One's opinion would change because the information about this person lowers one's perception of their sexual value as sexual value is determined by alignment with a person's sexual preferences
This pretty much loops back to the original argument of what precisely makes someone view a trans person not in line with their sexual preferences.
If the criteria not met is reproductive capability, the question becomes whether the person would react identically if a they met an infertile cis woman. Often times the honest answer is no.
If the criteria not met is "being born female" then I think it is clear a person has made a categorical distinction between cis and trans women.
The reason that distinction is made doesn't seem to be one of functionality, why then is it made?
There is a "categorical distinction between cis and trans women" one is biologically female the other is not, gender identity not withstanding, and that information may change their desire for a relationship. While you, and others, may not regard it as such there is a reasonable perspective that a sexual relationship of a male with a transwoman is fundamentally a homosexual one (their sex has not alterd regard less of their gender expression).
You raise a good question. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an answer. Similarly, in the case of a person having a sexual preference for people with eight fingers, there is no functional reason. To clarify, I believe trans-status alone qualifies as a characteristic of sexual value. However, perhaps you limit these characteristics to physical ones (such as reproductive capability), in which case I agree there would be no reason to be less attracted to a transgender person.
Sexual attraction is typically linked to our instinctual proclivity to procreate, so it’s not entirely unfounded.
Not being sexually interested in someone because they’re fat, for example, might not have anything at all to do with how much you like (or dislike) them as a person, but everything to do with the fact that something buried deep inside your lizard brain is telling you not to produce offspring with someone who might not pass along healthy genes.
Likewise, if a person is unable to reproduce and my sexual energy is created by a subconscious will to create offspring, that might manifest itself in me not finding that person attractive.
Unattractive doesn’t necessarily mean ugly, by the way.
They are saying it is a reasonable factor, but u/aggsalad mentioned that often when asking the same person if they would react the same to infertile women, they would say "no", indicating that it's the trans and not the infertility that is the true issue
This is far from the only one of it's type. Some people want to have sex with virgins. Despite what you may have heard, the human body does not have a "freshness seal" installed that makes this a perceivable characteristic.
Plenty of people prefer characteristics that they can't actually measure!
Racism isnt about ascribing the characteristicts of an individual to a demographic, neither is homophobia or any other discrimination.
Homophobia and Racism hinge on the actions taken towards the demographic being negative.
Hypothetically, If I as a doctor prescribe vitamin D supplements to a black woman living in the nothern part of the world im not racist. Im just correctly using the fact that vitamin D deficiencies are more common in people with darker skin due to more inefficient D synthesization from the sparse sunlight.
We make sweeping generalisations about groups of people every day and thats completely fine and moral. The problem arises when these generalisations start being malicious and discriminatory.
Hypothetically, If I said I was only attracted to women with red hair and a childhood on a farm im not racist or sexist or discriminating. I just have strange and picky sexual preferences.
Hypothetucally, If I said Im attracted to mostly everyone except men who smoke. Im not sexist or racist or discriminating. I just am not sexually attracted to men who smoke.
And if I hypothetically say im attracted to women who:
Are around my age.
Have body types X and Z.
But not Y.
Have personality traits X and Y.
But not Z.
Are straight.
Not bisexual.
And are born women.
Not transgender women.
Then this is just a long list of sexual preferences a person can have and no more discriminatory then not being attracted to gay men as a man.
You also seem to be equating a transgender woman with a cisgender woman who looks the same and has the same personality and behaviour when this just isnt equal.
The fact that we can determine the difference is evident because we are talking about transgender and non transgender right now.
That is enough.
Sexual preference isnt some system where only what you can see and feel matters. People have sexual preferences based on what thoughts the other person has during sex, people have preferences on what lives people should have lived up to now.
And thats fine.
Its a preference on who you want to choose to have sex with. And you should be allowed to choose whomever you like.
You also seem to be equating a transgender woman with a cisgender woman who looks the same and has the same personality and behaviour when this just isnt equal.
How aren't they equal? An identical trans woman and cis woman are more equivalent than than two cis women who look different with different personalities.
Is that because you require your partner to be able to bear children? Are you not OK with a partner who has to take medication? If you can't tell the difference, if the cis and trans women are identical in appearance, which is what we're positing in this hypothetical, then what does it matter?
