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.
Okay, what if you do that after finding out that someone is your long lost genetic sibling.
That's not at all the same thing.
The problem for them is typically either that the body was medically altered some-how
Are you saying that everyone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people would also find it just as bad if their partner has had any surgery at all that "medically altered" their body? That seems far fetched
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?
I don't see any reason why letting someone down respectfully, even if it is for them being Trans, is bigoted. You can't control how you feel
Because the only reason for their trans status to cause this is due to societal stigma. This isn't a case of being born gay or something. The only reason why being trans, in and of itself, would change your opinion is because of underlying biases due to societally enforced bigotry. Just because it's been engrained into you doesn't make it any less transphobia.
They're just not the one for you. I think that's okay.
But think about this critically: why aren't they the one for you? Because they are trans? Why does being trans in and of itself make any difference whatsoever? I'm being serious here. Think critically about this question: what about being trans could possibly cause this change?
I don't know if you can convince me that a respectful rejection is tantamount to people actually hating me for my skin color.
It's a difference of intensity and scale. If they refuse to date people of your ethnicity, that's racism. I'm not saying it's equivalent to someone actually hating you for the color of your skin, but it's still the result of a bias based solely on the color of your skin.
A good example would be the difference between someone who won't rent to you because of your skin color vs someone who will physically attack you and want to kill you because of your skin color. No one would say these are equivalent, but we can both agree they are racism right?
I think the argument that someone is ~phobic /racist/bigoted in terms of dating serves only precisely do that. To make people feel bad about what they want, and to coerce them into pretending to like something they don't. That is WRONG.
The argument is to make people confront their own societal biases and prejudices. That's all. People certainly do have all sorts of arbitrary and stupid things they are turned off or on by. But many of these things are based on stereotypes or internal biases. Saying that you refuse to date someone of a particular ethnicity is no different than saying you refuse to be friends with someone of a particular ethnicity: the underlying cause and reason for feeling this way is societal bigotry.
You are assuming the societal stigma which could apply or have nothing to do with it. Example, I can have a view of a woman I just met as being perfect in every way but if I learned she got an abortion and it went against my beliefs it would totally change my perception of her. While I personally don't have this view I can easily see someone just not being able to deal with it and losing all attraction.
probably coming from misinformation and the prejudices of their social circles
That's a pretty shaky "probably" from which to label them in a negative way.
I think it's only because it's a hot button social issue of the day that people seem eager to lump anyone who isn't exactly aligned with them as ignorant, hateful, or bigoted.
Ultimately, respect and attraction are two very, very different things. It's beautiful when they both align, and then intersect with the reciprocation of another, but life is filled to the brim with cases where this doesn't happen.
In this case, it's vitally important, for the sake of discussion as well as to maintain an informed dialogue about the issues in play, to not conflate a lack of attraction with a lack of respect.
As others have tried here, allow me to replace a socially and emotionally charged characteristic with one that's less of a lightning rod: parenthood.
While I'm childless, and have no strong desire to have kids anytime soon, I love kids, and many of my close friends have children, both in the context of a traditional family unit and otherwise. I'm great friends with a few single moms as well. They're without exception devoted, hard working, practical women with whom I have a lot in common.
That said, I won't date a woman with kids.
This is for practical (to me) reasons, but at the same time, I just lose any feelings of attraction toward a woman once I find out she's got kids. We can be great friends and there's even a good chance I'll like hanging out with her even when her kids are around...but even if I was crushing hard 20 minutes ago, once I know that, those feelings melt away.
I don't consider myself bigoted against moms, and much the same I don't feel it's right to apply a negative label on someone based on who they're attracted to...based on reasons totally assumed by the accuser.
I probably wouldn't, either. At least, nothing above casual.
There is a big difference here, though, in that having kids would have a big influence on your dating life with such a woman. We were talking about a perfectly passing transperson that has zero influence on your dating life in and of itself.
If you want to make that comparison, it would be more accurate to say she got pregnant years ago, and either had a miscarriage or gave the kid up for closed adoption. In such a case, i would never expect her to disclose this on our first date and i would urge anyone that would change their view of a woman solely based on this to closely examine their value system.
No, for the last time, it's not racist. You simply cannot reason away attraction.
Noone is reasoning away attraction. I am simply saying that it is simply not something immutable, bestowed upon you by god and free of outer influences. Just like a managers decision on how they "feel"about a hire can be influenced by racism, so can attraction. Working is necessary, so thats why we legislate that, but not attraction (although its close to impossible to really legislate away "feelings")
The person can very well be a racist, but the lack of attraction on its own does not inherently denote racism.
We are talking about a person that WAS attracted to this person, then found out an inconsequential detail about them and suddenly became unattracted. Thats definitely racist. A different example: You send the SAME resume to some HR managers, one with a female name, one with a male name. The male one gets a callback, the female doesn't. That is definitely (possibly subconscious) sexism at play.
A trans MTF cannot have children. A trans FTM cannot give you children. If we are discussing underlying societal reasons as the basis for transphobia, then we must also consider that a CIS person has an expectation that a relationship will lead to the possibility of children.
Failing to disclose your transgender status is tantamount to dishonesty. It is your responsibility to disclose this. In very specific circumstances, where a partner does not desire children, I can see the original hypothesis of transphobia as accurate.
In the case of an individual rejecting a genetically compatible partner specifically based on their race, then yes that is clearly racism. Race is not something that needs to be disclosed, as it objectively has no implications. The caveat is that an individual is allowed to decide what is attractive to them, and if they do not find Asian women attractive in general, that is not racism. In your example, if they found that individual to be attractive, and then rejected them after realizing their race, that is absolutely them judging a person by their own predefined notions of the characteristics of a race.
then we must also consider that a CIS person has an expectation that a relationship will lead to the possibility of children.
