Support NeoGAF

[RDreamer]

Given the loose skin issues that drastic weight loss can have, that opinion might not be as crazy as you think. Perhaps that's a more apt analogy than it first appears.

But then that gets into my last statement. If you couldn't tell that they were ever fat and were attracted to them from the very beginning, but then un-attracted the moment they told you they used to be fat, I think most people would think that's a very strange thing happening. Otherwise, you could just be unattracted to loose skin, which is fine, I suppose. Depending on how quickly they went from large to not-large I don't think everyone has loose skin when losing weight. I dunno, I've seen some really goddamned attractive people who lost weight.

 

[Amory]

How is it not? It may not be conscious, intentional bigotry, but it's still a feeling coming from centuries of deeply ingrained cultural bigotry.

I don't think it's fair to blame it all on culture, either. People are born somewhere on the gay/straight scale, it's genetics, not choice.

I'm straight. The idea of having sex with a man is repulsive to me. Now get rid of the male parts and replace them with female parts and make the person physically appear female. Ok, the thought of sex with this person isn't exactly repulsive to me anymore, but on some level it's still conflicting with what I'm wired to be attracted to.

 

[Izuna]

It's dumb because you are too unconcerned to look at how many women make the same reasons they don't want to share a personal space with someone who is transgendered. When the best answers they are given by these types of men is, I'm right you're wrong, or get over it or just try to understand they aren't a threat, they aren't being honest with cis women about how they share the same views as them and only care about protecting their own cis masculine sanctity.

Guys like that are illogical and based on this threads reaction unable to realize that dissonance, yet.

Fuck them. This is different from what individuals find attractive, this doesn't at all affect them in any conceivable way. Unless they really find it hard to piss unless they feel that they are only around XX, if so, they can piss at home because there is fuck all else a trans woman could go. They may pay taxes, but they only get to choose the rules of where people can piss and shit in a home they own or rent.

However -- this is not the same as telling people they shouldn't not date someone for the same reasons.

 

[Mumei]

I maintain the same position as well. If you aren't attracted to men, it would follow that you aren't attracted to someone who was born male. You've called it a mental hurdle essentially that is "all in your head" and I wouldn't disagree with that completely. I would constantly be thinking about the fact that the person was born male, was physically male before her transition, has artificial genitals that don't fully work like a real vagina, no uterus/no children, etc. Those are the mental hurdles the vast majority of men would have, and I argue they are genuine and not some form of bigotry.

The point of the incest comparison is the absense of full information/disclosure. To use a different comparison, there are many men who would be less attracted to a woman if they learned she was infertile; the same applies to many women if they learned a man was sterile.

I think you're guilty of thinking of this in abstraction rather than in reality. If you aren't attracted to men, it follows that you wouldn't be attracted to trans men and cis men. It doesn't follow that you wouldn't be attracted to a trans woman, because a trans woman would not (necessarily, though obviously different people pass socially more or less successful than others) appear to be a man (or male). If you perceived her to be female, and you were attracted to her, you would be attracted to her as if she were female. That's why I'm saying this conversation says more about your perceptions than it does about any objective reality.

I don't think that they are disingenuous concerns; I think they are bigoted.

No commonly accepted definitions of bigotry include personal sexual preference. And though the issue is certainly in his head, at present we aren't aware whether that disposition is a product of culture, biology, or their interplay. In good faith, I take his incest analogy to indicate his position that his private sexual aversion to trans women is inborn (as evidence suggests is a likely scenario with universal incest taboos) rather than an attempt to equate all other aspects of intercourse with close relatives and transexuals.

I don't think they're inborn. And even if they are, I know in my own experience that I used to be deeply unsettled by the idea and now I don't have that issue. So, whether it's learned or something you're born with, it's not something you're stuck with.

