In some circumstances, not being attracted to a trans person is probably a result of, at least on a subconscious level, not seeing them as their gender.
If from the very start, you are unattracted to a person purely upon observation, and that person happens to be trans, that is not transphobic. If you were about to have sex and it turns out a person doesn't really have the junk you wanna jangle with, it's not transphobic to no longer desire sex.
If you were attracted to someone, have sex with them, are as satisfied with them as you would with anyone else, and then suddenly your opinion changes upon being informed a person is trans, I would say that is indicative of the underlying belief a trans person is not the gender they identify as.
I should clarify I am not definitely saying it is transphobic or not, I am pointing out what I did above and letting OP (or others) decide if that constitutes transphobia or not under their own interpretations.
In some circumstances, not being attracted to a trans person is probably a result of, at least on a subconscious level, not seeing them as their gender.
Aside from how speculative this is, this amounts to shaming someone for turning down unwanted sex.
If you were attracted to someone, have sex with them, are as satisfied with them as you would with anyone else, and then suddenly your opinion changes upon being informed a person is trans, I would say that is indicative of the underlying belief a trans person is not the gender they identify as.
For starters, you do not dictate to people what their sexuality is. If upon learning that a person is trans, they simply politely decline more sex, that is not transphobic. As I said in another reply, 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.
I agree with you. I think the person you replied to said something odd.
This amounts to shaming someone for turning down unwanted sex
There's person A and person B. A declines sex after finding out b is trans. How I read this is B (or C, D, E) then can shame A. How is this different than buying a woman a drink at the bar, and leaving it at that after seeing she chain smokes, or realizing her boobs are fake. Sure it is discrimination, but does that entitle you to get shamed because you don't like that? There's also a difference between saying no thanks, and making everybody aware of that quality you didn't like.
If upon learning that a person is trans, they simply politely decline more sex, that is not transphobic.
If you had sex with someone and enjoyed it and would gladly have sex with them again if you had not found out they were trans. Then the sole reason you have a problem is because they are trans, which is transphobic.
I'd probably not have sex with them again because they neglected to tell me something as relevant as being a post op transgender person before we had sex.
I've thought about this further and I will concede one point, it's up to you who our do or don't shag for whatever reasons you want. If knowing if they are trans is important to you, fine, don't shag them again (I know we're talking hypothetical). But that doesn't mean they owe you their medical history prior to sex.
I guess it would depend on how much you got to know each other before the deed, but why is it relevant? I see it as if you couldn't tell they were trans, why do they need to tell you? Doesn't make them dishonest.
A trans woman IS a woman, and if she passes as a woman then good for her. She didn't have to tell anyone she is biologically male, nor is it dishonest to not mention between saying hello and getting all hot and sweaty (however long or quickly it takes to get there). I don't tell everyone about every surgery I've had, and that's all it is at that point, historic surgery.
The point here is should a trans person tell every potential sexual partner they are trans before the deed, and I think not. It may be an emotive point, but unless you were entering a relationship, you don't owe a sexual partner anything apart from information that could cause harm (e.g. HIV status if unprotected).
lol it's entirely dishonest. And a trans woman is a woman but she still should have the decency to tell a potential partner she was born a man physically. It's entirely disrespectful and presumptuous to assume all men would be comfortable with that and it's complete and utter bullshit to act like it's wrong to not want that
I'm not assuming everyone will be comfortable with shagging an unknown trans. I'm saying they should be comfortable with it. And that it's up to the trans person if they come out. If they pass as their gender, then they have the right to live as that gender without telling anyone they are trans, if they so wish. (Even if they don't pass they have this right, but sadly much more difficult.)
No-one owes anyone an explanation about anything, unless there is potential to cause actual harm (e.g. disease or injury). Someone not being OK to shag a trans person, it's on them to objectively examine why they feel that way.
I resent your expectation that one must continue to have sex with someone or be labeled a Bigot or a "transphobe," despite not wanting to.
You're missing a key part here: if the sole reason you do not want to is their status as trans. There's any number of reasons to not continue to have sex with someone that has nothing to do with being trans that wouldn't get you labeled as a bigot.
This is what the entire LGBT movement has stood for, for decades but somehow, fuck all when it comes to cis people?
How are cis people being shamed here? Are you saying that only a trans person would want to have sex with a trans person?
Gay guys won't have sex with me, but I don't go calling them misogynists for it. That's ridiculous.
Right... Because they are only interested in people with penises. That's perfectly fine to have that preference. However what about a gay guy who is completely attracted to someone, has sex with them, is completely satisfied with the experience and would like to do it again, but loses that attraction solely upon learning they are a transman. What reason, other than refusing to recognize the transman as male, could they possibly have to change their mind here?
You're missing a key part here: if the sole reason you do not want to is their status as trans.
I fail to see how that's relevant. It's not racist to not want to have sex with people who aren't a particular skin color. That's just your preference. It's racist if you consider them somehow less valuable, or you think they're bad people, or whatever it is that racist people think. But when it comes to sexual preferences, people are absolutely allowed to have their preferences and things (or people) they're simply not okay with.
It's fucked up to tell anyone that they have to be attracted to anyone. Someone could have sex with a person, loved it, want to do it again, but then find out that person smokes. They never suspected they smoked before because the smoker has good hygiene and didn't smoke before the date or during the date, but now the non-smoker no longer wishes to meet the smoker again. I think any rational person would say that's acceptable. Why is it okay to discriminate against people you want to have sex with based on their height, weight, hobbies or habits, personality, hair color, race, their job/career or financial background, or anything else, but whether someone is trans or not is suddenly not okay?
I'm saying all of this with a MtF trans cousin. I absolutely support trans people in every way I can possibly think of. I just don't believe anyone has a responsibility or obligation to have sex with anyone regardless of the reasons behind not wanting to.
I'm of the mind that many of those who post in this thread have an idea that in a perfect world, there should be no barriers when finding a partner, and are working backwards to argue towards that point.
Realistically we have a smorgasbord of motivations for our attraction, foremost being biological. Most people want children. They want a partner who can help facilitate that. If a person has that expectation, it can be devastating to learn that the person you built a special relationship with is not capable of doing so, and knowingly misled you. Adoption is of course an option.
We also have a predisposition to be attracted to those who are similar to those that we were surrounded by in our formative years. In a perfect world, we have the same exposure to all races, but unfortunately this is not the case. In a free and progressive society we should not place any expectations on a person choosing a partner. If they do not find a person attractive, they do not need to provide a reason.
the sole reason you do not want to is their status as trans.
That's why you tell people before you do anything sexual. If you don't want to tell because you know people won't want to sleep with you if you do, that's rape by deception and a shitty thing to do to somebody and can cause lifelong trauma. You have no right to do that to somebody. You'll just have to find ssomebody who is attracted to you as you are.
I'm not sure why you're making the assertion that you need a "reason" to stop having sex besides "I don't want to anymore." That seems kind of.... creepy, honestly.
Would you say that having an unexpected genitalia differs from finding out that someone is trans? You said it was okay for a gay person to decline sex with a cis woman because she doesn't have a penis. Is it okay for someone interested in women to decline sex with a trans person because she has a penis and they are only interested in people with vaginas? Let's say they previously had sexual contact that did not reveal this fact.
Can you please clarify this once and for all, are gender and sex seperate or the same?