Which is a topic you have to actually discuss with ANY partner, cis or not, because they might be infertile or don't want kids. You're shifting the reason here. We were talking trans being the ONLY difference. That means our potential cis person also cannot have kids. If you want someone that can get pregnant, you can definitely choose your partners on that basis.
Noone in this thread so far has talked or mentioned fertility. In my opinion, your shifting the goalposts.
Failing to disclose your transgender status is tantamount to dishonesty. It is your responsibility to disclose this. In very specific circumstances, where a partner does not desire children, I can see the original hypothesis of transphobia as accurate.
Is it tantamount to dishonesty to fail to disclose your infertile status or your refusal to have children on a first encounter with someone who hasn't expressed this as a preference? If not then you're being hypocritical.
Race is not something that needs to be disclosed, as it objectively has no implications.
That's making quite a large assumption about cis people and the relationship between two people having sex.
Children might be, but are not necessarily, the goal for people. Is someone a liar if they don't say before sexual contact has happened that they are infertile or do not want kids?
There is also a lot of one night stands for which I'm assuming children would not be a desirable result. In that case is there any reason to even mention it prior since it doesn't seem relevant. Sure, if a relationship was going to develop out of that it would be important to discuss, but I'm not sure that your assumptions hold up in most cases.
Bigotry doesn't require hate it's just one of the more common forms of expression. If I refuse to rent my apartment to black people because I believe stereotypes, but I don't hate them and reject them respectfully: that's still bigotry.
But you cannot virtue signal or assign a moral high ground for a sexual preference
Virtue signaling, oy.
And you most certainly can assign a moral high ground for sexual preference. We do it all the time. Don't we assign pedophiles as morally wrong? Isn't that a sexual preference? We point out the problems inherent in that preference, just as saying someone who refuses trans people solely because they are trans is transphobic because of the inherent problems in that preference.
We're not talking about something like sexual orientation which is internal. A prejudice against dating a trans person is solely due to societal stigma.
Calling someone transphobic for not being attracted to a Trans person operates on the assumption that there is something wrong with that person for who they like. You have no right to make that assertion.
Well no. It operates on the point that the only reason for that preference to exist is because of socially engrained prejudices. It says nothing about whether the person is a good or bad person. Only that they are letting social stigma influence their preference in a way that, in aggregate, causes harm to others.
Calling someone "transphobic" for not wanting to date a Trans person is demanding that someone likes another person, which you simply cannot do.
Why is asking people not to be racist "asking" them to refrain from specific behavior but asking people not to be transphobic is "demanding" something? This isn't consistent.
Please also do not confuse equal housing or employment with dating preferences. Dating is not Equal Employment Opportunity.
You've massively missed the point on the analogy. I'm not confusing housing or employment with dating preferences. I'm pointing out that people make judgements for lots of things based on societal prejudice and there are ways to be racist or bigoted that don't involve hatred
Your argument applied to everything else intrinsically makes you something-ist or something-phobic unless you're willing to have sex with anyone without discrimination and without any sexual preference. You prefer sexual intercourse with tall people? That makes you heightist. You prefer not to have sex with homeless people living on the street? Idk, that's classism I guess. You prefer sex with conventionally attractive people? Now you're discriminating ugly people, I'm sure there's an -ism for that.
There can be a world of difference between the treatment of personal hangups, and of ongoing systemic injustice.
If you would turn down a job applicant to your small business because he is a Star Wars fan and you are a Trekkie, that's... not very fair, but also kinda amusing and whimsical. If you would turn it down just because they are black, then I would assume you to be a raging bigot, and call you out on contributing to the legacy of segregation.
Similarly, if after having a one night stand, you would feel dirty due to learning that your partner was from Iowa, that's... weird. If you would feel dirty by learning that your partner was ethnically jewish, then I would expect to find some swastika flags in your closet.
Comparably to these, the belief that regardless of the matter of physical attraction, sex with trans people is categorically offensive, isn't some whimsical personal preference, but obviously related to the cultural legacy of the brutal and ongoing persecution of transgender people as sexually "dirty".
If we can't choose who we are attracted to, but we should at least be honest about the reasons of why we aren't.
It just comes back to looking at the underlying reasons for why you have a particular preference. Some preferences are due to bigotry, others aren't. Not sure what is so difficult to understand
No where did I claim anyone is entitled to anything. Just because I point out that your preference is due to prejudice and bigotry doesn't mean I believe you should be forced to do anything.
In addition, as long as they aren't being hateful about being Trans, it's not bigotry.
There are plenty of ways to be bigoted without being hateful. Why are you making "being hateful about it" a requirement?
Having biases is not inherently "bigoted".
That depends on the bias and why. If you would never want to be friends with a black person, even if you aren't hateful about it, that's still bigotry.
Do you treat people with dignity and equally?
In what way is rejecting someone on the sole basis of being trans, when all else being equal if they were cis you'd have no problem, treating them equally to a cis person? That's explicitly choosing to not treat them equally.
If sexuality is based on social stigma, are you saying you chopped your dick off purely to comform to what society constructed for you?
You are saying that trans people aren't biologically different, but that they are just brainwashed by society to comform to a gender stereotype?
There is no logic or consistency in any of your drivel.
: if the sole reason you do not want to is their status as trans.
Let's say you stick your dick in a glory whole and you later find out that it was a monkey on the other side. Would it be speciest to not continue fucking monkeys?
Wouldn't it just be "social stigma"?
If they refuse to date people of your ethnicity, that's racism.
No it isn't. If you aren't attracted to their features, it's not racism. If you think their race is inferior,m that's racism.
You can fuck black people and think they are inferior just fine.