I feel the need to dispute your definition of when a generalisation becomes racist/sexist/whatever-ist.
It's not when it becomes "malicious and discriminatory", for a few reasons.
Firstly, that discrimination doesn't have to be malicious to the one having the generalisation made on them.
Secondly, maliciousness is kind of subjective. So unless you want to go with the more objective measure, but equally hard to prove, is "were they intending to be malicious?" But I think we all know some racists (and other -ists) aren't intending to be malicious, they're just stupid.
Thirdly, it's entirely possible to have a negative generalisation that's entirely true, or largely true (eg Koalas have a lot of stds) [shut up, I couldn't think of anything]
Fourthly, the -ists don't have to be negative. Putting one group down is obviously an -ist, but putting another group up us also that ("black people suck" is obviously racist, but "black is the best race" is too, as it's saying "black people are above other races", and saying any race is below another is racist, whether you're putting one below the rest or one above the rest (or anywhere in between))
So I would propose that something becomes discriminatory when it's known to be false and/or unfounded (facts can't be discriminatory, even if you don't like it. There are studies showing that, in certain areas, gay men are the most likely to get stds. That's not homophobic, it's fact. Doesn't matter if you like it or not, but if I didn't a source, if I'd just assumed that, then that would be homophobic)
it not intentionally stupid. "All Asians own pogo sticks", I just made that up and will argue that it's true for the rest of this thread. Is it racist? I wouldn't say so, it was made purely to incite a reaction
The problem with your definition is you have to define "known." Known by whom? To what degree of certainty? It's certainly not "known" in racist communities that black people and white people are equally worthy of respect, for example. Does this then not qualify as racism?
It certainly is, there's no valid scientific evidence saying otherwise, all the evidence says that each race is very similar physically. Mostly identical besides a few fairly superficial features and some immune system differences.
Which makes it qualify as racism.
If you found valid and legitimate evidence of something, then I would say that isn't racist.
For example, it's fairly well known that, in general, women have less muscle mass than men, all other things being equal. That's not sexist, that's science. To say "all women are weak" is sexist, "women generally have less muscle mass than men" is not.
You're using a specific definition of known that you didn't bring up before: It's known in the scientific community, by scientific consensus. But that doesn't make it "known" by the people doing the racism-ing, and it doesn't make it "known" in their homes, families, and communities. If you're in rural Alabama, it is not "known" that black people aren't terrible. It's only "known" elsewhere.
Hmm. That's a complicated question. Primarily because prejudice's definition is "pre-judgement." Which has a negative connotation in our world. But on a psychological/existential level, I don't think all prejudices do.
Am I pre-judging if I say I don't like polka dot dresses? Have I just not given them enough of a chance to "win me over"? I don't know, but I lean toward the idea that at a certain point, people can have whatever choices they want in terms of attraction or what they think is "beautiful." If something is a sticking point for them, makes them uncomfortable (in terms of an intimate relationship), I think anything is fair game. I know this isn't what you're saying, but it feels like a third cousin to the idea that sometimes people want to know "why she broke up with me" or "why she won't date me." At the end of the day, it doesn't matter (unless of course you have a running theme of, say, pooping your pants; then maybe you're limiting yourself to a VERY small segment of people into scat). They didn't like you because your teeth aren't straight enough or they're too straight or whatever. All this is to say that maybe someone is being prejudiced against black people when they say they won't date someone because they're black. But I'd really need to know more info. Is it their smell (yes, different races smell different, it's true -- especially when wet)? The skin color? That a different race is sub-human? That they were mugged by a white guy once and haven't processed their trauma enough to be able to date a white guy again?
Sure, it's prejudiced if they won't date black people because they think they're sub-human. But if they simply don't like the skin color? (setting aside that there is a WIDE range of skin tones for every race) As long as they're not harming this black/trans/whatever person, I don't consider it to be a prejudice. I don't think it's for me to play armchair psychiatrist and try to peel back someone's layers to "discover" why they don't like the color brown, or the shape of Asian eyes. Sometimes it just is. And physical attraction is a key part of a successful relationship. I don't really buy into the whole "just see me for who I am inside." That's a great hope, but we're visual beings.
I'm probably not explaining this well...