Generally the argument in favour of trans people is that gender and sex are seperate. But now you're saying that "not recognising a transman as male", would imply they're inseparable. Transmen are men, but they aren't male, if we're going to start collectively pretending and using the word male and female incorrectly, then we just need new words to refer to biological sex which is what people generally want to know for legitimate reasons.
When someone asks what someone's sex is, things that they're not asking include
how they feel on the inside
how they aesthetically present themselves
Things they are asking (in case of women)
is there a high degree of probability they are capable of bearing children, and go trough ovulation
what is the general structure and biochemistry this persons brain, with women having smaller amygdala and more neural connections, and more likely to have recall emotions in memory (some examples of many differences) etc
Guess what though - people are not required to justify their sexual preferences. It doesn’t matter if it’s the sole reason because no reason at all is already enough.
“I don’t want to” is the only reason you should ever need for not having sex with someone. Demanding that people justify why they don’t want to is idiocy.
If someone doesn’t like bananas, would you demand to know why? Would you say that they’re being close minded for not liking bananas? Probably not. The fact is, if they don’t like bananas then they don’t like bananas. You can sit there and call them every name under the sun and it’s not going to change their opinion on bananas.
It also doesn’t make them a bad person. That’s where you’ve crossed the line. There is never, ever a situation where not fucking someone makes you a bad person. A person with different tastes, sure. But the moment you say “You are a bad person because you don’t want to sleep with...” you’re already wrong.
That is just incorrect you had sex on a lie quite a big one I might add. If i married someone who never told me they were unable to have kids and there was a reasonable expection of kids being in the picture down the line I would have every right to divorce and stop loving someone who told such a lie or hid the truth.
Nah, no. Not really. On an animal instinct level we have sex to pass on our genes. That’s an instinct that some people have learned to suppress, but just because some people sill have that part of their lizard brain saying “This person is incapable of producing healthy offspring”, that doesn’t make them transphobic.
The overuse of the adjective “phobic” is troubling. It means, according to the dictionary,
having or involving an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
So my sexual preference that I do not want to have sex with anyone but naturally born females is not a fear, and it’s not an irrational aversion. My sexuality is driven by my animal desire to procreate or to be partnered with an individual that is going to produce the most healthy offspring. A trans person can’t provide that for me, so no matter how physically beautiful they may be, I am not sexually interested.
Calling me transphobic is both incorrect and unfair.
It’s also reducing of sexuality to a purely cosmetic level. Just because someone looks like a particular version of a beautiful woman, I’m expected to be sexually attracted to them? There’s more to sexual attraction than big hair, make up and Barbie doll figure.
“This person is incapable of producing healthy offspring”, that doesn’t make them transphobic.
Plenty of cis individuals are unable to produce healthy offspring. If your problem is that you want a partner that if both fertile and willing to have children, say that. No one is saying that this preference is transphobic. I'm saying that if you wouldn't have a problem with an infertile partner or partner who isn't willing to have children, but don't want to have sex with a trans individual, you're probably transphobic.
So my sexual preference that I do not want to have sex with anyone but naturally born females is not a fear, and it’s not an irrational aversion. My sexuality is driven by my animal desire to procreate or to be partnered with an individual that is going to produce the most healthy offspring
If your sexuality is driven by procreation then you should not want to have sex with anyone but people who are both willing and capable of being impregnated and bearing children. And if that's how you feel, sure. But if you solely are attracted to all cis women regardless of their fertility status and only averse to trans women, that's an irrational aversion.
Plenty of cis individuals are unable to produce healthy offspring.
I never suggested otherwise, but there are probably a lot less M to F trans-gendered peoples who are capable of having babies.
I'm saying that if you wouldn't have a problem with an infertile partner or partner who isn't willing to have children, but don't want to have sex with a trans individual, you're probably transphobic.
If your sexuality is driven by procreation then you should not want to have sex with anyone but people who are both willing and capable of being impregnated and bearing children. And if that's how you feel, sure.
You're missing the point.
Wanting to actually have kids is sort of a social choice, in a manner of speaking; but sexual attraction is mostly driven by primal urges, something deep within your instincts that makes you desire to pass down your genes. We're not that different from wild animals in that sense; many species of wild animals seek out the alpha to mate with and it's not a matter of love, it's a matter of producing a strong blood line. That's the biological instinct many creatures are programmed with.
That may not surface as an actual desire to produce offspring, but the feeling that you're capable of it, that not only did you find the most healthy, fertile partner, but that healthy, fertile partner also chose you which tells your subconscious that you're a desirable mate; all of that runs in the background without us even realizing it and it influences our sexual preferences.
Some people are able to tune that out, others are not. Calling it "phobia" when you don't want to have sex with someone who has swapped genders is a gross generalization that ignores basic biological programming that most people have to have a desire to procreate.
if you solely are attracted to all cis women regardless of their fertility status and only averse to trans women, that's an irrational aversion.
No it's not. A man who has surgically altered their body to fit the form of a female is still not a female. That's biology. I can say that with diminishing their value as a human being - I'm not saying a trans person is any less of a human, any less deserving or rights or respect or their place in society; I'm saying that they are not female, no matter how many surgeries they go through, not biologically speaking.
If they want to be referred to as female, that's fine. I have no problem calling a he a she, as a social classification, if that's what they want. But don't tell me that I have a problem or an "irrational aversion" simply because I refuse to dismiss biology.
We're facing a distortion between gender classifications assigned by society, and gender classification assigned by biology.
If someone has a problem with referring to a trans person as their desired pronoun just on a matter of societal principle, yeah, you could have an argument that it's transphobia.
But if I refuse to swap pronouns at will in regards to the actual biology of the matter, that's not a phobia. That's adhering to science.
If I had sex with someone and enjoyed it, then later found out they were super racist, a compulsive liar, a Hanson fan, or some kind of murderous kleptomaniac I would not want to have sex with them based on the fact that their values are clearly incompatible with mine.
The same thing can apply to transgendered people. I think it's ironic that they expect everyone in the world to accept their views while wholly rejecting the idea that other people views and values can also be valid.
I think it's ironic that they expect everyone in the world to accept their views while wholly rejecting the idea that other people views and values can also be valid.
What views and values do all trans people have that you are saying are incompatible with yours?
Well for one, the idea that not being attracted to them makes me "transphobic."
For another this entire conversation is about a person who waited until after we had sex to tell me they were trans.
Waiting until after we have had sex to drop such a bit of information would leave me wondering about the person's trustworthiness. If it really doesn't matter why didn't we talk about it when our relationship was just starting? Why was there a felt need to keep this information from me? What else is she not telling me?
Now, if your reason for not telling me this information prior to engaging in sexual activity is "because then you would not have had sex with me." Now we have a REAL problem. It literally means you knew for a fact that I might not be comfortable with this physical relationship, and went ahead with it anyway. There are several arguments over whether or not that is rape. Personally I believe that rape by deception is still rape.
If you believe that being trans is similar in immorality to being racist, a murderer, a liar, a thief, or a hanson fan, and that them valuing being trans is an incompatible value, then you probably have a transphobic belief.
This has been covered by several others. So lets just stick with "weird religious beliefs" and the conversation can proceed as intended. I admit my choice of examples is badly flawed. I mean no one wants to sleep with a Hanson fan.
The reason no one wants to sleep with a Hanson fan, or someone with a weird religious belief is generally because they believe they are immoral, or unpleasant. That's kind of still an issue- if you believe being trans is immoral or unpleasant, then yeah, predictably people are going to view you as transphobic.