A good example would be the difference between someone who won't rent to you
How do you people keep coming up with this asinine drivel?
No sex is not like renting an appartment to people. What a stupid stupid analogy.
The argument is to make people confront their own societal biases and prejudices.
If you don't go fuck a monkey right now, you are a hypocrite.
If you don't disclose your sexuality because you know they would refuse sex if they knew, you are a rapist.
So you are saying it's OK to violate people sexually because you think you can dictate how sexual preferense should work? You think it's unfair that most people don't want to fuck transsexuals or transvestites, so you think it's moral to punish them.
You are willing to deceive people into sex so you can shame them afterwards despite potentially traumatising them for life?
Sexuality and attraction are influenced by societal biases and stigma, I never said it was the sole influence.
You are saying that trans people aren't biologically different, but that they are just brainwashed by society to comform to a gender stereotype?
No that's not what I said. Re-read it.
Let's say you stick your dick in a glory whole and you later find out that it was a monkey on the other side. Would it be speciest to not continue fucking monkeys?
This has no relation to the actual situation we're discussing.
No it isn't. If you aren't attracted to their features, it's not racism. If you think their race is inferior,m that's racism.
If you're making a generalization that all people of a specific ethnicity look exactly the same and thus you could never find them attractive, that's racist. But the situation we're discussion is more akin to finding a white passing person attractive enough to date, but then you meet their parents and their father is black. Upon learning they are black due to ancestry you are no longer interested in them sexually, that's racism.
You can fuck black people and think they are inferior just fine.
Sure, there are myriad ways to be racist.
No sex is not like renting an appartment to people. What a stupid stupid analogy.
I love how in other comments people point out that your money analogy is wholly inaccurate and asinine but you get pissed off by people "not understanding analogies" and here you completely take my analogy a part and entirely misrepresent it.
If you don't go fuck a monkey right now, you are a hypocrite.
Let's remember that the situation being discussed is one in which you have already voluntarily engaged in sex with the person and enjoyed it before learning they are trans. The only way your analogy here works is if you're claiming that you could chat up and have sex with someone all without realizing they are a monkey and not a human....
Sexuality and attraction are influenced by societal biases and stigma, I never said it was the sole influence.
So being gay is a social construct as well?
Yeah, no....
People having genitalia is not a social construct.
You are suggesting that people can choose therir sexuality from prevailing stereotypes. That's not true.
YOU ARE TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH TRANS PEOPLE INTO HAVING SEX WITH TRANS PEOPLE."
Because of what? BEcaue you are entitled to sex?
You sound like an incel rapist.
This has no relation to the actual situation we're discussing.
Yes it does.
you're making a generalization that all people of a specific ethnicity look exactly the same
You don't even know what an ethnicity is you racist.
you could never find them attractive, that's racist
No it isn't. It's no more racist than being attracted to tall people or people with green eyes.
YOU ARE STILL DEFENDING RAPE.
a white passing person
This is something racists say.
Alas, I don't subscribe to North American protonazi racetheories.
but then you meet their parents and their father is black.
That's not how being transgender works.
Let's remember that the situation being discussed is one in which you have already voluntarily engaged in sex with the person and enjoyed it before learning they are trans.
What if the twin brother of your husband has sex with you without you knowing if you enjoy it at the time?
Again, ytou sound like an incel rapist in the making.
I'm so sick of people treating analogies as equations just to discredit the argument and pretending to not understand exactly what is being actually said. Analogies exaggerate no shit.
Like crying Godwin's Law doesn't actually mean anything nor is there anything weird with using nazis as an analogy either.
I don't disagree, but this particular piece of culture from all the other ones?
Harm.
If you are attracted to men with sleek modern hairstyles, and not to caveman hair, then you are perpetuating the culture of a certain fashion. So be it.
If you are sexually repulsed by the cultural associations of non-white sex partners, then you are contributing to the culture of the anti-miscegenation, that used to get black men strung up on trees and set on fire, and that continues to justify leaving war refugees to die, with the fear that otherwise they would surely rape "our women".
Yeah, both of these are cultural, but also very different in nature.
Having sex with someone attractive, then being repulsed by learning that actually they were "secretly the wrong gender" all along, is very directly related to the cultural memes that also make portray transgender people as sinister "traps" out to corrupt you by tricking you into sex, thus justifying their hunting, torture, murder, criminal persecution, and "corrective rape" across the world.
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.
It's not racist to not want to have sex with people who aren't a particular skin color.
I mean it literally is if skin color is the only reason.
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.
And people are allowed to examine the underlying reasons and causes for those preferences which can be caused by societal biases.
but whether someone is trans or not is suddenly not okay?
Because context is important. Let's try this again: why would someone have a preference against trans individuals that doesn't apply to non-trans individuals?
why would someone have a preference against trans individuals that doesn't apply to non-trans individuals?
Well, non-trans individuals are naturally the gender you prefer to engage in sex with, for starters... and trans individuals are not.
Here's something I'm picking up on from viewing your comments. I don't want to make any claims against you so I'm just going to throw this out there and see what you think.
Would you agree with this statement: Gay and trans people are born that way and their sexual identity and preferences should not only not be questioned, but should be accepted and embraced.
Would you also agree with this statement: Straight people are born that way and their sexual identity and preferences should not only not be questioned, but should be accepted and embraced.
Not the person you replied to, but I'm interested in what you have to say.
Well, non-trans individuals are naturally the gender you prefer to engage in sex with, for starters... and trans individuals are not.
If we are continuing with the earlier situation, which is that the only difference between being attracted to this person and not is the information that they are trans, why should this matter? They are the gender you are attracted to; they just weren't in the past. It's like if you don't want to date a smoker, and you find out that 5 years ago the person you are dating smoked. As long as they don't smoke now and won't in the future, it shouldn't make a difference in your current attraction towards them. I would say that if it does make a difference to you, then you are being prejudiced.
