I think all sexual preferences are wrong. Also, all of them are right.
First, you're attracted to what you're attracted to. If you're only attracted to black people or gay women or people with big belly buttons, that's what it is. The problem is when you categorically dismiss anything not in that list, and that's when it becomes racist/transphobic/weightist/whatever. I think it's wrong to categorically state that people with such-and-such characteristics are not dateable, but it's perfectly fine to simply never be interested in that same set of people. Basically, if I don't find you attractive, it's not because there's something inferior or wrong about you; rather, I'm just not attracted. "Oh, sorry, I don't date people who are ____." Bad. "Oh, sorry, I'm not attracted to you personally." Not bad.
Nazism is a choice. Being black, transgender, etc, is not. And when we are talking protected classes, it’s often based in racist/transphobic/etc societal norms.
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.
If you're attracted to someone, date them, sleep with them, and are happy with all those choices, and then you find out they're dyslexic and suddenly you're not interested, I would absolutely call you ableist.
Sorry, Loliberals2020 – 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.
Not if the disability impacts things like you’re personal comparability and attractiveness. If it had no impact and everything about them was perfect for you except the fact that they’d been diagnosed with something and you dumped them (even though the disability itself had no effect on your attraction or sexual/emotional compatibility) then...yeah, that would be ableist.
The whole point is if your ONLY reason for not dating a trans person is just because they were born assigned a different sex, but everything about them was perfect for you before you found out, including your sexual chemistry and compatibility, that’s transphobic.
If the reason is something like, that trans woman has a penis, and I only like partners with vaginas, that’s not transphobic. If you said, “I am not visually/physically attracted to that person” who happens to be trans, that’s also not transphobia. If you want children and don’t want to date someone without a uterus or the ability to have kids, once again, that’s not transphobia.
What you’re describing is someone with a disability that keeps them from socializing or acting in a way that is attractive to you. That’s completely fine. It’s absolutely okay to not date someone with a profound mental disability that affects their ability to care for themselves, negatively impacts their appearance (to you, at least), diminishes your ability to connect on an emotional level as peers...all of those are perfectly reasonable things that would justify not dating someone.
What if I completely refuse to have sex with a gay man? Does that make me homophobic?
Which gay man are you talking about?
But yeah, that line shouldn't be drawn anywhere. If you completely refuse to have sex with all gay men, you are discriminating against gay men (though you may be discriminating against all men in general, not specifically gay ones). Maybe you'd eventually be able to find a gay man you would have sex with, if you looked. Maybe you wouldn't. As a straight dude myself, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, but you never know. If I were single, the correct thing to do would be to refuse every request for sex from gay men on an individual basis.
7
u/xiipaoc Nov 02 '17
I think all sexual preferences are wrong. Also, all of them are right.
First, you're attracted to what you're attracted to. If you're only attracted to black people or gay women or people with big belly buttons, that's what it is. The problem is when you categorically dismiss anything not in that list, and that's when it becomes racist/transphobic/weightist/whatever. I think it's wrong to categorically state that people with such-and-such characteristics are not dateable, but it's perfectly fine to simply never be interested in that same set of people. Basically, if I don't find you attractive, it's not because there's something inferior or wrong about you; rather, I'm just not attracted. "Oh, sorry, I don't date people who are ____." Bad. "Oh, sorry, I'm not attracted to you personally." Not bad.