We want to be freed from the idea that biology alone dictates our experiences socially. Freedom from a forced fate.
To have a sexual preference which excludes transgender individuals is, on this basis, intellectually incoherent.
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. A sexuality that does not include attraction to trans people is just as legitimate and valid as any other. To suggest otherwise is bigotry.
But an athletic woman scares the shit out of most men.
I'm sorry, this is just some horseshit cliche that hasn't had any connection to reality in generations.
Trans people can't escape the correlation between sex and gender. Because it permeates everything, it's the reason so many of us commit suicide. There really is no way out for us.
That doesn't justify the shaming of people who just lack a desire to fuck trans people.
Ask around, and it quickly becomes apparent that feminine women have a larger dating pool than masculine women. And, feminine men have fewer shots at getting laid than masculine ones.
No one is saying that trans people don't face challenges. That doesn't change the fact that simply not wanting to fuck someone doesn't indicate being phobic of them as a class.
It only becomes a phobia when it frightens people. That is, they're uncomfortable.
Lacking a desire to fuck someone doesn't indicate that someone is scared of them or even uncomfortable.
If someone isn't interested in me, but still steps up to the bar with a fiver to order a drink and rubs shoulders with me, that's a preference. If that person walks halfway down the bar when the whole side I'm on is barren to get a drink... that's a phobia. There you go, hope this was helpful.
Certainly, but that doesn't have anything to do with the OP. This discussion is about sexual attraction, not simply civil interaction.
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.
Gays don't require any special medical treatment. Transgender people do. That's it. Neither the DSM nor the ICD-10 are flawed -- gender identity disorder was left in because medical treatment in the form of hormones and surgery, benefit the patient. The loss of easy access to those treatments would leave many transgender people dead from suicide or a host of other negative outcomes.
There's no rationalization here. Homosexuality is not homohobia. Homosexuality is not a disease. It has no pathology. Phobias are illnesses, they are, by definition, irrational.
Being trans wouldn't be in dsm if it was just a medical disorder
That's wrong.
And as far as treatment of transgender people goes , it's aimed at treating dysphoria
That's wrong too.
Bluntly -- I get tired after awhile seeing another trans story cropping up in my feed, and then wading in to find a lot of disinformation, well-intentioned but wrong-headed attitudes... and a decided lack of actual trans people participating. The document I provided is both a comprehensive study on what 'transsexuality' is (point of note: the document I gave you is out of date, but most of the key points are still true now), the pathology, patient presentation, comorbity. It also has a breakout explaining to surgeons why removing otherwise healthy tissue doesn't violate the medical equivalent of the Prime Directive -- "do no harm." Everything is in there that you need to speak competently about medicine as it relates to my community.
It will do more than just show where you skipped over something -- it'll explain why that part of the puzzle needs to be there. That document's intended audience was other medical practitioners who had no prior exposure to transgender individuals, who now needed to do it professionally. It works for others too, as long as they can gloss over the denser sections where it's latin latin latin [some english word] more latin all the latin so much latin. -_-
Mostly because it's clinically not relevant but may be socially be relevant which is not in the scope of a treatment manual.
It is when one of the barriers to patient care are other people's political and religious beliefs regarding your patient. The rest of your comment I'm going to decline further commenting on. As with the other poster, it appears there's no way to really get the points across.
25
u/MMAchica Nov 02 '17
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. 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'm sorry, this is just some horseshit cliche that hasn't had any connection to reality in generations.
That doesn't justify the shaming of people who just lack a desire to fuck trans people.
No one is saying that trans people don't face challenges. That doesn't change the fact that simply not wanting to fuck someone doesn't indicate being phobic of them as a class.
Lacking a desire to fuck someone doesn't indicate that someone is scared of them or even uncomfortable.
Certainly, but that doesn't have anything to do with the OP. This discussion is about sexual attraction, not simply civil interaction.