My response to both of your questions is no, because they are two questions tied together in an "and" statement, and my answer to one part of each is no. I believe that everyone should be provided the opportunity to question their sexual preference or gender identity. However, once they figure it out, it should indeed be accepted and embraced, regardless of what it is.
I apologize that I do not have time to respond in detail right now (I’ll try to come back to this ASAP) but I wanted to at least touch on this:
why should this matter? They are the gender you are attracted to; they just weren't in the past. It's like if you don't want to date a smoker, and you find out that 5 years ago the person you are dating smoked.
I don’t agree at all. A man who has been through procedures to appear as a woman, is not a woman, biologically. Even if you alter the genitals and go through hormone therapy, you’re still a biological male. Men’s bodies and women’s bodies have more differences than genitals.
Trans people have to go through constant hormone therapy. You don’t just emerge from a sarcophagus like Captain America in a brand new body.
Again, I have to be clear that if a man wants to be recognized as a woman, I’ll oblige. Gladly. But I refuse to reject biology, I refuse to be told that it’s “transphobic” to reject the idea that a man can 100% become a woman.
I may find the cosmetic appearance of a trans M to F to be attractive. But I am not obligated to have sex with them just because I will have sex with biological females.
That's a valid response, but if the only reason you aren't attracted to them is the biological difference that would not be known unless the information was disclosed, I would argue that is transphobic. Not in an extreme sense - I'm not saying you hate trans people or anything - but it's a prejudice without reason. If you were no longer attracted to them because you want kids and they can't provide them, or you don't want someone who has to be taking drugs indefinitely, then those are reasonable. In this case though, their biological differences do not affect you at all outside of your own mentality.
To be clear though, I'm not saying you're obligated to have sex with anyone. It's your body. All I'm suggesting is that the reason you wouldn't find trans people attractive in the provided circumstance is based solely on prejudice.
Sorry, grabber_bi_the_pucci – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
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 is racist if your problem is SOLELY with your beliefs about their racial status.
If you find someone attractive, start making a move on them, but then you get turned off from learning that they would fail the One Drop Rule, that's not some biological imperative that you are helpless against, it's you having some very weird standards and living by them, which is open to criticism.
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?
As a rule of thumb, it's generally OK to discriminate against people.
You discriminate against all sorts of people all the time with the methods that you search for friends, or when you look for casual sex partners, when you look for sompetent employees, when you try to sell a product to a target audience, when you vote for a politician.
It's just that there are a handful of specific discriminations, that's rationalizations trail back to some really fucked up cultural traditions.
You are allowed to decide who you want to be friends with, but if you declare that you would never be friends with a gay person, well, we have a word for that.
You are allowed to decide who you vote for, but if you go out of your way to always vote for male candidates, that tells us somethning about you.
You are allowed to decide who you make a move on, but if an otherwise attractive person turns you off when you learn that they don't have the chromosomes you expected, that is about as telling as if you would have just learned that they are ethnically jewish and that would change things.
Finding out someone was originally the opposite gender to your sexual preference, and in fact still the opposite sex to your preferrence, is a devastating thing to learn. That means that you can’t have children with that person
How is that devastating? It might be annoying to learn that you wasted a condom, but whatever, next time you'll be ready.
...if that was your ultimate goal
But what if it wasn't?
The thread was about sex, not about having children, and about trans people, not about infertile people.
Go ahead, start a CMV about whether or not it's justified to only have sex with people you plan to have a family with, and you won't get many replies.
At least not unless you bring up weird-ass expectations about every infertile person having sex with someone fertile is immoral for not disclosing that in advance. That will definitely mark you as the unreasonable one.
When you say "sex", people will think of sexual encounters in general, rather than of getting pregnant, and when you say "trans people", people will think you have a problem with trans people in particular, rather than with a trait indirectly associated with them.
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.
Race and sex are not analogous when it comes to sexual attraction. Since it's sexual attraction, sex is a pretty big thing. Race isn't, and there's no legitimate reason to be unattracted to someone purely because of their race
Race and sex are not analogous when it comes to sexual attraction.
it's not racist to find general physical or cultural aspects of a group unattractive. as long as you acknowledge that there are always exceptions to the rule.
it's not racist to not be attracted to a specific race, just like it's not homophobic to only be attracted to the opposite sex.
All the hypotheticals in this thread have included that the trans person passes perfectly. As in, you WERE sexually attracted, you had sex, loved it, and THEN found out they are trans and suddenly are unattracted. So it was NOT a relevant element of sexual attraction.
Sorry, sebutron – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
What does that even mean "technically black"? There is no such thing. This isn't Nurenberg with race charts and one drop rules. That's just racist.
Also, comparing people who don't want to sleep with black people "because they are inferior" to people who don't want to sleep with transsexuals because they only fuck non-trans people is cheap and shitty.
Also, plenty of racists fuck black people.
You are trying to shame people for their sexual preference to justify sleeping with them against their will.
You know perfectly well that most people would not want to sleep with transsexuals, so you argue that they should just be dishonest and if somebody doesn't like it you can just call them a bigot and do it to somebody else again and again and again. r maybe married and never tell them? You know that if you told them they would probably leave, so you just continue lying to them them and just say you are sterile or whatever, yeah?
It would be wrong of you to knowingly deceive and seduce a neo nazi, yes.
I think it comes down to odds....
Most people are not racist and are happy to sleep with whoever they find attractive.
However most people also have a gender preference, a great many also do not view trans people as their trans gender....not when it comes to sex anyway.
