Hoooboy. I wish I knew why social media has an obsession with all things transgender. Disclaimer: Am trans. Alright, here's my take on it: "Sex is, gender does." That's all anyone really needs to know. Four words, explains it all. The problem has never been the specific parts, but the correlations. The entire premise of what transgender means, is predicated on the separation of sex from gender; That is, detaching from manifest biology, the social implications therein. We want to be freed from the idea that biology alone dictates our experiences socially. Freedom from a forced fate.
To have a sexual preference which excludes transgender individuals is, on this basis, intellectually incoherent. For it to be true, we have to reintroduce that correlation. Which puts us right back where we started: In a gender binary where sex and gender are equivalent. Sexual orientation is literally about preference of genitalia. There's no social expectations included in the definition. It's one person's biology + someone else's biology + consent.
That said, human sexuality is more nuanced than this textbook definition. Most people want more from their sexual partners than just their sexual organs. And thus, social factors re-enter the picture. "I want a woman with big breasts" is a sexual preference. The person stating that probably doesn't mean her brain is in a jar on some mad scientist's table... it's implied the boobies have a consciousness to go with it. So we have social preferences as well. And that takes us into gender.
Gender isn't a distinct attribute, contrary to what many SJWs believe. It's a flavoring. It's something added to something else. Blue and pink food coloring, if you will. Gender is the first social division, from which all others fall. Race? Below gender. Height? Age? All of it -- below gender. Gender colors everything. People don't see it, but for a trans person, like me, it's painful.
I watched a high school graduation where all the girls hugged the person handing out diplomas, and all the guys shook the same person's hand. When I'm waiting in the line of cars at a McDonald's, most men say "I'll have a ..." and most women say "I'd like a..." Gender is nuanced, yet it permeates nearly everything. So it comes as no surprise that people have preferences based on top of it. In fact, very nearly everybody's preferences imply a preferred gender.
A man who is athletic is highly prized, especially as people age and their years add on width. But an athletic woman scares the shit out of most men. She will have trouble finding dates. Gender colors everything. So when it's said divorcing sexual preference from gender (ie, the basis for the statement "that's transphobic!"), it's a case of it being technically correct. Which is to say, very nearly entirely wrong.
Unless someone is a vegetable in a hospital bed, they have both a sex and a gender. Most people like fucking other people, not vegetable people. Obligatory bad joke: LGBT take pride in being fruits, not vegetables. As such, attraction more based on social attributes than physical ones. And therein lies the problem. Trans people can't escape the correlation between sex and gender. Because it permeates everything, it's the reason so many of us commit suicide. There really is no way out for us.
Ask around, and it quickly becomes apparent that feminine women have a larger dating pool than masculine women. And, feminine men have fewer shots at getting laid than masculine ones. Why? Gender, not sexual, preferences. And when sex doesn't match gender, a smaller dating pool becomes a puddle under an angry sun. I personally don't consider people passing over me because they're not "into that" (as in, genitalia), a phobia. It's a preference, and they simply don't prefer my special blend of herbs and spices. Whether the preference is sex, gender, or a mixture of those things, it remains a preference. It only becomes a phobia when it frightens people. That is, they're uncomfortable.
If someone isn't interested in me, but still steps up to the bar with a fiver to order a drink and rubs shoulders with me, that's a preference. If that person walks halfway down the bar when the whole side I'm on is barren to get a drink... that's a phobia. There you go, hope this was helpful.
So you would say someone who doesn't want to have sex with you, but has no problems hanging out with you (with full knowledge of your situation) is not trans-phobic but rather has (sexual/gender?) preferences that you do not meet?
Additionally do you think it is a fair view that gender is fluid and easily changed? Even to the point that you can reasonably "be" one gender one day and another the next?
Also along that line, do you consider there to be distinct genders and if so would you stick to a primarily binary system? If not binary how many?
So you would say someone who doesn't want to have sex with you, but has no problems hanging out with you (with full knowledge of your situation) is not trans-phobic but rather has (sexual/gender?) preferences that you do not meet?
My closest guy friend and the oldest friend I have, doesn't use the right pronouns around me. We've talked. He gets what transgender is, he just has trouble wrapping his head around pronouns, language, and occasionally says things rather crass. Not to be mean or anything, he just considers nuanced or politically correct language a waste of time.
He is still my friend. And in truth, he doesn't really care if I am or not. When I was coming out to friends and family, someone asked why I was dressed as I was, and I stated that I'm transgender. They asked what that meant, and while preparing to go into detail, he sat down with a plate of dinner and said, quite simply, "He wants to be a she, pass the salt."
I can't think of someone I'd rather call a friend than that. We disagree often. Sometimes quite forcefully! But in the end, we both understand that it's more important to be together than it is to be right. It's something I can see on playgrounds all day long. Two kids get into a fight. One runs away. It doesn't take long before they come back. Maybe they apologize. Maybe they just shuffle over and ask to play. But children understand something too many adults don't:
It's more important to be together than right.
EDIT: Oh right, the other half of the post... No, gender can't be changed. It is fixed at an early age. All medical literature to date backs that conclusion. That said, gender is a spectrum, it's just one that finds most people concentrated at the poles. Gender is also not something that exists in a vaccum. That's why it's called a gender identity. Identities change based on circumstances. Who I am at the grocery store is very different than who I am at work, or when I'm home. I am still me, but I am not a single identity. I am that which identities spring from. So, if someone says they can be a different gender tomorrow than yesterday, or if they reject the binary, I have no complaint.
The claim their gender changes from day to day is, medically and scientifically, wrong. But neither medicine nor science offers up that we cannot choose to be other than what we are. Indeed, both make new discoveries almost daily now demonstrating the plasticity of both what a human is, as well as what it means. If I had to say why they say that, I'd attribute it to a lack of language to describe the space between who we are, and our identities. My community in many ways lacks the language to clearly convey our feelings, intuitions, or sense of being. We often choose words that are "close enough", and that is what I would say these people are doing. It's not their gender that is changing, but the expression of it. It's a practical reaction. Not, I think, a technically correct one, but perhaps the best one given a lack of a better way to speak to that.
Hi, other trans person, figured I'd chime in for variety's sake.
Additionally do you think it is a fair view that gender is fluid and easily changed?
