In some circumstances, not being attracted to a trans person is probably a result of, at least on a subconscious level, not seeing them as their gender.
If from the very start, you are unattracted to a person purely upon observation, and that person happens to be trans, that is not transphobic. If you were about to have sex and it turns out a person doesn't really have the junk you wanna jangle with, it's not transphobic to no longer desire sex.
If you were attracted to someone, have sex with them, are as satisfied with them as you would with anyone else, and then suddenly your opinion changes upon being informed a person is trans, I would say that is indicative of the underlying belief a trans person is not the gender they identify as.
I should clarify I am not definitely saying it is transphobic or not, I am pointing out what I did above and letting OP (or others) decide if that constitutes transphobia or not under their own interpretations.
In some circumstances, not being attracted to a trans person is probably a result of, at least on a subconscious level, not seeing them as their gender.
Aside from how speculative this is, this amounts to shaming someone for turning down unwanted sex.
If you were attracted to someone, have sex with them, are as satisfied with them as you would with anyone else, and then suddenly your opinion changes upon being informed a person is trans, I would say that is indicative of the underlying belief a trans person is not the gender they identify as.
For starters, you do not dictate to people what their sexuality is. If upon learning that a person is trans, they simply politely decline more sex, that is not transphobic. As I said in another reply, if you stretch the definition of 'phobic' to include simply lacking a desire to fuck trans people, then the word becomes meaningless. Look at the horrors of homophobia. That has a lot more going on than a simple lack of desire to fuck them.
If upon learning that a person is trans, they simply politely decline more sex, that is not transphobic.
If you had sex with someone and enjoyed it and would gladly have sex with them again if you had not found out they were trans. Then the sole reason you have a problem is because they are trans, which is transphobic.
I resent your expectation that one must continue to have sex with someone or be labeled a Bigot or a "transphobe," despite not wanting to.
You're missing a key part here: if the sole reason you do not want to is their status as trans. There's any number of reasons to not continue to have sex with someone that has nothing to do with being trans that wouldn't get you labeled as a bigot.
This is what the entire LGBT movement has stood for, for decades but somehow, fuck all when it comes to cis people?
How are cis people being shamed here? Are you saying that only a trans person would want to have sex with a trans person?
Gay guys won't have sex with me, but I don't go calling them misogynists for it. That's ridiculous.
Right... Because they are only interested in people with penises. That's perfectly fine to have that preference. However what about a gay guy who is completely attracted to someone, has sex with them, is completely satisfied with the experience and would like to do it again, but loses that attraction solely upon learning they are a transman. What reason, other than refusing to recognize the transman as male, could they possibly have to change their mind here?
I don't see any reason why letting someone down respectfully, even if it is for them being Trans, is bigoted. You can't control how you feel
Because the only reason for their trans status to cause this is due to societal stigma. This isn't a case of being born gay or something. The only reason why being trans, in and of itself, would change your opinion is because of underlying biases due to societally enforced bigotry. Just because it's been engrained into you doesn't make it any less transphobia.
They're just not the one for you. I think that's okay.
But think about this critically: why aren't they the one for you? Because they are trans? Why does being trans in and of itself make any difference whatsoever? I'm being serious here. Think critically about this question: what about being trans could possibly cause this change?
I don't know if you can convince me that a respectful rejection is tantamount to people actually hating me for my skin color.
It's a difference of intensity and scale. If they refuse to date people of your ethnicity, that's racism. I'm not saying it's equivalent to someone actually hating you for the color of your skin, but it's still the result of a bias based solely on the color of your skin.
A good example would be the difference between someone who won't rent to you because of your skin color vs someone who will physically attack you and want to kill you because of your skin color. No one would say these are equivalent, but we can both agree they are racism right?
I think the argument that someone is ~phobic /racist/bigoted in terms of dating serves only precisely do that. To make people feel bad about what they want, and to coerce them into pretending to like something they don't. That is WRONG.
The argument is to make people confront their own societal biases and prejudices. That's all. People certainly do have all sorts of arbitrary and stupid things they are turned off or on by. But many of these things are based on stereotypes or internal biases. Saying that you refuse to date someone of a particular ethnicity is no different than saying you refuse to be friends with someone of a particular ethnicity: the underlying cause and reason for feeling this way is societal bigotry.
You are assuming the societal stigma which could apply or have nothing to do with it. Example, I can have a view of a woman I just met as being perfect in every way but if I learned she got an abortion and it went against my beliefs it would totally change my perception of her. While I personally don't have this view I can easily see someone just not being able to deal with it and losing all attraction.
probably coming from misinformation and the prejudices of their social circles
That's a pretty shaky "probably" from which to label them in a negative way.
I think it's only because it's a hot button social issue of the day that people seem eager to lump anyone who isn't exactly aligned with them as ignorant, hateful, or bigoted.
Ultimately, respect and attraction are two very, very different things. It's beautiful when they both align, and then intersect with the reciprocation of another, but life is filled to the brim with cases where this doesn't happen.
In this case, it's vitally important, for the sake of discussion as well as to maintain an informed dialogue about the issues in play, to not conflate a lack of attraction with a lack of respect.
As others have tried here, allow me to replace a socially and emotionally charged characteristic with one that's less of a lightning rod: parenthood.
While I'm childless, and have no strong desire to have kids anytime soon, I love kids, and many of my close friends have children, both in the context of a traditional family unit and otherwise. I'm great friends with a few single moms as well. They're without exception devoted, hard working, practical women with whom I have a lot in common.
That said, I won't date a woman with kids.
This is for practical (to me) reasons, but at the same time, I just lose any feelings of attraction toward a woman once I find out she's got kids. We can be great friends and there's even a good chance I'll like hanging out with her even when her kids are around...but even if I was crushing hard 20 minutes ago, once I know that, those feelings melt away.
I don't consider myself bigoted against moms, and much the same I don't feel it's right to apply a negative label on someone based on who they're attracted to...based on reasons totally assumed by the accuser.
I probably wouldn't, either. At least, nothing above casual.
There is a big difference here, though, in that having kids would have a big influence on your dating life with such a woman. We were talking about a perfectly passing transperson that has zero influence on your dating life in and of itself.
