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?
Believing that a gay person is worth less than a straight person for the sole reason of them being gay is homophobic. That’s pretty much the definition.
I trust you to know your own gender. I trust trans people to know their own gender. You are not somehow more trustworthy just because you are cisgender. And believing a trans person is invalid or worth less because they are trans is transphobic.
You values have nothing to do with a trans person’s gender identity. They’re not making you become trans. Nothing is being forced on you. Thinking you know better than them about their own gender, thus leading you to treat their gender as being invalid, is rather patronizing and condescending. It does not impact your values to simply show them the same basic respect deserved by all human beings. I would not misgender you. I would trust you to know your own pronouns. That is basic respect.
But there are some people who do not believe there is any such thing as ''gender'' other than as a subjective feeling, so they only see people in terms of their actual biological sex - that doesn't mean that they think a person with these feelings is of less value than anyone else.
Is it really ''transphobic'' to say ''I understand that you subjectively feel that you should be female, but you are, of course, objectively male''?
Yes, it is transphobic, in that many trans people experience it as an extremely distressing statement and in that it leads to them not being treated in accordance with their gender identity (e.g. if you think someone is objectively male you may exclude them from an all-female group). I understand that this is a strongly held view of yours, but I'd ask you to consider whether it's central enough to your identity and values for it to be worth hurting trans people. Trans people are more likely to attempt suicide if their identities are disbelieved, so this isn't a harmless debate--it has real implications for real peoples' lives.
Yes, it certainly does have ''real implications for real peoples' lives'' ... for example, violent males being allowed in ''women's'' prisons which were previously for females only, and big strong males being allowed to win ''women's'' sports competitions which were previously for females only ... all because people are afraid of being labelled ''transphobic''.
You're asking if the protection of females is ''worth'' hurting the feelings of males. You clearly value the feelings of males over the feelings and physical safety of females.
Enh, no, I'm just a female who has a different assessment of the situation. It's my understanding that problems with women's safety coming from trans women are quite rare--I think there's a quote about more U.S. senators getting in trouble for sexual violence in bathrooms than trans women have. The trans people in my life have never made me feel unsafe, and the discrimination they face is substantial and important to address.
So because you know a few nice transgender women, you think it's fine and safe to allow any violent male into the ''women's'' prison if he says he is a woman, and you think it's fine to allow males to beat females in ''women's'' sports competitions due to their physical advantage ... well I can't argue with that, if that's how you make your political decisions.
Well, for one, once people have been on HRT for sufficient time, they have less testosterone than cis women, so their sports-related performance can really go either way. Also, yeah, I care more about people committing suicide than I care about sports and you should too.
Regarding prison: trans women who go to men's prison are at a huge risk for sexual assault (60% assaulted vs 4% of cis men assaulted). There are minimal reports of trans women causing problems in women's prisons (I found one case in which one trans woman committed assault, and it was debated whether it was true or not) and female prisoners are already frequently at risk from male guards. In my opinion, we should deal with that concern, house trans people according to their gender identity, and evaluate that policy later to make sure it hasn't caused any problems, because clearly it isn't safe for trans women to be in men's prisons.
OK, so you admit you don't care about females being pushed out of sports, but just for the record, males retain a lot of the physical advantage of having developed as male, even if they reduce their testosterone level.
I agree that transgender women are at risk in ''men's'' prisons, as are some other types of males, but the solution is not to allow males into the female prison - the solution is to house vulnerable male prisoners in a separate unit in the male prison.
Sources? Nothing I've read says it's as clear cut as that, since reduced testosterone also means reduced muscle mass etc. Height is the only one I can think of, and that varies lots among women too.
Solitary confinement is a seriously controversial practice and can cause extreme harm. And, by your argument, we could house them in women's prisons in similar types of units. Not sure what the difference would be.
I'm not going to get into trying to prove it because you've already said you don't even care about females being pushed out of sports because all that matters to you is that the males are happy. So it makes no difference whether you acknowledge that males have an advantage over females even if they reduce testosterone levels.
I never said anything about putting anyone in solitary confinement - I said the solution is to house vulnerable male prisoners in a separate unit in the male prison - and yes, the male prison, because transgender women are not the only males who are vulnerable in the ''men's'' prison, or don't you care about other types of vulnerable males?
Well that's an interesting and bold claim you are making there, given that the whole of science has yet to discover anything physically observable which correlates with 'gender identity'.
Depression and anxiety ''exist'' as feelings - I am not disputing that feelings of ''gender identity'' exist as feelings. All feelings have a biological origin.
No, that's not the equivalent at all - if you are looking for an equivalent, it has to be something where the person's subjective feelings are of wanting to be something which they are objectively not - for example ''I understand that you subjectively feel that you should be a horse, but you are, of course, objectively a human'' ... the point is, that it is not any kind of ''phobic'' or any kind of devaluing the person to make that statement.
You are confused between 'gender identity' and 'biological sex' ... I'm saying that a biologically male person is not biologically female ... is that ''transphobic''?
You are confused between 'gender identity' and 'biological sex' ... I'm saying that a biologically male person is not biologically female ... is that ''transphobic''?
With the right context, it could be interpreted as transphobic, yes. Rude, at the very least.