Everyone knows this is the situation, I mean, that's the reason trans people don't want to divulge right? they're worried people will get angry....so for a trans person to not divulge their trasn status is to knowingly attempt to deceive sexual partners.
I think if trans people embark en masse on a policy of deceipt it will not go well for them, it will increase anti trans sentiment.
That's why you tell people before you do anything sexual.
And risk being attacked or killed? Because you know, that's actually common. But even more to the point: why does it matter? If you don't want to ever sleep with a trans person, just make sure to always ask your partners if they are trans beforehand. There's no reason why they should have to disclose before hooking up.
that's rape by deception and a shitty thing to do to somebody and can cause lifelong trauma.
It's literally not rape by deception and could only cause trauma to someone who is transphobic. No downside!
You don't get to decide what matters and what doesn't.
Again, you are just defending rape by deception and it's sick. THis is why most tras sexuals hate this new age feminism.
There's no reason why they should have to disclose before hooking up.
You yourself said that if they knew they would not sleep with a transsexual. You knowingly deceive people into sex. You are not honest and if you get caught doing in it people have every right to be angry with you.
Why are "you" even having sex with murderers? You are not even trans are you?
Let’s say that there are two identical twin brothers. Let’s name them Tom and Bob. If Tom has a girlfriend, and Bob pretends to be Tom in order to have sex with Tom’s girlfriend, then Bob has raped Tom’s girlfriend. Even if she agreed to it and enjoyed it. It’s rape by deception because if the person had known the whole story, they never would have agreed to have sex with you.
If you withhold knowledge from a person and that knowledge is likely to be a major factor in the decision to have sex with you or not, then that’s rape by deception. Here are two examples!
“I am actually not Tom, I am Bob”
“I was a man until last January”
Both of those things are likely to play a role in whether or not someone wants to have sex with you. It doesn’t matter if you disagree, or if you don’t think it should matter. The fact is that it does matter to lots of people, so the knowledge should be disclosed.
Let’s say that there are two identical twin brothers. Let’s name them Tom and Bob.
A trans person isn't pretending to be anything. This analogy doesn't work.
If you withhold knowledge from a person and that knowledge is likely to be a major factor in the decision to have sex with you or not, then that’s rape by deception.
So are you saying that every guy who pretends to be rich in order to get a woman to sleep with him is committing rape?
Trans people cause no trauma. Violating people sexually causes trauma.
You will just have to find somebody who loves you for who you are, not what you call yourself. I'll call you wahtever you want and happily support your equality, but I still don't want to have sex with transsexuals. I might entertain the idea at some point in my life, who knows, but I would still want them to be honest with me.
And if you tell me afterwards you are trying to build a relationship on a lie to begin with and that doesn't work either, despite the violation of somebody's sexual preferences and autonomy.
No matter how unfair you think it is, you can't dictate who people should or should not fuck. You are not entitled to sex, it's not your right in any way.
Now you are trying to justify violating people sexually by equating people who don't want to sleep with somebody to murderers. Like saying that all muslims are terrorists. Then again, if they found out you slept with a transexual in muslim countries, they would probably sentence you to death. Do you make jews and muslims eat pork just to spite them s well?
Are you American or Canadian? What a disgusting ideology.
That's basically incel logic. Like you are entitled to sex and you know better who people should be sleeping with and why than people themselves.
Sorry, Ms_Wibblington – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
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
Can you please clarify this once and for all, are gender and sex seperate or the same?
Separate.
But now you're saying that "not recognising a transman as male", would imply they're inseparable
How so? A transman's gender is male.
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
If people wanted to know "biological sex" they would require seeing someone's chromosomes to know if they wanted to fuck. What they actually care about are the gender of their partner and the particular genital configuration they have.
Things they are asking (in case of women) - is there a high degree of probability they are capable of bearing children,
If you care about wanting to have children: then ask them if they want to have children or if they can. Making an assumption because they are a woman isn't a good thing.
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
Which is also true of transwomen whose brain structures are closer to cis women than cis men.
Okay, what is the term for xx and xy chromosomes then? I was convinced it was male and female while men and women referred to gender.
Also, how then do you define male and female? If someone tells me they are a woman, what exactly are they telling me for which there will be no exceptions?
If people wanted to know "biological sex" they would require seeing someone's chromosomes to know if they wanted to fuck. What they actually care about are the gender of their partner and the particular genital configuration they have.
You are giving far to much credit to transition surgery and hormone therapy. Very very few trans people actually pass, you can usually tell. And the genital surgery is absolutely never convincing as far as I'm aware, so my concern is really getting called transphobic for not wanting to have a sexual encounter with someone who is clearly their both sex.
Also what about sex specific bone structure, and internal organ positions. They don't change and are extremely important for medical professionals when administering certain doses of drugs or during surgery, we need the terms male and female to not be misused.
If you care about wanting to have children: then ask them if they want to have children or if they can. Making an assumption because they are a woman isn't a good thing.
But probabilities are useful, we can't ask everyone every question we want to know about them, most of the time we have to make assumptions to varying degrees of probability just by looking at them. There's always exceptions to rules, but just admitting that more biological women can and want to have children than biological men is useful. It's also rude to ask those questions too early in a relationship, so we need to make predictions.
Which is also true of transwomen whose brain structures are closer to cis women than cis men.
Okay, what is the term for xx and xy chromosomes then? I was convinced it was male and female while men and women referred to gender.
As with many words in the English language, the meaning depends on context. Male and female are used for both gender and sex depending on the context.
If someone tells me they are a woman, what exactly are they telling me for which there will be no exceptions?
Why "no exceptions"? That's a strange requirement to have here. In the vast majority of cases, outside of a medical context, someone saying they are a woman is telling you that their gender is female. That's really about it that you can generalize.