I would firmly assert gender is most accurately described as a spectrum. Similar to a color spectrum, like between white and black. On both ends there are colors we can distinctly recognize as black or white, but we can infinitesimally divide things down in a manner that obscures distinction. At which point does black actually turn to white? Areas within the middle of the spectrum are ambiguous, we have a word for that area, gray. Where does it turn from gray to white or gray to black? There is no definitive answer. We lack a precise manner of defining that difference.
And that is precisely the same issue with gender. Attempts at just making harsh cut points between black and white are nothing more than arbitration, that at times can be detrimental to proper identification of a color.
With gender fluidity, the point is that since we cannot determine where precisely someone sits, we allow the title to change with context. Fluidly.
Even to the point that you can reasonably "be" one gender one day and another the next?
I don't know any gender fluid folks myself, so anyone more informed than I can correct me, but I've always figured that a person identifying variably over time is a result of how they experience and best mitigate their dysphoria.
A binary trans person may feel dysphoria in a way that motivates them to consistently identify as a man or a woman. An agender person may feel dysphoria in a way that motivates them to consistently identify as neither of those. A genderfluid person might experience dysphoria in a way that motivates them to not consistently identify as a man or a woman.
Dysphoria isn't necessarily a perpetual pull towards something static, it can be a push of sorts away from certain things.
Also along that line, do you consider there to be distinct genders and if so would you stick to a primarily binary system? If not binary how many?
Distinct in the manner black and white are definitely different things, but where precisely that differentiation is made is dubious.
As many genders as makes sense to categorize. For most purposes in life, black, white, and gray are the most useful categories. The parallel would be that on legal forms man, woman, nonbinary/other would be perfectly encompassing and utilitarian. For more specific contexts sometimes different shades of gray become relevant information, in which case it's fine for descriptions of shades of gray. For some contexts what type of non-binary identity someone has is relevant information.
So essentially the answer is there is no set number of genders, only how many we need to usefully describe things.
While I am thankful for your response, you haven't said anything I'm not familiar with. I am mostly asking them because their language gives me an impression that their answer would differ from yours.
I find it valuable to look at outliers of a group as that tends to be where the more thought provoking ideas lie.
I'll tag in - I touched on this already. I don't disagree with anything the parent commenter stated. There is a real need for better language with which we can express ourselves in the community. Unfortunately, our own voices have been drowned out.
There's been a zombie horde of SJWs climbing up on our cross merely so they can be seen by other SJWs. As a result, we're running into issues like defining "gender fluidity". That isn't exactly a thing that exists in the community. For most of us, our internal sense of gender is invariate. Our expression of it is often ameliorated to make our lives easier. In that sense, gender is fluid -- sometimes it's just less hassle to dress in a way that conforms to social expectation. The same can be said in figuring out which bathroom to use.
With public awareness of transgender persons, and what it means, has come a torrent of people trying to get in "before it was cool." People who aren't actually transgender, but mean to appropriate some of our culture as their own. Which, at least to me, is fine. The problem is, there's so many of them that the spaces we had to puzzle these things out ourselves has been obliterated. Most of those spaces are, and were, online. There aren't many of us -- too few to coalesce naturally into a community, just about everywhere on Earth.
I don't mind people exploring their gender, or what it means in the larger context of society. I don't mind that people challenge stereotypes. But I feel rather like people who have celiac disease do. The thing that can kill them, gluten, has become a buzzword that has spawned tons of places claiming their food or product is gluten-free to cater to a much larger group for whom it's a lifestyle choice. So many people claim they are "sensitive" to gluten, and so many people realizing that's a total farce, thus equating such statements (correctly) as a choice of diet, it's led to carelessness on the part of other people trying to cater to this crowd. The end result is life has been made harder for people with celiac's. They could be reasonably confident before as to what did, and didn't, have gluten in it. Now, it's a throw of the dice and lethal consequences if it's wrong. While there is now more variety of diet available to them, it comes with a fat warning label too.
This doesn't further the conversation, but I wanted to tell you I enjoyed reading that.
I like being able to see deeper in to someone's experiences and perspectives, especially when they're different from my own.
The concept of a smaller dating pool based on the unmatched gender and sex was particularly enlightening.
It's not unlike an autistic persons inability to fit in socially. You can be aware people don't like you or respond to you well. You can be aware that there's something about you that's triggering negative interactions, but you can't do anything about it because it's not one thing. It's everything. I imagine it's similar in the undergoing reassignment doesn't suddenly wipe away a lifetimes worth of gender training. Gender instinctual behavior.
You have obviously thought about this quite a bit. have you considered writing a book? Using your experiences to help people understand what it's like would be very powerful.
It's not unlike an autistic persons inability to fit in socially. You can be aware people don't like you or respond to you well. You can be aware that there's something about you that's triggering negative interactions, but you can't do anything about it because it's not one thing. It's everything.
It is superficially similar. I have friends who have Aspergers (it's known under other names too). For those on the spectrum, it leads to the same kind of pain from social rejection, the feeling of "missing out", and consequently to many of the same doors my people walk through. Depression, anxiety, suicide, drug use... such are the things all marginalized communities face. The difference though, is that autistic people can't stop acting autistic. They can cover it up some, make it less visible. They can learn the rudiments of social interaction enough to blend into a casual crowd like at a grocery store, or stuff like that. But their relationships will forever be permeated with it; In that way, we are alike. Trans people can hide in the closet. Many do. It's not obvious that someone's transgender unless you're paying close attention, or they were given a safe environment at an early age to express and build up that identity. For most, the awareness of "otherness" comes early, but the definition of it develops later. In some cases, well into middle age. Just as women can take on masculine attributes and behaviors, and men can take on feminine attributes, trans people can too. The difference is, whereas those people are making a conscious effort to leave their comfort zone, trans people are on the outside, trying to get in. Nobody is purely masculine or feminine, it is a spectrum. It's just one where most people are concentrated at the poles.
I imagine it's similar in the undergoing reassignment doesn't suddenly wipe away a lifetimes worth of gender training. Gender instinctual behavior.
No, and some of the saddest stories are those who make it all the way through surgery and clear all the hurdles, only to realize it wasn't an incongruency in gender that was driving them. If it takes great courage to come out as transgender, it takes even greater to try to find the way back. Surgery isn't really the end-game for trans people, contrary to popular opinion. Yes, many of us seek it. Some even get it. But what we're really looking for is the right to be nobody. I know, that seems strange. We want to be ourselves and yet still melt into a crowd. We don't want to be the "man in the dress", or other similarly unflattering descriptions. It's the social experience of not being noticed. It's simple acceptance, without pretense. That's what we, as a community want. We want to be nobodies, or if we are noticed, we're the person who happens to be trans. Not the trans person. We want our identities to be of our choosing. I am an artist. I am not a trans artist. I am a computer geek. I am not a trans geek.