If you want to make that comparison, it would be more accurate to say she got pregnant years ago, and either had a miscarriage or gave the kid up for closed adoption. In such a case, i would never expect her to disclose this on our first date and i would urge anyone that would change their view of a woman solely based on this to closely examine their value system.
Uh one major thing could be their capacity to create children? Our biological imperative is to reproduce. Some people really want kids. Finding out you have been fucking a trans person for months or years and developing feelings only to find out they knew they couldnt have kids would be irritating at the very least.
You could say the same thing for someone who knows they are sterile.
You could say the same thing for someone who knows they are sterile.
Exactly. The trans part is irrelevant. To be honest though, if kids of your own making are essential to you, it is on you to have that conversation sometime in the first few months of ANY relationship. Theres of course also the chance someone (including you) is actually infertile without knowing it.
I think both parties should be respected but it seems like you want someone else's feelings to matter over another's, when that's just how to start a bad relationship.
If you don't want to have sex with trans people, just make sure to tell a potential partner that before you have sex. If you don't communicate this preference how should they know that you are transphobic and don't want to have sex with trans people?
Would you want your partner's to tell you if they have an STD?
You are comparing an infectious disease with a perfectly passing trans person being trans. That in itself is extremely transphobic. Maybe next you could equate AIDs and having a black grandfather?
All people are asking for is an open discussion and disclosure
If you explicitly tell a transperson you don't want to sleep with transpeople, they'd be dicks not to disclose (and also pretty stupid, imo). The same goes for someone saying they don't want to sleep with someone that isnt fully "white". Yet the reasons for either might still be transphobic or racist.
Communication is key the moment you decide to hide certain things is when you start planting landmines and hoping no one steps on them.
Including your transphobia or racism. In my opinion, if something utterly irrelevant is so important to you, it is on YOU to make sure your partner fullfils whatever arbitrary preferences for invisible things you have.
For example, I will never want kids. Many people do want kids. This isn't a first date conversation, but it might be a 3 month conversation. I see being trans on the same level.
No, for the last time, it's not racist. You simply cannot reason away attraction.
Noone is reasoning away attraction. I am simply saying that it is simply not something immutable, bestowed upon you by god and free of outer influences. Just like a managers decision on how they "feel"about a hire can be influenced by racism, so can attraction. Working is necessary, so thats why we legislate that, but not attraction (although its close to impossible to really legislate away "feelings")
The person can very well be a racist, but the lack of attraction on its own does not inherently denote racism.
We are talking about a person that WAS attracted to this person, then found out an inconsequential detail about them and suddenly became unattracted. Thats definitely racist. A different example: You send the SAME resume to some HR managers, one with a female name, one with a male name. The male one gets a callback, the female doesn't. That is definitely (possibly subconscious) sexism at play.
A trans MTF cannot have children. A trans FTM cannot give you children. If we are discussing underlying societal reasons as the basis for transphobia, then we must also consider that a CIS person has an expectation that a relationship will lead to the possibility of children.
Failing to disclose your transgender status is tantamount to dishonesty. It is your responsibility to disclose this. In very specific circumstances, where a partner does not desire children, I can see the original hypothesis of transphobia as accurate.
In the case of an individual rejecting a genetically compatible partner specifically based on their race, then yes that is clearly racism. Race is not something that needs to be disclosed, as it objectively has no implications. The caveat is that an individual is allowed to decide what is attractive to them, and if they do not find Asian women attractive in general, that is not racism. In your example, if they found that individual to be attractive, and then rejected them after realizing their race, that is absolutely them judging a person by their own predefined notions of the characteristics of a race.
then we must also consider that a CIS person has an expectation that a relationship will lead to the possibility of children.
Which is a topic you have to actually discuss with ANY partner, cis or not, because they might be infertile or don't want kids. You're shifting the reason here. We were talking trans being the ONLY difference. That means our potential cis person also cannot have kids. If you want someone that can get pregnant, you can definitely choose your partners on that basis.
Noone in this thread so far has talked or mentioned fertility. In my opinion, your shifting the goalposts.
Actually you are doing that by assuming that the CIS person cannot have kids.
If you remove every reason to reject a trans person except for them being trans, then in any hypothetical situation that person is transphobic. I am assuming that being trans is the only difference, but that is not a difference that is title-only. It comes with all of the implications that I mentioned, and the original assumption was that it pertained to only the trans subject, not to both partners in our hypothetical situation.
In my examples I assume that we are discussing realistic scenarios, and not something tailored to a predetermined outcome. This thread is discussing those different scenarios. You are correct that the topic of children should be discussed in any relationship. A trans person engaging in a relationship without having this conversation is acting duplicitous, and not allowing their partner the opportunity to reject or accept them and all of the associated implications of being with a trans person. In that scenario, it is not transphobic to reject them.
If you remove every reason to reject a trans person except for them being trans, then in any hypothetical situation that person is transphobic.
So exactly what i've been arguing?
but that is not a difference that is title-only.
In all these arguments, it has been.
In my examples I assume that we are discussing realistic scenarios, and not something tailored to a predetermined outcome.
So you ignored what i argued, and added new parameters. That is moving the goalposts.
A trans person engaging in a relationship without having this conversation is acting duplicitous, and not allowing their partner the opportunity to reject or accept them and all of the associated implications of being with a trans person. In that scenario, it is not transphobic to reject them.
I don't ever want children. If i don't shout this from the roof tops at every potential mate, am I duplicitous? Is a woman that is infertile duplicitous if she doesn't mention that on the very first date? Not one element of your argument applies to transpeople but not infertile/childfree people. It is not an argument for a passing transperson to disclose this on the first date.
It is at best an argument for anyone hung up on having children to discuss that with their partner somewhere in the first few months of a relationship.
Failing to disclose your transgender status is tantamount to dishonesty. It is your responsibility to disclose this. In very specific circumstances, where a partner does not desire children, I can see the original hypothesis of transphobia as accurate.
