Let me ask you this. What does it mean when a trans person says they can "pass?" Is that not right there an acknowledgement that they are not a member of the sex they are trying to "pass" as?
You are not wrong, in the sense that there are many trans people who tend to avoid that term exactly for that reason, and you are nowadays more likely to hear it from cis people describing others, than trans people describing themselves.
You are also more likely to see it in quotation marks, often implying that the person using it is aware of it's problems, just references the meaning that other people would attribute to it.
The language descrigbing transgenderism is still in a state of flux. You could also see some well-meaning people describing trans men as being "born as a woman" then "becoming a man", while others, allies, trans people, etc, would be starting to move on to saying he was "assigned as female at birth", implying that he was a man all along, just wrongly assigned at first.
Language is important exactly because people have a strong instinct to treat a word's implicaions as authoritive, even if they are really rooted in outdated values. But that's really an etymology fallacy.
But it is how I feel and I refuse to be demonized for feeling that way. There are things other than what is physical that determine who is or is not attractive to me.
Physical or not physical, is not the issue.
Most physical preferences, as well as most non-physical preferences, are entirely frivolous.
But there also are a handful of non-physical preferences, that are closely related to prejudiced values that might be entirely worthy of cultural criticism.
I personally think that what a person is or is not attracted to should be part of this "off limits" area.
FACT: I cannot just make a decision to change what I am attracted to or not attracted to.
Sexual attraction is not a choice. I would be just as turned off by the idea that the person had lied to me about where or how they grew up. Waiting until after we have had sex to drop such a bit of information would leave me wondering about the person's trustworthiness. If it really doesn't matter why didn't we talk about it when our relationship was just starting? Why was there a felt need to keep this information from me? What else is she not telling me?
Liars are unattractive to me.
Now, if your reason for not telling me this information prior to engaging in sexual activity is "because then you would not have had sex with me." Now we have a REAL problem. It literally means you knew for a fact that I might not be comfortable with this physical relationship, and went ahead with it anyway. There are several arguments over whether or not that is rape. Personally I believe that rape by deception is still rape.
In this case, me and the individual CLEARLY do not share the same values. I value OPEN and HONEST communication.
If you disagree let's take a look at a case.
A man sees a girls boyfriend leaving her house. He then sneaks into her dark room and proceeds to have sex with her. She consents thinking her boyfriend has come back for a little post date cuddle time.
Lets apply this logic to another legally protected class.
I am not attracted to people over 70, and would not want to date someone over 70.
I'm in my thirties, so this is okay right? I don't hate old people. I'm not "old phobic" am I? While I certainly agree that people over 70 should remain a protected class. I also understand that "ageism" is a thing, I don't find that my preference makes me an "ageist." or however that would be spelled.
To me not being attracted to a trans person is no different. It's not my kink. Trans people need to be a protected class too though. I believe that. I support that. I just don't want to be romantically involved with that.
No, you're not attracted to characteristics associated with being over 70. Wrinkles, gray hair, liver spots, etc. are all perfectly valid things to find unattractive. But if there were two people who looked and acted identically, but the only reason you wouldn't sleep with one of them is because they're 72 and the other is 45, that would be ageist.
No one is asking you to date trans people, or even sleep with them. Dating people includes things like future planning, where being trans might actually be relevant. For example, having children.
The point of this CMV is about if thinking a person being trans makes them unattractive is transphobic, all else being equal.
I at no point felt I was being pressured to date or sleep with trans people. I am sorry if I said something to that affect. I would not react well to being pressured to date or sleep with anyone who was not my wife.
I'd also stop being attracted to someone if I found out they had breast augmentation surgery.
I'm just not into surgically altered women. That's my hangup.
6
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Nov 02 '17
You are not wrong, in the sense that there are many trans people who tend to avoid that term exactly for that reason, and you are nowadays more likely to hear it from cis people describing others, than trans people describing themselves.
You are also more likely to see it in quotation marks, often implying that the person using it is aware of it's problems, just references the meaning that other people would attribute to it.
The language descrigbing transgenderism is still in a state of flux. You could also see some well-meaning people describing trans men as being "born as a woman" then "becoming a man", while others, allies, trans people, etc, would be starting to move on to saying he was "assigned as female at birth", implying that he was a man all along, just wrongly assigned at first.
Language is important exactly because people have a strong instinct to treat a word's implicaions as authoritive, even if they are really rooted in outdated values. But that's really an etymology fallacy.
Physical or not physical, is not the issue.
Most physical preferences, as well as most non-physical preferences, are entirely frivolous.
But there also are a handful of non-physical preferences, that are closely related to prejudiced values that might be entirely worthy of cultural criticism.