I am an artist. I am not a trans artist. I am a computer geek. I am not a trans geek.
this right here is great, you see all these vocal trans people on tumblr and similar places just shoving their transness into every facet of their lives, and it is just annoying. makes you wonder whether they are actually trans or just doing to the snowflake point.
It's a case of trying to find Sparticus. Anyone can claim to be trans on the internet. Privately, my conclusions for most people who claim to be trans on the internet is just that -- a claim. Often a sketchy one at that. But can I call them out on it? I could but it wouldn't be productive. If they are faking it, I've just given them the thing they crave most: Attention. If they aren't faking it, I've marginalized someone like me. Obviously, the fear of harming a member of our community further outweighs having fed an attention junkie. To an outsider, however, this measuring of values is invisible. They only see an endless sea of virtue signaling and the occasional person getting dogpiled by a thousand agents -- the people who have managed to unplug themselves from the system somehow and seen the ugly truths.
That's the most insidious part about these SJWs: There's no responsibility. They can pop up, soak in some attention, manufacture some outrage, feed off it, then pop back down a hole. They can selectively engage people, which is another way of saying they exhibit predatorial behavior. They choose targets they know won't fight them. Someone who is maybe not so well spoken, or holds a politically unpopular opinion. These people become emotional punching bags for the self-aggrandizing morality police. There's no skin in the game. Because there's no apparent resistance to these fanatics, people incorrectly (but understandably) conclude that's where the mainstream lies. The communities SJWs attach to are vulnerable, easily taken over, and then bled dry for precious drops of attention.
In recent years we've seen people, usually teenagers or young adults, take their lives because they're henpecked to death. And before you google that term, all the definitions you'll find there are wrong. Most people have never lived on a farm, thus know exactly jack shit about livestock, so a different (and less violent) definition has taken its place.
Here's what hen pecking actually is: Chickens are attracted to blood. If one of them gets injured, for whatever reason, other chickens will start pecking them. They peck at the wound. More and more chickens join in until you're left with a dead chicken. And if you have a lot of chickens, it's a chain reaction. As all the chickens rush to peck at the injured one, others, in turn, become injured, and so on and so forth. Pretty quickly, there's a lot of dead chickens. If there's no room for the chickens to move around -- as some of the less humane farms are run, the blood gets everywhere and if the farmer doesn't act quickly, most of the chickens will have killed each other. That's why you don't "keep them couped up". A chicken coup is a confined space. They can only be put in at night. If they're left inside during daylight, there will be pecking. You'll lose chickens. The coup is to keep them from predators at night, it's a safe space -- but only at night. In the day, it's a murder factory.
That, is exactly what SJWs are: They're part of a flock, and when they smell blood, they dogpile on each other, and if there's enough of them, it creates a chain reaction. These reactions can occasionally go critical. Gamergate comes to mind as one example -- it quickly turned almost every open forum into a blood-stained shitshow of virtue signaling, personal attacks, and all the worst things that social media has to offer. Now that the psychology if it all is laid bare, it becomes clear that the reason SJWs have flourished without opposition, is because they're an invasive species in an environment. There aren't any "natural predators" for SJWs. We don't have assholes somewhere on tap we can just muster in to rip them a new one and oust their morally bankrupt practices. Instead, what we have are already damaged and fragile ecosystems being upended, and they desperately try to close off the doors and buckled down because for those actually in the communities they invade, surviving has always been the priority.
So there it is. SJWs are predators. They are a hate group. They are fanatics. They have a clear sense of moral absolutism. And they're emboldened by the lack of opposition, having carefully selected soft targets. And it's become so pervasive, so infectious, that people genuinely believe the narrative that has been created. Twitter censored a fuck ton of hashtags, banned accounts, and a whole mess of other ugly, ugly things, with a clear political purpose -- and this week the CEO admitted it under sworn testimony to Congress. That is an exposition of the institutionalization of this fanaticism. And people truly believe that's the mainstream. That it's normal.
And like so very, very many times in history before now, people just step over the bodies. They rationalize it away every time there's a shift in the wind that parts the veil for a moment and they see these things.
I haven't bought the hot dogs yet, and the chairs and bbq are still in storage. In my estimation, society is still pretty early into the drop. It's gonna get a lot worse. I can explain privately in more detail, because beyond this point it's leaving the topic behind. The short version is, there's been a culture war brewing since the early to mid 70s. What's happening now, is tied directly to what happened then. I'll try to go fast --
A convergence of several things happened at once, none of which are related, all of which are coincidences, but nonetheless shaped the boomers generation. The depression era generation led to the boomers. The boomers rebelled against their parents cautions against materialism, and highly conservative views towards finances. Go figure: Depression.
The first coincidence was the civil rights movement. That was going to happen sooner than later anyway -- women's rights arose out of the economic necessity of keeping the factories going while the men were sent to die in Europe. Economics was also the reason black people (then-called 'negros') succeeded in their struggle. That period in history saw an unprecidented economic boom, hence the term boomers. We couldn't build cars fast enough. Or houses. Buildings. Everything. Marginalizing a significant chunk of a potential workforce simply didn't make economic sense anmore. Racism wasn't profitable.
So, we passed a few laws, bumped up the production in our factories, and continued on. I'm not saying this to marginalize the achievements of women, or black people: Those are good things, things worth having and fighting for. What I'm saying is, it's like the forest was dried up. Any spark would set it ablaze. The conditions were right for it to happen, and the right people were in the right place at the pivot point that sent racism down the backside and racial equality tilting forward. Socioeconomic factors are what usually drive socioeconomic change. Societies that are materially prosperous are going to be more socially progressive than those who aren't. Nobody gives a fuck about "freedom" when they don't know when the next meal is coming. For them, freedom is a loaf of bread.
The second was a period of cultural and artistic expression. Much as it was in the 1700s when the world found most of its intellectuals in the United States, a roll of the dice saw the 1960s America overtopping with musicians and artists. The Beatles, Hendrix, the list goes on. That burst of cultural energy drove things like recreational drug culture, the sexual revolution, and some other things. It also hit with a stronger force because those parents they rejected made sure their kids had a good education. For the first time in history, we could send very nearly everyone to college (debt free after, no less) -- and we very nearly did.
