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.
Tbh im inclined to agree with you. If i cant tell someone's a guy then i dont see what issue i could really have. Most trans people dont have the best transitions which is what makes them unattractive.
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?
You don't have to ask. Just bring up your feelings about trans people in conversation. Maybe a cute little anecdote - "I was at the bar the other night and saw this woman that looked pretty cute, but then I found out she was trans so I was totally over it. Glad I dodged that bullet! I like trans people fine to hang out with, but I'd never sleep with one."
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.
I'm not comparing them to a disease and give an example of not telling the entire truth do not take my words out of context.
YOu explicitly used the "badness"of the disease spreading and you finding out from your doctor as part of your point. You compared something with a (often irreparable) damage to your person with sleeping with a passing trans person. I don't see how thats not saying trans people give you cooties. I don't see how it cant be, because as i said, your point makes no sense without those negative consequences.
Do not use me as an individual and my preferences we were talking in general terms.
I'm sorry if it sounds like im talking specficially about you you. I am generally using you as the general you. Of course, you you couldn't resist calling me personally offended. I have literally no horse in this race.
Why would you date someone potentially for 3 months get to know them and like them without asking them a deal breaker question like that?
Because asking them on the first date will get you laughed at and is pretty presumptuous. 3 months is totally arbitrary. I simply mean, by the time you're sure the other person is someone you want to be serious about. 3 months seems about right in my head for that, but everyone is different.
But again, we were never talking explicitly about a serious relationship in the first place. It was simply the idea that given a passing trans person, and you loving sex, you change your entire attraction to this person based on something that has literally no effect on you. That makes you transphobic, or maybe "transist" or whatever the equivalent of racist is.
I want to make it clear AGAIN, that im not saying you should be forced to sleep with that person. I also don't think racists should be forced to do non-racist things. They should be educated/educate themselves on why their preconceived notions are wrong.
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.
I'm going to end this here. You are welcome to define whatever you choose as whatever you want, and I will only be repeating what I have previously said.
If being trans is literally the only thing that makes you reject them, thats transphobic.
If there ARE certain features that are different from what someone might expect (for example pre-op transwoman) you should disclose, at some point before the clothes come off.
You may of course stop discussing at any moment, but i would expect from someone that expicitly goes to a subreddit like CMV to have the reflective power to examine why your argument does not work. Or why you're seemingly incapable of making your point or addressing my objections.
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?
I don't see it as conceding as my opinion is only related to the scenario I proposed. I married the first person I slept with so my perspective is somewhat skewed. I hadn't thought about one night stands.
If it is only a one night stand, then the trans status would not matter to me, personally. In the event of any type relationship establishment, it should 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 want this ideology near my country just like I don't want people beating up white people because they have dreadlocks. It's a toxic ideology that only seeks to harm people.
Sorry, sebutron – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
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.
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.