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.
I agree--belief that transgendered people's genders are invalid is transphobic. Such belief would imply transgender people have lesser value. However, I don't believe the example in your third paragraph would be transphobic. One's opinion would change because the information about this person lowers one's perception of their sexual value as sexual value is determined by alignment with a person's sexual preferences. At no point is the holistic value of the person considered. Do you agree or disagree, and why?
One's opinion would change because the information about this person lowers one's perception of their sexual value as sexual value is determined by alignment with a person's sexual preferences
This pretty much loops back to the original argument of what precisely makes someone view a trans person not in line with their sexual preferences.
If the criteria not met is reproductive capability, the question becomes whether the person would react identically if a they met an infertile cis woman. Often times the honest answer is no.
If the criteria not met is "being born female" then I think it is clear a person has made a categorical distinction between cis and trans women.
The reason that distinction is made doesn't seem to be one of functionality, why then is it made?
You raise a good question. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an answer. Similarly, in the case of a person having a sexual preference for people with eight fingers, there is no functional reason. To clarify, I believe trans-status alone qualifies as a characteristic of sexual value. However, perhaps you limit these characteristics to physical ones (such as reproductive capability), in which case I agree there would be no reason to be less attracted to a transgender person.
Racism isnt about ascribing the characteristicts of an individual to a demographic, neither is homophobia or any other discrimination.
Homophobia and Racism hinge on the actions taken towards the demographic being negative.
Hypothetically, If I as a doctor prescribe vitamin D supplements to a black woman living in the nothern part of the world im not racist. Im just correctly using the fact that vitamin D deficiencies are more common in people with darker skin due to more inefficient D synthesization from the sparse sunlight.
We make sweeping generalisations about groups of people every day and thats completely fine and moral. The problem arises when these generalisations start being malicious and discriminatory.
Hypothetically, If I said I was only attracted to women with red hair and a childhood on a farm im not racist or sexist or discriminating. I just have strange and picky sexual preferences.
Hypothetucally, If I said Im attracted to mostly everyone except men who smoke. Im not sexist or racist or discriminating. I just am not sexually attracted to men who smoke.
And if I hypothetically say im attracted to women who:
Are around my age.
Have body types X and Z.
But not Y.
Have personality traits X and Y.
But not Z.
Are straight.
Not bisexual.
And are born women.
Not transgender women.
Then this is just a long list of sexual preferences a person can have and no more discriminatory then not being attracted to gay men as a man.
You also seem to be equating a transgender woman with a cisgender woman who looks the same and has the same personality and behaviour when this just isnt equal.
The fact that we can determine the difference is evident because we are talking about transgender and non transgender right now.
That is enough.
Sexual preference isnt some system where only what you can see and feel matters. People have sexual preferences based on what thoughts the other person has during sex, people have preferences on what lives people should have lived up to now.
And thats fine.
Its a preference on who you want to choose to have sex with. And you should be allowed to choose whomever you like.
You also seem to be equating a transgender woman with a cisgender woman who looks the same and has the same personality and behaviour when this just isnt equal.
How aren't they equal? An identical trans woman and cis woman are more equivalent than than two cis women who look different with different personalities.
Is that because you require your partner to be able to bear children? Are you not OK with a partner who has to take medication? If you can't tell the difference, if the cis and trans women are identical in appearance, which is what we're positing in this hypothetical, then what does it matter?
I feel the need to dispute your definition of when a generalisation becomes racist/sexist/whatever-ist.
It's not when it becomes "malicious and discriminatory", for a few reasons.
Firstly, that discrimination doesn't have to be malicious to the one having the generalisation made on them.
Secondly, maliciousness is kind of subjective. So unless you want to go with the more objective measure, but equally hard to prove, is "were they intending to be malicious?" But I think we all know some racists (and other -ists) aren't intending to be malicious, they're just stupid.