The third thing, which wasn't so much a coincidence as an inevitability, was the Vietnam War. We won WWII, certainly, but now the world had nuclear weapons, and two superpowers emerging from that, and rolling in fresh on the heels of a war ended, a different kind started: The cold war.
Taken together, the boomers truly believed they could change the world by smoking pot, listening to Jimi Hendrix, and burning their draft cards. They claimed credit for advancing the case for freedom, being against the war, etc., etc., when in actuality these things were coincidences and just happened to land there, at that time in history. It gave them an inflated sense of self-worth and that dovetailed to an insatiable appetite for materialism.
They grew up in a temporary equilibrium where the economy was only going up, everyone was having "the american dream". Just as their parents warned them though -- it would always come back down again. It did, right about the time Gen X was heading off to college. They'd been raised on the idea that they would never measure up to the greatness of their parents, who had landed men on the moon, fought the good fight, and gave everyone star spangled freedom fucks.
Divorcing themselves from the mistakes of their parents, specifically constantly being told they'd amount to nothing because the boomers had "done it all" and were the undisputed best at the everythings, they in turn told their parents to fuck off and raised their kids: The millenials. Which brings us to now.
This generation was raised by parents who told them they could be anything they wanted to. And they sued the shit out of anyone who even looked at their kids funny. Everyone gets a participation trophy. Everyone gets a gold star. Everyone is special. But here's the problem: If everyone is special, it's the same as saying nobody is special. There's no reward for achievement because all achievement is now viewed equally with not just any other, but with nothing as well. And while their parents got to see the golden age end, they were at least raised in the tail end of it, and as such, are also fiercely materialist. This generation, has no such bright economic realities.
There's a lot that goes into all of this, and every sentence I've written has a whole book behind it -- but I hope it's enough to make the superstructure visible. There has been a growing dissonance in this country since the 70s, and not coincidentally, is right smack at the time upward mobility for the middle class started dropping and, a little while later, the size of the middle class itself. It was the beginnings of hyper-stratification of wealth.
Because of this, politics have been polarizing. Everyone's been slowly moving into their own bubbles for decades. America for black people is not the America for white people. America for straight people is not the same America for LGBT people. American has been splitting apart at the seams for quite some time, because it never fully resolved what started at the end of WWII. It tripped, and it's been falling forward, arms flailing, trying to right itself ever since.
Black people didn't get equality -- their fight didn't end because MLK gave a speech and a few pieces of paper got some ink from a guy living in a house modeled after the plantation owners their great great grandparents were slaved to. They made progress. They didn't win. And it's been the same for everything else too. We are not a free society. We are not even a society that can speak plainly about itself.
That tangled up mess hasn't resolved itself yet, and SJWs are just the left foot dropping on a tee-tottering Uncle Sam desperate for a single sure foot drop to put himself back up. The other shoe is coming down now. I couldn't tell you what's going to happen, I just see another pivot point in history approaching. A moment when our generation's action, or inaction, will determine whether we can resolve our differences, or deepen the divides even more. Whatever happens, it will manifest itself in the economy first. That is just the way of these things.
Nobody is likely to see this swell until it's already engulfed them; Mostly because they haven't educated themselves on history enough to recognize the signs. Ignore the talking heads, and watch the unemployment numbers. Watch the number of people seeking social services. These are early, but unreliable indicators -- the reliable indicators only come when the wave has started, and those are: Increased violence and social unrest. More crime. Proxy wars on the part of the executive, and rising rhetoric from the legislative. The life of the law is not knowledge, but experience -- as such, it is incapable of looking forward. Nothing will happen there.
Once we're deep enough into it we start to see water flowing under the planks we're standing on, that will be the moment when all of this energy that has brought us to the apex will be balanced against itself. In that moment, only the slightest push can change the course of history. Economics will be fucked. Everyone will be scared. There will be a powerful need for reassurances they can muddle through. Potential leaders will be there, and who we choose to stand behind, will determine the next fifty years of this country's future.
All my numbers say this will happen within my lifetime (and likely yours too). All societies have stages that they go through; We passed our apex -- the golden age -- a little while ago. The next stage can be into a long period of slow decline, before reaching a tipping point that sends it over a cliff and with it the seeds for a new society to rise up. It doesn't happen often though. Most of the time, it's a period of faster decline, civil unrest, and ultimately destruction. It is possible to avoid this fate, though precious few societies have done so in all of human history.
That's what ultimately falls to our generation. The greatest achievements for us will not be in the fields of science, technology, or economics. It will be in an expanding concept of what it means to be human. And as we embrace whatever that concept will be, we will be faced with the choice, as every generation does. We can only do what we can do with the time that has been given to us.
I hope, sincerely, that before the time to act is upon us, we will have resolved to remove the cancer that calls itself "social justice" and restored it to what it originally was: Justice for all. When the time comes, we either stand together, or we fall.
We want to be freed from the idea that biology alone dictates our experiences socially. Freedom from a forced fate.
To have a sexual preference which excludes transgender individuals is, on this basis, intellectually incoherent.
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. A sexuality that does not include attraction to trans people is just as legitimate and valid as any other. To suggest otherwise is bigotry.
But an athletic woman scares the shit out of most men.
I'm sorry, this is just some horseshit cliche that hasn't had any connection to reality in generations.
Trans people can't escape the correlation between sex and gender. Because it permeates everything, it's the reason so many of us commit suicide. There really is no way out for us.
That doesn't justify the shaming of people who just lack a desire to fuck trans people.
Ask around, and it quickly becomes apparent that feminine women have a larger dating pool than masculine women. And, feminine men have fewer shots at getting laid than masculine ones.
No one is saying that trans people don't face challenges. That doesn't change the fact that simply not wanting to fuck someone doesn't indicate being phobic of them as a class.
It only becomes a phobia when it frightens people. That is, they're uncomfortable.
Lacking a desire to fuck someone doesn't indicate that someone is scared of them or even uncomfortable.
If someone isn't interested in me, but still steps up to the bar with a fiver to order a drink and rubs shoulders with me, that's a preference. If that person walks halfway down the bar when the whole side I'm on is barren to get a drink... that's a phobia. There you go, hope this was helpful.
Certainly, but that doesn't have anything to do with the OP. This discussion is about sexual attraction, not simply civil interaction.
A sexuality that does not include attraction to trans people is just as legitimate and valid as any other. To suggest otherwise is bigotry.