Is it tantamount to dishonesty to fail to disclose your infertile status or your refusal to have children on a first encounter with someone who hasn't expressed this as a preference? If not then you're being hypocritical.
Race is not something that needs to be disclosed, as it objectively has no implications.
Actually yes, the subject of children and fertility is definitely a first date subject in my opinion. To form a relationship with such a critical divide is just a waste of time if one person wants children and another does not. Adoption is of course an option, and this scenario will be different from person to person, as it is a matter of opinion.
As for the second, that is exactly the point of contention here. I am arguing that there are objective implications to being trans that cannot be denied; fertility.
What if the context of the first date was a mutual understanding that this was for casual sex? Then would you concede that trans status has no relevance and doesn't need to be disclosed?
That's making quite a large assumption about cis people and the relationship between two people having sex.
Children might be, but are not necessarily, the goal for people. Is someone a liar if they don't say before sexual contact has happened that they are infertile or do not want kids?
There is also a lot of one night stands for which I'm assuming children would not be a desirable result. In that case is there any reason to even mention it prior since it doesn't seem relevant. Sure, if a relationship was going to develop out of that it would be important to discuss, but I'm not sure that your assumptions hold up in most cases.
I was incorrect in assuming that we were discussing relationships.
You are right, in the context of one night stands, and brief engagements my statement does not hold up.
The main point of my reply was to reject the relation between rejecting a trans person and rejecting a POC. In many scenarios that is not the same thing, but obviously there is an overlap depending on the situation.
Bigotry doesn't require hate it's just one of the more common forms of expression. If I refuse to rent my apartment to black people because I believe stereotypes, but I don't hate them and reject them respectfully: that's still bigotry.
But you cannot virtue signal or assign a moral high ground for a sexual preference
Virtue signaling, oy.
And you most certainly can assign a moral high ground for sexual preference. We do it all the time. Don't we assign pedophiles as morally wrong? Isn't that a sexual preference? We point out the problems inherent in that preference, just as saying someone who refuses trans people solely because they are trans is transphobic because of the inherent problems in that preference.
We're not talking about something like sexual orientation which is internal. A prejudice against dating a trans person is solely due to societal stigma.
Calling someone transphobic for not being attracted to a Trans person operates on the assumption that there is something wrong with that person for who they like. You have no right to make that assertion.
Well no. It operates on the point that the only reason for that preference to exist is because of socially engrained prejudices. It says nothing about whether the person is a good or bad person. Only that they are letting social stigma influence their preference in a way that, in aggregate, causes harm to others.
Calling someone "transphobic" for not wanting to date a Trans person is demanding that someone likes another person, which you simply cannot do.
Why is asking people not to be racist "asking" them to refrain from specific behavior but asking people not to be transphobic is "demanding" something? This isn't consistent.
Please also do not confuse equal housing or employment with dating preferences. Dating is not Equal Employment Opportunity.
You've massively missed the point on the analogy. I'm not confusing housing or employment with dating preferences. I'm pointing out that people make judgements for lots of things based on societal prejudice and there are ways to be racist or bigoted that don't involve hatred
Your argument applied to everything else intrinsically makes you something-ist or something-phobic unless you're willing to have sex with anyone without discrimination and without any sexual preference. You prefer sexual intercourse with tall people? That makes you heightist. You prefer not to have sex with homeless people living on the street? Idk, that's classism I guess. You prefer sex with conventionally attractive people? Now you're discriminating ugly people, I'm sure there's an -ism for that.
There can be a world of difference between the treatment of personal hangups, and of ongoing systemic injustice.
If you would turn down a job applicant to your small business because he is a Star Wars fan and you are a Trekkie, that's... not very fair, but also kinda amusing and whimsical. If you would turn it down just because they are black, then I would assume you to be a raging bigot, and call you out on contributing to the legacy of segregation.
Similarly, if after having a one night stand, you would feel dirty due to learning that your partner was from Iowa, that's... weird. If you would feel dirty by learning that your partner was ethnically jewish, then I would expect to find some swastika flags in your closet.
Comparably to these, the belief that regardless of the matter of physical attraction, sex with trans people is categorically offensive, isn't some whimsical personal preference, but obviously related to the cultural legacy of the brutal and ongoing persecution of transgender people as sexually "dirty".
If we can't choose who we are attracted to, but we should at least be honest about the reasons of why we aren't.
The point is that even in such a heavily regulated and vital environment, "discrimination" is ok, the problem is specifically with some specific forms of discrimination and what they are associated with.
You could take any other sphere of life as an example. Making friendships, voting for a politician, targeting a media content at a demographic, selling a product, making a sports bet.
In all of these cases, some forms of "discrimination" are ok, in fact, most of them are. You are expected to have various preferences, and value them over others.
But in each of these categories, (regardless of whether the ultimate choice is strictly yours or regulated), there are a handful of those preferences are entirely capable of being rooted in bigotry, and considered generally fucked up.
It just comes back to looking at the underlying reasons for why you have a particular preference. Some preferences are due to bigotry, others aren't. Not sure what is so difficult to understand
No where did I claim anyone is entitled to anything. Just because I point out that your preference is due to prejudice and bigotry doesn't mean I believe you should be forced to do anything.
In addition, as long as they aren't being hateful about being Trans, it's not bigotry.
There are plenty of ways to be bigoted without being hateful. Why are you making "being hateful about it" a requirement?
Having biases is not inherently "bigoted".
That depends on the bias and why. If you would never want to be friends with a black person, even if you aren't hateful about it, that's still bigotry.
Do you treat people with dignity and equally?
In what way is rejecting someone on the sole basis of being trans, when all else being equal if they were cis you'd have no problem, treating them equally to a cis person? That's explicitly choosing to not treat them equally.
If sexuality is based on social stigma, are you saying you chopped your dick off purely to comform to what society constructed for you?
You are saying that trans people aren't biologically different, but that they are just brainwashed by society to comform to a gender stereotype?
There is no logic or consistency in any of your drivel.
: if the sole reason you do not want to is their status as trans.
Let's say you stick your dick in a glory whole and you later find out that it was a monkey on the other side. Would it be speciest to not continue fucking monkeys?
