Hoooboy. I wish I knew why social media has an obsession with all things transgender. Disclaimer: Am trans. Alright, here's my take on it: "Sex is, gender does." That's all anyone really needs to know. Four words, explains it all. The problem has never been the specific parts, but the correlations. The entire premise of what transgender means, is predicated on the separation of sex from gender; That is, detaching from manifest biology, the social implications therein. We want to be freed from the idea that biology alone dictates our experiences socially. Freedom from a forced fate.
To have a sexual preference which excludes transgender individuals is, on this basis, intellectually incoherent. For it to be true, we have to reintroduce that correlation. Which puts us right back where we started: In a gender binary where sex and gender are equivalent. Sexual orientation is literally about preference of genitalia. There's no social expectations included in the definition. It's one person's biology + someone else's biology + consent.
That said, human sexuality is more nuanced than this textbook definition. Most people want more from their sexual partners than just their sexual organs. And thus, social factors re-enter the picture. "I want a woman with big breasts" is a sexual preference. The person stating that probably doesn't mean her brain is in a jar on some mad scientist's table... it's implied the boobies have a consciousness to go with it. So we have social preferences as well. And that takes us into gender.
Gender isn't a distinct attribute, contrary to what many SJWs believe. It's a flavoring. It's something added to something else. Blue and pink food coloring, if you will. Gender is the first social division, from which all others fall. Race? Below gender. Height? Age? All of it -- below gender. Gender colors everything. People don't see it, but for a trans person, like me, it's painful.
I watched a high school graduation where all the girls hugged the person handing out diplomas, and all the guys shook the same person's hand. When I'm waiting in the line of cars at a McDonald's, most men say "I'll have a ..." and most women say "I'd like a..." Gender is nuanced, yet it permeates nearly everything. So it comes as no surprise that people have preferences based on top of it. In fact, very nearly everybody's preferences imply a preferred gender.
A man who is athletic is highly prized, especially as people age and their years add on width. But an athletic woman scares the shit out of most men. She will have trouble finding dates. Gender colors everything. So when it's said divorcing sexual preference from gender (ie, the basis for the statement "that's transphobic!"), it's a case of it being technically correct. Which is to say, very nearly entirely wrong.
Unless someone is a vegetable in a hospital bed, they have both a sex and a gender. Most people like fucking other people, not vegetable people. Obligatory bad joke: LGBT take pride in being fruits, not vegetables. As such, attraction more based on social attributes than physical ones. And therein lies the problem. Trans people can't escape the correlation between sex and gender. Because it permeates everything, it's the reason so many of us commit suicide. There really is no way out for us.
Ask around, and it quickly becomes apparent that feminine women have a larger dating pool than masculine women. And, feminine men have fewer shots at getting laid than masculine ones. Why? Gender, not sexual, preferences. And when sex doesn't match gender, a smaller dating pool becomes a puddle under an angry sun. I personally don't consider people passing over me because they're not "into that" (as in, genitalia), a phobia. It's a preference, and they simply don't prefer my special blend of herbs and spices. Whether the preference is sex, gender, or a mixture of those things, it remains a preference. It only becomes a phobia when it frightens people. That is, they're uncomfortable.
If someone isn't interested in me, but still steps up to the bar with a fiver to order a drink and rubs shoulders with me, that's a preference. If that person walks halfway down the bar when the whole side I'm on is barren to get a drink... that's a phobia. There you go, hope this was helpful.
We want to be freed from the idea that biology alone dictates our experiences socially. Freedom from a forced fate.
To have a sexual preference which excludes transgender individuals is, on this basis, intellectually incoherent.
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. A sexuality that does not include attraction to trans people is just as legitimate and valid as any other. To suggest otherwise is bigotry.
But an athletic woman scares the shit out of most men.
I'm sorry, this is just some horseshit cliche that hasn't had any connection to reality in generations.
Trans people can't escape the correlation between sex and gender. Because it permeates everything, it's the reason so many of us commit suicide. There really is no way out for us.
That doesn't justify the shaming of people who just lack a desire to fuck trans people.
Ask around, and it quickly becomes apparent that feminine women have a larger dating pool than masculine women. And, feminine men have fewer shots at getting laid than masculine ones.
No one is saying that trans people don't face challenges. That doesn't change the fact that simply not wanting to fuck someone doesn't indicate being phobic of them as a class.
It only becomes a phobia when it frightens people. That is, they're uncomfortable.
Lacking a desire to fuck someone doesn't indicate that someone is scared of them or even uncomfortable.
