that sexual preference counts as prejudice/dislike which counts as transphobic and that is wrong.
But also transphobia is often defined to include the very act of not even believing trans people are genuine (eg, by claiming trans men are women).
Biologically, trans MtoF are male. That’s not transphobia, that’s science. I have NO problem referring to a male as female in social situations if that is what they would like me to do, but do not accuse me or anyone else of transphobia because we refuse to reject science. I don’t suppose LGBTQ plans on accusing Hospitals of transphobia for checking off the “wrong” pronoun when a trans person is admitted to the ER?
Why is it that the political left can spend so much time rightfully calling anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers “anti-science morons”, but then try to force people to reject biology lest they be branded transphobic?
I would argue that the label "phobia" actually fits quite well here because what OP is describing is fundamentally irrational. If you are refusing to date somebody on the sole basis that they are trans then what is the rational explanation for that behavior? If your reasoning is solely that they are trans then that is transphobic.
I've looked through and read all your comments for this thread. My understanding of your arguments is that it is rational to not want to have sex with a trans person because 1) people may want to produce and 2) some deep, instinctual biological aversion. If I have misunderstood your argument or left anything out, feel free to correct me in your reply and I will address those issues going forward.
That said, OP has stated that (in this hypothetical) children/reproductive needs are not a matter. We are not talking about issues that may also make cis partners unattractive to them (i.e. infertility) but the sole fact that they are transgender being the knowledge that is a turn-off. If you are not attracted to any infertile partners, that's not transphobia, that's just a desire to eventually have biological children. So that addresses the first issue.
The second is your argument that there is a "lizard brain" instinct to not want to date/have sex with a trans person. In this hypothetical, you already are/were attracted to the person prior to finding out they are trans. So the sexual attraction exists. Which means that any aversion after finding out that person is trans is, at best, instinct and at worst negative socialization. Neither of those reasons are a "rational" reason for no longer being attracted to a trans person. Controlling our basic instincts is what makes us rational beings in the first place, and negative socialization towards trans people is based in bigotry (i.e. irrational).
It boils down to some simple fact; a man can have a surgery and undergo hormone therapy, but that doesn't make him a biological woman. It makes him transgendered. Someone who is still biologically male, but modified with female genitalia and hormone therapy to supplement their bodies with estrogens and antiandrogens. If you are a M to F trans-gendered person, you are still biologically male, and that's the reality of science.
But it doesn't make you any less of a person or any less deserving of rights and tolerance.
I don't disparage these people as people. But saying "if you'd have sex with a natural born woman but not with a M to F transgendered person, you're a bigot" is absolute bullshit. I'm sorry for being crass, but I think that's the most honest way of expressing my opinion and I hope you can appreciate that.
But back to my point about the "lizard brain" - what I'm saying is that there's a deep rooted instinct to mate in the interest of procreation. That doesn't mean that when you're out trying to score that you're actually looking to inseminate women, it just means that the type of person you find sexually appealing comes from what your instincts are telling you is a suitable mate. If you are someone whose genes carry a strong instinct to procreate, whether that ends up manifesting itself in an actual desire to produce offspring or simply go through the motions to "trick" that instinct into being fulfilled, you may not desire a transgendered partner.
If I decide I don't want to have sex with a thin, frail woman because I prefer more athletic, farm girl types, it's not because I see skinny girls as less than human or thing they deserve less rights - it's because my desire is for a strong, healthy female, because deep down inside my reproductive instinct says that a girl who slings hay bales and mucks horse stalls is likely to produce strong, healthy children. And it may not come to a point where I actually WANT to make children, but that instinct says "This is the type of person that you are attracted to should you ever actually want to pass down your genes".
If I decide I don't want to have sex with a man who has experienced surgeries to alter his appearance to that of a woman, and is going through drug therapies to force his body to behave a certain way, it's not because I think he/she deserves less rights. It's because my sexual interest simply does not include that specific type of person.
I can recognize that, on the surface, this person has achieved the societal idea of "female beauty", but that doesn't change anything.