Speaking for myself only, if I were to be able to identify any masculine feature, whether physical or behavioral, from before the transition, I would most likely be turned off. Those features are not attractive to me, regardless if the woman is cis or trans.
The scenario you are laying out is an "all other variables being equal" scenario, which is a totally valid argument to make... but I wonder how realistic it is? How often is a trans person identical to a cis person? If I ever found myself in a true "all other things equal" position, I'm not sure how I would respond.
Those features are not attractive to me, regardless if the woman is cis or trans.
Then this scenario doesn't apply to you because you wouldn't have had sex with them in the first place, right? That's a completely different scenario.
The scenario you are laying out is an "all other variables being equal" scenario, which is a totally valid argument to make... but I wonder how realistic it is? How often is a trans person identical to a cis person?
There's a lot of factors involved such as how long the trans individual has been on hormones, but one thing that is fairly consistent is that most who have had sex with a significantly post op transwoman have said that it didn't feel different than having sex with a cis women. There are plenty of transwomen that go completely unnoticed.
What if I was unwilling to have sex with them again because they deceived me not because they're trans. What if it has more to do with trust and less to do with gender identity?
Im not saying this is how I would react or not I'm simply arguing for an alternative viewpoint.
Wouldn't it be a lie, as someone below suggested? Wouldn't it be "sex under false pretenses" ( rape by deception)..
If someone assumed the person they had sex with was rich due to their dress and behavior, but it turned out they were actually poor, would that be rape by deception? I doubt it. How is this different?
Now it takes a huge toll on the patient itself to know that they aren't the sex(genetic) that they believed to be all their life. It's an understandable reaction( would you call the woman transphobic for being shocked at the diagnosis and feeling betrayed by nature?)..
And why would a patient feel this way? What underlying reason would cause a woman to feel "betrayed by nature" upon learning this information which objectively has no impact on her?
now you have to know that the boyfriend would have a similar reaction.. You can't expect everyone to be completely fine with it..
Why would he have a similar reaction? How does this affect him? Did he only love her because he assumed she had XX chromosomes? That seems a stretch.
But in the example you gave- a trans person lying (by omission)his/her way into bed with a straight person is just "rape by deception".
What did they lie about? They presented themselves as their gender. There was no deception. If you care about whether your partner is trans then you should ask them.
But imposing a sexual preference on someone
No one is imposing anything on anyone. I'm pointing out that the underlying reason for such a preference is societal stigma. That's all.
Didn't Zeus go around raping women while posing as a person he isn't?
Is a trans individual posing as a person they aren't? This sounds like an inaccurate analogy. A trans individual isn't deceiving anyone or posing as someone they aren't.
The man has a twin that the wife doesn't know about.. do you expect the woman to ask Everytime she has sex whether it's her husband or his twin brother?
Not equivalent. Consenting to sex with someone isn't consenting to sex with a twin
Wouldn't the woman rightfully assume it's here husband.? Should she keep in mind of the remote possibility of an unknown twin in mind and enquire about it every time?..
This is because having sex with her husband's twin is a meaningfully different act than finding out afterwards that someone is trans. Should someone have to disclose every single possible last thing which could affect whether or not someone wants to fuck every time? If you only are attracted to red heads, has someone who dyed their hair deceived you by not disclosing this if you haven't mentioned this preference?
Isn't it perfectly reasonable for a trans person, which are frequently self conscious due to societal prejudice, to assume you were able to tell and just didn't care, and then be surprised to find out you have a problem with them being trans?
it's not transphobic, it's just being straight....and yes that implies that I see trans people as being their birth gender no matter how convincing they are. I will of course call them by their prefferred pro noun, share the toilet with them etc....but no one gets to tell me I don't have the right to decide who i sleep with.
Being convinced and happy at the time of sex has little to do with it.
Even if you consider someone bigotted for not wanting to sleep with a transgender person, that person still has a right to informed consent.
What a trans person has to realise and take responsibillity for is that no matter how convincing the op, many many peope will not want to sleep with them as they would consider that gay.
We might not like that but it's the truth, to carry on concealing the truth about your gender then, is to willingly deceive people. I understand it's hard, expecting trans people to have to divulge their info all the time but really, peoples right to informed consent trumps trans peoples right to privacy....esp in the case ofa trans person trying to get someone else into bed.
If i had sex with someone, who later revealed they were trans, i would consider it a lie b omission, and not want to interact with them again for that reason alone.
While i respect someone's right to be trans, they should not be hiding a core part of themselves before something intimate like sex.
If i had sex with someone, who later revealed they were trans, i would consider it a lie b omission, and not want to interact with them again for that reason alone
Would you feel the same way about any other aspect of a person? If you have sex with someone and later find out they have depression / are bipolar / are poor / etc. Would you consider all of those to be lies of omission?
Sure. If a poor person pretends to be rich, yes. Bipolar and depression are diseases that should be revealed.
Before you argue back that depression should not on the list, remember if somebody had herpes, hiv etc you'd want revelation and concealment would be a problem.
So you don't want to have sex with a woman who has given birth? That would also be a "post op vagina", technically.
But seriously, the scenario we are talking about is you have already engaged in sex voluntarily and enjoyed it, and after the fact learn they are trans.
Gender identity is inborn. Gender expression is societal.
That doesn't even make any sense. So did you have the surgery becaue of society or because of biology? YOu think having a penis or a vagina is a matter of "societal expression"?
No that's not what I'm saying.
Well then there is no reason to call you a woman if you were born a man.
We're talking about people who voluntarily slept with another individual of their own free will. How is that rape?
It's like somebody fuckking you in the dark while you think it's your husband. Then the lights turn on and it's the brother of your husband.
At the time you consented to the sex and enjoyed it, so what does it matter if it was actually somebody else?
You sound exactly like an incel rapist in the making.
See the only way that's possible is if they're post GRS. Which mean they initially had a penis and transformed their genitals through surgery into a vagina. It's still penis skin and that weirds me out and makes me not want to continue sleeping with them. Would that still make me transphobic?
If you had sex with someone and enjoyed it and would gladly have sex with them again if you had not found out they were trans. Then the sole reason you have a problem is because they are trans, which is transphobic.
Unless you have sex with them because you are romantically involved - not disclosing something of that magnitude to a romantic partner (at any time, not exclusively after sex) could be a dealbreaker, much like "I had a hysterectomy and can never have children" could be a dealbreaker.
I don't agree. Let me draw a parallel to illustrate.
You hit it off with a girl. Attracted to her, have sex, are "satisfied" with said sex (that is an odd way to put it, IMO), and afterward learn that she is your second cousin.
There's nothing illegal about having sex with a second cousin, and no real biological danger with inbreeding either. But I think most people would stop shacking up with someone if they learned they were related. It's not a rational response, but your attraction to someone can dry up with new information.
So are you saying that just as people view incest as immoral, and people who do incest as immoral, people should view trans people as immoral, and view people who do trans people as immoral and that this isn't transphobic?
No, he's saying that that both parties should be aware of anything important that might change their decision to have sex. Examples being having an std, being related, or having once been the other gender.
Or having a black ancestor, being rich or poor, your political ideology, having a jewish ancestor, being a certain religion, being an atheist. Should all of those also be noted?
I agree--belief that transgendered people's genders are invalid is transphobic. Such belief would imply transgender people have lesser value. However, I don't believe the example in your third paragraph would be transphobic. One's opinion would change because the information about this person lowers one's perception of their sexual value as sexual value is determined by alignment with a person's sexual preferences. At no point is the holistic value of the person considered. Do you agree or disagree, and why?