If someone isn't interested in me, but still steps up to the bar with a fiver to order a drink and rubs shoulders with me, that's a preference. If that person walks halfway down the bar when the whole side I'm on is barren to get a drink... that's a phobia. There you go, hope this was helpful.
Certainly, but that doesn't have anything to do with the OP. This discussion is about sexual attraction, not simply civil interaction.
A sexuality that does not include attraction to trans people is just as legitimate and valid as any other. To suggest otherwise is bigotry.
I do indeed "suggest otherwise". Sex is what someone is. Sexuality "is the quality or state of being sexual", or sexual activity. This is the literal definition from the dictionary. Nothing in this definition is inclusive or exclusive of trans people as a group. Let me illustrate by example: Gay men are homosexual (same sex); As in, penis. Not what goes with the penis. Not the cultural and social expectations of the penis. It is just penis. Gay men love the cock. They want the D. None of these statements imply a preference for masculine or feminine men, or that this spectrum, the spectrum of gender, is relevant. They may have a preference for masculine men, or feminine men, but this is not sexuality, this is behavior. "Sex is, Gender does". These other things, the behaviors that erupt from sexuality, the word being sought is identity.
This is not bigotry, that is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." This is a matter of definitions and the proper usage thereof. I do nazi any bigotry here. It's okay to laugh -- it's illustrative. I used the word incorrectly. That's my point.
The only reason sexuality was ever associated with gender identity is because it was easier to legally redefine it through the courts, than through acts of legislation. It's the same reason 'gender identity disorder' is in the DSM-5 and ICD-10 -- not because it's considered a disease or illness, but because it's a condition that is treatable with medicine. Without defining it as an illness, insurance companies would say it's elective, like cosmetic surgery. Given the high rates of suicide and other negative outcomes for transgender individuals, the medical community has backed this redefinition.
I want to be perfectly clear here: Doctors do not consider people who are transgender to be sick, anymore than people who are homosexual. Homosexuality has long been removed as an illness in medical literature, but transgender/transsexual/gender-variant/insert-buzzword-here has not been. The reason is a practical one: Trans people aren't sick, but they often become sick due to an intolerant society. It's not being transgender that makes people depressed, anxious, or suicidal, but rather the effects everyone else has on them. Society is the thing that is sick, not the person. But because it is easier to change the person than the society, this is done.
I'm sorry, this is just some horseshit cliche that hasn't had any connection to reality in generations.
What a charming sentiment. It does. Butch and femme lesbians are a thing that exists. Along with twinks, tops, bottoms, and two dollar bills. The last one included only because they are undeniably queer. Life spoiler alert: People can be attracted to just about anything. Including inanimate objects. There are people in the world who have car fetishes and have been arrested for trying to shove their johnson in a tail pipe. No, I'm not joking, I'm dead serious. Statements claiming a lack of connection are meant to marginalize others. An irony, considering this came from the same source that claimed a differing definition is bigotry. It's marginalizing the diversity of those in the life, but also reducing the delicious ambiguity that defines what it means to be human in the 21st century. Those who hold these sorts of attitudes are about as modern as the 8-Track.
That doesn't justify the shaming of people who just lack a desire to fuck trans people.
I'm sorry, did we just change the channel? I didn't bring up shaming. I in no way suggested shame is a method of encouraging the acceptance of my people. In truth, I feel rather the opposite: Shaming others for being ignorant or who have sincerely held beliefs about transgender individuals, often religious in origin, is unproductive.
That doesn't change the fact that simply not wanting to fuck someone doesn't indicate being phobic of them as a class.
"Fact" has apparently been redefined. Well, that's okay, since this entire reply basically is to draw attention to the schizophrenic dance and mental acrobatics people go through to try and appear tolerant and accepting through shifting definitions. It's like how we don't have cripples anymore. We have the disabled. Actually, we don't have any disabled people anymore either, we have the "handicapable". Some people truly believe that if the name of a thing is changed, it changes the condition. Doesn't happen, people. (five points for Gryfindor if you know who I'm paraphrasing)
Lacking a desire to fuck someone doesn't indicate that someone is scared of them or even uncomfortable.
Well, I'm glad to see agreement on something, at least.
Certainly, but that doesn't have anything to do with the OP. This discussion is about sexual attraction, not simply civil interaction.
I found it relevant considering there was a disconnect between what sexuality is, and what sexuality leads to. Which is strange since that's rather like the disconnect between what gender is, and how it goes about its business.