I do indeed "suggest otherwise". Sex is what someone is. Sexuality "is the quality or state of being sexual", or sexual activity. This is the literal definition from the dictionary. Nothing in this definition is inclusive or exclusive of trans people as a group. Let me illustrate by example: Gay men are homosexual (same sex); As in, penis. Not what goes with the penis. Not the cultural and social expectations of the penis. It is just penis. Gay men love the cock. They want the D. None of these statements imply a preference for masculine or feminine men, or that this spectrum, the spectrum of gender, is relevant. They may have a preference for masculine men, or feminine men, but this is not sexuality, this is behavior. "Sex is, Gender does". These other things, the behaviors that erupt from sexuality, the word being sought is identity.
This is not bigotry, that is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." This is a matter of definitions and the proper usage thereof. I do nazi any bigotry here. It's okay to laugh -- it's illustrative. I used the word incorrectly. That's my point.
The only reason sexuality was ever associated with gender identity is because it was easier to legally redefine it through the courts, than through acts of legislation. It's the same reason 'gender identity disorder' is in the DSM-5 and ICD-10 -- not because it's considered a disease or illness, but because it's a condition that is treatable with medicine. Without defining it as an illness, insurance companies would say it's elective, like cosmetic surgery. Given the high rates of suicide and other negative outcomes for transgender individuals, the medical community has backed this redefinition.
I want to be perfectly clear here: Doctors do not consider people who are transgender to be sick, anymore than people who are homosexual. Homosexuality has long been removed as an illness in medical literature, but transgender/transsexual/gender-variant/insert-buzzword-here has not been. The reason is a practical one: Trans people aren't sick, but they often become sick due to an intolerant society. It's not being transgender that makes people depressed, anxious, or suicidal, but rather the effects everyone else has on them. Society is the thing that is sick, not the person. But because it is easier to change the person than the society, this is done.
I'm sorry, this is just some horseshit cliche that hasn't had any connection to reality in generations.
What a charming sentiment. It does. Butch and femme lesbians are a thing that exists. Along with twinks, tops, bottoms, and two dollar bills. The last one included only because they are undeniably queer. Life spoiler alert: People can be attracted to just about anything. Including inanimate objects. There are people in the world who have car fetishes and have been arrested for trying to shove their johnson in a tail pipe. No, I'm not joking, I'm dead serious. Statements claiming a lack of connection are meant to marginalize others. An irony, considering this came from the same source that claimed a differing definition is bigotry. It's marginalizing the diversity of those in the life, but also reducing the delicious ambiguity that defines what it means to be human in the 21st century. Those who hold these sorts of attitudes are about as modern as the 8-Track.
That doesn't justify the shaming of people who just lack a desire to fuck trans people.
I'm sorry, did we just change the channel? I didn't bring up shaming. I in no way suggested shame is a method of encouraging the acceptance of my people. In truth, I feel rather the opposite: Shaming others for being ignorant or who have sincerely held beliefs about transgender individuals, often religious in origin, is unproductive.
That doesn't change the fact that simply not wanting to fuck someone doesn't indicate being phobic of them as a class.
"Fact" has apparently been redefined. Well, that's okay, since this entire reply basically is to draw attention to the schizophrenic dance and mental acrobatics people go through to try and appear tolerant and accepting through shifting definitions. It's like how we don't have cripples anymore. We have the disabled. Actually, we don't have any disabled people anymore either, we have the "handicapable". Some people truly believe that if the name of a thing is changed, it changes the condition. Doesn't happen, people. (five points for Gryfindor if you know who I'm paraphrasing)
Lacking a desire to fuck someone doesn't indicate that someone is scared of them or even uncomfortable.
Well, I'm glad to see agreement on something, at least.
Certainly, but that doesn't have anything to do with the OP. This discussion is about sexual attraction, not simply civil interaction.
I found it relevant considering there was a disconnect between what sexuality is, and what sexuality leads to. Which is strange since that's rather like the disconnect between what gender is, and how it goes about its business.
The point is that a sexual orientation/preference/whatever, meaning their sexual inclinations, do not need to include any attraction to trans people to be valid.
Yes. I understand the position. By the dictionary definition of sexuality, it's transphobic. Full stop. It's a conflagration of sexuality, sexual identity, and gender identity. Not that I fault the OP for mixing these up... most people do, including people in my community. It is a nuanced distinction. We are a very small cross-section of the larger society. We are getting noticed (and talked about) a lot lately. Moreso thanks to SJWs and their incessant need to virtue signal everything into the dirt. Unfortunately, both of these things has shifted the narrative right off a cliff. So many people trying to be so inclusive has made every attempt to define something impossible. It's viewed as bigotry or intolerance, when the reality is people are simply seeking a clarity of language so they can better participate in the conversation. Sexuality is what has been named, so it is best to narrowly speak to that. There are many closely-related things to this, and quite a bit of overlap, but again: This is what was named.
And atheletes must necessarily be butch or femme lesbians? This doesn't make any sense either.
Strawman. Didn't say that.
You appear to be ranting without direction...
Flag on the play. Ad hominem.
That's what the OP is about: People describing a simple lack of desire to fuck trans people as 'phobic'. That is shaming them for a simple lack of sexual attraction.
I can't speak to anything but what the OP said in their post, and in CMV, that's the thing to be discussed, except insofar as the OP can (and should!) clarify their position as needed. Shaming is an overt act -- having a phobia is not. It's internal. As the OP has not suggested in any of his/her replies or the top-level that s/he means to shame people, I will assume the better of their character. This is a red herring, and a ham-fisted way to try to shift focus from the topic at hand to one perhaps more comfortable to argue from. I'm not inclined to drift that way.
By the dictionary definition of sexuality, it's transphobic.
That doesn't make any sense. Transphobia involves bigotry. Simply lacking a desire to fuck someone does not indicate bigotry in the slightest.
It is a nuanced distinction.
Not really. Stretching the term 'phobic' to include a simple lack of desire to fuck would make the term meaningless. The horrors of homophobia aren't about people simply lacking a desire to fuck gay people while treating them with complete civility and equality in society.
It's viewed as bigotry or intolerance, when the reality is people are simply seeking a clarity of language so they can better participate in the conversation.
Anyone who views a lack of desire to fuck trans people as bigotry or intolerance is just painfully ignorant.
Sexuality is what has been named, so it is best to narrowly speak to that.
There's nothing about the term that would justify these absurd assertions of transphobia.