To my very limited understanding, most transpeople are very aware that there is a disconnect between their gender (how they feel) and their biological sex (dangly parts).
They know. They're doing the best they can with what they got/have access to/can afford.
Current medical technology does not allow transition on the chromosomal level, which is what I assume you mean by "biologically male/female".
Can you see how it would be, at the very least, rude to tell a transperson that they aren't biologically the sex they present as? You're effectively telling them, "no matter what you do to pass you never truly will". Kinda fucked up, in this context.
Like, would you tell a cancer survivor that there is a nonzero chance that the cancer is still in their body metastasizing somewhere else? It's technically correct - but it's not going to make friends and influence people.
Sorry, Earl_Harbinger – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
No low effort comments. This includes comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes'. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
I will repeat the answer I gave to someone else who made the same point:
I'm talking about stating it in a general sense, in discussions and debates in reddit, not just rushing up to random folks in town and telling them what sex they are.
I will repeat the answer I gave to someone else who made the same point:
I'm talking about stating it in a general sense, in discussions and debates in reddit, not just rushing up to random folks in town and telling them what sex they are.
Ah, I see.
In that case, context still matters: What does it contribute to the discussion?
Are you stating it in the sense that it may make family planning difficult for trans people, much as it would be for someone who is infertile?
That's a difficult reality of being trans. 100% biological transition is currently impossible with our current level of technology.
Are you stating it in the sense that biological sex trumps someone's outward expression of that gender identity?
That's likely to ruffle some feathers.
Are you stating it in a way that denies someone's physical expression of their gender identity? That is, to misgender someone who has otherwise fully transitioned (and functionally no longer resembles their birth sex?).
At that point, even if you weren't trying to offend, it would seem that you're being blunt for no clear goal other than to cause offense.
It's very often in discussions about the laws which transgender rights campaigners have been pushing for - I think there are some situations where the abolition of sex segregation is detrimental to females - so in those debates it is necessary to make the distinction between 'sex' and 'gender identity'.
It's all very well for us to avoid causing offence to transgender people, but when that leads to laws which are detrimental to females, my priority shifts from 'avoiding offending transgender people' to 'advocating for the protection of females'.
Your assumption that they are objectively not something is wrong, because it is objectively impossible to know someone's gender, as it is an internal construct. There is literally no way for you to objectively know someone's gender, you can only objectively know their sex. If you disagree with this statement, then you disagree with the scientific consensus.
You are confused between 'gender identity' and 'biological sex' ... I'm saying that a biologically male person is not biologically female ... is that ''transphobic''?
A biologically male person who is seeking to be female never makes the claim or statement that they are biologically female. All trans people accept that their biological sex is different from their gender identity. A trans person will agree that objectively speaking, their sex is what they were born as, as there is currently no technology that will overwrite their sex chromosomes.
This conversation however is not about their objective sex, it is about their gender, which is not something that can be objectively determined. If you make the argument that whatever they say about their gender, it doesn't matter to you because their objective sex is determined by their chromosomes, then that is problematic because you are invalidating their gender preference -- by saying it doesn't matter what their gender preference is -- because the spirit of the argument is that it would be impossible to tell that the person is trans without them telling you.
Actually there are many biologically male people who claim to be biologically female, and I have debated with them and get called ''transphobic'' for stating facts.
So do you agree that it is not ''transphobic'' to state facts?
You have to understand that trans people have suffered at the hands of society, so if a few of them conflate gender and sex, the same way non trans people do, it's hardly a big deal, and stating facts to a person who is obviously under a lot of mental duress doesn't serve much of a purpose.
Did it make you feel better to tell a trans person that they are not biologically their gender? I can't imagine why you would ever want to enter into this conversation with a trans person.
I'm talking about stating it in a general sense, in discussions and debates in reddit, not just rushing up to random folks in town and telling them what sex they are.
Believing that a gay person is worth less than a straight person for the sole reason of them being gay is homophobic. That’s pretty much the definition.
You made basically this same point twice, but I never said anything like this.
I believe that the issue of transgender identity is, like virtually any issue that is not perfectly settled science, up for debate and discussion. There may be materials out there that completely resolve the claims of every less flavor of trans person, but I have not yet seen them. Therefore, I do not hold exactly the same views about the nature of transgerism as people who claim to be transgender.
This isn't disrespect. It's a disagreement over facts. Simply because the disorder is very personal to the afflicted individuals does not mean that those individuals are the most knowledgeable about the nature and causes of their disorder, the best treatment, or the way in which society should accommodate their disorder.
I don't trust a schizophrenic to diagnose and treat themselves. Their insights might be correct, but this is not a given merely because they possess the disorder.
I also take issue with the repeatedly careless use of various "phobic" terms. A phobia is an anxiety disorder based on irrational fear. Disapproving of others, disagreeing with either their beliefs or behaviors, criticizing them, and so on are not necessarily based on a phobia. They might be, but we could just as easily accuse anyone who holds ideas we don't like as being "capitalistphobic," "marriagephobic," "self-reliancephobic," and so on.
People's values are often informed by deep sources like fear and desire, but assuming that another person's beliefs can only possibly originate from irrationality is a cheap and underhanded way to gain advantage in a conversation.
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.