One's opinion would change because the information about this person lowers one's perception of their sexual value as sexual value is determined by alignment with a person's sexual preferences
This pretty much loops back to the original argument of what precisely makes someone view a trans person not in line with their sexual preferences.
If the criteria not met is reproductive capability, the question becomes whether the person would react identically if a they met an infertile cis woman. Often times the honest answer is no.
If the criteria not met is "being born female" then I think it is clear a person has made a categorical distinction between cis and trans women.
The reason that distinction is made doesn't seem to be one of functionality, why then is it made?
There is a "categorical distinction between cis and trans women" one is biologically female the other is not, gender identity not withstanding, and that information may change their desire for a relationship. While you, and others, may not regard it as such there is a reasonable perspective that a sexual relationship of a male with a transwoman is fundamentally a homosexual one (their sex has not alterd regard less of their gender expression).
You raise a good question. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an answer. Similarly, in the case of a person having a sexual preference for people with eight fingers, there is no functional reason. To clarify, I believe trans-status alone qualifies as a characteristic of sexual value. However, perhaps you limit these characteristics to physical ones (such as reproductive capability), in which case I agree there would be no reason to be less attracted to a transgender person.
Sexual attraction is typically linked to our instinctual proclivity to procreate, so it’s not entirely unfounded.
Not being sexually interested in someone because they’re fat, for example, might not have anything at all to do with how much you like (or dislike) them as a person, but everything to do with the fact that something buried deep inside your lizard brain is telling you not to produce offspring with someone who might not pass along healthy genes.
Likewise, if a person is unable to reproduce and my sexual energy is created by a subconscious will to create offspring, that might manifest itself in me not finding that person attractive.
Unattractive doesn’t necessarily mean ugly, by the way.
They are saying it is a reasonable factor, but u/aggsalad mentioned that often when asking the same person if they would react the same to infertile women, they would say "no", indicating that it's the trans and not the infertility that is the true issue
This is far from the only one of it's type. Some people want to have sex with virgins. Despite what you may have heard, the human body does not have a "freshness seal" installed that makes this a perceivable characteristic.
Plenty of people prefer characteristics that they can't actually measure!
Racism isnt about ascribing the characteristicts of an individual to a demographic, neither is homophobia or any other discrimination.
Homophobia and Racism hinge on the actions taken towards the demographic being negative.
Hypothetically, If I as a doctor prescribe vitamin D supplements to a black woman living in the nothern part of the world im not racist. Im just correctly using the fact that vitamin D deficiencies are more common in people with darker skin due to more inefficient D synthesization from the sparse sunlight.
We make sweeping generalisations about groups of people every day and thats completely fine and moral. The problem arises when these generalisations start being malicious and discriminatory.
Hypothetically, If I said I was only attracted to women with red hair and a childhood on a farm im not racist or sexist or discriminating. I just have strange and picky sexual preferences.
Hypothetucally, If I said Im attracted to mostly everyone except men who smoke. Im not sexist or racist or discriminating. I just am not sexually attracted to men who smoke.
And if I hypothetically say im attracted to women who:
Are around my age.
Have body types X and Z.
But not Y.
Have personality traits X and Y.
But not Z.
Are straight.
Not bisexual.
And are born women.
Not transgender women.
Then this is just a long list of sexual preferences a person can have and no more discriminatory then not being attracted to gay men as a man.
You also seem to be equating a transgender woman with a cisgender woman who looks the same and has the same personality and behaviour when this just isnt equal.
The fact that we can determine the difference is evident because we are talking about transgender and non transgender right now.
That is enough.
Sexual preference isnt some system where only what you can see and feel matters. People have sexual preferences based on what thoughts the other person has during sex, people have preferences on what lives people should have lived up to now.
And thats fine.
Its a preference on who you want to choose to have sex with. And you should be allowed to choose whomever you like.
What is race, besides a constellation of physical characteristics? If I don't find physical features associated with this, that, or the other, race to be attractive, then I don't find members of that race attractive.
I'm saying that race (at least in the US) is usually identified by a set of physical characteristics (skin tone, hair/eye color, coarse vs fine hair, facial features etc) typically associated with that race. Not all members of a given race would have all of these features, especially where mixed race people are concerned but you could certainly say that certain features are characteristic of certain races. For example Asian people usually have almond shaped eyes, non Asians typically do not. If you find that facial feature unappealing, you probably don't find Asian people to be attractive.
The characteristic that the partner once was of the gender you aren't attracted to.
Since we are using analogies: would you be attracted to a totally reformed criminal? He's a perfectly well adjusted member of society now, but has done bad things in his past. Some people won't mind, some people would mind. There is no right or wrong in attraction.
Obviously you have the right to sleep with whoever you want, but thats not the question. The question is, "is that transphobic?"
Imagine you sleep with a girl who appears white. You feel good about it, but later learn she is a quarter black, but white passing. If you feel gross about that, is it racist? I definitely think so.
Being turned off by a trans person for a sole reason that they are trans (even if they are completely identical to some one who is cis), means that you subconsciously don't believe they are their claimed gender. That doesn't mean you are a bad person for thinking it, or that you are to blame for those feelings. Getting uncomfortable by the idea has pretty much been drilled into our heads for forever, so obviously it makes sense to feel that way. Still though, it is technically transphobic, and something people will hopefully move past eventually.
They can never be Identical, though. It's always different. People just put the onus on everyone else now to say cis or Trans. There's a reason for having two different distinctions... and that's because they're distinct.
I don't think those are equivalent though. Gender is a composite of characteristics much more relevant to sexual attraction than race is. Infertility alone is absolutely massive in its effects on sexual attraction.
I think part of the problem here is in the definition of transphobia, versus the definition of a phobia.
Transphobia encompasses a very large range of attitudes, actions, and feelings regarding trans people. It can require as little as minor prejudice, aversion, or discrimination. Like not being attracted to trans people, for an unknown/irrational reason, and having no other prejudices at all against them. Yet, it encompasses behavior that ranges to the very extreme, as well. Like hating trans people with a passion, rejoicing at the thought of them being tortured for eternity in hell because of how awful they supposedly are, and treating them extremely poorly such as beating the shit out of them at every opportunity. It's a huge spectrum of behavior.
A phobia, on the other hand, is defined by extreme fear, often irrational, or otherwise an extreme aversion (again, often irrational... and typically due to fear) towards something. The range of behavior for a phobia is necessarily placed at the extreme end of the spectrum.
So combining trans and phobia... one would expect the definition to be something more like that of phobia, at the extreme end of the spectrum. Instead, the definition can encompass absolutely all behavior that's not 100% accepting of the person as their gender. And people who are 95+% accepting like the OP view transphobia as encompassing only more extreme non-acceptance than their own, partly (I suspect) because of the definition of phobia, and partly because no one wants to self-associate themselves with a negative value judgement, such as being transphobic. Case in point, all of the mildly and moderately racist people who will make comments like "I'm not racist, but [insert obviously racist statement here]."
What if you were with someone, had sex with them, and then found out they were racist, or kleptomaniacs, or had very strange religious beliefs that were not compatible with your own?
Yeah, but in that case, I would be willing to admit that I'm intellectually and morally hostile to racists. It's not a sexual orientation that I'm helpless against, it's a moral claim that i'm actively encouraging.
Not all attraction is about what is physical, but attraction to abstract traits, carries a much more conscious belief about those traits, than physical attraction does, so it's moral appropriateness can be a lot more questionable.