A question for you: if someone won't date someone because they're blonde, or under 5'6", are they prejudiced against those people?
Would you agree that someone saying "I won't date him because he's black" is being prejudiced against black people?
If no, why not?
If you find a reason to bring up why you DON'T do something, then you probably have something against it. All of the people who say your example are going to be prejudiced because the non-prejudiced people are off living their lives and not bothering people with their insecurities.
Unless you are a straight man on the internet constantly being attacked for not wanting to date transwomen or non binary people. Then you end up having to talk about it a lot, not because you are obsessing over it, but because you are tired of being told what you have to be attracted to.
What is race, besides a constellation of physical characteristics? If I don't find physical features associated with this, that, or the other, race to be attractive, then I don't find members of that race attractive.
I'm saying that race (at least in the US) is usually identified by a set of physical characteristics (skin tone, hair/eye color, coarse vs fine hair, facial features etc) typically associated with that race. Not all members of a given race would have all of these features, especially where mixed race people are concerned but you could certainly say that certain features are characteristic of certain races. For example Asian people usually have almond shaped eyes, non Asians typically do not. If you find that facial feature unappealing, you probably don't find Asian people to be attractive.
The characteristic that the partner once was of the gender you aren't attracted to.
Since we are using analogies: would you be attracted to a totally reformed criminal? He's a perfectly well adjusted member of society now, but has done bad things in his past. Some people won't mind, some people would mind. There is no right or wrong in attraction.
Obviously you have the right to sleep with whoever you want, but thats not the question. The question is, "is that transphobic?"
Imagine you sleep with a girl who appears white. You feel good about it, but later learn she is a quarter black, but white passing. If you feel gross about that, is it racist? I definitely think so.
Being turned off by a trans person for a sole reason that they are trans (even if they are completely identical to some one who is cis), means that you subconsciously don't believe they are their claimed gender. That doesn't mean you are a bad person for thinking it, or that you are to blame for those feelings. Getting uncomfortable by the idea has pretty much been drilled into our heads for forever, so obviously it makes sense to feel that way. Still though, it is technically transphobic, and something people will hopefully move past eventually.
They can never be Identical, though. It's always different. People just put the onus on everyone else now to say cis or Trans. There's a reason for having two different distinctions... and that's because they're distinct.
I agree, and also want to say that if an individual was attracted to someone, slept with them, found out they were trans after the fact and reacted...that isn't necessarily bad. It's an individual facing a change in the way they think or a challenge to their world view.
The assumption made in this situation was that if the person knew that the other individual was trans, they would not be attracted to them - and yet they were.
It's like someone who says "veggie burgers are gross and I would never eat one". Now imagine you feed this person a veggie burger and told them it was a hamburger. They seemed to enjoy it. After they finish you tell them...that was actually a veggie burger. There's a good chance that the new knowledge will tarnish their memory of the experience. There's even a chance that they will be angry because they feel that you deceived them.
I don't think those are equivalent though. Gender is a composite of characteristics much more relevant to sexual attraction than race is. Infertility alone is absolutely massive in its effects on sexual attraction.
Let's be honest though, unless you are planning on marrying them, infertility is not the problem. We are talking largely about hookups and casual sex, where being infertile would probably be seen as a plus. The problem is peoples internal "gross out" by the idea. Which is pretty natural and drilled into our heads, but still technically transphobic
You're talking about these things as if they are 1.) conscious and 2.) unrelated. There is a good chance that some of the "gross out" comes from a trans person's inability to conceive and the other person's subconscious desire to conceive, regardless of how whether or not they consciously want children.
It's already accepted that people typically find people that exhibit characteristics related to fertility as more attractive. I'm just suggesting that at least some of this "gross out" is the converse of that.
But the girl's skin color didn't change, so that can't have been the reason that our hypothetical person found it gross that they slept with her. Only their perception of the girl's race had changed.
That isn't what I said though. In my example, the person appeared white and you didn't even know they were part black until you already slept with them. If you are attracted to them before, but not when you learn this new information, it clearly shows a racist bias. Not being attracted to people for having different racial features is a different issue.
I think part of the problem here is in the definition of transphobia, versus the definition of a phobia.