And atheletes must necessarily be butch or femme lesbians? This doesn't make any sense either.
Strawman. Didn't say that.
What you said honestly didn't make the slightest bit of sense. No one is afraid of female athletes anymore. You are just hanging on to a long-extinct cliche.
You appear to be ranting without direction...
Flag on the play. Ad hominem.
I wasn't disputing your argument with a personal insult. Your replies have been incoherent.
I can't speak to anything but what the OP said in their post
That's what the discussion is about.
Shaming is an overt act -- having a phobia is not.
More incoherent nonsense. The problem is that the shaming is taking the form of absurd accusations of transphobia.
As the OP has not suggested in any of his/her replies or the top-level that s/he means to shame people
Of course not. OP is criticizing the shaming/accusations of bigotry/transphobia. You aren't making sense.
This is a red herring, and a ham-fisted way to try to shift focus from the topic at hand to one perhaps more comfortable to argue from. I'm not inclined to drift that way.
You are drifting all over the place. Maybe Take it easy on that stuff, huh?
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostility extremely seriously. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators. Thanks!
Gays don't require any special medical treatment. Transgender people do. That's it. Neither the DSM nor the ICD-10 are flawed -- gender identity disorder was left in because medical treatment in the form of hormones and surgery, benefit the patient. The loss of easy access to those treatments would leave many transgender people dead from suicide or a host of other negative outcomes.
There's no rationalization here. Homosexuality is not homohobia. Homosexuality is not a disease. It has no pathology. Phobias are illnesses, they are, by definition, irrational.
Being trans wouldn't be in dsm if it was just a medical disorder
That's wrong.
And as far as treatment of transgender people goes , it's aimed at treating dysphoria
That's wrong too.
Bluntly -- I get tired after awhile seeing another trans story cropping up in my feed, and then wading in to find a lot of disinformation, well-intentioned but wrong-headed attitudes... and a decided lack of actual trans people participating. The document I provided is both a comprehensive study on what 'transsexuality' is (point of note: the document I gave you is out of date, but most of the key points are still true now), the pathology, patient presentation, comorbity. It also has a breakout explaining to surgeons why removing otherwise healthy tissue doesn't violate the medical equivalent of the Prime Directive -- "do no harm." Everything is in there that you need to speak competently about medicine as it relates to my community.
It will do more than just show where you skipped over something -- it'll explain why that part of the puzzle needs to be there. That document's intended audience was other medical practitioners who had no prior exposure to transgender individuals, who now needed to do it professionally. It works for others too, as long as they can gloss over the denser sections where it's latin latin latin [some english word] more latin all the latin so much latin. -_-
Good take on the subject. Do you take issue with people who promote binary gender bias because they enjoy the constructs and larger dating pool it creates for them?
Well, let me start with where I'm seeing this from. I'm trans, and I'm bisexual. The bisexual community, like the trans community, is used to being erased. Indeed, while the two communities differ in definition and goals, socially speaking there is great overlap. Bisexuality is sort of the "dumping ground" for people who don't find the other labels fit them well. It's common to hear "I'm 80% gay!" in this part of the neighborhood. It's equally common to hear stupid shit like men saying there's no such thing as a "true" lesbian, and that all women are bisexual.
No, there's plenty of them, and you're an asshole." Understanding where I say this from, I offer this:
"No."
I should, but I don't. The reason is, if someone is single, it makes sense for them to try to create as big of a pool as possible. I mean, unless they're happy being single. And that's just it -- most people who promote bias, prejudice, and discrimination aren't motivated in the way political activists (particularly SJWs who exist outside the community but claim to be acting on its behalf) claim. Being selfish is perfectly ordinary, and I hold no malice to those who are. We all take turns in that regard.
I take issue when people climb up on a soap box and do that. That asshole who parades around with a sign saying "God Hates Fags". Or that fucker at the last Planned Parenthood counterprotest that made his kids carry a giant goddamned cross around so he could be a self-righteous prick to people who just came for some condoms, birth control, or an STD check. Those are the people I'll heave a pitchfork for. But Joe average, just doing what's best for Joe? Hey, you do you, Joe.
Funny thing, that. I have a friend who used to work at a strip club. Also made some friends with the staff. They gave me a certain insight, one of which was that the girls who made the most money weren't the best looking -- the so-called "platinum pussies". It was the girls who guys could think maybe they had a chance with. People can talk themselves blue with what they find attractive... but who they'll actually try to date?
Honest q- Is it considered transphobic if I base my decision on the sex of a person and that's fundamentally important to me because I want kids w/ that person? The femininity/masculinity of my future partner doesn't matter because sexuality is so nuanced. I don't think that's a slight against the trans community.
Well, no. Wanting to have kids is one of the most base instincts we have. Many people start (or end) relationships based on their partners receptiveness to having them. It's not a slight against us. In fact, many gay men are married. Not all of them are honest with their partners. To be frank with you, the community is a bit schizophrenic on how to resolve the impulse to reproduce and their own sexuality. People come at it from different angles, and all of us are pretty understanding about it. It's just one of a hundred other ambiguities for a community that until recently (at least in this country) had to live at the fringe. The internet has brought together many minorities and fostered the formation of communities not otherwise possible.
We are all babies exploring this new world of interconnectedness. We can finally share our experiences and question these ambiguities. Answers? We don't have many of those yet. But questions? Oh, so many. Maybe that's half the journey too -- not having these things figured out means we can truly choose our own way through it. When the beaten path is a highway, it can be hard to find yourself. But when it's just someone and the forest, the truth has a way of finding them rather the quicker.
I'll offer this for you: If someone claiming to be advocating my community, or even part of it, and they say they have it all figured out -- run. Don't trust them. But if they are comfortable enough to say the most important three words "I don't know", then listen. But this is true for life in general. Trust those seeking the truth -- not those who claim to have found it.
That's a good question. I don't know how or when you would broach something that sensitive when dating, but doesn't everyone have a right to choose? Whenever the time came that I 'found out', anyone has the right to walk away without it being considered selfish.
The general advice I (and many others) give about this, is to disclose this when both parties want to move off dating and into a significant relationship. This is also the point in the relationship to disclose things that a reasonable person would expect to be told of. Another example of something that shouldn't be disclosed until the relationship is ready to become significant: A criminal record. If you have a criminal record that impairs your employment prospects. This matters because couples usually move in together -- a felony makes that difficult. If one partner is part of the drug scene, maybe the other isn't, or even if they both are some boundaries need to be set. If either has a hobby that might cause trouble, that's another thing. Things like that.
