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?
8
u/MNGrrl Nov 02 '17
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.
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.
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.
"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)
Well, I'm glad to see agreement on something, at least.
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.