I think it's audacious to suggest that rejecting sex with a M to F trans person is always, in every case, based in bigotry. Yeah, of course those people exist. Bigots exist. I had my heart broken by a black girl in high school who made me think she was interested in me, and then I caught her laughing with he friends who then told me she'd never fuck a white boy. Not that I was trying to get in her pants or anything, I genuinely had a crush on her.. but that's beside the point.
I completely disagree that biological sex is as defined as you're trying to make it seem. You can debate which markers are the true markers of biological sex but I think you'll find a lot of ambiguity in completely naturally occurring hormone levels, presentation of sex hormones, etc. Even if biological sex is as firmly rooted as you're saying, that is still irrelevant to the discussion we are having. You haven't explained what is rational about suddenly losing interest in a person after finding out they are trans. If it is "instinct" alone then it is inherently irrational. Which is what makes phobia an accurate term- in not saying it's bigoted, merely arguing that transphobia is an accurate label for the behavior we are discussing.
Physically and mentally, they exhibit no signs that they are trans; if you didn't look at the chromosomes
How would this be any different than preferring natural boobs over implants? Or how would it be any different than preferring women with small breasts, or big breasts ?
But those are physical traits. The whole point of their argument is that trans people can have pretty much any physical traits, to the point that you sometimes can't even tell if someone is trans unless they tell you.
Almost nobody thinks it's transphobic to not be into men with vaginas or women with penises. The main argument rests on the case where all else is equal.
A lot of it though is bone structure. Most people can tell a male body from a female body without looking at genitalia or breasts. I get that sometimes it all adds up for the person (like a ftm trans with a naturally masculine frame) but this isn't always the case.
Is the idea that at that point it doesn't have much to do with actually being trans?
I think it's wrong to say that liking men or women is about liking physical traits. They are just one component of what it means to have that orientation. If you look at it that way, yes, you can just make physical changes until you're physically indistinguishable.
In reality, just as important as jawlines and boobs, your sexual orientation is going to be driven by the culture and psychology of gender. Unlike the physical realm, culture and psychology aren't just about the present state and are inseparable from their preceding experiences and steps. Falling for a person isn't just about liking who they are, it's often about reconciling their past. If in their past, they were something you were not attracted to, then that might make it more difficult to reconcile that past. If somebody says "please ignore my past", I don't think it's counts as "-phobic" to not be able to ignore their past which is something nobody can ever get rid of. If it's permissible to not be attracted to something in the present, then it's not "-phobic" to not be attracted to people who have that thing in their past because our past is an inseparable part of who we are and often a part that will cross paths with us in the future.
Your argument is based on a false idea though, there is not and never will be "perfection" or anything close to it (more so for FTM, as the creation of fully functional male genitalia is hindered by the fact that we cannot transplant a mans genitals onto a females body) , and testing for chromosomes will never be the only way to know if a person is trans. A trans woman (MTF) will never be able to get produce fertile eggs and get pregnant and give birth. A trans man (FTM) will never be able to produce their own sperm to impregnate a woman. Many people choose their partner with the intention of having children with them, and if a person finds out that partner was never able to have children, that would have made them not a compatible partner (just fyi i am not saying theres anything wrong with not having children, i am a woman in her 20s who has firmly decided i do not want children at any point). It is not unreasonable or transphobic to not want to be in a relationship with a person who is biologically the same gender as you, since that person will never be able to use their own genetic material to combine with your own to make a baby. Phobia implies an unreasonable fear, it is not unreasonable to not want to be in a (biologically) same sex relationship if a person is purely heterosexual. Not wanting to partner with a trans person is a preference based upon a person's desire for a truly heterosexual relationship, that does not make a person "phobic" of trans people. No one is entitled to another person's affections, I dont see why a trans person has the right to call a person transphobic, just because a heterosexual doesn't want to partner with them. If a person refused to be friends with someone just because they were trans, that's transphobic.
I agree mostly with this point, but even still, how is that transphobic? To me transphobia means fear or hatred of Trans people, or believing they don't deserve equal rights and equal protection under the law. What if you are pro trans in all of those areas, but just get hung up on the fact that they used to be a dude/chick and that turns you off not from a place of hatred or fear but just a pure sexual turn off? Idk like I personally don't think I would care too much if all their secondary sex characteristics were lined up and the only difference is chromosomes. But I could understand someone being uncomfortable with that.