 

[HUELEN10]

I think you're guilty of thinking of this in abstraction rather than in reality. If you aren't attracted to men, it follows that you wouldn't be attracted to trans men and cis men. It doesn't follow that you wouldn't be attracted to a trans woman, because a trans woman would not (necessarily, though obviously different people pass socially more or less successful than others) appear to be a man (or male). If you perceived her to be female, and you were attracted to her, you would be attracted to her as if she were female. That's why I'm saying this conversation says more about your perceptions than it does about any objective reality.

I don't think that they are disingenuous concerns; I think they are bigoted.

Doesn't that kinda carry the risk of saying that at the end of the day homosexual males and androphillic males, heterosexual males and gynephillic males, homosexual women and gynephillic women, and heterosexual women and androphillic women are the same thing? There is some overlap with those sexualities, but they are definitely not identical.

 

[Mumei]

Doesn't that kinda carry the risk of saying that at the end of the day homosexual males and androphillic males, heterosexual males and gynephillic males, homosexual women and gynephillic women, and heterosexual women and androphillic women are the same thing? There is some overlap with those sexualities, but they are definitely not identical.

Well, no. They aren't identical. In the androphile/gynophile frame, heterosexual men and lesbians have similar orientations and gay men and women have similar orientations; whereas in the homosexual/heterosexual frame, gay men and lesbians have similar orientations and heterosexuals of both sexes have similar orientations.

Brain organization research happens to use the androphile/gynophile frame implicitly, where both straight men and lesbians are expected to display "masculine" sexual orientations and gay men and straight women are similarly seen as feminine.

 

[Izuna]

I think you're guilty of thinking of this in abstraction rather than in reality. If you aren't attracted to men, it follows that you wouldn't be attracted to trans men and cis men. It doesn't follow that you wouldn't be attracted to a trans woman, because a trans woman would not (necessarily, though obviously different people pass socially more or less successful than others) appear to be a man (or male). If you perceived her to be female, and you were attracted to her, you would be attracted to her as if she were female. That's why I'm saying this conversation says more about your perceptions than it does about any objective reality.

I don't think that they are disingenuous concerns; I think they are bigoted.

It's clear to all of us that cis or trans, an attractive female form is attractive. I don't think anyone is saying their actual boner would go down upon hearing that a women they were about to sleep with was trans (with his opinion), but that he would prefer not to have sex (or fall in love/date whatever).

I think it is better to see that people who want cis as opposed to trans is because of something, rather than a lack of understanding. You are right if you think it is an extra requirement because it would have to be.

You can yourself decide that it is:

- Irrational
- Non-scientific
- Amendable

to not want to be with someone they would otherwise love if they didn't know if they were trans, XY, have natural genitalia or were born that gender (however it is viewed by them it doesn't matter).

I choose not to think this is bigotry. We use that term for people who try to limit other people's happiness based on their own feelings, or feel something like they are hurt by other people having rights to do what they want.

This isn't even a question of semantics. We can use the dictionary definition of bigotry here. This is a concern on their own views and ideas, and how it makes them act.

If at all, if you disagree, call it a shame. That they are missing out on beautiful and awesomely strong trans women who know how to fight for what they love and probably understand gender-identity more than those who turn them down ever will. But don't use words that are just there to make people feel like they are wrong.

 

[FartOfWar]

I think you're guilty of thinking of this in abstraction rather than in reality. If you aren't attracted to men, it follows that you wouldn't be attracted to trans men and cis men. It doesn't follow that you wouldn't be attracted to a trans woman, because a trans woman would not (necessarily, though obviously different people pass socially more or less successful than others) appear to be a man (or male). If you perceived her to be female, and you were attracted to her, you would be attracted to her as if she were female. That's why I'm saying this conversation says more about your perceptions than it does about any objective reality.

I don't think that they are disingenuous concerns; I think they are bigoted.



I don't think they're inborn. And even if they are, I know in my own experience that I used to be deeply unsettled by the idea and now I don't have that issue. So, whether it's learned or something you're born with, it's not something you're stuck with.