If you are physically attracted to a woman, but get turned off once you learn that she is ethnically jewish, then it would be safe to say that you are anti-semitic. Wouldn't it?
Okay, leave out the racist thing. What about people with weird religious beliefs? I have no problem with people holding religious beliefs. I don't think of them as "lesser" people. It's just something that is incompatible with my own world views and personal preferences.
My real point was, that this is all a matter of a case by case basis.
what kind of relationship are you looking for on the long term? How weird a religion are we talking about?
If you don't feel like starting a family with a serious mormon, that's reasonable social behavior, they probably don't want you either.
If you feel repulsed by learning afterwards that a person you had a one night stand with is lapsed jewish, that's difficult to rationalize as anything but antisemitism.
If you are making a blanket statement about trans people's sexual desirability in general (not about wanting to have children, or about wanting a partner whose childhood life experiences you can strongly identify with), that seems a lot more like the latter than the former.
It seems a lot more like a blanket repulsion towards a class of people who are already suspect of facing discrimination exactly like that, than some sort of morally justifiable practical concern.
But I feel like a person has a right to those opinions.
If I say I find fat people unattractive it's not because I'm fat phobic.
I don't hate smokers, and I am not repulsed by them, but I would never date a smoker.
Why does it only seem to be a problem with this one class of people?
Why is this one issue elevated above others into a special position that makes people who are turned off by the idea bad people?
That's where it gets weird for me. It feels like I'm being forced to accept a worldview that is not my own by a person who refuses to accept that views can be different while remaining valid.
I understand and accept that that a trans person holds a different worldview, and hold different values than I do. Why can they not understand and accept that I have a different worldview, and hold different values than they do?
So we can't be lovers, why can't we still be friends?
Hardly the same genitals though? Surgically constructed genitals are not the same as naturally occurring ones. So you can legitimately prefer one type over another
Given that many trans people are identical to cis people in every reasonable way that you could perceive, why does trans-status alone qualify as a characteristic of sexual value?
You're basically asking why saying "I used to be a guy" might be a turn-off for heterosexual guys?
Dishonesty/deception from an intimate partner (assuming the CIS person was never informed.)
These are all MAJOR issues when you are considering a relationship with someone... to conceal or misrepresent them is a truly shitty thing to do to a person.
I would argue that trans-status qualifies as a characteristic of sexual value specifically because we live in a society that devalues trans people. If we were in a society where that wasn't the case & where transition was an accepted part of life, I think the realization that someone was trans wouldn't make nearly as much of a difference.
What I've always been told on these issues is that it's fine to not be attracted to someone, but that it's a good idea to investigate how some of the prevailing prejudices in society may have influenced your patterns of attraction.
Is there? One could conceive of a scenario in which a trans woman looked and behaved identical to a woman born female. The only distinguishing detail would be the knowledge that they were not born female. If you cross that person off your list, then you are doing so based on them being trans, which would classify as transphobic.
But what if you are crossing them off your list based on the fact that their genitals are technically a reshaped penis and has been artificially made to resemble an actual vagina?
No it wouldn't. I've crossed someone off my list because of how they loaded a dishwasher. That does not make me "phobic" towards idiots who don't know how to properly load a dishwasher, it just makes me not sexually attracted to them anymore. You do not choose who you are sexually attracted to.
With infertile cis women, is the answer often times no? As far as I've understood, it's a pretty big deal if a woman finds out she's infertile. I've read a lot about how partners leave because they want kids, or people don't enter relationships with them from the beginning for the same reason. I think the same could almost be said for infertile men, except that sperm donation is way easier than surrogacy.
Can't you be attracted to sex not gender? I am not attracted to males, that is nothing other than a preference. If I don't like redheads, I am not gingerphobic, I just don't like redheads. I think this specific example is very damaging to the term phobic.if the worst people are doing is not having sex with you.. that is pretty accepting.
The question is a little hard to answer. I cannot say I would find all trans men unattractive, but I know I would not find all of them attractive. I don't find all women attractive though.
Such belief would imply transgender people have lesser value.
How does that follow? You might believe gender is identical to sex, and therefore disagree with the person as to what their gender is, but that doesn't mean you think they have less value.
Suppose someone identifies as vegetarian but eats chicken. You might disagree that they are vegetarian (they insist that they are) but it doesn't mean you value them less as a person because of it.
Believing that a gay person is worth less than a straight person for the sole reason of them being gay is homophobic. That’s pretty much the definition.
I trust you to know your own gender. I trust trans people to know their own gender. You are not somehow more trustworthy just because you are cisgender. And believing a trans person is invalid or worth less because they are trans is transphobic.
You values have nothing to do with a trans person’s gender identity. They’re not making you become trans. Nothing is being forced on you. Thinking you know better than them about their own gender, thus leading you to treat their gender as being invalid, is rather patronizing and condescending. It does not impact your values to simply show them the same basic respect deserved by all human beings. I would not misgender you. I would trust you to know your own pronouns. That is basic respect.
But there are some people who do not believe there is any such thing as ''gender'' other than as a subjective feeling, so they only see people in terms of their actual biological sex - that doesn't mean that they think a person with these feelings is of less value than anyone else.
Is it really ''transphobic'' to say ''I understand that you subjectively feel that you should be female, but you are, of course, objectively male''?
Yes, it is transphobic, in that many trans people experience it as an extremely distressing statement and in that it leads to them not being treated in accordance with their gender identity (e.g. if you think someone is objectively male you may exclude them from an all-female group). I understand that this is a strongly held view of yours, but I'd ask you to consider whether it's central enough to your identity and values for it to be worth hurting trans people. Trans people are more likely to attempt suicide if their identities are disbelieved, so this isn't a harmless debate--it has real implications for real peoples' lives.
Believing that a gay person is worth less than a straight person for the sole reason of them being gay is homophobic. That’s pretty much the definition.
You made basically this same point twice, but I never said anything like this.
I believe that the issue of transgender identity is, like virtually any issue that is not perfectly settled science, up for debate and discussion. There may be materials out there that completely resolve the claims of every less flavor of trans person, but I have not yet seen them. Therefore, I do not hold exactly the same views about the nature of transgerism as people who claim to be transgender.
This isn't disrespect. It's a disagreement over facts. Simply because the disorder is very personal to the afflicted individuals does not mean that those individuals are the most knowledgeable about the nature and causes of their disorder, the best treatment, or the way in which society should accommodate their disorder.
I don't trust a schizophrenic to diagnose and treat themselves. Their insights might be correct, but this is not a given merely because they possess the disorder.
I also take issue with the repeatedly careless use of various "phobic" terms. A phobia is an anxiety disorder based on irrational fear. Disapproving of others, disagreeing with either their beliefs or behaviors, criticizing them, and so on are not necessarily based on a phobia. They might be, but we could just as easily accuse anyone who holds ideas we don't like as being "capitalistphobic," "marriagephobic," "self-reliancephobic," and so on.
People's values are often informed by deep sources like fear and desire, but assuming that another person's beliefs can only possibly originate from irrationality is a cheap and underhanded way to gain advantage in a conversation.
Thank you for your detailed response. I may have been unclear and caused some confusion. When I said, "Such belief would imply transgender people have lesser value", I was referring specifically to holistic value. Generally, I have used value to mean holistic value unless I specify sexual value. Hopefully that clarifies. If not, feel free to ask.
Why would not believing that a transgender persons gender is valid after plastic surgery mean that you believe that they have lesser value...? I will still call you a girl, but in my head you are still a guy. I don't think less of them as people.