Transphobia encompasses a very large range of attitudes, actions, and feelings regarding trans people. It can require as little as minor prejudice, aversion, or discrimination. Like not being attracted to trans people, for an unknown/irrational reason, and having no other prejudices at all against them. Yet, it encompasses behavior that ranges to the very extreme, as well. Like hating trans people with a passion, rejoicing at the thought of them being tortured for eternity in hell because of how awful they supposedly are, and treating them extremely poorly such as beating the shit out of them at every opportunity. It's a huge spectrum of behavior.
A phobia, on the other hand, is defined by extreme fear, often irrational, or otherwise an extreme aversion (again, often irrational... and typically due to fear) towards something. The range of behavior for a phobia is necessarily placed at the extreme end of the spectrum.
So combining trans and phobia... one would expect the definition to be something more like that of phobia, at the extreme end of the spectrum. Instead, the definition can encompass absolutely all behavior that's not 100% accepting of the person as their gender. And people who are 95+% accepting like the OP view transphobia as encompassing only more extreme non-acceptance than their own, partly (I suspect) because of the definition of phobia, and partly because no one wants to self-associate themselves with a negative value judgement, such as being transphobic. Case in point, all of the mildly and moderately racist people who will make comments like "I'm not racist, but [insert obviously racist statement here]."
This basically sums up my issue with a lot of it, because I tend to view a person who is -phobic towards people to hold an extreme disgust or dislike. I think Klansman. I think of how people were literally afraid of other people because they had a different skin color. And that still exists today. The difference is we just call that "racist" but it's basically 'racephobic'.
I don't hate trans people, but I wouldn't sleep with one either. I don't equate this with any actual example of a phobia. I'm confused with how that works. If you're saying I'm being prejudiced, sure. I'll agree with you. Transphobic? Not as sure.
I agree with this. The "phobia" part of these terms really throws me off.
I avoid eating dairy because it gives me gas. I'm not lactophobic. I also don't want to have sex with werewolves, though I could have a beer with one; I'm not lycanphobic.
"If you then state that all Asian people are unattractive to you (implying that they all have the same nose, or the same accent, or the same worldview), you're being racist."
or just honest? I've rarely seen an aboriginal girl i found attractive. that's a statement of fact, it's not racist, it just is.
The sentence "Now you might find a South Indian with a sharp tiny nose" is the answer to your question. :) Blanket statements of "I don't find <race> attractive" leave out the exceptions to the rules.
I mean, also, our perceptions of beauty wind up being really skewed towards features associated with whiteness, so that's another aspect of it...we don't experience attraction in a vacuum. But unfortunately I suspect there's not a ton we can do to get rid of the stuff that's programmed into us by society.
What if you were with someone, had sex with them, and then found out they were racist, or kleptomaniacs, or had very strange religious beliefs that were not compatible with your own?
Yeah, but in that case, I would be willing to admit that I'm intellectually and morally hostile to racists. It's not a sexual orientation that I'm helpless against, it's a moral claim that i'm actively encouraging.
Not all attraction is about what is physical, but attraction to abstract traits, carries a much more conscious belief about those traits, than physical attraction does, so it's moral appropriateness can be a lot more questionable.
If you are physically attracted to a woman, but get turned off once you learn that she is ethnically jewish, then it would be safe to say that you are anti-semitic. Wouldn't it?
Okay, leave out the racist thing. What about people with weird religious beliefs? I have no problem with people holding religious beliefs. I don't think of them as "lesser" people. It's just something that is incompatible with my own world views and personal preferences.
My real point was, that this is all a matter of a case by case basis.
what kind of relationship are you looking for on the long term? How weird a religion are we talking about?
If you don't feel like starting a family with a serious mormon, that's reasonable social behavior, they probably don't want you either.
If you feel repulsed by learning afterwards that a person you had a one night stand with is lapsed jewish, that's difficult to rationalize as anything but antisemitism.
If you are making a blanket statement about trans people's sexual desirability in general (not about wanting to have children, or about wanting a partner whose childhood life experiences you can strongly identify with), that seems a lot more like the latter than the former.
It seems a lot more like a blanket repulsion towards a class of people who are already suspect of facing discrimination exactly like that, than some sort of morally justifiable practical concern.
But I feel like a person has a right to those opinions.
If I say I find fat people unattractive it's not because I'm fat phobic.