I suspect the person who you were responding to does, though. Without evidence, either one of you might be right. We can say with certainty that the personal sexual aversion isn't universal as plenty of people are happy to have sex with trans women.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I think you're guilty of thinking of this in abstraction rather than in reality. If you aren't attracted to men, it follows that you wouldn't be attracted to trans men and cis men. It doesn't follow that you wouldn't be attracted to a trans woman, because a trans woman would not (necessarily, though obviously different people pass socially more or less successful than others) appear to be a man (or male). If you perceived her to be female, and you were attracted to her, you would be attracted to her as if she were female. That's why I'm saying this conversation says more about your perceptions than it does about any objective reality.

I don't think that they are disingenuous concerns; I think they are bigoted.



I don't think they're inborn. And even if they are, I know in my own experience that I used to be deeply unsettled by the idea and now I don't have that issue. So, whether it's learned or something you're born with, it's not something you're stuck with.

Would you say most trans women are passable? Given the expenses involved I would suggest most probably aren't. If I was not attracted to a trans woman who looked like a cross dresser/man,would that make me a bigot? This thread has largely been framed using the idea of a perfectly feminine looking trans woman, which probably is not the most realistic example.

I truly believe a lot of this topic is indeed mental and about perceptions. I could objectively look at George Clooney and say he's an attractive man. I'm not attracted to him personally but I can understand/identify that he's viewed as good looking. I've seen trans women who are feminine and attractive. But I couldn't be attracted to them personally, knowing their background. Knowing their body is largely artificial, knowing they were born male, and the other things I mentioned in my previous post. Attraction isn't purely a physical concept. To deny that a straight man could genuinely have concerns or reservations about the things mentioned above strikes me as disengenuous.

 

[HUELEN10]

Well, no. They aren't identical. In the androphile/gynophile frame, heterosexual men and lesbians have similar orientations and gay men and women have similar orientations; whereas in the homosexual/heterosexual frame, gay men and lesbians have similar orientations and heterosexuals of both sexes have similar orientations.

Brain organization research happens to use the androphile/gynophile frame implicitly, where both straight men and lesbians are expected to display "masculine" sexual orientations and gay men and straight women are similarly seen as feminine.

Not quite what I was referring to, but I understand what you are getting at.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androphilia_and_gynephilia

 

[Admiral Woofington]

It's clear to all of us that cis or trans, an attractive female form is attractive. I don't think anyone is saying their actual boner would go down upon hearing that a women they were about to sleep with was trans (with his opinion), but that he would prefer not to have sex (or fall in love/date whatever).

I think it is better to see that people who want cis as opposed to trans is because of something, rather than a lack of understanding. You are right if you think it is an extra requirement because it would have to be.

You can yourself decide that it is:

- Irrational
- Non-scientific
- Amendable

to not want to be with someone they would otherwise love if they didn't know if they were trans, XY, have natural genitalia or were born that gender (however it is viewed by them it doesn't matter).

I choose not to think this is bigotry. We use that term for people who try to limit other people's happiness based on their own feelings, or something feel like they are hurt by other people having rights to do what they want.

This isn't even a question of semantics. We can use the dictionary definition of bigotry here. This is a concern on their own views and ideas, and how it makes them act.

If at all, if you disagree, call it a shame. That they are missing out on beautiful and awesomely strong trans women who know how to fight for what they love and probably understand gender-identity more than those who turn them down ever will. But don't use words that are just there to make people feel like they are wrong.

I like you let's be friends.

 

[User 73706]

So I'm clear, we're offended by his salmon analogy, but not this cake analogy:

?

The divide is that I used a rule of threes to establish a pattern and illustrate where a line can be drawn. I also explicitly noted the "finished products" - the slices of cake - were functionally identical, indistinguishable from one another without being explicitly labeled as such. The salmon / vegetable analogy does nothing to highlight the other side of the conundrum, which is telling in that his viewpoint is extremely one-dimensional. Likewise, it adds in subjective factors regarding the food he's talking about without actually associating them as being a person's subjective opinion. "'This isn't a real cake,' the dude replied," is completely different from "It can be proven that these vegetables are not as good. It's just a paper-thin way of the separate but equal "I'll treat them like women but won't see them as women" argument.