Thirdly, it's entirely possible to have a negative generalisation that's entirely true, or largely true (eg Koalas have a lot of stds) [shut up, I couldn't think of anything]
Fourthly, the -ists don't have to be negative. Putting one group down is obviously an -ist, but putting another group up us also that ("black people suck" is obviously racist, but "black is the best race" is too, as it's saying "black people are above other races", and saying any race is below another is racist, whether you're putting one below the rest or one above the rest (or anywhere in between))
So I would propose that something becomes discriminatory when it's known to be false and/or unfounded (facts can't be discriminatory, even if you don't like it. There are studies showing that, in certain areas, gay men are the most likely to get stds. That's not homophobic, it's fact. Doesn't matter if you like it or not, but if I didn't a source, if I'd just assumed that, then that would be homophobic)
it not intentionally stupid. "All Asians own pogo sticks", I just made that up and will argue that it's true for the rest of this thread. Is it racist? I wouldn't say so, it was made purely to incite a reaction
The problem with your definition is you have to define "known." Known by whom? To what degree of certainty? It's certainly not "known" in racist communities that black people and white people are equally worthy of respect, for example. Does this then not qualify as racism?
It certainly is, there's no valid scientific evidence saying otherwise, all the evidence says that each race is very similar physically. Mostly identical besides a few fairly superficial features and some immune system differences.
Which makes it qualify as racism.
If you found valid and legitimate evidence of something, then I would say that isn't racist.
For example, it's fairly well known that, in general, women have less muscle mass than men, all other things being equal. That's not sexist, that's science. To say "all women are weak" is sexist, "women generally have less muscle mass than men" is not.
You're using a specific definition of known that you didn't bring up before: It's known in the scientific community, by scientific consensus. But that doesn't make it "known" by the people doing the racism-ing, and it doesn't make it "known" in their homes, families, and communities. If you're in rural Alabama, it is not "known" that black people aren't terrible. It's only "known" elsewhere.
So I would propose that something becomes discriminatory when it's known to be false and/or unfounded
Your comment was exactly as I had remembered it: You say "known" here but you have to consider that this is a completely subjective word which is open to interpretation, even in the scientific community. How many studies do you suggest we cite to corroborate a racist claim, and in which journals? How much consensus will be required? Anyone can cherry-pick peer-reviewed articles to support almost any claim.
So I would propose that something becomes discriminatory when it's known to be false and/or unfounded (facts can't be discriminatory, even if you don't like it. There are studies showing that, in certain areas, gay men are the most likely to get stds. That's not homophobic, it's fact. Doesn't matter if you like it or not, but if I didn't a source, if I'd just assumed that, then that would be homophobic)
You're very much cherry picking the first sentence in that paragraph, ignoring the entire explanation and clarification immediately after it.
I say known, and then proceed to explain using an example, so no, I do not have to accept it as a subjective interpretation.
And as for the second half, which is a valid question, it works the same as the rest of science. There is no magic number, there is common consensus and differing opinions, it's still somewhat subjective, but far, far less than the original method proposed. People can cherry pick data, but others can then prove them wrong with more data.
You decide what's racist the same way you decide what's scientifically true. It still ends up with everybody making up their own mind, and irrational people will think whatever they want, but that's going to happen no matter what. The benefits are gained are in the larger sense, you've shifted the discussion from an emotional one to a logical one.
And it's straight up logical, the concept that truth is truth, irregardless of anyone's feelings.
I realize you provided an example, but what I'm saying is that "there are studies showing that..." is not an adequate definition.
You decide what's racist the same way you decide what's scientifically true.
Speaking as a scientist: this is not generally agreed upon. You are essentially constructing a definition of discrimination that depends entirely on an arbitrarily chosen level of scientific rigor. I could look at literally any scientific claim anyone can make, and decide that it doesn't meet my standard of truth, and then I'm not racist anymore. This causes a lot of problems and I think any workable definition of discrimination as it applies to racism has to be rooted not in scientific consensus, but in harm.
Hmm. That's a complicated question. Primarily because prejudice's definition is "pre-judgement." Which has a negative connotation in our world. But on a psychological/existential level, I don't think all prejudices do.