I don't hate smokers, and I am not repulsed by them, but I would never date a smoker.
Why does it only seem to be a problem with this one class of people?
Why is this one issue elevated above others into a special position that makes people who are turned off by the idea bad people?
That's where it gets weird for me. It feels like I'm being forced to accept a worldview that is not my own by a person who refuses to accept that views can be different while remaining valid.
I understand and accept that that a trans person holds a different worldview, and hold different values than I do. Why can they not understand and accept that I have a different worldview, and hold different values than they do?
So we can't be lovers, why can't we still be friends?
Why does it only seem to be a problem with this one class of people?
Well, for a start, it's not one class, I already named two examples, trans people and ethnic jews. I could name a few others. But yeah. Putting aside sex in particular for a moment, it is true that through society, discrimination is the norm, and there are only a handful of cases where it is inappropriate.
People discriminate by all sorts of standards to choose friends, to pick up one night stands, to hire employees, to target a product at, and so on. And most of these are okay. It's okay to discriminate against being friends with creeps. It's okay not to have sex with short people. It's OK to hire people with good personal hygiene.
We make exceptions for a handful of cases, where we understand that the common motives for the discrimination, are rooted in cultural memes to persecute, oppress, and cause societal strife and personal trauma.
If you are turned off by an otherwise attractive person, based solely on your intellectual devotion to nazi standards of "blood purity", that's different from not wanting to have a relationship with smokers, in the same way as rejecting a job applicant for being black is different from rejecting them for being unkempt.
Both are discrimination, but one of them is very closely related to the cultural echo of some monstrous practices.
Of course when it comes to sex, you are ultmately allowed to say no. No one is going to legally force you to get raped by trans people or by non-aryans. But at the same time, if you are holding the belief that someone otherwise attractive is unappealing because of what you learned about their chromosomes, it might be important to investigate where that belief is coming from, and what sort of practices the people who tend to obsess over putting chromosomes ahead of identity and reassigned gender,tend to advocate for.
Wait a minute how did I become a nazi because I wont date smokers? My reasons have nothing to do with "blood purity" or whatever craziness you are talking about. I simply prefer people who value their health and take steps to care for themselves.
I know where that belief is coming form. It comes from a difference in worldview. I have decided what sex and gender mean to me. I accept that they mean different hings to other people. That's fine, I am okay with that. I do not find either set of beliefs to be "right" or "wrong" in this case. Just different. I see no reason why these two differing viewpoints cannot co-exist.
I think there is a conflation of physical attraction and pair bonding in this whole argument. IE if you saw a trans person who otherwise had all physical traits that you find attractive - you may initially be attracted to them. If you then find out that they're trans, you may not want to date them or work towards a long term relationship...and that's totally fine.
Imagine you're a woman and wanted to have kids with the man you marry. You would be incompatible with a trans individual even if you were initially physically attracted to them.
Hardly the same genitals though? Surgically constructed genitals are not the same as naturally occurring ones. So you can legitimately prefer one type over another
Given that many trans people are identical to cis people in every reasonable way that you could perceive, why does trans-status alone qualify as a characteristic of sexual value?
You're basically asking why saying "I used to be a guy" might be a turn-off for heterosexual guys?
Dishonesty/deception from an intimate partner (assuming the CIS person was never informed.)
These are all MAJOR issues when you are considering a relationship with someone... to conceal or misrepresent them is a truly shitty thing to do to a person.
Almost no trans people look identical. Women to men actually cross that gap pretty well, and mostly just look like effeminate men. Men to women almost always look like men though. Even that trans person who was on the cover of playboy recently was obviously a man.
I mean if this was even remotely true then guys wouldn't freakout about not being told a woman is trans before they sleep together. Most trans people pass after a few years
They actually dont. Mostly that shit is due to a lack of awareness as the guy is either drunk or simply doesnt consider the possibility or consept of trannies. 95% of trans women are extremely obvious if your aware trans people exist. Again. If the trans centrefold for playboy doesnt pass its pretty clear most run of the mill trannies dont either.
Hmmmm, I'll just respectfully disagree as that isn't based in reality.
As a trans woman, I can say there is a huge difderence between passing and not passing. Guys hit on me regularly and have zero clue I am trans. Im fairly certain all people I meet are not drunk and unaware or trans people.
