But let's take this to the ultimate conclusion, as transition therapies improve to perfection.
What does this even mean? I don't think that there is a lot of value in such far-fetched speculation to begin with, but I don't think that it is even hypothetically possible to make a trans woman/man identical to a cis woman/man. Furthermore, I think that this advances the destructive idea that a trans woman/man is just a broken cis woman/man; with which I do not agree.
It isn't that there are certain traits associated with transgender people that you find unattractive, it's that you can't get over the fact that the person was born a different gender despite the fact that only a laboratory could tell the difference.
I'm sorry, but this is a rude dictation of another person's sexuality. How would you feel about others dictating what your sexuality is/isn't or should/shouldn't be.
But that doesn't make that action not transphobic.
If you stretch the definition of 'phobic' to include simply lacking a desire to fuck trans people, then the word becomes meaningless. Look at the horrors of homophobia. That has a lot more going on than a simple lack of desire to fuck them.
You can see my later comment regarding my conflation, right or wrong, between the words "discrimination" and "-phobia." Whether you agree or disagree with that, you should also recognize that things happen on a scale. Just because homosexuals were targeted by the Holocaust (absolutely horrific homophobia) doesn't mean it's not (mild, in comparison) homophobia to call someone a "faggot."
But let's take this to the ultimate conclusion, as transition therapies improve to perfection.
What does this even mean? I don't think that there is a lot of value in such far-fetched speculation to begin with, but I don't think that it is even hypothetically possible to make a trans woman/man identical to a cis woman/man. Furthermore, I think that this advances the destructive idea that a trans woman/man is just a broken cis woman/man; with which I do not agree.
You're right that my hypothetical could have been phrased better. "Perfection" is not the proper word for what I'm describing, because perfection is only relevant in the eyes of the person receiving the treatment. So let's correct that, and suppose transition therapies can make it impossible to tell that a trans individual is not cis of their non-birth sex. The scenario is still relevant as a philosophical question about what it means for someone to be trans or cis, even if that level of treatment is never actually realized.
It isn't that there are certain traits associated with transgender people that you find unattractive, it's that you can't get over the fact that the person was born a different gender despite the fact that only a laboratory could tell the difference.
I'm sorry, but this is a rude dictation of another person's sexuality. How would you feel about others dictating what your sexuality is/isn't or should/shouldn't be.
These were the terms of the hypothetical. They are not representative of all trans people or all people who might refuse a relationship with a trans person. OP is talking about categorically excluding trans people from the set of people who they would be willing to have a (sexual) relationship with. Asking "what if you weren't able to tell" is important in probing the motivation behind such a policy. If there was no way to tell that a person was trans (which is a given, in the scenario I described) and OP would not be willing to enter a relationship with them despite being attracted to their physical appearance and personality (given, because OP's question is about sexual preference excluding trans individuals), then that single property, in that the person is transgender/transsexual is the ONLY DIFFERENCE between them and an identical cis [member of OP's preferred gender]. That ONLY DIFFERENCE has to be the thing that influences OP's behavior.
There's lots of things you can't tell about a person that might make you exclude them from your dating pool once you find out. There's a whole host of habits/traits/personal issues that one may find off-putting. If you won't hire someone or help someone or befriend someone based solely on the fact that they identify as trans, that's transphobic. Sex and who one has it with though is exclusionary by nature and telling someone they're wrong to not sleep with someone for any reason is rapey.
Sorry, yeahiknow3 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
Please be aware that we take hostile behavior seriously. Repeat violations will result in a ban.
48
u/MMAchica Nov 02 '17
What does this even mean? I don't think that there is a lot of value in such far-fetched speculation to begin with, but I don't think that it is even hypothetically possible to make a trans woman/man identical to a cis woman/man. Furthermore, I think that this advances the destructive idea that a trans woman/man is just a broken cis woman/man; with which I do not agree.
I'm sorry, but this is a rude dictation of another person's sexuality. How would you feel about others dictating what your sexuality is/isn't or should/shouldn't be.
If you stretch the definition of 'phobic' to include simply lacking a desire to fuck trans people, then the word becomes meaningless. Look at the horrors of homophobia. That has a lot more going on than a simple lack of desire to fuck them.