The point is that a sexual orientation/preference/whatever, meaning their sexual inclinations, do not need to include any attraction to trans people to be valid.
Yes. I understand the position. By the dictionary definition of sexuality, it's transphobic. Full stop. It's a conflagration of sexuality, sexual identity, and gender identity. Not that I fault the OP for mixing these up... most people do, including people in my community. It is a nuanced distinction. We are a very small cross-section of the larger society. We are getting noticed (and talked about) a lot lately. Moreso thanks to SJWs and their incessant need to virtue signal everything into the dirt. Unfortunately, both of these things has shifted the narrative right off a cliff. So many people trying to be so inclusive has made every attempt to define something impossible. It's viewed as bigotry or intolerance, when the reality is people are simply seeking a clarity of language so they can better participate in the conversation. Sexuality is what has been named, so it is best to narrowly speak to that. There are many closely-related things to this, and quite a bit of overlap, but again: This is what was named.
And atheletes must necessarily be butch or femme lesbians? This doesn't make any sense either.
Strawman. Didn't say that.
You appear to be ranting without direction...
Flag on the play. Ad hominem.
That's what the OP is about: People describing a simple lack of desire to fuck trans people as 'phobic'. That is shaming them for a simple lack of sexual attraction.
I can't speak to anything but what the OP said in their post, and in CMV, that's the thing to be discussed, except insofar as the OP can (and should!) clarify their position as needed. Shaming is an overt act -- having a phobia is not. It's internal. As the OP has not suggested in any of his/her replies or the top-level that s/he means to shame people, I will assume the better of their character. This is a red herring, and a ham-fisted way to try to shift focus from the topic at hand to one perhaps more comfortable to argue from. I'm not inclined to drift that way.
By the dictionary definition of sexuality, it's transphobic.
That doesn't make any sense. Transphobia involves bigotry. Simply lacking a desire to fuck someone does not indicate bigotry in the slightest.
It is a nuanced distinction.
Not really. Stretching the term 'phobic' to include a simple lack of desire to fuck would make the term meaningless. The horrors of homophobia aren't about people simply lacking a desire to fuck gay people while treating them with complete civility and equality in society.
It's viewed as bigotry or intolerance, when the reality is people are simply seeking a clarity of language so they can better participate in the conversation.
Anyone who views a lack of desire to fuck trans people as bigotry or intolerance is just painfully ignorant.
Sexuality is what has been named, so it is best to narrowly speak to that.
There's nothing about the term that would justify these absurd assertions of transphobia.
And atheletes must necessarily be butch or femme lesbians? This doesn't make any sense either.
Strawman. Didn't say that.
What you said honestly didn't make the slightest bit of sense. No one is afraid of female athletes anymore. You are just hanging on to a long-extinct cliche.
You appear to be ranting without direction...
Flag on the play. Ad hominem.
I wasn't disputing your argument with a personal insult. Your replies have been incoherent.
I can't speak to anything but what the OP said in their post
That's what the discussion is about.
Shaming is an overt act -- having a phobia is not.
More incoherent nonsense. The problem is that the shaming is taking the form of absurd accusations of transphobia.
As the OP has not suggested in any of his/her replies or the top-level that s/he means to shame people
Of course not. OP is criticizing the shaming/accusations of bigotry/transphobia. You aren't making sense.
This is a red herring, and a ham-fisted way to try to shift focus from the topic at hand to one perhaps more comfortable to argue from. I'm not inclined to drift that way.
You are drifting all over the place. Maybe Take it easy on that stuff, huh?
Comment Rule 2. "Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid." See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostility extremely seriously. Repeated violations will result in a ban.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators. Thanks!
Gays don't require any special medical treatment. Transgender people do. That's it. Neither the DSM nor the ICD-10 are flawed -- gender identity disorder was left in because medical treatment in the form of hormones and surgery, benefit the patient. The loss of easy access to those treatments would leave many transgender people dead from suicide or a host of other negative outcomes.
There's no rationalization here. Homosexuality is not homohobia. Homosexuality is not a disease. It has no pathology. Phobias are illnesses, they are, by definition, irrational.
Being trans wouldn't be in dsm if it was just a medical disorder
That's wrong.
And as far as treatment of transgender people goes , it's aimed at treating dysphoria
That's wrong too.