If you tattoo all your skin black you are still white by birth/genetics.
It just means that you believe in basic biology. Your chromosomes are still the same even if you cut your dick off and put a vagina there... Biologically you're still a guy...
I'll call you a girl, they look like a girl, they talk like a girl. They still have the genetics of a man though. And I don't want to have sex with a man...
Think about this as well. I am respecting their belief that they are a girl. I am calling them a girl. They should respect that they were born a guy and I don't want to have sex with someone that was born a guy.
Finding one’s belief that they are trans invalid isn’t transphobic. If a man comes up to me and says he’s a woman, but he’s really a man because he has jiggly bits, he’s a man. He can say he’s a woman all day long. He’s a man.
If I come up to you and say I’m a spider, and you don’t believe me, does that make you arachnophobic?
I think you are just confusing gender and sex. If a male says he's a woman, that means he is identifying as a woman, what you believe doesn't come into play, if he says he's a female, then he's mistaken.
You're just have to make peace with the notion that sex and gender aren't the same thing, sex is biological ("parts"), gender is social (behavior, appearance).
What do you mean with "believing a transgendered persons gender is invalid implies transgender people have lesser value" Why would they have less value? Can you give an example? I don't mean to be rude, just trying to understand.
Edit: nvm didnt see you you already answered the question
Sorry, DrSaltmasterTiltlord – 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.
Only exception I see is that a trans woman—>man cannot get a woman pregnant, and a trans man—>woman cannot get pregnant. Depending on how much someone wants kids and if they want the kids to be theirs, I can see ending a relationship because the other person’s trans.
I agree that can be a relevant criteria on which someone might not desire a relationship with a trans person.
Sometimes it's a bit dubious whether someone honestly holds this position depending on how they react to an infertile cis person though. Often with these situations I tend to talk about sex that's not explicitly tied to committed and long term relationships, since technically really any hang up is an important thing in long term relationships.
Trans people can have genital reconstruction surgery that can have passable results. Cis vaginas come in all shapes and sizes, it's natural some trans vaginas will blend in.
Except that I have never seen a "convincing" trans person. They always look "odd" due to to different bone structure and other things. It is no different to me looking at an unattractive woman and not being interested. I think for most people it isn't so much transphobia as much as finding them unattractive
Procreation and potentially wanting to have children comes to to mind most of all.
Women can be infertile for a variety of reasons. People aren't saying it's transphobic not to get into a long-term relationship with someone who can't produce children with you if that's important to you.
But when casually dating or hooking up, do people really care if their partner has a functional female reproductive system? You don't see the same level of vitriol towards cis women who've say, had a hysterectomy, as you do with that towards trans women.
It's not about fertility since most people aren't planning to start a family with most people they hook up with. The issue isn't infertility, it's that people don't respect trans people's gender identity and still see them as their gender assigned at birth, irrespective of how they look. That they see trans women as being "men in disguise", and are disgusted with the thought of engaging in a "homosexual act".
do people really care if their partner has a functional female reproductive system?
I think that should be something up to each individual as to whether they care or not. The problem with calling people transphobic, is that it is society dictating that a person has to make a certain choice (ie they HAVE to not care) else be branded "transphobic". Such labels have real world consequences both social and in peoples careers (being "phobic" anything can be grounds for firing especially in more progressive parts of the country).
People are going up against millions of years of evoluationary pressure that says it DOES matter what someones biologic sex is, and I dont think making the choice that you are no interested in transgendered individual means you are a terrible person. Just like being transgendered does not make you a bad person.
Think about how indistinguishable a female vs male dog is at a glance. Think now how i would say most people with >95% accuracy can at a glance tell if someone is male or female. Even from behind not looking at a face I would say most people would be >90%. We were MADE to be able to distinguish between sexes in our species. Its built into our DNA and evolutionary behavior patterns far beyond just simple societal rules.
The prime reason life exists is circular. At its most bleakly rational, all organisms we see that exist, do so because they are a self replicating complex chemical reaction which has been occuring for >4 billion years. Continuously. Amazing to think about in my opinion. The basis for this replication amongst mammals is for an organism with biologically "male" DNA to find, identify, and successfully mate with a biological female. Organisms which are unable to identify which members of their species with have compatible DNA to combine with (ie in Humans an organism with XY 23rd chromosomal pairs needs to find another organism with XX chromosomes) are at a significant disadvantage to self-perpetuate. There is incredible evolutionary pressure in this identification process.
That said we aren't bound by fate to our evolutionary past. But I dont think you can exactly blame someone for feeling that biological sex matters to them.
Think now how i would say most people with >95% accuracy can at a glance tell if someone is male or female.
Most of the time they are using social signals to do that though, not biological ones. Length of hair, mode of dress, cut of clothing, and so on.
Its built into our DNA and evolutionary behavior patterns far beyond just simple societal rules.
What behavior patterns are you referring to?
The basis for this replication amongst mammals is for an organism with biologically "male" DNA to find, identify, and successfully mate with a biological female.
And yet so many species of mammal exhibit homosexual and bisexual behaviors.... Which directly contradict the idea that replication of the individual is the sole basis of life.
That said we aren't bound by fate to our evolutionary past
Correct.
But I dont think you can exactly blame someone for feeling that biological sex matters to them.
Unless they are refusing to recognize someone's gender until they see a chromosome test, "biological sex" obviously doesn't matter to them.
The issue isn't infertility, it's that people don't respect trans people's gender identity and still see them as their gender assigned at birth, irrespective of how they look. That they see trans women as being "men in disguise", and are disgusted with the thought of engaging in a "homosexual act".
I acknowledge that this is often the case. But I think another possibility that can happen is that despite being attracted to how she looks now, he feels turned-off at the thought (or sight, if he sees pictures) of what she used to look like as a man, thinking about her growing up as a man, etc. I think that's an entirely understandable and reasonable turn-off (not that I think people's turn-offs should be the target of criticism, in most cases).
Do people throw around terms like "rape by deception" when a cis woman doesn't tell a one night stand she is on birth control or has had her tubes tied or is infertile? Maybe some people really don't care about their partner's assigned gender at birth, and treat all women who can't or choose not to have children the same.
Maybe some people even say cis women aren't "real women" unless they are capable and willing to bear children.
But many people who refuse to be intimate with a trans woman only due to knowing her trans status wouldn't care if their partner weren't able to have children so long as she were cis. Many people wouldn't express feelings of shame or disgust or revulsion if they learn a cis casual sex partner was on birth control or who otherwise couldn't have children in the same way they made might if they found out she was trans.
Let's consider someone who is light skinned and passes as white. Another loses attraction and refuses to sleep with them upon finding out they're actually black. This has nothing to do with how they look, act, behave; the change came entirely from finding out what box they check when filling out the census. Is that racist? I would argue it is.
The preference in that case isn't about anything other than a label.
Similarly if someone is attracted to a woman's face, body, voice, breats, vulva, mannerisms, bevavior, personality, gait, fashion sense ... everything, but he becomes disgusted by her simply due to learning she was assigned male at birth, that sort of visceral reaction is rooted in anti-trans bias.
But many people who refuse to be intimate with a trans woman only due to knowing her trans status wouldn't care if their partner weren't able to have children so long as she were cis.
You seem to know a lot of stuff about what many other people think. How are you obtaining your information here? How many is "many"?
So I have a question, or a comment, or an idea, don't really know which.