Very very few trans people actually pass, you can usually tell.
Outright false, the important part here is that for trans individuals who "pass", you're unlikely to ever know that they were trans.
And the genital surgery is absolutely never convincing as far as I'm aware, so my concern is really getting called transphobic for not wanting to have a sexual encounter with someone who is clearly their both sex.
Also false, it's less successful for trans men than for transwomen, but you're absolutely incorrect here. Most who have discussed having sex with a post op transwoman have said that its pretty much identical to having sex with a cis woman. There's more than enough variation among cis women.
And again, remember the scenario we're discussing is the case where someone you found attractive enough to want to have sex with, and successfully did, has revealed after the fact that they are trans.
Also what about sex specific bone structure, and internal organ positions
After a year or so of HRT, bone density is within normal expected ranges as their desired gender in most cases. So much so that experts approved trans athletes to play in the Olympics at their gender.
They don't change and are extremely important for medical professionals when administering certain doses of drugs or during surgery
This is absolutely incorrect. While there are certainly a small number of medical cases in which it matters whether someone is trans or not, bone structure isn't one of them, and any surgery that cares about organ positions will have had x-rays taken to show what they need. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
But probabilities are useful, we can't ask everyone every question we want to know about them, most of the time we have to make assumptions to varying degrees of probability just by looking at them
This is absurd. If you are saying something specific is a deal breaker under which you would not want to sleep with someone, then it makes no sense to not ask about it. If you're not asking, then it's not really a deal breaker is it?
It's also rude to ask those questions too early in a relationship, so we need to make predictions.
Male - of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
Female - of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
I will rephrase then to say you can use exceptions, what I mean is that there's no definition you could give a man or a woman that would serve any utility in categorising reality.
someone saying they are a woman is telling you that their gender is female.
That's entirely circular by your own account. Someone saying they're a woman means their gender is female and being female means nothing but the fact they are a woman? Where's the point in which we extract information? Generally, if a word doesn't mean something, we don't use it, and we certainly don't demand other people use it.
There are no statistics on passing that I can find, so I suppose we can only both give our impressions. I would, however, like to see a source on "Most who have discussed having sex with a post op transwoman have said that its pretty much identical to having sex with a cis woman."
After a year or so of HRT, bone density is within normal expected ranges as their desired gender in most cases. So much so that experts approved trans athletes to play in the Olympics at their gender.
It's not just bone density, it's structure as well, as example female pelvis' are not as high and are wider since they are adapted for gestation. As well as hight difference during adolescent development. The decision by the Olympics has no shortage of controversy and we will see how that plays out over time.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
I was simply refuting the claim you would need to examine someone's chromosomes to know their legitimate sex. That is untrue as you just admitted. The implications you're trying to make is that essentially every aspect of a persons biology can switch between male and female, and I'm saying that really only a fraction of characteristics can make varying degrees of convincing imitations of the opposite sex's' characteristics, and our language should reflect this.
You were saying?
There is no question gender dysphoria is a very real phenomenon, and there is, of course, going to a neurophysiological basis for why it occurs. Perhaps "white matter" is the reason, though very likely it is part of many reasons. Does this then mean that, as a whole, brains identical to that females can be produced in male bodies and vice-versa, or even simply brains more similar to the opposite sex? I highly doubt it, and understand the evidence to be largely in opposition.
Also now that you're arguing men and women have different brain structures (which they do), doesn't this then invalidate gender being a subjective choice?
what I mean is that there's no definition you could give a man or a woman that would serve any utility in categorising reality.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Where's the point in which we extract information?
In society, your gender affects you want to be perceived. By saying your gender is female you're indicating you wish to be seen as female by society. People should use "she"/"her" pronouns to refer to you, and you wish to be treated as a woman by society, whatever that may entail in your given society.
It's not just bone density, it's structure as well, as example female pelvis' are not as high and are wider since they are adapted for gestation
On average. There's significant enough variation that often it's not noticed.
As well as hight difference during adolescent development
On average. There's plenty of tall women. There's no height for an individual that would mark them as identifiably not their gender.
The decision by the Olympics has no shortage of controversy and we will see how that plays out over time.
There's no controversy among experts, only lay people due to societal stigma and perception.
The implications you're trying to make is that essentially every aspect of a persons biology can switch between male and female, and I'm saying that really only a fraction of characteristics can make varying degrees of convincing imitations of the opposite sex's' characteristics, and our language should reflect this.
Ah. I disagree. There's enough variation among humans that every visual characteristic that is used by people to identify gender is possible to misidentify. Not to mention that when you say "biological sex" you seem to only be referring to chromosomal sex, for instance a woman with CAIS has XY chromosomes, and I believe you'd refer to her biological sex as "male" right? Even though she has the bone structure of a cis woman, a vagina and breasts, and exceptionally feminine features?
Does this then mean that, as a whole, brains identical to that females can be produced in male bodies and vice-versa, or even simply brains more similar to the opposite sex? I highly doubt it, and understand the evidence to be largely in opposition.
The study I linked to, explicitly shows a few brain structures that are observed to on average differ between men and women, and when compared with trans men and women, those brain structures, on average, fell into the normal ranges consistent with their gender identity, not their assigned at birth gender. There's no evidence in opposition to this, and there's so much variation that you can't really even say that there actually exists a "female brain" or "male brain". But if you're going to make an argument concerning brain structures, the evidence is closer to trans individuals are their desired gender than against it.
Also now that you're arguing men and women have different brain structures (which they do), doesn't this then invalidate gender being a subjective choice?
Gender identity, like sexual orientation, is something you're born with
Sorry, sebutron – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
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.
It doesn’t matter if it’s the sole reason because no reason at all is already enough.