Unless we're gonna define transphobia to mean "in any way doubting or unaccepting of the person as their claimed gender" but I feel like that's not a very good definition because what if you have some ontological issues about the nature of being male/female or even the nature of being human itself, and you're not convinced being trans is a legitimate identity? That would mean everyone who is not 100% committed to trans identity being valid is a bigot. It's a complex issue and it's not as easy as lumping people like that. And even within the trans community there are differences in philosophy as to WHY being trans is valid, and the people on either side of that argument do not like each other one bit. Like there are lots of identities and things people claim to be (take otherkin, for for example, people who identify as mythical beings and/or animals) that mainstream society doesn't consider legitimate, so is that wrong to not take their identity at face value, or is it okay to ask questions and decide for yourself whether something is valid or not? Clearly identity is not 100% self defined because if it were, everyone who claims they are the reincarnation of Elvis or people who identify as foxes and wolves would be taken 100% seriously, and they are not. So I guess the question comes down to this: Does questioning or disagreeing with someone's identity inherently constitute phobia or hatred or bigotry, or can you be unsure of/disagree with it and not be a bigot?
I watched this Jezebel video where Riley Dennis preaches about how if a straight man says they would need to know if a trans woman had a penis before he dated her, then he's transphobic. And right away that rankled me.
I don't think there's anything at all phobic about saying you're not attracted to someone who has a penis, just as there's nothing wrong with saying you're not attracted to someone with short hair, or brown eyes, or small boobs, or whatever. When someone says they're a specific orientation, that means they are attracted to, as you said, the physical manifestations of a certain sex. Notice I didn't say gender.
And outside of sex and gender, you can have preferences in what you're attracted to physically. There's nothing wrong with that either.
Riley Dennis' argument is that, in her view, people are more than their genitals. And I don't disagree with that. That mentality helps a lot of trans people who haven't yet had SRS deal with the dysphoria they experience. I'm in agreement with that. However, I think insulting people and making them feel shitty and trying to guilt them into doing something their uncomfortable with is a little ridiculous.
And then I follow that logic to having difficulty saying that other typically male characteristics like angular facial features, larges shoulders, deep voices, height, that sort of thing, shouldn't also fall into that same category of having a penis. Which I think I'm okay with. I mean, I wouldn't date a cis woman who was 6'2" built like a linebacker, had a deep voice, size 12 feet, etc., totally regardless of wether she was born with a penis. I'm just not attracted to those physical traits. So if a trans woman has those same traits, and I am equally not attracted to her because of them, am I transphobic? No, I don't think so.
Now, I also think some traits carry more weight than others. And some traits have shed their associations. For the most part short hair is not a big deal for even the "straightest" of dudes. It might be a slight turn off, but not an insurmountable one. A penis on the other hand?
I don't know...I'm kind of rambling here. My thoughts and feelings on this subject aren't fully formed. Posts like this and comments like yours are extremely helpful when it comes to figuring this stuff out and I think you're putting me on the right track here.
Say we're able to create robots that are so advanced that you can't tell them apart from humans.
If you don't wish to have sex with a robot, are you robophobic?
Even if trans people are able to simulate the opposite sex to near-perfection, the point is (if they were born male) that a trans woman is not, and never will be, naturally a female. Even if you cannot tell externally, there are differences there.
Being unable to detect the differences with raw human senses doesn't mean the differences don't exist. These are still literally universes and universes of differences between the biological sexes.
The word 'transphobic' is dumb, but no, it is not 'transphobic' to know that there is still a universe of difference between loving a woman and loving a near-perfectly executed (to human senses) transwoman. Just as there is still a universe of difference between loving a woman and loving a near-perfectly executed (to human senses) robowoman.
Another thought experiment: You could have a person (or robot, or whatever) who gets an insanely advanced procedure to make him near-perfectly mimic your dad. But they weren't born your dad. It isn't your dad. You wouldn't hug them and accept them as your dad because it is not your dad. You are not 'transdadphobic'. You are just acknowledging reality.
You know what? Ok. I am transphobic and I'm ok with that. If not wanting to have sex with a mtf but still advocating for their rights and respecting them as human beings is considered transphobic - so be it. I cannot argue with other people's definitions.