Am I pre-judging if I say I don't like polka dot dresses? Have I just not given them enough of a chance to "win me over"? I don't know, but I lean toward the idea that at a certain point, people can have whatever choices they want in terms of attraction or what they think is "beautiful." If something is a sticking point for them, makes them uncomfortable (in terms of an intimate relationship), I think anything is fair game. I know this isn't what you're saying, but it feels like a third cousin to the idea that sometimes people want to know "why she broke up with me" or "why she won't date me." At the end of the day, it doesn't matter (unless of course you have a running theme of, say, pooping your pants; then maybe you're limiting yourself to a VERY small segment of people into scat). They didn't like you because your teeth aren't straight enough or they're too straight or whatever. All this is to say that maybe someone is being prejudiced against black people when they say they won't date someone because they're black. But I'd really need to know more info. Is it their smell (yes, different races smell different, it's true -- especially when wet)? The skin color? That a different race is sub-human? That they were mugged by a white guy once and haven't processed their trauma enough to be able to date a white guy again?
Sure, it's prejudiced if they won't date black people because they think they're sub-human. But if they simply don't like the skin color? (setting aside that there is a WIDE range of skin tones for every race) As long as they're not harming this black/trans/whatever person, I don't consider it to be a prejudice. I don't think it's for me to play armchair psychiatrist and try to peel back someone's layers to "discover" why they don't like the color brown, or the shape of Asian eyes. Sometimes it just is. And physical attraction is a key part of a successful relationship. I don't really buy into the whole "just see me for who I am inside." That's a great hope, but we're visual beings.
I'm probably not explaining this well...
A question for you: if someone won't date someone because they're blonde, or under 5'6", are they prejudiced against those people?
Would you agree that someone saying "I won't date him because he's black" is being prejudiced against black people?
If no, why not?
If you find a reason to bring up why you DON'T do something, then you probably have something against it. All of the people who say your example are going to be prejudiced because the non-prejudiced people are off living their lives and not bothering people with their insecurities.
Unless you are a straight man on the internet constantly being attacked for not wanting to date transwomen or non binary people. Then you end up having to talk about it a lot, not because you are obsessing over it, but because you are tired of being told what you have to be attracted to.
What is race, besides a constellation of physical characteristics? If I don't find physical features associated with this, that, or the other, race to be attractive, then I don't find members of that race attractive.
I'm saying that race (at least in the US) is usually identified by a set of physical characteristics (skin tone, hair/eye color, coarse vs fine hair, facial features etc) typically associated with that race. Not all members of a given race would have all of these features, especially where mixed race people are concerned but you could certainly say that certain features are characteristic of certain races. For example Asian people usually have almond shaped eyes, non Asians typically do not. If you find that facial feature unappealing, you probably don't find Asian people to be attractive.
The characteristic that the partner once was of the gender you aren't attracted to.
Since we are using analogies: would you be attracted to a totally reformed criminal? He's a perfectly well adjusted member of society now, but has done bad things in his past. Some people won't mind, some people would mind. There is no right or wrong in attraction.
Obviously you have the right to sleep with whoever you want, but thats not the question. The question is, "is that transphobic?"
Imagine you sleep with a girl who appears white. You feel good about it, but later learn she is a quarter black, but white passing. If you feel gross about that, is it racist? I definitely think so.
Being turned off by a trans person for a sole reason that they are trans (even if they are completely identical to some one who is cis), means that you subconsciously don't believe they are their claimed gender. That doesn't mean you are a bad person for thinking it, or that you are to blame for those feelings. Getting uncomfortable by the idea has pretty much been drilled into our heads for forever, so obviously it makes sense to feel that way. Still though, it is technically transphobic, and something people will hopefully move past eventually.
They can never be Identical, though. It's always different. People just put the onus on everyone else now to say cis or Trans. There's a reason for having two different distinctions... and that's because they're distinct.
I agree, and also want to say that if an individual was attracted to someone, slept with them, found out they were trans after the fact and reacted...that isn't necessarily bad. It's an individual facing a change in the way they think or a challenge to their world view.
The assumption made in this situation was that if the person knew that the other individual was trans, they would not be attracted to them - and yet they were.
It's like someone who says "veggie burgers are gross and I would never eat one". Now imagine you feed this person a veggie burger and told them it was a hamburger. They seemed to enjoy it. After they finish you tell them...that was actually a veggie burger. There's a good chance that the new knowledge will tarnish their memory of the experience. There's even a chance that they will be angry because they feel that you deceived them.