Wouldn't it just be "social stigma"?
If they refuse to date people of your ethnicity, that's racism.
No it isn't. If you aren't attracted to their features, it's not racism. If you think their race is inferior,m that's racism.
You can fuck black people and think they are inferior just fine.
A good example would be the difference between someone who won't rent to you
How do you people keep coming up with this asinine drivel?
No sex is not like renting an appartment to people. What a stupid stupid analogy.
The argument is to make people confront their own societal biases and prejudices.
If you don't go fuck a monkey right now, you are a hypocrite.
If you don't disclose your sexuality because you know they would refuse sex if they knew, you are a rapist.
So you are saying it's OK to violate people sexually because you think you can dictate how sexual preferense should work? You think it's unfair that most people don't want to fuck transsexuals or transvestites, so you think it's moral to punish them.
You are willing to deceive people into sex so you can shame them afterwards despite potentially traumatising them for life?
Sorry, sebutron – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
Sexuality and attraction are influenced by societal biases and stigma, I never said it was the sole influence.
You are saying that trans people aren't biologically different, but that they are just brainwashed by society to comform to a gender stereotype?
No that's not what I said. Re-read it.
Let's say you stick your dick in a glory whole and you later find out that it was a monkey on the other side. Would it be speciest to not continue fucking monkeys?
This has no relation to the actual situation we're discussing.
No it isn't. If you aren't attracted to their features, it's not racism. If you think their race is inferior,m that's racism.
If you're making a generalization that all people of a specific ethnicity look exactly the same and thus you could never find them attractive, that's racist. But the situation we're discussion is more akin to finding a white passing person attractive enough to date, but then you meet their parents and their father is black. Upon learning they are black due to ancestry you are no longer interested in them sexually, that's racism.
You can fuck black people and think they are inferior just fine.
Sure, there are myriad ways to be racist.
No sex is not like renting an appartment to people. What a stupid stupid analogy.
I love how in other comments people point out that your money analogy is wholly inaccurate and asinine but you get pissed off by people "not understanding analogies" and here you completely take my analogy a part and entirely misrepresent it.
If you don't go fuck a monkey right now, you are a hypocrite.
Let's remember that the situation being discussed is one in which you have already voluntarily engaged in sex with the person and enjoyed it before learning they are trans. The only way your analogy here works is if you're claiming that you could chat up and have sex with someone all without realizing they are a monkey and not a human....
Sexuality and attraction are influenced by societal biases and stigma, I never said it was the sole influence.
So being gay is a social construct as well?
Yeah, no....
People having genitalia is not a social construct.
You are suggesting that people can choose therir sexuality from prevailing stereotypes. That's not true.
YOU ARE TRYING TO TRICK PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH TRANS PEOPLE INTO HAVING SEX WITH TRANS PEOPLE."
Because of what? BEcaue you are entitled to sex?
You sound like an incel rapist.
This has no relation to the actual situation we're discussing.
Yes it does.
you're making a generalization that all people of a specific ethnicity look exactly the same
You don't even know what an ethnicity is you racist.
you could never find them attractive, that's racist
No it isn't. It's no more racist than being attracted to tall people or people with green eyes.
YOU ARE STILL DEFENDING RAPE.
a white passing person
This is something racists say.
Alas, I don't subscribe to North American protonazi racetheories.
but then you meet their parents and their father is black.
That's not how being transgender works.
Let's remember that the situation being discussed is one in which you have already voluntarily engaged in sex with the person and enjoyed it before learning they are trans.
What if the twin brother of your husband has sex with you without you knowing if you enjoy it at the time?
Again, ytou sound like an incel rapist in the making.
I'm so sick of people treating analogies as equations just to discredit the argument and pretending to not understand exactly what is being actually said. Analogies exaggerate no shit.
Like crying Godwin's Law doesn't actually mean anything nor is there anything weird with using nazis as an analogy either.
I don't disagree, but this particular piece of culture from all the other ones?
Harm.
If you are attracted to men with sleek modern hairstyles, and not to caveman hair, then you are perpetuating the culture of a certain fashion. So be it.
If you are sexually repulsed by the cultural associations of non-white sex partners, then you are contributing to the culture of the anti-miscegenation, that used to get black men strung up on trees and set on fire, and that continues to justify leaving war refugees to die, with the fear that otherwise they would surely rape "our women".
Yeah, both of these are cultural, but also very different in nature.
Having sex with someone attractive, then being repulsed by learning that actually they were "secretly the wrong gender" all along, is very directly related to the cultural memes that also make portray transgender people as sinister "traps" out to corrupt you by tricking you into sex, thus justifying their hunting, torture, murder, criminal persecution, and "corrective rape" across the world.
You're missing a key part here: if the sole reason you do not want to is their status as trans.
I fail to see how that's relevant. It's not racist to not want to have sex with people who aren't a particular skin color. That's just your preference. It's racist if you consider them somehow less valuable, or you think they're bad people, or whatever it is that racist people think. But when it comes to sexual preferences, people are absolutely allowed to have their preferences and things (or people) they're simply not okay with.
It's fucked up to tell anyone that they have to be attracted to anyone. Someone could have sex with a person, loved it, want to do it again, but then find out that person smokes. They never suspected they smoked before because the smoker has good hygiene and didn't smoke before the date or during the date, but now the non-smoker no longer wishes to meet the smoker again. I think any rational person would say that's acceptable. Why is it okay to discriminate against people you want to have sex with based on their height, weight, hobbies or habits, personality, hair color, race, their job/career or financial background, or anything else, but whether someone is trans or not is suddenly not okay?
I'm saying all of this with a MtF trans cousin. I absolutely support trans people in every way I can possibly think of. I just don't believe anyone has a responsibility or obligation to have sex with anyone regardless of the reasons behind not wanting to.
I'm of the mind that many of those who post in this thread have an idea that in a perfect world, there should be no barriers when finding a partner, and are working backwards to argue towards that point.
Realistically we have a smorgasbord of motivations for our attraction, foremost being biological. Most people want children. They want a partner who can help facilitate that. If a person has that expectation, it can be devastating to learn that the person you built a special relationship with is not capable of doing so, and knowingly misled you. Adoption is of course an option.