"Progress" and "willingness to listen" in this sense specifically pertain to other people listening to and/or entertaining propositions you put forward or already agree with.

Alright, let me clarify because I've tried building bridges with people on either side of the argument. I admit I'm human and prone to error, and thousands of years from now we could be a collective genderfluid culture and my views would be vastly outdated. I understand that. But I don't want people thinking you have to "see things my way to be right." That's not at all what I'm trying to accomplish. All I'm - we're - asking for are discussion. Some kind of actual, factual basis or grounding to the opinions being put in here. You cannot ground a subjective opinion with subjective evidence. "She doesn't have a real vagina because it's not a vagina" is completely opinionated. "She doesn't have a real vagina because I personally only view people by the sex they were born with" is, while harsh, rooted in some degree of objectivity. Nobody's attempting to justify their opinions with anything resembling that, though.

I also really want to stress that I'm not in 100% agreement with anyone; infinitesimally close to 100% maybe, but everyone has personal experience that prevents that from happening. Last night, there were a handful of people advocating semantics - not using "a transgender" or "transgenered," etc. - but were doing so in a way that understandably comes off as abrasive to the other side. I went out of my way to PM a poster regarding their methods, highlighting that this is a forum with a majority of sheltered individuals that have a hard time making distinctions between objectivity and subjectivity, let alone ones in possession of the attention span to actually read back more than two pages. I was nothing but cordial. And, you know what? They were nothing but cordial back. I was not shouted out of their inbox for being "cishet scum" or for "being ignorant about the other side." I was thanked for highlighting the environment that's been cultivated here, and we left it at that. There's room for both sides to improve, but the difference is that one side is providing substantially more objective evidence than the other.

We really need some kind of ban on drive-by posts without actual explanations at this point. We get at least two or three new posters every page that pop in, say "I'm cool with trans women. I'd just never date a trans woman." and leave it at that, never to post again. We're getting upset with those people because they aren't backing up their arguments with tangible information.

 

[hobblygobbly]

It sounds to me like you've discovered one of your prejudices, and are trying to decide whether or not you're willing to unravel why you feel that way and get past it. It's healthy to deconstruct prejudices and live the "100% in every way" support you present yourself as giving.

Yeah it seems only I can explore and find the answer. I just have to continue with life, meeting new people and putting myself in more situations/experiences and thinking about it more to understand my feelings and unravel it. I was in a situation as I described in my post which always made me question myself. I can't explain/understand why there's a difference for me, hopefully as life goes on I can find it/deconstruct. It's conflicting to me personally and I don't understand it.

 

[genjiZERO]

How is it not? It may not be conscious, intentional bigotry, but it's still a feeling coming from centuries of deeply ingrained cultural bigotry.

Because bigotry is distain for a group of people. Not wanting certain sexual partners isn't distain. Thus it contains malice.

You are a bigot if you wouldn't hire a trans individual for a job, not because you don't want to share an acutely intimate experience with them. I wouldn't have sex with someone who has had an STD previously. It's merely a personal characteristic of who you feel comfortable sharing intimacy with. Possessing a Y chromosome is simply a characteristic that is too much for a lot of people.

But it's always like this in every tread on transgenders. It's infuriating. And like I said in my last post it's anti utilitarian because it has the tendency to turn people off to the plight of the far more consequential issues transgender individuals face. How many people in this thread have thought, "Fuck this" feeling resentful and will slink off far more hesitant to even care?

 

[Ganzlinger]

It's clear to all of us that cis or trans, an attractive female form is attractive. I don't think anyone is saying their actual boner would go down upon hearing that a women they were about to sleep with was trans (with his opinion), but that he would prefer not to have sex (or fall in love/date whatever).