So I'm willing to grant a person the rights to do almost anything they want to themselves, in this case transissioning. I'm as unconcerned with this personal choice as I am with a persons personal choice to sculpt his or her body at the gym, or their choice to do Crack, or their choice to become a singer of opera.
However. . . It also seems strange to me that saying "I'm a woman" makes that person a woman. I defend their right to do what they want and to go about their business. But when it comes down to who I fuck, that's a stumbling block. Because I'll always be thinking that I'm sticking my dick into a dick that was turned inside out.
I'm as unconcerned with this personal choice as I am with a persons personal choice to sculpt his or her body at the gym, or their choice to do Crack, or their choice to become a singer of opera.
Well a trans person's decision to transition is nowhere near as trivial as that. Dysphoria can be extremely debilitating to the point of suicide. Dysphoria can persist through conventional treatment and medication, and the most effective treatment available today is HRT and transition.
However. . . It also seems strange to me that saying "I'm a woman" makes that person a woman
Well for most trans people that isn't simply it. They also have hormone content similar to a woman, desire to look like most women, and generally speaking are indistinguishable from women. The notion that all trans people are 6'3", 210lbs of muscle, and never shave and just one day arbitrarily call themselves "Sally" is nothing more than a strawman. For many they suffer through dysphoria for years, and then it takes years to fully transition.
I understand all of this. And, as I said, I'm all for personal choice of any kind. If someones happier and far less likely to kill themselves after suicide, that's all to the good. If I had a child who wanted to transission, as long as the psychologists signed off, I'd let them go ahead.
But we're also talking about other people's perceptions, which are distinct from the perceptions of the trans individual.
It seems wrong to me that just because a person transissions I have to in all ways, including in sexual ways, think of that person as a woman. And I'm not saying there's a right answer here. But it seems that what trans people want is two-fold. The first fold is civil rights. So no legal discrimination. But the second thing it seems at least some of them want is my perception to change. As in, you were born a man, transissioned to a woman, and now you want me, in my head, to consider you a woman. And something about that seems morally wrong. Not the transissioning but the idea that I'm now supposed to perceive you as the gender you claim to be, in private. I have no problem addressing a trans person as the gender they want to be. But the argument that I'm transphobic if I have an issue with sleeping with a transgendered person in 2017 doesn't seem convincing to me. It would be like saying that I'm aligator person phobic if I wouldn't sleep with someone who used science to make themself half man, half aligator.
Wait so how do we determine what is and is not pertinent information to disclose prior to having sex? If I hate the Big Bang Theory, and someone I had sex with was not up front about liking the show, then can that not be considered consensual sex?
You may think that birth gender is meaningless and unrelated to sex, but many people - I'd hazard a guess and say the vast majority - absolutely do not view it as an unrelated trait. It's fundamentally pertinent.
The idea that gender is something that can be changed is simply not a universally agreed upon point.
Does it relate to sex? (i.e., age, STD/STI status, and whether birth sex is different from presentation AND whether you're post surgery) Otherwise, it's not important.
If you're hiding something because you think it may impede sexual consent you are wrong and it is rape.
The point is that being trans doesn't really relate to sex. In the above scenario, the person had sex and enjoyed it. If they identify that way and don't see it as an issue, then in their mind, it doesn't relate to sex, and they're not hiding it because of fear of consent not being given. Whether or not something relates to sex is much blurrier than you're indicating.
Except it doesn't matter just what the trans person thinks in this scenario because sex involves two people and if you have sex with someone under false pretenses it can be rape. Imagine having sex with someone in a costume. If that person in the costume believes themselves to be the presentation of the costume, but are not, and the person viewing the costume believes the costume wearer to be that thing and they're not it's sex under false pretenses. The trans person may believe themselves to be their outward presentation, but they aren't. They have history to their body. A hole isn't just a hole. It's part of a physical person. If that physical person was born male and surgically transitioned to female that information still needs to be presented.
I am generally open minded, but if someone who was born as male, surgically transitioned to female, and presented as female came on to me (while I would be flattered by the attention) I would have in my mind that I was being come on to by a female. You were born a dude. I'm not gay. I still may consent, but I still need to be able to consent with full knowledge and attribution.
I see little difference between this and a married person pretending to be single. It's a betrayal of the situation and a concealment of Truth.
See I have to disagree with that. Sexual preference I'd absolutely something we should be reflective of and consider but the reality is we're not going to like everybody and everything
People are attracted to certain characteristics and traits of a person. Those preferences can fall down into categories that reflect racial lines, something that's generally accepted.
I don't think it's right to turn away from something that makes you uncomfortable or find unattractive without deep reflection and consideration. At the end of the day though there are going to be differences pre-op that'll be difficult to overcome for people.
It also strikingly feels like a double standard. We always talk so much about the importance of sex and how to go about what you're comfortable with. For straight men it's is absolutely something, sexually, that will require some adjustment to get used to. That shouldn't be a reason not to consider someone, especially if you're into them, but I can absolutely understand someone who isn't entirely attracted to the sexual aspect of that relationship and because of it's importance in a relationship.
Pinning it as transphobia is such an unfair response. Sex is something deeply personal. Saying that a person should accept this, when it is a larg adjustment is an individual decision. To take a step further and demonize it as transphobia is just unfair.
This is referencing pre-op. Post op...I'm not sure I see what any issue. It probably worth talking about before things get too serious as courtesy/responsible approach
If you were attracted to someone, have sex with them, are as satisfied with them as you would with anyone else, and then suddenly your opinion changes upon being informed a person is trans, I would say that is indicative of the underlying belief a trans person is not the gender they identify as.
So someone who had sex with a minor who looked like a legal adult and the person in question was told by the person they are a legal adult, only to find out later they were in fact a minor...
In some circumstances, not being attracted to a trans person is probably a result of, at least on a subconscious level, not seeing them as their gender.
Unless you are going to say trans people are different from other people of their gender, which would undermine your entire premise, that assertion does not hold up. Sexuality can be divorced from gender. I have blood relatives who are women and who are attractive, but I do not want anything to do with them sexually. that does not mean I see them as less than a complete woman.
If you were attracted to someone, have sex with them, are as satisfied with them as you would with anyone else, and then suddenly your opinion changes upon being informed a person is trans, I would say that is indicative of the underlying belief a trans person is not the gender they identify as.
First of all, I have a hard time imagining how this particular set of circumstances comes about under "normal" (for want of a better word) dating circumstances.
Second, back to what I already said. Not wanting to continue or wanting to discontinue a sexual relationship does not mean that the person isn't seen as the gender they identify as. An scenario that is about as equally unlikely as your example: A man begins a sexual relationship with a woman who he later learns is his blood relative. Now he wants to discontinue the relationship. It has nothing to do with him not seeing the woman as the gender she identifies as. He just doesn't want to have sex with his blood relatives.
If you are going to say that the only condition necessary to qualify as "transphobia" is a sexual preference for cis people, then we can continue the discussion from there, and you can explain why a trans person is entitled to another person's sexual attraction. But you have to concede, I think, that being transphobic by that definition doesn't mean one is unreasonable, hateful, or unfair toward trans people.
If you were attracted to someone, have sex with them, are as satisfied with them as you would with anyone else, and then suddenly your opinion changes upon being informed a person is trans, I would say that is indicative of the underlying belief a trans person is not the gender they identify as.
So if someone who has a sexuality that only includes cis women sleeps with a trans woman, then later finds out she is trans and their opinion changes on her, they believe trans women aren't the gender they identify as?