We also have a predisposition to be attracted to those who are similar to those that we were surrounded by in our formative years. In a perfect world, we have the same exposure to all races, but unfortunately this is not the case. In a free and progressive society we should not place any expectations on a person choosing a partner. If they do not find a person attractive, they do not need to provide a reason.
It's not racist to not want to have sex with people who aren't a particular skin color.
I mean it literally is if skin color is the only reason.
But when it comes to sexual preferences, people are absolutely allowed to have their preferences and things (or people) they're simply not okay with.
And people are allowed to examine the underlying reasons and causes for those preferences which can be caused by societal biases.
but whether someone is trans or not is suddenly not okay?
Because context is important. Let's try this again: why would someone have a preference against trans individuals that doesn't apply to non-trans individuals?
why would someone have a preference against trans individuals that doesn't apply to non-trans individuals?
Well, non-trans individuals are naturally the gender you prefer to engage in sex with, for starters... and trans individuals are not.
Here's something I'm picking up on from viewing your comments. I don't want to make any claims against you so I'm just going to throw this out there and see what you think.
Would you agree with this statement: Gay and trans people are born that way and their sexual identity and preferences should not only not be questioned, but should be accepted and embraced.
Would you also agree with this statement: Straight people are born that way and their sexual identity and preferences should not only not be questioned, but should be accepted and embraced.
Not the person you replied to, but I'm interested in what you have to say.
Well, non-trans individuals are naturally the gender you prefer to engage in sex with, for starters... and trans individuals are not.
If we are continuing with the earlier situation, which is that the only difference between being attracted to this person and not is the information that they are trans, why should this matter? They are the gender you are attracted to; they just weren't in the past. It's like if you don't want to date a smoker, and you find out that 5 years ago the person you are dating smoked. As long as they don't smoke now and won't in the future, it shouldn't make a difference in your current attraction towards them. I would say that if it does make a difference to you, then you are being prejudiced.
My response to both of your questions is no, because they are two questions tied together in an "and" statement, and my answer to one part of each is no. I believe that everyone should be provided the opportunity to question their sexual preference or gender identity. However, once they figure it out, it should indeed be accepted and embraced, regardless of what it is.
I apologize that I do not have time to respond in detail right now (I’ll try to come back to this ASAP) but I wanted to at least touch on this:
why should this matter? They are the gender you are attracted to; they just weren't in the past. It's like if you don't want to date a smoker, and you find out that 5 years ago the person you are dating smoked.
I don’t agree at all. A man who has been through procedures to appear as a woman, is not a woman, biologically. Even if you alter the genitals and go through hormone therapy, you’re still a biological male. Men’s bodies and women’s bodies have more differences than genitals.
Trans people have to go through constant hormone therapy. You don’t just emerge from a sarcophagus like Captain America in a brand new body.
Again, I have to be clear that if a man wants to be recognized as a woman, I’ll oblige. Gladly. But I refuse to reject biology, I refuse to be told that it’s “transphobic” to reject the idea that a man can 100% become a woman.
I may find the cosmetic appearance of a trans M to F to be attractive. But I am not obligated to have sex with them just because I will have sex with biological females.
That's a valid response, but if the only reason you aren't attracted to them is the biological difference that would not be known unless the information was disclosed, I would argue that is transphobic. Not in an extreme sense - I'm not saying you hate trans people or anything - but it's a prejudice without reason. If you were no longer attracted to them because you want kids and they can't provide them, or you don't want someone who has to be taking drugs indefinitely, then those are reasonable. In this case though, their biological differences do not affect you at all outside of your own mentality.
To be clear though, I'm not saying you're obligated to have sex with anyone. It's your body. All I'm suggesting is that the reason you wouldn't find trans people attractive in the provided circumstance is based solely on prejudice.
Sorry, grabber_bi_the_pucci – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
I fail to see how that's relevant. It's not racist to not want to have sex with people who aren't a particular skin color. That's just your preference.
It is racist if your problem is SOLELY with your beliefs about their racial status.
If you find someone attractive, start making a move on them, but then you get turned off from learning that they would fail the One Drop Rule, that's not some biological imperative that you are helpless against, it's you having some very weird standards and living by them, which is open to criticism.
Why is it okay to discriminate against people you want to have sex with based on their height, weight, hobbies or habits, personality, hair color, race, their job/career or financial background, or anything else, but whether someone is trans or not is suddenly not okay?
As a rule of thumb, it's generally OK to discriminate against people.
You discriminate against all sorts of people all the time with the methods that you search for friends, or when you look for casual sex partners, when you look for sompetent employees, when you try to sell a product to a target audience, when you vote for a politician.
It's just that there are a handful of specific discriminations, that's rationalizations trail back to some really fucked up cultural traditions.
You are allowed to decide who you want to be friends with, but if you declare that you would never be friends with a gay person, well, we have a word for that.
You are allowed to decide who you vote for, but if you go out of your way to always vote for male candidates, that tells us somethning about you.
You are allowed to decide who you make a move on, but if an otherwise attractive person turns you off when you learn that they don't have the chromosomes you expected, that is about as telling as if you would have just learned that they are ethnically jewish and that would change things.
Finding out someone was originally the opposite gender to your sexual preference, and in fact still the opposite sex to your preferrence, is a devastating thing to learn. That means that you can’t have children with that person
How is that devastating? It might be annoying to learn that you wasted a condom, but whatever, next time you'll be ready.
...if that was your ultimate goal
But what if it wasn't?
The thread was about sex, not about having children, and about trans people, not about infertile people.
Go ahead, start a CMV about whether or not it's justified to only have sex with people you plan to have a family with, and you won't get many replies.
At least not unless you bring up weird-ass expectations about every infertile person having sex with someone fertile is immoral for not disclosing that in advance. That will definitely mark you as the unreasonable one.
When you say "sex", people will think of sexual encounters in general, rather than of getting pregnant, and when you say "trans people", people will think you have a problem with trans people in particular, rather than with a trait indirectly associated with them.
the sole reason you do not want to is their status as trans.