I think it is better to see that people who want cis as opposed to trans is because of something, rather than a lack of understanding. You are right if you think it is an extra requirement because it would have to be.

You can yourself decide that it is:

- Irrational
- Non-scientific
- Amendable

to not want to be with someone they would otherwise love if they didn't know if they were trans, XY, have natural genitalia or were born that gender (however it is viewed by them it doesn't matter).

I choose not to think this is bigotry. We use that term for people who try to limit other people's happiness based on their own feelings, or feel something like they are hurt by other people having rights to do what they want.

This isn't even a question of semantics. We can use the dictionary definition of bigotry here. This is a concern on their own views and ideas, and how it makes them act.

If at all, if you disagree, call it a shame. That they are missing out on beautiful and awesomely strong trans women who know how to fight for what they love and probably understand gender-identity more than those who turn them down ever will. But don't use words that are just there to make people feel like they are wrong.

I agree with you.

 

[Mumei]

Would you say most trans women are passable? Given the expenses involved I would suggest most probably aren't. If I was not attracted to a trans woman who looked like a cross dresser/man,would that make me a bigot? This thread has largely been framed using the idea of a perfectly feminine looking trans woman, which probably is not the most realistic example.

Well, I would think probably not. But we are talking about a person you would be attracted to. It might be the case that there would be proportionally fewer trans women who meet your standards than there are cis women, sure.

I truly believe a lot of this topic is indeed mental and about perceptions. I could objectively look at George Clooney and say he's an attractive man. I'm not attracted to him personally but I can understand/identify that he's viewed as good looking. I've seen trans women who are feminine and attractive. But I couldn't be attracted to them personally, knowing their background. Knowing their body is largely artificial, knowing they were born male, and the other things I mentioned in my previous post. Attraction isn't purely a physical concept. To deny that a straight man could genuinely have concerns or reservations about the things mentioned above strikes me as disengenuous.

But that's just it. I'm not denying it; I'm saying that those reservations or concerns exist, and that their basis is in the cissexist idea that the genders of transsexual people are somehow "fake" or "artificial." I think that idea is the logic that runs through your posting on this subject, is it not? Otherwise I don't think you would have made the arguments that you have.

 

[User 73706]

There is clearly room for discussion in this argument. It's not about converting as many straight boys into wanting to bang trans women as possible. It's about getting a better understanding of the rationale on either side, and finding ways to alleviate ignorance and negative discourse. While I may not agree 100% with everything they're saying, PhoenixDark and Izunadono in particular have been extremely well-versed and helpful in making their points. That's not something I can say about the drive-by posters who do nothing to ground their arguments.

It's clear to all of us that cis or trans, an attractive female form is attractive. I don't think anyone is saying their actual boner would go down upon hearing that a women they were about to sleep with was trans (with his opinion), but that he would prefer not to have sex (or fall in love/date whatever).

The problem is that there are plenty of posters who have more or less said exactly that. Ones that have said they'd completely disown their attachments or attraction to people as soon as they heard that label come up.

Someone having their appendix removed is a far cry different from someone switching their genitalia. No one's sexuality is based in the attraction of the appendix.

Would you say you're attracted to a nice complexion, to a nice smile? Would you say you're more attracted to women that aren't cross-eyed? Would you say you're more attracted to women with luscious, long hair? Would you say you're attracted to women without scars and stretch marks?

Plenty of human attraction is rooted in appreciation for things that can only be accomplished for some people through surgery.

 

[Van Owen]

I don't really understand why some people are getting hung up on the word "biology" or trying to one-up someone about the word when they know exactly what someone is saying when they say "biology" just because there might be some loophole in using at as an all encompassing term.

It's pretty ironic that a lot of trans people are all for tolerance and understanding unless a straight male *gasp* prefers only being in a relationship with a woman that was born with a vagina and has lived their entire life as a woman.