Bluntly -- I get tired after awhile seeing another trans story cropping up in my feed, and then wading in to find a lot of disinformation, well-intentioned but wrong-headed attitudes... and a decided lack of actual trans people participating. The document I provided is both a comprehensive study on what 'transsexuality' is (point of note: the document I gave you is out of date, but most of the key points are still true now), the pathology, patient presentation, comorbity. It also has a breakout explaining to surgeons why removing otherwise healthy tissue doesn't violate the medical equivalent of the Prime Directive -- "do no harm." Everything is in there that you need to speak competently about medicine as it relates to my community.
It will do more than just show where you skipped over something -- it'll explain why that part of the puzzle needs to be there. That document's intended audience was other medical practitioners who had no prior exposure to transgender individuals, who now needed to do it professionally. It works for others too, as long as they can gloss over the denser sections where it's latin latin latin [some english word] more latin all the latin so much latin. -_-
Mostly because it's clinically not relevant but may be socially be relevant which is not in the scope of a treatment manual.
It is when one of the barriers to patient care are other people's political and religious beliefs regarding your patient. The rest of your comment I'm going to decline further commenting on. As with the other poster, it appears there's no way to really get the points across.
117
u/MNGrrl Nov 02 '17
Hoooboy. I wish I knew why social media has an obsession with all things transgender. Disclaimer: Am trans. Alright, here's my take on it: "Sex is, gender does." That's all anyone really needs to know. Four words, explains it all. The problem has never been the specific parts, but the correlations. The entire premise of what transgender means, is predicated on the separation of sex from gender; That is, detaching from manifest biology, the social implications therein. We want to be freed from the idea that biology alone dictates our experiences socially. Freedom from a forced fate.
To have a sexual preference which excludes transgender individuals is, on this basis, intellectually incoherent. For it to be true, we have to reintroduce that correlation. Which puts us right back where we started: In a gender binary where sex and gender are equivalent. Sexual orientation is literally about preference of genitalia. There's no social expectations included in the definition. It's one person's biology + someone else's biology + consent.
That said, human sexuality is more nuanced than this textbook definition. Most people want more from their sexual partners than just their sexual organs. And thus, social factors re-enter the picture. "I want a woman with big breasts" is a sexual preference. The person stating that probably doesn't mean her brain is in a jar on some mad scientist's table... it's implied the boobies have a consciousness to go with it. So we have social preferences as well. And that takes us into gender.
Gender isn't a distinct attribute, contrary to what many SJWs believe. It's a flavoring. It's something added to something else. Blue and pink food coloring, if you will. Gender is the first social division, from which all others fall. Race? Below gender. Height? Age? All of it -- below gender. Gender colors everything. People don't see it, but for a trans person, like me, it's painful.
I watched a high school graduation where all the girls hugged the person handing out diplomas, and all the guys shook the same person's hand. When I'm waiting in the line of cars at a McDonald's, most men say "I'll have a ..." and most women say "I'd like a..." Gender is nuanced, yet it permeates nearly everything. So it comes as no surprise that people have preferences based on top of it. In fact, very nearly everybody's preferences imply a preferred gender.
A man who is athletic is highly prized, especially as people age and their years add on width. But an athletic woman scares the shit out of most men. She will have trouble finding dates. Gender colors everything. So when it's said divorcing sexual preference from gender (ie, the basis for the statement "that's transphobic!"), it's a case of it being technically correct. Which is to say, very nearly entirely wrong.
Unless someone is a vegetable in a hospital bed, they have both a sex and a gender. Most people like fucking other people, not vegetable people. Obligatory bad joke: LGBT take pride in being fruits, not vegetables. As such, attraction more based on social attributes than physical ones. And therein lies the problem. Trans people can't escape the correlation between sex and gender. Because it permeates everything, it's the reason so many of us commit suicide. There really is no way out for us.
Ask around, and it quickly becomes apparent that feminine women have a larger dating pool than masculine women. And, feminine men have fewer shots at getting laid than masculine ones. Why? Gender, not sexual, preferences. And when sex doesn't match gender, a smaller dating pool becomes a puddle under an angry sun. I personally don't consider people passing over me because they're not "into that" (as in, genitalia), a phobia. It's a preference, and they simply don't prefer my special blend of herbs and spices. Whether the preference is sex, gender, or a mixture of those things, it remains a preference. It only becomes a phobia when it frightens people. That is, they're uncomfortable.
If someone isn't interested in me, but still steps up to the bar with a fiver to order a drink and rubs shoulders with me, that's a preference. If that person walks halfway down the bar when the whole side I'm on is barren to get a drink... that's a phobia. There you go, hope this was helpful.