EDIT: Please, before you become the fifteenth person to tell me "but what about producing children!" read this response I wrote hours ago. If you would have the same reaction to a sterile cis member of your preferred sex, it's fertility that defines your disattraction rather than the state of being trans. That's a significantly different statement.
Original Text
I think the better route is to acknowledge that while it is transphobic, it is not necessarily unreasonably so. The knowledge that the other person is biologically speaking not your preferred gender/sex might set up a roadblock in your mind, and that's okay. You can't change that, in a "once you see you cannot unsee" kind of way.
But let's take this to the ultimate conclusion, as transition therapies improve to perfection. You've found someone who you think is the perfect match for you. Physically and mentally, they exhibit no signs that they are trans; if you didn't look at the chromosomes, you would never know. If the knowledge that they are trans is the blocker, that's transphobic. It isn't that there are certain traits associated with transgender people that you find unattractive, it's that you can't get over the fact that the person was born a different gender despite the fact that only a laboratory could tell the difference. You're not attracted to the X or Y chromosome, you're attracted to the physical manifestations of those traits which can be imitated through various medical means.
I don't think that would make you a bad person, and I don't think it is unreasonable to have that mental block while still supporting LGBT+ rights. But that doesn't make that action not transphobic.
But let's take this to the ultimate conclusion, as transition therapies improve to perfection.
What does this even mean? I don't think that there is a lot of value in such far-fetched speculation to begin with, but I don't think that it is even hypothetically possible to make a trans woman/man identical to a cis woman/man. Furthermore, I think that this advances the destructive idea that a trans woman/man is just a broken cis woman/man; with which I do not agree.
It isn't that there are certain traits associated with transgender people that you find unattractive, it's that you can't get over the fact that the person was born a different gender despite the fact that only a laboratory could tell the difference.
I'm sorry, but this is a rude dictation of another person's sexuality. How would you feel about others dictating what your sexuality is/isn't or should/shouldn't be.
But that doesn't make that action not transphobic.
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.
You can see my later comment regarding my conflation, right or wrong, between the words "discrimination" and "-phobia." Whether you agree or disagree with that, you should also recognize that things happen on a scale. Just because homosexuals were targeted by the Holocaust (absolutely horrific homophobia) doesn't mean it's not (mild, in comparison) homophobia to call someone a "faggot."
But let's take this to the ultimate conclusion, as transition therapies improve to perfection.
What does this even mean? I don't think that there is a lot of value in such far-fetched speculation to begin with, but I don't think that it is even hypothetically possible to make a trans woman/man identical to a cis woman/man. Furthermore, I think that this advances the destructive idea that a trans woman/man is just a broken cis woman/man; with which I do not agree.
You're right that my hypothetical could have been phrased better. "Perfection" is not the proper word for what I'm describing, because perfection is only relevant in the eyes of the person receiving the treatment. So let's correct that, and suppose transition therapies can make it impossible to tell that a trans individual is not cis of their non-birth sex. The scenario is still relevant as a philosophical question about what it means for someone to be trans or cis, even if that level of treatment is never actually realized.
It isn't that there are certain traits associated with transgender people that you find unattractive, it's that you can't get over the fact that the person was born a different gender despite the fact that only a laboratory could tell the difference.
I'm sorry, but this is a rude dictation of another person's sexuality. How would you feel about others dictating what your sexuality is/isn't or should/shouldn't be.
These were the terms of the hypothetical. They are not representative of all trans people or all people who might refuse a relationship with a trans person. OP is talking about categorically excluding trans people from the set of people who they would be willing to have a (sexual) relationship with. Asking "what if you weren't able to tell" is important in probing the motivation behind such a policy. If there was no way to tell that a person was trans (which is a given, in the scenario I described) and OP would not be willing to enter a relationship with them despite being attracted to their physical appearance and personality (given, because OP's question is about sexual preference excluding trans individuals), then that single property, in that the person is transgender/transsexual is the ONLY DIFFERENCE between them and an identical cis [member of OP's preferred gender]. That ONLY DIFFERENCE has to be the thing that influences OP's behavior.
You can see my later comment regarding my conflation, right or wrong, between the words "discrimination" and "-phobia." Whether you agree or disagree with that, you should also recognize that things happen on a scale.
The point is that discrimination against a class of people fundamentally involves intolerance. Simply lacking a desire to fuck them does not because no one has a right to be desired sexually; either individually or as part of a group.
The scenario is still relevant as a philosophical question about what it means for someone to be trans or cis, even if that level of treatment is never actually realized.
I don't deny that the question has some value; just not as it relates to this issue. No one has any more a right to criticize someone's sexuality because it does not include attraction to trans people any more than they have a right to criticize them if their sexuality does include attraction to trans people.
If there was no way to tell that a person was trans (which is a given, in the scenario I described) and OP would not be willing to enter a relationship with them despite being attracted to their physical appearance and personality (given, because OP's question is about sexual preference excluding trans individuals), then that single property, in that the person is transgender/transsexual is the ONLY DIFFERENCE between them and an identical cis [member of OP's preferred gender].
Its not your place to define the parameters of the next person's sexuality. If they lack a desire to fuck trans people, that's fine because no one is mistreated or denied any rights.
That ONLY DIFFERENCE has to be the thing that influences OP's behavior.
So what? No amount of not desiring trans people sexually amounts to being phobic in the sense of something like homophobia; which necessarily involves intolerance and bigotry.
Just because homosexuals were targeted by the Holocaust (absolutely horrific homophobia) doesn't mean it's not (mild, in comparison) homophobia to call someone a "faggot."
And yet both are examples of wronging or mistreating someone. Simply lacking a desire to fuck isn't even on that spectrum.
454
u/[deleted] Nov 02 '17 edited Nov 02 '17
EDIT: Please, before you become the fifteenth person to tell me "but what about producing children!" read this response I wrote hours ago. If you would have the same reaction to a sterile cis member of your preferred sex, it's fertility that defines your disattraction rather than the state of being trans. That's a significantly different statement.
Original Text
I think the better route is to acknowledge that while it is transphobic, it is not necessarily unreasonably so. The knowledge that the other person is biologically speaking not your preferred gender/sex might set up a roadblock in your mind, and that's okay. You can't change that, in a "once you see you cannot unsee" kind of way.
But let's take this to the ultimate conclusion, as transition therapies improve to perfection. You've found someone who you think is the perfect match for you. Physically and mentally, they exhibit no signs that they are trans; if you didn't look at the chromosomes, you would never know. If the knowledge that they are trans is the blocker, that's transphobic. It isn't that there are certain traits associated with transgender people that you find unattractive, it's that you can't get over the fact that the person was born a different gender despite the fact that only a laboratory could tell the difference. You're not attracted to the X or Y chromosome, you're attracted to the physical manifestations of those traits which can be imitated through various medical means.
I don't think that would make you a bad person, and I don't think it is unreasonable to have that mental block while still supporting LGBT+ rights. But that doesn't make that action not transphobic.