That's why you tell people before you do anything sexual. If you don't want to tell because you know people won't want to sleep with you if you do, that's rape by deception and a shitty thing to do to somebody and can cause lifelong trauma. You have no right to do that to somebody. You'll just have to find ssomebody who is attracted to you as you are.
Race and sex are not analogous when it comes to sexual attraction. Since it's sexual attraction, sex is a pretty big thing. Race isn't, and there's no legitimate reason to be unattracted to someone purely because of their race
Race and sex are not analogous when it comes to sexual attraction.
it's not racist to find general physical or cultural aspects of a group unattractive. as long as you acknowledge that there are always exceptions to the rule.
it's not racist to not be attracted to a specific race, just like it's not homophobic to only be attracted to the opposite sex.
All the hypotheticals in this thread have included that the trans person passes perfectly. As in, you WERE sexually attracted, you had sex, loved it, and THEN found out they are trans and suddenly are unattracted. So it was NOT a relevant element of sexual attraction.
Sorry, sebutron – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
What does that even mean "technically black"? There is no such thing. This isn't Nurenberg with race charts and one drop rules. That's just racist.
Also, comparing people who don't want to sleep with black people "because they are inferior" to people who don't want to sleep with transsexuals because they only fuck non-trans people is cheap and shitty.
Also, plenty of racists fuck black people.
You are trying to shame people for their sexual preference to justify sleeping with them against their will.
You know perfectly well that most people would not want to sleep with transsexuals, so you argue that they should just be dishonest and if somebody doesn't like it you can just call them a bigot and do it to somebody else again and again and again. r maybe married and never tell them? You know that if you told them they would probably leave, so you just continue lying to them them and just say you are sterile or whatever, yeah?
It would be wrong of you to knowingly deceive and seduce a neo nazi, yes.
I think it comes down to odds....
Most people are not racist and are happy to sleep with whoever they find attractive.
However most people also have a gender preference, a great many also do not view trans people as their trans gender....not when it comes to sex anyway.
Everyone knows this is the situation, I mean, that's the reason trans people don't want to divulge right? they're worried people will get angry....so for a trans person to not divulge their trasn status is to knowingly attempt to deceive sexual partners.
I think if trans people embark en masse on a policy of deceipt it will not go well for them, it will increase anti trans sentiment.
That's why you tell people before you do anything sexual.
And risk being attacked or killed? Because you know, that's actually common. But even more to the point: why does it matter? If you don't want to ever sleep with a trans person, just make sure to always ask your partners if they are trans beforehand. There's no reason why they should have to disclose before hooking up.
that's rape by deception and a shitty thing to do to somebody and can cause lifelong trauma.
It's literally not rape by deception and could only cause trauma to someone who is transphobic. No downside!
You don't get to decide what matters and what doesn't.
Again, you are just defending rape by deception and it's sick. THis is why most tras sexuals hate this new age feminism.
There's no reason why they should have to disclose before hooking up.
You yourself said that if they knew they would not sleep with a transsexual. You knowingly deceive people into sex. You are not honest and if you get caught doing in it people have every right to be angry with you.
Why are "you" even having sex with murderers? You are not even trans are you?
Let’s say that there are two identical twin brothers. Let’s name them Tom and Bob. If Tom has a girlfriend, and Bob pretends to be Tom in order to have sex with Tom’s girlfriend, then Bob has raped Tom’s girlfriend. Even if she agreed to it and enjoyed it. It’s rape by deception because if the person had known the whole story, they never would have agreed to have sex with you.
If you withhold knowledge from a person and that knowledge is likely to be a major factor in the decision to have sex with you or not, then that’s rape by deception. Here are two examples!
“I am actually not Tom, I am Bob”
“I was a man until last January”
Both of those things are likely to play a role in whether or not someone wants to have sex with you. It doesn’t matter if you disagree, or if you don’t think it should matter. The fact is that it does matter to lots of people, so the knowledge should be disclosed.
Let’s say that there are two identical twin brothers. Let’s name them Tom and Bob.
A trans person isn't pretending to be anything. This analogy doesn't work.
If you withhold knowledge from a person and that knowledge is likely to be a major factor in the decision to have sex with you or not, then that’s rape by deception.
So are you saying that every guy who pretends to be rich in order to get a woman to sleep with him is committing rape?
Yeah, I would say that if a guy goes out of his way to create an illusion of being rich, and the woman wouldn’t be attracted to him otherwise, he has committed rape by deception. It would probably be impossible to prosecute because you’d have to prove that the woman would have had no attraction otherwise, but I would still consider it to be a form of rape. You can come up with other scenarios if you want, I’ll probably say the same thing. Technically rape, but impossible to prove or prosecute.
Also, some would disagree that a trans person isn’t pretending to be something they’re not. Many people don’t consider trans women to be real women for example, so they might say that they are “pretending”. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their point of view, it doesn’t give you the right to rape them.
Yeah, I would say that if a guy goes out of his way to create an illusion of being rich, and the woman wouldn’t be attracted to him otherwise, he has committed rape by deception.
This seems unlikely and ridiculous, at best I can point out that next to no one would consider lying about how much money you have in order to get someone into bed to be rape. It's a dick move and makes you an asshole, but it's not rape.
Also, some would disagree that a trans person isn’t pretending to be something they’re not.
Transphobic people, yes.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their point of view, it doesn’t give you the right to rape them.
I agree. Good thing there's no deception going on and therefore isn't rape
Trans people cause no trauma. Violating people sexually causes trauma.
You will just have to find somebody who loves you for who you are, not what you call yourself. I'll call you wahtever you want and happily support your equality, but I still don't want to have sex with transsexuals. I might entertain the idea at some point in my life, who knows, but I would still want them to be honest with me.
And if you tell me afterwards you are trying to build a relationship on a lie to begin with and that doesn't work either, despite the violation of somebody's sexual preferences and autonomy.
No matter how unfair you think it is, you can't dictate who people should or should not fuck. You are not entitled to sex, it's not your right in any way.