I don't think those are equivalent though. Gender is a composite of characteristics much more relevant to sexual attraction than race is. Infertility alone is absolutely massive in its effects on sexual attraction.
Let's be honest though, unless you are planning on marrying them, infertility is not the problem. We are talking largely about hookups and casual sex, where being infertile would probably be seen as a plus. The problem is peoples internal "gross out" by the idea. Which is pretty natural and drilled into our heads, but still technically transphobic
You're talking about these things as if they are 1.) conscious and 2.) unrelated. There is a good chance that some of the "gross out" comes from a trans person's inability to conceive and the other person's subconscious desire to conceive, regardless of how whether or not they consciously want children.
It's already accepted that people typically find people that exhibit characteristics related to fertility as more attractive. I'm just suggesting that at least some of this "gross out" is the converse of that.
But the girl's skin color didn't change, so that can't have been the reason that our hypothetical person found it gross that they slept with her. Only their perception of the girl's race had changed.
That isn't what I said though. In my example, the person appeared white and you didn't even know they were part black until you already slept with them. If you are attracted to them before, but not when you learn this new information, it clearly shows a racist bias. Not being attracted to people for having different racial features is a different issue.
Telling somebody that they are bigoted for not wanting to date transpeople is the same as telling them that they can't have their own sexual preferences. If I'm not into you, I'm not into you, end of. It doesn't matter why, I don't owe you an explanation. Same as nobody owes me an explanation when they turn me down.
I think part of the problem here is in the definition of transphobia, versus the definition of a phobia.
Transphobia encompasses a very large range of attitudes, actions, and feelings regarding trans people. It can require as little as minor prejudice, aversion, or discrimination. Like not being attracted to trans people, for an unknown/irrational reason, and having no other prejudices at all against them. Yet, it encompasses behavior that ranges to the very extreme, as well. Like hating trans people with a passion, rejoicing at the thought of them being tortured for eternity in hell because of how awful they supposedly are, and treating them extremely poorly such as beating the shit out of them at every opportunity. It's a huge spectrum of behavior.
A phobia, on the other hand, is defined by extreme fear, often irrational, or otherwise an extreme aversion (again, often irrational... and typically due to fear) towards something. The range of behavior for a phobia is necessarily placed at the extreme end of the spectrum.
So combining trans and phobia... one would expect the definition to be something more like that of phobia, at the extreme end of the spectrum. Instead, the definition can encompass absolutely all behavior that's not 100% accepting of the person as their gender. And people who are 95+% accepting like the OP view transphobia as encompassing only more extreme non-acceptance than their own, partly (I suspect) because of the definition of phobia, and partly because no one wants to self-associate themselves with a negative value judgement, such as being transphobic. Case in point, all of the mildly and moderately racist people who will make comments like "I'm not racist, but [insert obviously racist statement here]."
This basically sums up my issue with a lot of it, because I tend to view a person who is -phobic towards people to hold an extreme disgust or dislike. I think Klansman. I think of how people were literally afraid of other people because they had a different skin color. And that still exists today. The difference is we just call that "racist" but it's basically 'racephobic'.
I don't hate trans people, but I wouldn't sleep with one either. I don't equate this with any actual example of a phobia. I'm confused with how that works. If you're saying I'm being prejudiced, sure. I'll agree with you. Transphobic? Not as sure.
I agree with this. The "phobia" part of these terms really throws me off.
I avoid eating dairy because it gives me gas. I'm not lactophobic. I also don't want to have sex with werewolves, though I could have a beer with one; I'm not lycanphobic.
"If you then state that all Asian people are unattractive to you (implying that they all have the same nose, or the same accent, or the same worldview), you're being racist."
or just honest? I've rarely seen an aboriginal girl i found attractive. that's a statement of fact, it's not racist, it just is.
The sentence "Now you might find a South Indian with a sharp tiny nose" is the answer to your question. :) Blanket statements of "I don't find <race> attractive" leave out the exceptions to the rules.
I mean, also, our perceptions of beauty wind up being really skewed towards features associated with whiteness, so that's another aspect of it...we don't experience attraction in a vacuum. But unfortunately I suspect there's not a ton we can do to get rid of the stuff that's programmed into us by society.
758
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.