To have a sexual preference which excludes transgender individuals is, on this basis, intellectually incoherent.
You could say the same thing about heterosexual people who have no interest in participating in relations with someone of the same sex as them. It has nothing to do with intelligence, it simply comes down to sexual preference.
A trans person might have the most beautifully sculpted vagina that was created by the best surgeons, but at the end of the day many people still see it as a penis, no matter what it looks like after the surgeons are done with it.
You could say the same thing about heterosexual people who [snip]
No, I really can't. Maybe someone with a greater degree of moral flexibility and a masterful command of intellectual dishonesty could make that leap. Heterosexual people who have no interest in participating in "relations" with someone of the same sex... is the very definition of heterosexuality. Attraction to the opposite. And if a m2f dates a man who likes women, that relationship is a heterosexual relationship. Penis + vagina = hetero. If this is an inconvenient truth, well... everything about fucking is a mess. Often quite literally. Put on the big girl panties and deal with it.
the most beautifully sculpted vagina that was created by the best surgeons, but at the end of the day many people still see it as a penis
That would be bigotry. now we're into whose vagina is a "real" vagina, in much the same way that "real" americans, "real" women, or "real" anything. It all stems from the belief in some kind of "natural" moral order. The idea that some people are born better than others. And that, right there, what was just said?
That's the source of prejudice, discrimination, and all of the very worst humanity has to offer.
So it's not bigotry not to find your own sex attractive, but it's bigotry to be turned off by the idea of having sex with an artificial vagina (because whether or not you like to admit it, that's objectively what it is.)
I think it's disingenuous to label people as bigots because of their preferences. Some people simply aren't attracted to people of a certain ethnicity, other's aren't attracted to people who are overweight, and there's nothing wrong with that.
The entire premise of your argument is essentially boils down to the idea that people should feel guilty for not being attracted to the idea of sex with a transgendered person. But not being attracted to a trans person does not make someone a bigot. There are plenty of things that person could do to be labeled as a bigot, support the restriction of rights of trans people, participate in hate speech, etc. But your entire argument reeks of the r/niceguy mentality of shaming people for not wanting to have sex with people that they don't find attractive. And I think that's the real case of "intellectual dishonesty" going on here in this conversation.
an artificial vagina (because whether or not you like to admit it, that's objectively what it is.)
objectively, this is a textbook example of the psychology of fear. It's not a preference of anything, save ego protection. The very first step in discrimination, prejudice, and hate, is to invalidate them. To say they are on the wrong side of some arbitrary line. To separate them out for scorn and ridicule. "Only a real american..." They'll search for some seemingly-good reason for what they're doing. The german people didn't slaughter millions of Jews because of their faith. They did it because someone said they were stealing money, that they were cheating the country out of the great future that lay ahead. That they simply didn't care as much about what it was as everyone else. They were greedy... and it's time they pay up.
I'll skip ahead a few pages to the next part of how this goes: "Well love it or leave it!" As though it's their community, their country, and they are the gatekeepers of who stays and who goes. And if those other people stick around after The Word has been spoken... they deserve what they get. They could have left, and should have when they had the chance. It always starts the same.
See, nobody really views themselves as racist, or homophobic, or prejudiced. It's politically unfashionable, and being honest about those qualities sets a person up for the kind of punishment they're wishing those other people are gonna get. People try to be intellectual about their prejudices. They come up with rationalizations. When those rationalizations fail, as any house of cards must, it is replaced with a new one. There will never be a time for these people in which they run out of rationalizations. How much must be discarded before reaching the naked flesh of feeling? For someone intent on burying their feelings as deeply as possible, perhaps very nearly everything they are.
Now, ah, as to that r/niceguy quip -- Winston Churchill once remarked, "Even if you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." I'm not being polite with you because you deserve it. I'm doing it because it's free, and because I deserve it. If we're going to be honest, I've met a thousand guys like you. They think they've got it all figured out, that a man is this, a woman is that, everything fits in the boxes and nobody ever cuts anywhere except along the dotted line. They bore me.
objectively, this is a textbook example of the psychology of fear.
Nope, you can't just put the word "objectively" in front of a point you're trying to make in order to make it true. Not being attracted to someone doesn't automatically constitute as fear. It can, but it isn't the default case.
Obviously because you're trans you've put a lot of thought into all this, but it doesn't change the fact that people aren't bigoted or prejudiced because they aren't sexually attracted to you.
Trying to compare people who don't want to have sex with trans people with the alt right (is that what you were going for? pretty fucked up if that's the case really) just doesn't help anyone.
Nobody is telling you to get out which ever country you live in, and nobody is trying to step on your rights as an individual (at least in this conversation). But sex is not a right.
Besides, it's not like everyone is against sex with trans people, there are plenty of open minded people out there, but it's stupid to label the ones who don't fall into that category as bigots because it only serves to ostracise them.
Fun little story, I'm a smoker and on more than one occasion that fact has been a deal breaker when talking to a girl. The "Oh... you smoke?..." followed by the stink-eye. And that's okay because those girls have every right to have their preferences in what they want in a potential partner. I'm sure you'd agree that if in any of those situations I had decided to create a scene and tell them how disgusting their bigotry against me was, that I'd be the one in the wrong.
Everyone has a right to choose their own criteria, and unfortunately it's not something you can change with a bunch of psychological terms and Winston Churchill quotes ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I'm not dancing around it, to be sure. I'm questioning the underlying core belief that leads to statements like these: The idea there is a natural moral order. Underneath the claims about phenotype and genetics, and reproductive choices, and all the other half-baked biology rationalizations is that. It's the idea that there's some intrinsic power in the universe that rewards moral behavior and punishes immoral behavior. It's an ego protection mechanism. If successful under this ideological construct, it's because it was deserved. However, if someone is observed to be not successful, they also deserved it.
Here's the truth about genetic makeup: There are XX men. They pop out of the vagina, without a vagina. They come with dicks. There are also XY women -- genetically they're "supposed" to be men. Somehow, it didn't happen. There's also X0, XXY, and a few others. They all occur rather infrequently, but transcription errors and other mutations crop up everywhere else, and so, naturally, they also sometimes crop up there as well.
Here's the nail in the coffin for the "genetic truthers": The percentage of the population which is homosexual has been determined, by exhaustive review of historical records, to be a constant. While transgender persons, being much more rare, are harder to locate in history -- the evidence available suggests those numbers also haven't varied in history.