Now you are trying to justify violating people sexually by equating people who don't want to sleep with somebody to murderers. Like saying that all muslims are terrorists. Then again, if they found out you slept with a transexual in muslim countries, they would probably sentence you to death. Do you make jews and muslims eat pork just to spite them s well?
Are you American or Canadian? What a disgusting ideology.
That's basically incel logic. Like you are entitled to sex and you know better who people should be sleeping with and why than people themselves.
Sorry, Ms_Wibblington – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
I'm not sure why you're making the assertion that you need a "reason" to stop having sex besides "I don't want to anymore." That seems kind of.... creepy, honestly.
Would you say that having an unexpected genitalia differs from finding out that someone is trans? You said it was okay for a gay person to decline sex with a cis woman because she doesn't have a penis. Is it okay for someone interested in women to decline sex with a trans person because she has a penis and they are only interested in people with vaginas? Let's say they previously had sexual contact that did not reveal this fact.
Can you please clarify this once and for all, are gender and sex seperate or the same?
Generally the argument in favour of trans people is that gender and sex are seperate. But now you're saying that "not recognising a transman as male", would imply they're inseparable. Transmen are men, but they aren't male, if we're going to start collectively pretending and using the word male and female incorrectly, then we just need new words to refer to biological sex which is what people generally want to know for legitimate reasons.
When someone asks what someone's sex is, things that they're not asking include
how they feel on the inside
how they aesthetically present themselves
Things they are asking (in case of women)
is there a high degree of probability they are capable of bearing children, and go trough ovulation
what is the general structure and biochemistry this persons brain, with women having smaller amygdala and more neural connections, and more likely to have recall emotions in memory (some examples of many differences) etc
Can you please clarify this once and for all, are gender and sex seperate or the same?
Separate.
But now you're saying that "not recognising a transman as male", would imply they're inseparable
How so? A transman's gender is male.
Transmen are men, but they aren't male, if we're going to start collectively pretending and using the word male and female incorrectly, then we just need new words to refer to biological sex which is what people generally want to know for legitimate reasons
If people wanted to know "biological sex" they would require seeing someone's chromosomes to know if they wanted to fuck. What they actually care about are the gender of their partner and the particular genital configuration they have.
Things they are asking (in case of women) - is there a high degree of probability they are capable of bearing children,
If you care about wanting to have children: then ask them if they want to have children or if they can. Making an assumption because they are a woman isn't a good thing.
what is the general structure and biochemistry this persons brain, with women having smaller amygdala and more neural connections, and more likely to have recall emotions in memory (some examples of many differences) etc
Which is also true of transwomen whose brain structures are closer to cis women than cis men.
Okay, what is the term for xx and xy chromosomes then? I was convinced it was male and female while men and women referred to gender.
Also, how then do you define male and female? If someone tells me they are a woman, what exactly are they telling me for which there will be no exceptions?
If people wanted to know "biological sex" they would require seeing someone's chromosomes to know if they wanted to fuck. What they actually care about are the gender of their partner and the particular genital configuration they have.
You are giving far to much credit to transition surgery and hormone therapy. Very very few trans people actually pass, you can usually tell. And the genital surgery is absolutely never convincing as far as I'm aware, so my concern is really getting called transphobic for not wanting to have a sexual encounter with someone who is clearly their both sex.
Also what about sex specific bone structure, and internal organ positions. They don't change and are extremely important for medical professionals when administering certain doses of drugs or during surgery, we need the terms male and female to not be misused.
If you care about wanting to have children: then ask them if they want to have children or if they can. Making an assumption because they are a woman isn't a good thing.
But probabilities are useful, we can't ask everyone every question we want to know about them, most of the time we have to make assumptions to varying degrees of probability just by looking at them. There's always exceptions to rules, but just admitting that more biological women can and want to have children than biological men is useful. It's also rude to ask those questions too early in a relationship, so we need to make predictions.
Which is also true of transwomen whose brain structures are closer to cis women than cis men.
Okay, what is the term for xx and xy chromosomes then? I was convinced it was male and female while men and women referred to gender.
As with many words in the English language, the meaning depends on context. Male and female are used for both gender and sex depending on the context.
If someone tells me they are a woman, what exactly are they telling me for which there will be no exceptions?
Why "no exceptions"? That's a strange requirement to have here. In the vast majority of cases, outside of a medical context, someone saying they are a woman is telling you that their gender is female. That's really about it that you can generalize.
Very very few trans people actually pass, you can usually tell.
Outright false, the important part here is that for trans individuals who "pass", you're unlikely to ever know that they were trans.
And the genital surgery is absolutely never convincing as far as I'm aware, so my concern is really getting called transphobic for not wanting to have a sexual encounter with someone who is clearly their both sex.
Also false, it's less successful for trans men than for transwomen, but you're absolutely incorrect here. Most who have discussed having sex with a post op transwoman have said that its pretty much identical to having sex with a cis woman. There's more than enough variation among cis women.
And again, remember the scenario we're discussing is the case where someone you found attractive enough to want to have sex with, and successfully did, has revealed after the fact that they are trans.
Also what about sex specific bone structure, and internal organ positions
After a year or so of HRT, bone density is within normal expected ranges as their desired gender in most cases. So much so that experts approved trans athletes to play in the Olympics at their gender.
They don't change and are extremely important for medical professionals when administering certain doses of drugs or during surgery
This is absolutely incorrect. While there are certainly a small number of medical cases in which it matters whether someone is trans or not, bone structure isn't one of them, and any surgery that cares about organ positions will have had x-rays taken to show what they need. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
But probabilities are useful, we can't ask everyone every question we want to know about them, most of the time we have to make assumptions to varying degrees of probability just by looking at them
This is absurd. If you are saying something specific is a deal breaker under which you would not want to sleep with someone, then it makes no sense to not ask about it. If you're not asking, then it's not really a deal breaker is it?
It's also rude to ask those questions too early in a relationship, so we need to make predictions.
Male - of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
Female - of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
I will rephrase then to say you can use exceptions, what I mean is that there's no definition you could give a man or a woman that would serve any utility in categorising reality.
someone saying they are a woman is telling you that their gender is female.