 

[Herpes Reasons]

Is there a difference between prejudice and bigotry? Between transphobia and prejudice? Perhaps people who are not interested in being in a romantic relationship with a trans are showing a prejudice but that isn't the same as being bigoted against the group. Folks can support LGBT community, vote in favor for their equal rights, associate with them, love them as friends and family, attend their weddings, support their rights to adopt children, and still not be interested in having a romantic relationshp with one. Yet folks in this thread including moderation would accuse said person as being bigoted. It's incredibly sad.

 

[wildfire]

Fuck them. This is different from what individuals find attractive, this doesn't at all affect them in any conceivable way. Unless they really find it hard to piss unless they feel that they are only around XX, if so, they can piss at home because there is fuck all else a trans woman could go. They may pay taxes, but they only get to choose the rules of where people can piss and shit in a home they own or rent.

However -- this is not the same as telling people they shouldn't not date someone for the same reasons.

Yet we have laws to arrest men for violating the sanctity of women in various ways including using bathrooms reserved for them.

So even if it isn't the same it never needed to be. We as a collective society ended up agreeing that women needed to be protected by law, notwithstanding the minority who don't like that. It's just as serious even if you don't feel that way.

It's clear to all of us that cis or trans, an attractive female form is attractive. I don't think anyone is saying their actual boner would go down upon hearing that a women they were about to sleep with was trans (with his opinion), but that he would prefer not to have sex (or fall in love/date whatever).

Earlier you directly confronted me about this and I told you I do get flaccid. You just don't want to believe what people are telling you certain things.

 

[Faustek]

Incorrect. As someone with no interest in kids that's not relevant to me.

Then I'm sorry to say that *I* don't see your point.

 

[User 73706]

Well, I would think probably not. But we are talking about a person you would be attracted to. It might be the case that there would be proportionally fewer trans women who meet your standards than there are cis women, sure.

Right, and this is another one of those things that can be compounded using a similar "I don't like black girls because of their frizzy hair" example. PD, this one's directed at you in particular since you've been doing a great job in clarifying your standpoints - we're not asking that you should be attracted to all women. What would constitute as fair and equal, or if you want to get broad about it the "objective" of this discussion, is if you happened to be attracted to some women. Not transgender, not cisgender. Just women. It's completely understandable that you're not attracted to as many trans women because they aren't as passable as cis women, but what we're trying to have people avoid in these situations is completely dismissing the entire sub-category of trans women purely because they're trans. As long as you explained it to the effect of "I wouldn't have any problems seeing one, there just aren't as many I'm attracted to as cis women." it would be acceptable. More vocal members of the discussion might still take some degree of offense to it, but it's already a huge leap in terms of equality and understanding.

It's pretty ironic that a lot of trans people are all for tolerance and understanding unless a straight male *gasp* prefers only being in a relationship with a woman that was born with a vagina and has lived their entire life as a woman.

They're taking offense because they aren't being given tolerance and understanding. If cishet folk are allowed to be ignorant and completely disown attraction to an entire demographic, regardless of personal, individual characteristics, transgender people are more than welcome to take offense to that.

Is there a difference between prejudice and bigotry? Between transphobia and prejudice? Perhaps people who are not interested in being in a romantic relationship with a trans are showing a prejudice but that isn't the same as being bigoted against the group. Folks can support LGBT community, vote in favor for their equal rights, associate with them, love them as friends and family, attend their weddings, support their rights to adopt children, and still not be interested in having a romantic relationshp with one. Yet folks in this thread including moderation would accuse said person as being bigoted. It's incredibly sad.

You're still not getting it. I clarified above, and again, above twice over. You're completely writing off a group of people just because of a label.

 

[Petrie]

But that's just it. I'm not denying it; I'm saying that those reservations or concerns exist, and that their basis is in the cissexist idea that the genders of transsexual people are somehow "fake" or "artificial." I think that idea is the logic that runs through your posting on this subject, is it not? Otherwise I don't think you would have made the arguments that you have.

But it is artificial, by very definition. Was Michael Jackson suddenly a white guy after bleaching his skin? No, because we don't have the technology yet to change such things on the level we'd need to.