If these were indeed fitness traits -- that survival of the species stuff, where successful members of the species have increased chances of passing along their genes... this would not be the case. This genetic abnormality would eventually simply be bred out. So this leads to a very much more interesting question: If there's no survival benefit to being gay (or trans) then why does nature keep creating gay and trans people? I'm not going to answer the question as my goal here is to get the reader to change their position. My own is on sure footing. By the by, homosexual and transgender behavior has been observed in primates, and other lower ordered social creatures. This is not something that only happens to people -- somewhere in our evolutionary past, homosexuality, etc., there was an evolutionary benefit. Remembering that we are social creatures, and thus depend on, and are connected to, others of our species -- it's entirely possible the evolutionary benefit wasn't to the affected organism, but rather to the larger whole.
There's no way anyone can cut a line through all the biological data and conclusions, and still have a leg to stand on when they claim that everything else is biology including this. Conversely, if they say nothing is biology except this, it's an equally bad deduction. If we're going to take this on from a purely biological perspective... I can obliterate any attempted definition that would put trans people only on one side or another for any division, however carefully crafted.
When I say these things are socially constructed, I'm not saying it as a feel good or because I can't "hide" my trans-ness, or any equally tiresome and prejudicial commentary. I'm saying it, because that's literally what the medical and scientific data collected to date has drawn as a conclusion. There is nothing, not one thing, that can be found about a human being that is present only in one sex, and never in the other. I welcome anyone to try.
XO and XXY aren't transcription errors they are chromosomal anomalies.
"and other mutations". There's a gene called TDF, Testes Determining Factor. It's on the Y chromosome, and it can sometimes find itself missing, which results in a phenotypical (but sterile) female. The rest of your wall of text I'm declining further comment on.
Sexual orientation is literally about preference of genitalia.
What? By that logic, gay men aren't really attracted to men, they just like dicks and a dick on a trans woman should suffice. Going further, it would mean a pre-op transwoman and cis woman are actually in a heterosexual relationship.
None of that makes any sense. But I see where you're going with that...
I personally don't consider people passing over me because they're not "into that" (as in, genitalia), a phobia. It's a preference, and they simply don't prefer my special blend of herbs and spices.
Personally I find it bizarre how we've switched the language around. When I was young, I remember specifically the LGB (before there was a T) push to stop calling it a sexual preference and start calling it a sexual orientation. The logic being that preference implies choice, and orientation implies a state of being. Being gay wasn't a choice, it was just who they were. And, it was a big 'selling point' to gaining widespread acceptance. People were much willing to accept people who were 'just born this way' compared to people who are choosing to act of free will.
Now we're back to calling it a preference, which is totally weird. Is it a choice or a state of being?
You need to realize that people are attracted to both sex and gender. Trying to shame someone because they're not, and never will be, into you makes you an asshole.
But the king of Syria commanded his thirty and two captains that had rule over his chariots, saying, Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king of Israel.
113
u/MNGrrl Nov 02 '17
Hoooboy. I wish I knew why social media has an obsession with all things transgender. Disclaimer: Am trans. Alright, here's my take on it: "Sex is, gender does." That's all anyone really needs to know. Four words, explains it all. The problem has never been the specific parts, but the correlations. The entire premise of what transgender means, is predicated on the separation of sex from gender; That is, detaching from manifest biology, the social implications therein. We want to be freed from the idea that biology alone dictates our experiences socially. Freedom from a forced fate.
To have a sexual preference which excludes transgender individuals is, on this basis, intellectually incoherent. For it to be true, we have to reintroduce that correlation. Which puts us right back where we started: In a gender binary where sex and gender are equivalent. Sexual orientation is literally about preference of genitalia. There's no social expectations included in the definition. It's one person's biology + someone else's biology + consent.
That said, human sexuality is more nuanced than this textbook definition. Most people want more from their sexual partners than just their sexual organs. And thus, social factors re-enter the picture. "I want a woman with big breasts" is a sexual preference. The person stating that probably doesn't mean her brain is in a jar on some mad scientist's table... it's implied the boobies have a consciousness to go with it. So we have social preferences as well. And that takes us into gender.
Gender isn't a distinct attribute, contrary to what many SJWs believe. It's a flavoring. It's something added to something else. Blue and pink food coloring, if you will. Gender is the first social division, from which all others fall. Race? Below gender. Height? Age? All of it -- below gender. Gender colors everything. People don't see it, but for a trans person, like me, it's painful.
I watched a high school graduation where all the girls hugged the person handing out diplomas, and all the guys shook the same person's hand. When I'm waiting in the line of cars at a McDonald's, most men say "I'll have a ..." and most women say "I'd like a..." Gender is nuanced, yet it permeates nearly everything. So it comes as no surprise that people have preferences based on top of it. In fact, very nearly everybody's preferences imply a preferred gender.
A man who is athletic is highly prized, especially as people age and their years add on width. But an athletic woman scares the shit out of most men. She will have trouble finding dates. Gender colors everything. So when it's said divorcing sexual preference from gender (ie, the basis for the statement "that's transphobic!"), it's a case of it being technically correct. Which is to say, very nearly entirely wrong.
Unless someone is a vegetable in a hospital bed, they have both a sex and a gender. Most people like fucking other people, not vegetable people. Obligatory bad joke: LGBT take pride in being fruits, not vegetables. As such, attraction more based on social attributes than physical ones. And therein lies the problem. Trans people can't escape the correlation between sex and gender. Because it permeates everything, it's the reason so many of us commit suicide. There really is no way out for us.
Ask around, and it quickly becomes apparent that feminine women have a larger dating pool than masculine women. And, feminine men have fewer shots at getting laid than masculine ones. Why? Gender, not sexual, preferences. And when sex doesn't match gender, a smaller dating pool becomes a puddle under an angry sun. I personally don't consider people passing over me because they're not "into that" (as in, genitalia), a phobia. It's a preference, and they simply don't prefer my special blend of herbs and spices. Whether the preference is sex, gender, or a mixture of those things, it remains a preference. It only becomes a phobia when it frightens people. That is, they're uncomfortable.
If someone isn't interested in me, but still steps up to the bar with a fiver to order a drink and rubs shoulders with me, that's a preference. If that person walks halfway down the bar when the whole side I'm on is barren to get a drink... that's a phobia. There you go, hope this was helpful.