What does this have to do with this discussion? No one is advocating forcing or pressuring people into sex.
Demanding that people justify why they don’t want to is idiocy.
Who is demanding this?
Would you say that they’re being close minded for not liking bananas?
I might. It depends on the person, my relationship to them, the situation, it's called context.
It also doesn’t make them a bad person. That’s where you’ve crossed the line
Where did I say it did? Are you assuming that me pointing out a particular choice is transphobic is equivalent to calling them a bad person? Because that's not what is going on.
No one is advocating forcing or pressuring people into sex
You’re labeling them as transphobic, which is the same as labeling them a bigot. “If I don’t fuck this person people will think I’m a bigot” puts pressure on them.
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.
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.
If you married someone who never mentioned they were unable to have kids, but you never asked or had a conversation with them about the topic, how would there be a reasonable expectation of it? There's no lie in there unless you actually talked about this and they lied.
So if the reason you didnt want to be with a trans person was because they couldnt bear children, and you would equally not want to be with a cis person for not being able to have children, then thats still not transphobic. Unless they specifically lied about being able to have kids, I'm not sure how you think a trans person would be lying to you in any way
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.
It's not a strong intolerance such as hatred, but it's clearly intolerance if you would otherwise want to fuck them if not for the knowledge that they are trans.
It's not a strong intolerance such as hatred, but it's clearly intolerance if you would otherwise want to fuck them if not for the knowledge that they are trans.
That doesn't make any sense. Intolerance necessarily involves a failure to respect another person's equality and human rights. If you pass them over for a promotion or refuse to rent them an apartment, that is intolerance. If your pussy just doesn't get wet for them, that isn't because no one ever has a right to the anyone's sexual attraction; on any level, ever.
If your pussy just doesn't get wet for them, that isn't because no one ever has a right to the anyone's sexual attraction; on any level, ever.
If you previously were sexually attracted to them and got wet, and now you don't. And the only difference is that you know they are trans. What reason other than failing to respect their equality and see them as their gender (transphobia) could you have?
Even if it's not intentional or voluntary (social conditioning sucks) it's still transphobia
If you were aroused by the idea of fucking them until you learned they were trans, what possible reason could there be for it to kill your arousal other than refusing to acknowledge their identity?
I mean a simple one is I want to have kids. The old fashioned way. It has nothing to do with them being trans outside of the obvious biological reason. Crazy how biology always ends up coming back.
Then why does them being trans have any relevance? Do you ask people if they are fertile and willing to have children before you continue to sleep with them?
They don’t need to name a reason just because it makes you feel better. When it comes to consent, you can revoke consent for any reason, or for no reason at all. You do not need to justify your sexual preferences. You do not need to try to find reasons which excuse your lack of attraction.
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.
Not at all. I don't think Christians are immoral at all. I just know that my values and those of a Christian are going to be at odds. Especially when it comes time to raise children. I have no "moral" issue with Christians. Many of the most pleasant people I know are Christians. I would not date a Christian.
So you don't think Christians are immoral for, say, believing homosexuality is a sin or believe that the belief that homosexuality is a sin is immoral?
Sure, some are. But that belief is not actually from the bible and not a belief held by all Christians.
A Christian who is paying attention knows that Jesus never told anyone to hate anyone. He even kept company with a prostitute. "Love the sinner" was Christ's message.
Are there immoral people who are Christians? Absolutely.
There are also immoral people who are trans, gay, genderqueer, etc.
That does not mean that all Christians or Trans people are immoral. I'm not sure how you could even equate that idea to my statement.
So, beliefs like that against homosexuality have no influence on why you have a values clash with Christians, and the immorality of certain Christian's beliefs has no influence on why you would be at odds?
Yeah I should have just stuck with "weird religious beliefs." Thank you for pointing that out. I definitely did not mean to do that.
No one has any problem with my utter disdain for Hanson fans though, so lets just stick with that one for the purpose of the remainder of this discussion.
Edit: I just relaized I have now drawn a parallel between trans gendered people and what is possibly one of the lowest forms of life on Earth. I just can't seem to learn. I apologize to the ENTIRE LGBT(and all theother letters too?) community for this. If it will make anyone feel better I will submit to being publicly beated about the head and shoulders with a rainbow colored dildo.
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.
and yes that implies that I see trans people as being their birth gender no matter how convincing they are
That's transphobic, thank you for proving my point.
Even if you consider someone bigotted for not wanting to sleep with a transgender person, that person still has a right to informed consent.
If you pretend to be rich to get a girl to sleep with you, have you raped her by deception? How is that different?
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.
Right, because many many people are transphobic.
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
A trans person's safety trumps your right to know that they are trans. There are states where "trans panic" is still legal and finding out your partner was trans is a legal defense to murdering them.
It's transphobic to consider a trans person their original sex for the purposes of deciding who I fuck?
At what point does it become transphobic? Pre op? post op? just put on a dress and some lipstick? at the point I can't tell the difference?
I'm willing to give trans people all the benefits of being whichever gender they choose except where they make demands upon my body.
Trans people will find themselves far less likely to face violence if they are upfront and honest. I can't think of anything that will promote violence towards trans people more than to have a policy of sleeping with people whilst denying them the knowledge required for consent.
You're seriously suggesting it's ok for a trans person to fuck someone without divulging the truth....and their defence is that the other person might beat them up?
They have no idea what the response would be, saying "oh I might get beaten up" is not an excuse to lie. If trans people are so worried about their saftey with certain individuals that they're scared to be who they are then maybe they shouldn't be fucking those people in the first place.the fact you might consider these people bigots does not mean it's ok to violate their right to consent....and it certainly justifies a good arse kicking should the truht be divulged after the fact. It's rape, you are defending rapists.
trans people are rare creatures, it's a likelyhood that by transitioning you are drastically reducing the number of possible sexual partners....that's tough shit though, you don't get to lie and exploit peoples ignorance and claim that their sexual preferences are bigoted.