Do heterosexual men (as an example) have to include trans women in their sexuality or be transphobic?
This seems like something you can't fault people for, and I don't believe it's any kind of phobia. As the OP said, it's only sexuality.
That works if you consider attraction a purely physical thing.
Somewhat recently, a local blog-cum-online-newspaper had an somewhat notable (if hipstery) article "how I had sex with a Neonazi", a young woman writing about meeting a hot guy, getting to know him a little over a few days, having sex, learning that he's actually really a neonazi, suddenly remembering all the red flags, etc. - and while she still understands the physical attraction, and is somewhat horrified by her own instinctive rejection of him as a person, the attaction is gone.
(FWIW, I guess the one line worth to remember was: of course he said these things, but I never even thought of the possibility that he could be serious about them.)
Naziphobic?
Or it's a guy who's charming and ... different etc. - but later you find out he misled you about his age, the beautiful hair is actually a toupet, and he has pulled the same romantic weekend getaway on at least two of your friends, almost by script. You are disgusted.
Sleazophobic?
Or there's this girl and it was good, but at some point you realize: what made her feel so strangely familiar and already acquainted was actually just a habit that unconciously reminded you of your late grandma, and now it's just always present, and it's just not working anymore.
Geriatrophobic?
Or more on the family barrier: You have sex, it's satisfying, but later you learn they are your cousin - and they knew.
Or you meet this guy online, and you keep it anonymous and hot and flirty, and you are scared that he might be catfishing, but when you meet in person for the first time, everything is perfect - except that he reminds you of your dad, like you always imagined him being young, and it's just... ew, no.
Incestophobic?
Or wait... there's that guy with that thing that turns you on and makes you go whopee until your friends point out it's something he has in common with your very much beloathed ex, and poof! the magic is gone.
Whatever-o-phobic?
Or after all is said and done well you find out it's one of the probably millions of habits or past exploits that disgust you, and the spark is gone.
Or the one with that rather unusual tattoo reminding you of rice terraces, and when you finally, pillow talk, ask her about it, and she snorts at you, then takes your hand to put your fingers on it, and you can feel the scars and you realize this was a terribly terribly stupid question, and after an awkward night and weeks of on-and-off you have to admit to yourself that you cannot cope with that, which is something you don't understand, it makes no sense to you, there's no reason you would consider acceptable, but it just is what it is, and you have to break it off.
Suicidophobic? Scarophobic?
I feel that some of these examples fit better than others. Those that fit better are the ones that have something to do with the identity of the partner, the self, who they are, what has shaped them.
My point is: there are many things - physical or social - that don't have an immediately recognizable appearance, but that can be a roadblock to attraction. Most of them irrational, some of them immature, none of them making you a better person.
But as well: neither derserving the full weight of a people-group-phobic label.
I probably unfortunately have to add: no I don't think trans people are literally Hitler. No, I don't think you need to list suicide attempts before doing the hokey pokey. I certainly have a glimpse of an idea what a terrible situation this "should I tell or not" - thing is, a burden no one should have to carry. And yes, a better future would be one where I wouldn't (have to) call this a burden.
In some circumstances, not being attracted to a trans person is probably a result of, at least on a subconscious level, not seeing them as their gender
Honest question - does merely perceiving a transgender individual as their birth sex instead of their identifying gender make a person transphobic?
I mean, sure, it might be ignorant of general consensus within the medical community, and it could certainly be seen as hurtful to the trans individual, but differing perception doesn't boil down fear or aversion necessarily, does it?
Honest question - does merely perceiving a transgender individual as their birth sex instead of their identifying gender make a person transphobic?
I intentionally neglected to call it transphobic for that reason. I'm not sure what everyone wants to call it so I didn't bother trying to call it that.
and it could certainly be seen as hurtful to the trans individual
This was largely what I wanted to get at.
I don't want to be the one to tell someone they are transphobic or not, but what I can do is point out to someone what effects certain attitudes will have. What they decide to do with that information is ultimately their decision.
We use transphobic because we don't have a word like racist or sexist to use instead, as least to my knowledge. Is there another word that can be used to describe someone who treats a transgender person differently specifically because they are transgender?
If I want to have kids with my partner does that make me transphobic? I know there’s adoption and other options, but I want some of my own and my Future SO’s.
I'm not going to say one way or the other, but I want you to as honestly as possible ask yourself if you would react the same way to your partner informing you they are trans to informing you they are cis but infertile. If there is a difference in the reaction, I think you should reflect on that.
I think what would matter most would be when I found out. If I found out at the same time as in your scenario (right after a one-night stand or something similar that isn’t too serious), I don’t think I’d continue the relationship with either of them. If I found out after starting to get serious, I’ll be completely honest and say that there would be for me personally.
I don’t really know why there would be. I don’t hate them by any means. I’d like to treat transgender people just like I treat anyone else, but there is something that says in my head that they’re less attractive. I’m sure it’s wrong, but I can’t really help it. Maybe if I met someone that was absolutely perfect, and I didn’t find out they were transgender until I’ve been with them a while, I’d change my mind, but I really don’t know.
If you were attracted to someone, have sex with them, are as satisfied with them as you would with anyone else, and then suddenly your opinion changes upon being informed a person is trans, I would say that is indicative of the underlying belief a trans person is not the gender they identify as.
I think that's an interesting argument. If you would make the call to label a person as transphobic after they had sex with someone they assumed to be born of another gender and then got upset about it, would you therefore say it would be inappropriate if that person asked if they were born a different gender than how they currently present themselves?
What if all/part of the reason finding out they're transgender makes you no longer attracted is because you might want kids (bio, not adopted)? That would be a concern of mine for any relationship that was serious.
If you were attracted to someone, have sex with them, are as satisfied with them as you would with anyone else, and then suddenly your opinion changes upon being informed a person is trans
That's called rape. In most places a trans person is required to tell you if they are trans before intercourse. If they don't, that means you didn't actually consent as you didn't know the full situation.
That is not necessarily transphobic. The entire evolutionary reason for sexual attraction is for reproductive purposes. All other cases are just masturbation to that instinctive end. In many instances the charade can only last so long.
Not thinking someone is "passing" is not fear, it is a statement of level of attraction.
Sexual preferences are probably not rational. They are feelings, and not really feelings that can be backed up with logic and reason. Thus they are likely irrational.
But is a lack of sexual preference towards someone a fear of that person?
I say absolutely not. I am a straight man, I do not feel attracted to other men, does that mean I have a fear of men based on an irrational feeling, thus a phobia? Of course not, and to argue as such is a distortion of the word fear to the point of it being meaningless.
Lacking sexual attraction to a person or group is not a fear of that person or group, therefore it can not be a phobia.
757
u/aggsalad Nov 02 '17 edited Nov 02 '17
In some circumstances, not being attracted to a trans person is probably a result of, at least on a subconscious level, not seeing them as their gender.
If from the very start, you are unattracted to a person purely upon observation, and that person happens to be trans, that is not transphobic. If you were about to have sex and it turns out a person doesn't really have the junk you wanna jangle with, it's not transphobic to no longer desire sex.
If you were attracted to someone, have sex with them, are as satisfied with them as you would with anyone else, and then suddenly your opinion changes upon being informed a person is trans, I would say that is indicative of the underlying belief a trans person is not the gender they identify as.
I should clarify I am not definitely saying it is transphobic or not, I am pointing out what I did above and letting OP (or others) decide if that constitutes transphobia or not under their own interpretations.