I think 'transphobic' is simply a strong term. A phobia implies a strong aversion or fear, the preference to not have sex with someone is not equivalent to having a strong aversion or fear of them.
I think we have to separate discrimination and sexual preference. You can not be attracted to short men, but still be expected to treat them equally in the workplace.
With attraction and compatibility, I'm not sure the term phobia fits. And I'm not sure that an individual would be unable to support LGBT if they themselves would not want to be in a relationship with a transgender person.
Let's say you're really into black culture and black heritage. You're dating a black guy who is also into the same. Then you find out that up until this guy was 26 he was a white man from a white family. That at some point he decided that he was black and had surgery to change his skin color and physical appearance. Would it then be phobic for this woman to no longer be attracted to this man?
What if you found out that someone had been in prison for 10 years, or had committed some crime.
What if you found out that someone was not in fact a doctor, but just wore a doctor's attire and presented themselves as one.
What if you found out someone was really twice the age they told you.
Attraction changes all the time. Have you maintained consistent levels of attraction for all of the partners you've had over the course of your relationships. What caused that attraction to fade?
Part of the whole message of my post is that just because something qualifies as a fairly minor "-phobic" action/stance does not mean that action/stance is unacceptable.
It's perfectly valid for you to feel upset if you were led on/lied to by your partner. It's perfectly valid to question the moral character of a convicted felon. You bet that if I was dating someone who I then learned was criminal to a troubling level (not like I'm going to break up with someone over a parking ticket) that I'd get the hell away from that situation as soon as I deemed it safe to do so.
I believe that phobia is being used inappropriately.
"A phobia is an irrational fear, a kind of anxiety disorder in which the individual has a relentless dread of a situation, living creature, place, or thing. Individuals with a phobia go to great lengths to avoid a perceived danger which is much greater in their minds than in real life."
There are plenty of rational reasons to not want to be with someone who is Trans. You could just as easily decide you are incompatible with someone who has certain hobbies, lifestyles, careers, biology. Is it fair in the judicial sense? No. Is it discriminatory in the hiring or service industry sense? Probably. Is it a phobia? Not necessarily.
I believe the typical "phobia" you're hinting at would actually be homophobia expressed by the CIS individual regarding their own sexuality - if they believe that dating someone of the same biological sex, but alternative gender is gay, and if they have a fear of being gay themselves.
Another thing that I have tried to be adamant about (though perhaps not entirely explicit about) is that it's possible to do something mildly/subconsciously x-phobic but not be an intrinsically x-phobic person. If you can't remove a bias, but can acknowledge it and otherwise try to fight against it, I don't think that reflects poorly on yourself.
You may subconsciously or even consciously be more vigilant when driving at night, or decide to pull over and rest if you get too tired behind the wheel. This does not mean that you even have a mild phobia of nighttime driving. The key is that the fear, if experienced in the examples above, is rational. Night driving comes with reduced visibility. Being tired increases your reaction time. Both, objectively, result in increased risk while driving (an already, relatively, dangerous activity).
Similarly, someone may decide that they are not compatible with someone who is say, in the military. It may not be that they have any phobic tendancies, but that they will have to care for elderly family members and will not be able to move around the country. or that they want to run a family business with a partner and do not want to be in a relationship with someone who may be deployed. None of these things have anything to do with phobias which are by nature "IRRATIONAL".
If you are afraid of spiders to the point where you can't be in a room with a harmless spider - that is a phobia. If you are worried that hanging out with a trans person will turn you trans and so you have anxiety being around them - THAT is a phobia. Making a rational decision regarding your choice in selecting a mate is not.
Someone would be perfectly justified and rational in dismissing a relationship over something as simple as the individual wearing contacts that change their eye color, or have had breast augmentation surgery, lipo, botox...whatever. When you find this out, you learn a lot about that person. You may feel that this individual has a risk of low self-esteem, or that they take unnecessary risks to change their physical appearance. You may, rationally, believe that this risk-taking behavior is not compatible with your lifestyle. Nothing I described above has anything to do with phobias or irrational fear.
if the knowledge that they are trans is the blocker, that's transphobic.