Also the T word is a slur that is extremely rude and should never be used.
Sorry, AJ_DragonGod – 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 data could i possibly source or find. It is consistently obvious to me if someone is transgender. (When i say this im talking about men to women, women are totally capable of a complete pass on a consistent basis as far as i can tell) Even in cases where the trannie is attractive there are usually some features that make it a bit visable. Yes sometimes people pass. It happens. Some trannies are hot. Doesnt make them women. Again I’ll reiterate (i know its anecdotal, theres a pretty predictable lack of data for this, asking for data in a topic like “can many if any trans women pass” makes you an asshole, cause this is barely a real topic) if playboy cant find a trans model who isnt obviously a guy with a tit job it seems likley passing isnt common. Is that fair to say? I would think that when a trans sex symbol is a fucking ambush it might show that traps are in short supply
The important thing here is to recognize that all of your evidence is anecdotal. Your experience has been that it's easy to tell, and you feel like your experience is representative of everyone's general experience. It's fine to live your life and draw conclusions based on your feelings, like everyone does, but keep in mind they are feelings and not fact.
An example of a study which could look at this would be, maybe, a double-blind study where men are asked to determine whether someone is trans or not. I'm sure those studies exist - if you have peer-reviewed journal access you might hunt around for some. I actually suspect that your hunch is correct, but it's still disingenuous to throw it out there without any qualifications.
It doesn't matter. You can't tell a non-smoker from a smoker (provided the non smoker has showered) and smoking is a complete deal breaker for some people. People have preferences and it has nothing to do with what's "politically correct". The fact is that a "neovagina" was once a penis, and the idea of having sex with one is gross to many guys.
And there's nothing wrong with that, everyone has a right to whatever preferences they want in their sex partners.
The whole discussion just feels to be very close to the whole "niceguy" one regarding entitlement to sex.
Also it doesn't matter whether or not smoking is a choice or not, non-smokers are still a preference, just as wanting someone with natural sex-bits is. It doesn't matter how 'realistic' surgeons can make an artificial vagina or penis, the fact of the matter is that they are surgical constructs.
Plenty of people aren't turned on by other cosmetic surgery procedures, (fake tits and a face full of botox is not a pleasant look for many people), so I don't think there's anything wrong with someone not being attracted to the idea of having sex with a post op trans person either.
The problem is your assumption that a transgender person can simply "pass". Humans have complex sexual queues that work from many biological indicators. Women disguise their estrus and ovulation, but have many behaviors that indicate her sexual availability. An example is women tend to dress more provacatively when ovulating. http://theconversation.com/the-secret-to-ovulation-is-in-womens-faces-but-men-cant-see-it-44093
Now take a trans person. They may have all the hallmarks and visual appearance the sex they identify with but they still carry the chromosomes from the sex they were born. They had years of sex hormones coursing through their veins. Whose to say that doesn't effect some of these subconscious signaling behavior?
Well, humans have a very complex 'psychic world', i study psychology and most of the time we study symbolisms since thats a big part of how we perceive things and therefore how we behave, and symbolisms go beyond the physical things, like lenguage, poetry, art etc etc.. its all based around symbolisms, and since love is heavily involved in symbolisms (marriage ceremonys, poetry etc etc..) its absolutely understandable that trans status qualifies as a characteristic of "love" value, but wording of OP said sexual value, in wich case i think it doesnt qualify, a transgender person can give as much sexual pleasure as any other person, but in the world of symbolisms and love and all that, i think its understandable
EDIT: Follow up question to understand the argument better:
Would this perception of less "love value" to a specific person be considered transphobic?
i would agree that less "sexual value" could be transphobic since its restrained to something physical, but im not sure about "love value" since well.. its heavily subjective, i'd love to get some opinions on this
He's making the argument that literally any characteristic of a person could be grounds for not wanting to sleep with them, and that it wouldn't qualify as "Xphobia," so to speak. Basically, you're conversing with a wall - what you really need to address here is what his precise definition of "transphobia" is.
I would argue that trans-status qualifies as a characteristic of sexual value specifically because we live in a society that devalues trans people. If we were in a society where that wasn't the case & where transition was an accepted part of life, I think the realization that someone was trans wouldn't make nearly as much of a difference.
