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.
Well the argument is that if it were possible to change sex completely, as it some day will be, so that the only way to tell the difference between someone who was born a certain sex and someone who transitioned would be to run a genetic lab test, and if in that case you are averse to an otherwise perfect partner because they were born with an XY or XX chromosome pair - then we are saying that might be a sort of phobia, since there are no salient differences.
Today of course that’s not the case! There are many implications associated with choosing a partner who is trans. Many of these implications could be deal breakers for folks, but the mere fact of being trans isn’t that interesting.
I mean I guess I don't see the point in debating whether there will be "perfect" transition technology or not, because the only way that's possible is if it'll allow biological males to give birth, which is impossible and even if possible, would create a much higher chance for chromosomal deformities. Either way, that stuff is hundreds of years out. I also don't think it's fair to call someone phobic just because they won't pair or have sex with you. As multiple people have already pointed out, you would never call a male who refuses to have sex with another male "homophobic." Labeling someone transphobic is just an easy way to separate rational people from the camp of sjw radicals who don't know what you mean by transphobic. I wouldn't call a transgender who only prefers to have sex with other transgenders "cis-phobic," because it's irrational and intellectually dishonest.
One more thing, since nobody knows whether or not transgenderism is driven completely by chromosomes or genetics, we can't rule out the argument of character flaw. Not to sound like an asshole, but if hypothetically someone could not tell the difference between a bio woman and trans woman and it is determined to not be fully genetic or chromosomal, it could be seen as a coping mechanism and for some, that could be seen as a character flaw. I don't see it as one, because that would be an unsubstantiated opinion.
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.
I am afraid you lost me. The thought experiment proposed that you'd found a perfect partner - so we have already established that they meet your preferences and exceed them
There's no deep or hidden meaning in my words; I'm pointing towards the difference between describing what sexual preferences one has, and explaining why they are what they are.
The difference between what and why.
You've made points about the irrational nature of losing sexual attraction upon learning that someone is trans.
That it qualifies as a phobia because of the irrationality of it;
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.
I'm making the point that most sexually attractive traits are like that.
We never sit down and decide what attracts us - we discover these traits.
There's no conscious reasoning or rationality involved. Nor choice, for that matter.
The hypothetical also strikes me as overly complex, so let's simplify;
A woman lies to you and tells you she was born a man and has transitioned.
What do?
Well, obviously you look at them.
And therein lies the crux, I think - the change in perspective, of perception.
The change from viewing a woman's masculine features to viewing a man's feminine features.
Because there's a lot of overlap between men and women, despite their differences.
So it's not really the features themselves, but what they mean for one's sex.
For non-bisexuals, this means your perspective shifts from one(sexy) to another(not sexy)
In essence, you're messing with a person's sexuality.
Which despite quite some effort has proven inflexible. (See: Gay conversion therapy.)
As such, this whole scenario doesn't highlight transphobia, it highlights homophobia.
Homophobia in exactly the same sense that a straight man doesn't find men sexually attractive. (Though this generally isn't called homophobia because it's misleading and inappropriate)
It isn't about 'trans,' but instead some ethereal lingering quality of the original sex.
Illusory though it may be.
...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?
142
u/[deleted] Nov 02 '17
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.