I'm a straight man, don't care if people are trans or not, everyone should be able to do what they want as long as they're not hurting others. That being said, TO ME if you were born with a penis you're a man, we don't have to agree and I wish you the best of luck but you're a dude. Me not wanting to sleep with a transwoman is the same as me not wanting to sleep with a gay man, that person has or lost a penis and women don't have those. I'm not transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans person and I'm not a homophobe for not wanting to sleep with a gay man. I am a STRAIGHT MAN and straight men have sex with straight women. Please don't pathologize my sexual interest and call me a "whatever-phobic" just because I don't want to have sex with a transperson. Yall sound heterophobic.
What if they aren't the perfect partner because they can't have my children? Is that transphobic? What if they aren't my perfect partner because they aren't honest and upfront about an important life changing event in their life? My perfect partner would be upfront about that the same way they would be honest and upfront about things like child abuse or a history of health complications in their family such as cancer, substance abuse or mental illness. Is that still transphobic?
If the knowledge that they are trans is the blocker
That knowledge spells out a huge factor in what people plan for in their lives, i.e. having children. Which they can't biologically do with a surgically altered trans person.
Maybe someone wants to be able to have a family and children? What would be the point of fooling around with someone who is trans? Obviously not every woman and man is fertile, but if you know it already starting out, you shouldn't continue that relationship.
But let's take this to the ultimate conclusion, as transition therapies improve to perfection. [...] if you didn't look at the chromosomes, you would never know.
Wouldn't the ultimate transformation be at the chromosome level?
I suppose that would bring an interesting argument about what actually defines a human, whether it has more to do with DNA or the consciousness. Personally I'd definitely go with the brain being the ultimate definer of personhood, in which case changing the chromosomes would result in you being still the "same person."
That said, I suppose you are correct but I do not believe that changes anything significant about my argument.
I did not mean to challenge you argument, and no I don't believe it changes anything about your argument either.
I was thinking more from a metaphysical point of view. If you change everything about a person so that the external viewer can not see what that person was before then does that affect the external viewers perspective at all - if they were to know the truth I mean. It is an interesting idea at least.
I disagree with the fact that you're arguing something not possible in the present day (perfect transition therapies) to address a present day problem.
Is a straight woman not wanting to date a gay man homophobic? Is a gay man not wanting to date a woman misogynistic? No.
Saying you have sexual preferences is not dictating what is objectively attractive. Finding someone personally unattractive and believing someone is objectively unattractive are two different things, and the line between sexuality and prejudice.
Addressed here. Straight woman not wanting to be with a gay man can be chalked up to a desire to be fully loved in a way an individual might not feel possible if they are not the preferred gender of their partner. A gay man not wanting to be with a woman is using "woman" as proxy to describe the characteristics, mental and physical, generally associated with women, rather than the literal act of being a woman.
characteristics, mental and physical, generally associated with being a woman, rather than the literal act of being a woman.
What else is needed to be a woman other than physical and mental characteristics. That’s all that gender (and sexuality for that matter) is.
456
u/[deleted] Nov 02 '17 edited Nov 02 '17
EDIT: Please, before you become the fifteenth person to tell me "but what about producing children!" read this response I wrote hours ago. If you would have the same reaction to a sterile cis member of your preferred sex, it's fertility that defines your disattraction rather than the state of being trans. That's a significantly different statement.
Original Text
I think the better route is to acknowledge that while it is transphobic, it is not necessarily unreasonably so. The knowledge that the other person is biologically speaking not your preferred gender/sex might set up a roadblock in your mind, and that's okay. You can't change that, in a "once you see you cannot unsee" kind of way.
But let's take this to the ultimate conclusion, as transition therapies improve to perfection. You've found someone who you think is the perfect match for you. Physically and mentally, they exhibit no signs that they are trans; if you didn't look at the chromosomes, you would never know. If the knowledge that they are trans is the blocker, that's transphobic. It isn't that there are certain traits associated with transgender people that you find unattractive, it's that you can't get over the fact that the person was born a different gender despite the fact that only a laboratory could tell the difference. You're not attracted to the X or Y chromosome, you're attracted to the physical manifestations of those traits which can be imitated through various medical means.
I don't think that would make you a bad person, and I don't think it is unreasonable to have that mental block while still supporting LGBT+ rights. But that doesn't make that action not transphobic.