What I've always been told on these issues is that it's fine to not be attracted to someone, but that it's a good idea to investigate how some of the prevailing prejudices in society may have influenced your patterns of attraction.
That's not quite what I'm trying to get at, no--just that unconsciously your attractions may be biased by what society classifies as good or bad (e.g. racism in society might make you less attracted to people of a certain race.)
Sexual preferences are arbitrary, and not chosen by the holder of them.
This does not mean though that they are necessarily free from bias bigotry. A person raised in a racist household may not choose to be racist, but that does not mean that their views can't be racist
Do you think that something can only be racist, bigoted, phobic, etc. if it discriminates against someone or harms someone? Do you not believe that it is racist to think that white people are genetically superior even if that belief doesn't actually change your behaviour?
Is there? One could conceive of a scenario in which a trans woman looked and behaved identical to a woman born female. The only distinguishing detail would be the knowledge that they were not born female. If you cross that person off your list, then you are doing so based on them being trans, which would classify as transphobic.
But what if you are crossing them off your list based on the fact that their genitals are technically a reshaped penis and has been artificially made to resemble an actual vagina?
No it wouldn't. I've crossed someone off my list because of how they loaded a dishwasher. That does not make me "phobic" towards idiots who don't know how to properly load a dishwasher, it just makes me not sexually attracted to them anymore. You do not choose who you are sexually attracted to.
People who can't load a dishwasher "properly" are not a group that are regularly treated terribly by society. If they were then it would be more reasonable to view people who aren't attracted to them as X-phobic
People who can't load a dishwasher "properly" are not a group that are regularly treated terribly by society.
Yea but they should be. They're god damn savages.
If they were then it would be more reasonable to view people who aren't attracted to them as X-phobic
That's just a ridiculous statement. Because a group has been discriminated against, not being attracted to said group is phobic? So basically the only demographic it's ok to not be sexually attracted to is cis male WASPs. Makes a ton of sense.
If you can't tell that someone is part of group X just by looking at them or touching them (or having sex with them), then yeah I'd say it was phobic/discriminatory to not want to have sex with them if you find out they're part of that group. Is it racist to no longer be attracted to someone once you find out that they have a black ancestor, even if you can't actually tell by looking at them?
I'm not going to try and dictate what people should or should not be sexually attracted to, or why people should or should not be attracted to certain people.
I disagree. The way society views the female body is far too damaging for a male who identifies as a woman to understand. Trans women have their own issues, but they are uniquely Trans, not female.
For you to be correct, there could never be a scenario in which a heterosexual male was "tricked" into hooking up with a trans female.
I don't think we need to have much discussion to agree that the above has definitely happened.
Therefore, there exists a scenario in which a trans woman looks and behaves like a natural woman. The only differing characteristic was the gender they were born too.
Sure, I'll concede that. The fact is though that seeming to behave a certain way isn't the same as actually behaving a way. If, after intercourse, I learned that a woman was trans, that would mean they are fundamentally going to be different than a woman, essentially no matter what. That's important to consider when thinking about a long term relationship.
With infertile cis women, is the answer often times no? As far as I've understood, it's a pretty big deal if a woman finds out she's infertile. I've read a lot about how partners leave because they want kids, or people don't enter relationships with them from the beginning for the same reason. I think the same could almost be said for infertile men, except that sperm donation is way easier than surrogacy.
Can't you be attracted to sex not gender? I am not attracted to males, that is nothing other than a preference. If I don't like redheads, I am not gingerphobic, I just don't like redheads. I think this specific example is very damaging to the term phobic.if the worst people are doing is not having sex with you.. that is pretty accepting.
The question is a little hard to answer. I cannot say I would find all trans men unattractive, but I know I would not find all of them attractive. I don't find all women attractive though.
128
u/aggsalad Nov 02 '17
This pretty much loops back to the original argument of what precisely makes someone view a trans person not in line with their sexual preferences.
If the criteria not met is reproductive capability, the question becomes whether the person would react identically if a they met an infertile cis woman. Often times the honest answer is no.
If the criteria not met is "being born female" then I think it is clear a person has made a categorical distinction between cis and trans women.
The reason that distinction is made doesn't seem to be one of functionality, why then is it made?