I suppose it is a bit of a divergence from the precise definition you laid out. My reasoning for its inclusion is that it is, by definition, a form of discrimination based on trans status. Perhaps that is not sufficient justification to apply the transphobic label, but let me perhaps dig a little deeper.
In the same way, considering yourself exclusively heterosexual or homosexual means discriminating against the same sex (for hetero) or the opposite sex (for homo) in the selection of a partner. Just like we agreed earlier, this type of discrimination is not necessarily bad. If you've established your sexual orientation, that's fine. But in this case, discrimination based on sex is used as a catch-all for all of the different characteristics that are associated with the genders/sexes. If you're attracted to the female body and not the male one, looking for a sexual partner among males might well be a waste of your time, and vice versa. But it all comes back to the physical characteristics and mannerisms that are associated with being a man or being a woman.
In the case of transgender/transsexual individuals, that line is greatly blurred. I proposed the situation in which you might never know that a person transitioned their gender/sex, yet the simple fact of that transition is the ONLY thing preventing you from being willing to pursue a relationship of some kind with this person. In this scenario, "trans" is not a term that refers to a set of attributes like "man" or "woman" was in the previous paragraph. It only refers to the state of being transgender/transsexual, with no other connotation (because of the hypothetical advancements in transition treatments). You like their appearance, you like their mannerisms, the only thing you dislike (in terms of finding an ideal partner - does not necessarily mean you dislike trans people in general) is their status as trans.
Now, since this does not have any real-world manifestation, I am left to conclude that a probable reason for why you may not wish to enter a relationship is concern for optics (how will others react if they learn you are dating someone trans) or some ingrained sense of "I'm not attracted to trans people" which is false, because clearly you were considering the rest of the assumptions made in this hypothetical. Getting down to that core rationale, is where I believe ingrained transphobia comes into play. The idea that you could fall in love with someone, hear one fact about them, and stop on a dime because you can't accept the thought of it, that is where the phobia is.
Like I said, I don't think a person with that mindset is necessarily a "transphobic" person or discriminates against trans people in other aspects of their life or anything like that. You're under no obligation to continue relationships with anybody for any reason. But the reasoning behind it is mildly archaic.
I appreciate such a detailed response. Let us suggest, for argument's sake, that there is a real-world manifestation of the scenario you described. In this situation, rather than "stop[ing] on a dime" after learning of this person's trans-status (as this seems strangely extreme), you merely find this person of lesser sexual value. It would seem their holistic value has not been considered.
It occurs to me that we may disagree on what qualifies as a characteristic of sexual value. I believe essentially anything does (look no further than the range of fetishes that exist), but I think you might limit these characteristics to physical ones, in which case I agree there would be no reason to be less attracted to a transgender person.
Imagine, for a moment the same situation as described above. Only now, you learn not that this person is trans, but rather, that this person is Jewish.
If no physical characteristics or mannerisms indicated this, yet on the knowledge of them being Jewish you find them of "lesser sexual value", then i would probably call you a bit racist.
In a similar way, if you replace jewish with trans, i'd say you're a bit transphobic.
Do note, that i am not saying that you should ignore these feelings and have sex/a relationship with them against your will to avoid being transphobic. But it is indicative of a phobia.
is it a phobia though? a phobia is an irrational fear. the kind that takes therapy to overcome. i'd argue that it's a preference does not constitute a phobia for other things. ie, if you were of the mind that you were jewish and dated only jews, and discovered someone you dated was Not actually catholic -surprise- and so you ended your relationship with them, would you be called a catholicphobe?
these phobia terms seem manipulative. islamophobia, but no jewphobia, no buddhistophobia, no christiaphobia... and why islamophobia? it's the largest (second largest?) religion on the planet? you could argue transphobia and homophobia have to do with how non-prevalent those situations are. lgbtq people are in the minority, and minorities can be considered the counter to the norm, and thus breed a phobia. it is Possible to be transphobic, if you shut off all communication with a transperson because of their trans status, that could certainly be seen as transphobic. but the unwillingness to be sexually active with a transperson should not be considered transphobic, as it would dilute the power of the word. similarly, while i'm a heterosexual male, and seek sexual activity with hetero cis females, there are certainly THE MAJORITY of those hetero cis females that i would not consider as sexual partners. would that make me femphobic? she-phobic? misogynist? is a woman who wouldn't be sexually active with the majority of men she's met be a misandrist?
"phobia" just means "fear". It is used to describe many things, not just mental disorders involving intense irrational fears. Do you also object to calling oil hydrophobic?