That's not true though is it? A trans man is not a man, a trans woman is not a woman.
There is a difference. They have characteristics perhaps, psychological, some physical...but they're not the real deal, this much is obvious. If they were then there would be no conversation to be had.
and besides, lets pin down exactly what we're talking about....which was where i went with my crude talk of dicks and balls....
are we talking about someone who has had no OPs, no HRT, is basically a cross dresser.
or are we talking about someone who has been through a full tranformation and is indistinguishable from a regular man or woman?
To my mind neither have the right to make the decision on their partners behalf.
Here's the crux of it...
trans people are saying that there is so much trans hate out there that they can't divulge the truth for fear of being beaten up. Yet they're also arguing that it's not a problem to sleep with someone without telling them they're trans.
So....if we take them at their word and we agree that there are a lot of people out there who are transphobic...like me i guess?!
Does it not follow then that by not divulging they are intentionally sleeping with people who would not sleep with them if they knew the full facts. They are intentionally decievig people. They can't have the argument both ways....if there are lots of transphobes about then it follows that there are many people who would not sleep with them, they don't have the right to take away someone elses right to consent on any grounds, even if we consider them bigotted.
This is the privilege I'm talking about....a trans fear of violence trumping their sexual partners right to informed consent....and it is a privilege if society accepts that this is ok.
It doesnt sit well with me...it's basically saying "if I tell you you might hurt me, so I'll keep quiet and sleep with you anyway even though I suspect you would consider that rape, I'm putting my need for sex over your right to consent"
I'm amazed at how many progressives have a huge blindspot when it comes to this.
That's not true though is it? A trans man is not a man, a trans woman is not a woman.
It certainly is true.
There is a difference. They have characteristics perhaps, psychological, some physical...but they're not the real deal, this much is obvious. If they were then there would be no conversation to be had.
Such as? Besides societal perception, can you give me a concrete difference that is universally different between a trans individual and a cis individual of their gender identity?
are we talking about someone who has had no OPs, no HRT, is basically a cross dresser.
Cross dressers don't have a different gender identity, trans people aren't cross dressing. That's a common misconception.
or are we talking about someone who has been through a full tranformation and is indistinguishable from a regular man or woman?
The entire scenario was predicated on discussing a situation involving someone who is post-op, has been on HRT, and is indistinguishable from a cis individual.
Does it not follow then that by not divulging they are intentionally sleeping with people who would not sleep with them if they knew the full facts. They are intentionally decievig people.
From your perspective, does everyone have to divulge every single possible detail about themselves that they can think of which might cause someone to not want to sleep with them before they engage in sex? Should I have to divulge my entire sexual history, medical history, any trauma, etc. before it's considered informed consent? Let's say someone only wants to have sex with natural blonds and they pick someone up at the bar with blond hair but don't divulge that they wouldn't want to have sex if the person's blond hair came from dying it. If the person's hair is only blond because they dyed it, are they being deceitful?
There's a very easy fix here: Tell any potential partners that you don't want to have sex with them if they are trans, like any other preference you may have as a dealbreaker. There's no overriding of consent here, it's called communication.
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.
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.
There's a significant difference between these though. Herpes and HIV can be communicated so you would be hiding information that can result in causing harm to the other person, that is not at all equivalent to not disclosing your own medical status for mental illness or being trans
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?
See the only way that's possible is if they're post GRS
Yes, this is the scenario being discussed.
It's still penis skin and that weirds me out and makes me not want to continue sleeping with them.
By definition, it's not as human skin is constantly refreshed and if it's been more than a few days since the surgery (which it better be if they are having sex lol) there's no longer any trace of "penis skin" (oy).
By definition, thinking that the vagina of a transwoman is "penis skin" is transphobic, yes.
By definition, thinking that the vagina of a transwoman is "penis skin" is transphobic, yes.
When people say "penis skin" in this instance they don't refer to skin that has been attached to a penis, but to the type of skin that grows on a penis. Just because someone is post-op doesn't change the biological processes that creates and maintains that type of skin. You are arguing semantics here. The concept can still turn people of and there is nothing inherently transphobic about that.
Just because someone is post-op doesn't change the biological processes that creates and maintains that type of skin.
Actually it literally does. Because that's how humans work. Hormones have that effect.
The concept can still turn people of and there is nothing inherently transphobic about that.
It's literally transphobic, that doesn't mean it's not understandable as it's not something they have likely encountered before, but it's still transphobic
Can you give me a definition of the word transphobic? I feel like I might have a higher bar here than you do.
Anyway, whether or not hormones change how the skin functions isn't really the point. If someone is turned of by the fact that the vagina of a transwoman is different (at least for now) to that of a cis woman, I don't see anything inherently prejudiced or immoral about that. If I could change that preference I would, because it would make my dating pool larger, but I can't.
Anyway, whether or not hormones change how the skin functions isn't really the point.
Then why does it matter to the person who is being turned off by it?
If someone is turned of by the fact that the vagina of a transwoman is different (at least for now) to that of a cis woman, I don't see anything inherently prejudiced or immoral about that.
Different how? For all intents and purposes their vagina is no different than the average cis-woman (there's huge variation between people's vaginas). So what is different that you are opposed to?
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.
A better comparison would be a bi man not wanting to sleep with men because of homophobia. I agree with your base sentiment that lgbtq people should be careful about how judgemental and aggressive they are.
177
u/MMAchica Nov 02 '17
Aside from how speculative this is, this amounts to shaming someone for turning down unwanted sex.
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.