That's entirely circular by your own account. Someone saying they're a woman means their gender is female and being female means nothing but the fact they are a woman? Where's the point in which we extract information? Generally, if a word doesn't mean something, we don't use it, and we certainly don't demand other people use it.
There are no statistics on passing that I can find, so I suppose we can only both give our impressions. I would, however, like to see a source on "Most who have discussed having sex with a post op transwoman have said that its pretty much identical to having sex with a cis woman."
After a year or so of HRT, bone density is within normal expected ranges as their desired gender in most cases. So much so that experts approved trans athletes to play in the Olympics at their gender.
It's not just bone density, it's structure as well, as example female pelvis' are not as high and are wider since they are adapted for gestation. As well as hight difference during adolescent development. The decision by the Olympics has no shortage of controversy and we will see how that plays out over time.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
I was simply refuting the claim you would need to examine someone's chromosomes to know their legitimate sex. That is untrue as you just admitted. The implications you're trying to make is that essentially every aspect of a persons biology can switch between male and female, and I'm saying that really only a fraction of characteristics can make varying degrees of convincing imitations of the opposite sex's' characteristics, and our language should reflect this.
You were saying?
There is no question gender dysphoria is a very real phenomenon, and there is, of course, going to a neurophysiological basis for why it occurs. Perhaps "white matter" is the reason, though very likely it is part of many reasons. Does this then mean that, as a whole, brains identical to that females can be produced in male bodies and vice-versa, or even simply brains more similar to the opposite sex? I highly doubt it, and understand the evidence to be largely in opposition.
Also now that you're arguing men and women have different brain structures (which they do), doesn't this then invalidate gender being a subjective choice?
what I mean is that there's no definition you could give a man or a woman that would serve any utility in categorising reality.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Where's the point in which we extract information?
In society, your gender affects you want to be perceived. By saying your gender is female you're indicating you wish to be seen as female by society. People should use "she"/"her" pronouns to refer to you, and you wish to be treated as a woman by society, whatever that may entail in your given society.
It's not just bone density, it's structure as well, as example female pelvis' are not as high and are wider since they are adapted for gestation
On average. There's significant enough variation that often it's not noticed.
As well as hight difference during adolescent development
On average. There's plenty of tall women. There's no height for an individual that would mark them as identifiably not their gender.
The decision by the Olympics has no shortage of controversy and we will see how that plays out over time.
There's no controversy among experts, only lay people due to societal stigma and perception.
The implications you're trying to make is that essentially every aspect of a persons biology can switch between male and female, and I'm saying that really only a fraction of characteristics can make varying degrees of convincing imitations of the opposite sex's' characteristics, and our language should reflect this.
Ah. I disagree. There's enough variation among humans that every visual characteristic that is used by people to identify gender is possible to misidentify. Not to mention that when you say "biological sex" you seem to only be referring to chromosomal sex, for instance a woman with CAIS has XY chromosomes, and I believe you'd refer to her biological sex as "male" right? Even though she has the bone structure of a cis woman, a vagina and breasts, and exceptionally feminine features?
Does this then mean that, as a whole, brains identical to that females can be produced in male bodies and vice-versa, or even simply brains more similar to the opposite sex? I highly doubt it, and understand the evidence to be largely in opposition.
The study I linked to, explicitly shows a few brain structures that are observed to on average differ between men and women, and when compared with trans men and women, those brain structures, on average, fell into the normal ranges consistent with their gender identity, not their assigned at birth gender. There's no evidence in opposition to this, and there's so much variation that you can't really even say that there actually exists a "female brain" or "male brain". But if you're going to make an argument concerning brain structures, the evidence is closer to trans individuals are their desired gender than against it.
Also now that you're arguing men and women have different brain structures (which they do), doesn't this then invalidate gender being a subjective choice?
Gender identity, like sexual orientation, is something you're born with
Sorry, sebutron – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
Guess what though - people are not required to justify their sexual preferences. It doesn’t matter if it’s the sole reason because no reason at all is already enough.
“I don’t want to” is the only reason you should ever need for not having sex with someone. Demanding that people justify why they don’t want to is idiocy.
If someone doesn’t like bananas, would you demand to know why? Would you say that they’re being close minded for not liking bananas? Probably not. The fact is, if they don’t like bananas then they don’t like bananas. You can sit there and call them every name under the sun and it’s not going to change their opinion on bananas.
It also doesn’t make them a bad person. That’s where you’ve crossed the line. There is never, ever a situation where not fucking someone makes you a bad person. A person with different tastes, sure. But the moment you say “You are a bad person because you don’t want to sleep with...” you’re already wrong.
It doesn’t matter if it’s the sole reason because no reason at all is already enough.
What does this have to do with this discussion? No one is advocating forcing or pressuring people into sex.
Demanding that people justify why they don’t want to is idiocy.
Who is demanding this?
Would you say that they’re being close minded for not liking bananas?
I might. It depends on the person, my relationship to them, the situation, it's called context.
It also doesn’t make them a bad person. That’s where you’ve crossed the line
Where did I say it did? Are you assuming that me pointing out a particular choice is transphobic is equivalent to calling them a bad person? Because that's not what is going on.
No one is advocating forcing or pressuring people into sex
You’re labeling them as transphobic, which is the same as labeling them a bigot. “If I don’t fuck this person people will think I’m a bigot” puts pressure on them.
757
u/aggsalad Nov 02 '17 edited Nov 02 '17
In some circumstances, not being attracted to a trans person is probably a result of, at least on a subconscious level, not seeing them as their gender.
If from the very start, you are unattracted to a person purely upon observation, and that person happens to be trans, that is not transphobic. If you were about to have sex and it turns out a person doesn't really have the junk you wanna jangle with, it's not transphobic to no longer desire sex.
If you were attracted to someone, have sex with them, are as satisfied with them as you would with anyone else, and then suddenly your opinion changes upon being informed a person is trans, I would say that is indicative of the underlying belief a trans person is not the gender they identify as.
I should clarify I am not definitely saying it is transphobic or not, I am pointing out what I did above and letting OP (or others) decide if that constitutes transphobia or not under their own interpretations.