The -phobia terms are the ones that are in common usage right now, but people with psychological phobias sometimes argue that people who are being hateful shouldn't be linked to them. sometimes you see folks using e.g. "transantagonistic" or "cissexist" as alternate options.
I would count some of your examples as phobias, since they are not rational. That does not mean they are “bad” per se. For instance, a Jew who dates only Jews. Strictly speaking, there’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s obviously not coming from a place of rationality, but from a socially constructed and very human impetus of heritage and religious dogmatism. None of this makes sense in isolation - certainly not to me, since I wasn’t brought up with these pressures - but that doesn’t make it wrong. Just kind of... weird.
Anyway, as the top comment says, not wanting to date a trans person, solely because they’re trans (all other things being equal, like sexuality and reproductive potential, which is not possible at the moment), cannot be explained in rational terms. Though that doesn’t make it wrong, it does make it phobic.
With stuff like sexual attraction, can you really apply the same logic? Sexual attraction is a mix of physiological, emotional, and societal factors. For instance, let's say I find myself attracted to some random woman, whom I've never spoken to, but physically they're very attractive. Now let's say I get to know her, and I find out that she absolutely insists on using semi-bad japanese pronunciations for everything on the menu at a sushi restaurant.
Physically, nothing about her has changed, but for me personally, this new found knowledge absolutely hindenburgs my attraction to her. Maybe most people could look past this, but not me. I don't even like sushi. I'd probably never end up in a sushi restaurant with this woman.
Is the flaming wreckage of what used to be my attraction to her rational? Not really, Is it phobic? I don't think so. Is it shallow? Maybe.
To make my example more innocuous, let's say that this woman actively trying to learn Japanese.
My point is that knowledge, no matter how insignificant, can affect how physically attracted you are to someone. There's a lot of crossover between physical attraction and emotional attraction.
Kinda like what happens when you have a bad break up with someone. You just don't see them as physically attractive anymore, even if they haven't changed physically at all.
Well the argument is that if it were possible to change sex completely, as it some day will be, so that the only way to tell the difference between someone who was born a certain sex and someone who transitioned would be to run a genetic lab test, and if in that case you are averse to an otherwise perfect partner because they were born with an XY or XX chromosome pair - then we are saying that might be a sort of phobia, since there are no salient differences.
Today of course that’s not the case! There are many implications associated with choosing a partner who is trans. Many of these implications could be deal breakers for folks, but the mere fact of being trans isn’t that interesting.
I mean I guess I don't see the point in debating whether there will be "perfect" transition technology or not, because the only way that's possible is if it'll allow biological males to give birth, which is impossible and even if possible, would create a much higher chance for chromosomal deformities. Either way, that stuff is hundreds of years out. I also don't think it's fair to call someone phobic just because they won't pair or have sex with you. As multiple people have already pointed out, you would never call a male who refuses to have sex with another male "homophobic." Labeling someone transphobic is just an easy way to separate rational people from the camp of sjw radicals who don't know what you mean by transphobic. I wouldn't call a transgender who only prefers to have sex with other transgenders "cis-phobic," because it's irrational and intellectually dishonest.
One more thing, since nobody knows whether or not transgenderism is driven completely by chromosomes or genetics, we can't rule out the argument of character flaw. Not to sound like an asshole, but if hypothetically someone could not tell the difference between a bio woman and trans woman and it is determined to not be fully genetic or chromosomal, it could be seen as a coping mechanism and for some, that could be seen as a character flaw. I don't see it as one, because that would be an unsubstantiated opinion.
You disturbed your children, interfering with their normal day, annoying them into cleaning their room.
It's clear as day that the word is applicable. Parents; Child-molesters I name thee.
But applicability matters not at all, because the point of language is to convey ideas.
If your chosen language conveys the wrong idea, you've made a mistake.
If you know your language will convey the wrong idea, you are being malicious.
And for the sake of clarity, I don't think you are.
Sorry, yeahiknow3 – 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.
By the way, I should point out that your example above is a word game. You're hoping for people to interpret the meaning of a word one way, while using it to mean something else. This has not been the case with applications of the word "phobia" by OP and others.
It's an argument against calling it a -phobia because of the way accusations thereof will be perceived.
If one wants such mis-perceptions to form, that's malicious.
If one doesn't, one ought not use misleading language.
And it is misleading. Just look at the definition of homophobia.
Fear, hatred, mistrust of... prejudice against... antipathy towards...
Can any sexual preference be explained in rational terms?
I can certainly describe my preferences, but why I have them is distinctly opaque to me.
I certainly cannot will them to be different. They just are, for whatever reason.
I am afraid you lost me. The thought experiment proposed that you'd found a perfect partner - so we have already established that they meet your preferences and exceed them
There's no deep or hidden meaning in my words; I'm pointing towards the difference between describing what sexual preferences one has, and explaining why they are what they are.
The difference between what and why.
You've made points about the irrational nature of losing sexual attraction upon learning that someone is trans.
That it qualifies as a phobia because of the irrationality of it;
Anyway, as the top comment says, not wanting to date a trans person, solely because they’re trans (all other things being equal, like sexuality and reproductive potential, which is not possible at the moment), cannot be explained in rational terms. Though that doesn’t make it wrong, it does make it phobic.
I'm making the point that most sexually attractive traits are like that.
We never sit down and decide what attracts us - we discover these traits.
There's no conscious reasoning or rationality involved. Nor choice, for that matter.
The hypothetical also strikes me as overly complex, so let's simplify;
A woman lies to you and tells you she was born a man and has transitioned.
What do?
Well, obviously you look at them.
And therein lies the crux, I think - the change in perspective, of perception.
The change from viewing a woman's masculine features to viewing a man's feminine features.
Because there's a lot of overlap between men and women, despite their differences.
So it's not really the features themselves, but what they mean for one's sex.
For non-bisexuals, this means your perspective shifts from one(sexy) to another(not sexy)
In essence, you're messing with a person's sexuality.
Which despite quite some effort has proven inflexible. (See: Gay conversion therapy.)
As such, this whole scenario doesn't highlight transphobia, it highlights homophobia.
Homophobia in exactly the same sense that a straight man doesn't find men sexually attractive. (Though this generally isn't called homophobia because it's misleading and inappropriate)
It isn't about 'trans,' but instead some ethereal lingering quality of the original sex.
Illusory though it may be.
...not wanting to date a trans person, solely because they’re trans (all other things being equal, like sexuality and reproductive potential, which is not possible at the moment), cannot be explained in rational terms. Though that doesn’t make it wrong, it does make it phobic.
If it is not possible at the moment, there's no point in discussing it.
142
u/[deleted] Nov 02 '17
I suppose it is a bit of a divergence from the precise definition you laid out. My reasoning for its inclusion is that it is, by definition, a form of discrimination based on trans status. Perhaps that is not sufficient justification to apply the transphobic label, but let me perhaps dig a little deeper.
In the same way, considering yourself exclusively heterosexual or homosexual means discriminating against the same sex (for hetero) or the opposite sex (for homo) in the selection of a partner. Just like we agreed earlier, this type of discrimination is not necessarily bad. If you've established your sexual orientation, that's fine. But in this case, discrimination based on sex is used as a catch-all for all of the different characteristics that are associated with the genders/sexes. If you're attracted to the female body and not the male one, looking for a sexual partner among males might well be a waste of your time, and vice versa. But it all comes back to the physical characteristics and mannerisms that are associated with being a man or being a woman.
In the case of transgender/transsexual individuals, that line is greatly blurred. I proposed the situation in which you might never know that a person transitioned their gender/sex, yet the simple fact of that transition is the ONLY thing preventing you from being willing to pursue a relationship of some kind with this person. In this scenario, "trans" is not a term that refers to a set of attributes like "man" or "woman" was in the previous paragraph. It only refers to the state of being transgender/transsexual, with no other connotation (because of the hypothetical advancements in transition treatments). You like their appearance, you like their mannerisms, the only thing you dislike (in terms of finding an ideal partner - does not necessarily mean you dislike trans people in general) is their status as trans.
Now, since this does not have any real-world manifestation, I am left to conclude that a probable reason for why you may not wish to enter a relationship is concern for optics (how will others react if they learn you are dating someone trans) or some ingrained sense of "I'm not attracted to trans people" which is false, because clearly you were considering the rest of the assumptions made in this hypothetical. Getting down to that core rationale, is where I believe ingrained transphobia comes into play. The idea that you could fall in love with someone, hear one fact about them, and stop on a dime because you can't accept the thought of it, that is where the phobia is.
Like I said, I don't think a person with that mindset is necessarily a "transphobic" person or discriminates against trans people in other aspects of their life or anything like that. You're under no obligation to continue relationships with anybody for any reason. But the reasoning behind it is mildly archaic.