 

[Herpes Reasons]

Right, and this is another one of those things that can be compounded using a similar "I don't like black girls because of their frizzy hair" example. PD, this one's directed at you in particular since you've been doing a great job in clarifying your standpoints - we're not asking that you should be attracted to all women. What would constitute as fair and equal, or if you want to get broad about it the "objective" of this discussion, is if you happened to be attracted to some women. Not transgender, not cisgender. Just women. It's completely understandable that you're not attracted to as many trans women because they aren't as passable as cis women, but what we're trying to have people avoid in these situations is completely dismissing the entire sub-category of trans women purely because they're trans. As long as you explained it to the effect of "I wouldn't have any problems seeing one, there just aren't as many I'm attracted to as cis women." More vocal members of the discussion might still take some degree of offense to it, but it's already a huge leap in terms of equality and understanding.



They're taking offense because they aren't being given tolerance and understanding. If cishet folk are allowed to be ignorant and completely disown attraction to an entire demographic, regardless of personal, individual characteristics, transgender people are more than welcome to take offense to that.



You're still not getting it. I clarified above, and again, above twice over. You're completely writing off a group of people just because of a label.

A label? No. I'm writing off a group of people because I am not interested in having sex with a person who was born in a male physical body and then whose body turned into a female physical one. That isn't a label, sorry.

 

[MikeyB]

Bigotry is about not tolerating differences. Is wanting to date necessary for toleration?

 

[UrbanRats]

Because bigotry is distain for a group of people. Not wanting certain sexual partners isn't distain. Thus it contains malice.

You are a bigot if you wouldn't hire a trans individual for a job, not because you don't want to share an acutely intimate experience with them. I wouldn't have sex with someone who has had an STD previously. It's merely a personal characteristic of who you feel comfortable sharing intimacy with. Possessing a Y chromosome is simply a characteristic that is too much for a lot of people.

But it's always like this in every tread on transgenders. It's infuriating. And like I said in my last post it's anti utilitarian because it has the tendency to turn people off to the plight of the far more consequential issues transgender individuals face. How many people in this thread have thought, "Fuck this" feeling resentful and will slink off far more hesitant to even care?

They probably shouldn't join a discussion if they can't handle the idea of their beliefs being questioned.

My point is that beyond intention (and therefore, malice) you can still harbor feelings that come from a place of bigotry, because that's how culture works, it's not just a series of conscious decisions.
If the *idea* of dating a transexual is offputting simply by virtue of the fact that they were born biologically male, i don't think it's absurd to suggest that, that mental hangup, may spawn from centuries of homophobia and transphobia deeply rooted in most cultures, that you will absorb whether you like it or not and that will have an effect on your person.

I'm not here to tell anyone who they should or shouldn't be attracted to, attraction isn't a choice, so it's a pointless argument, but you can still try to identify where an attraction comes from, and whether or not it can be culturally influenced in future generations, for example.

 

[User 73706]

A label? No. I'm writing off a group of people because I am not interested in having sex with a person who was born in a male physical body and then whose body turned into a female physical one. That isn't a label, sorry.

What is it about the actual transition that disinterests you, though?

 

[Herpes Reasons]

They probably shouldn't join a discussion if they can't handle the idea of their beliefs being questioned.

My point is that beyond intention (and therefore, malice) you can still harbor feelings that come from a place of bigotry, because that's how culture works, it's not just a series of conscious decisions.
If the *idea* of dating a transexual is offputting simply by virtue of the fact that they were born biologically male, i don't think it's absurd to suggest that, that mental hangup, may spawn from centuries of homophobia and transphobia deeply rooted in most cultures, that you will absorb whether you like it or not and that will have an effect on your person.

Bigotry isn't the same as predjudice.

 

[Izuna]

Yet we have laws to arrest men for violating the sanctity of women in various ways including using bathrooms reserved for them.

So even if it isn't the same it never needed to be. We as a collective society ended up agreeing that women needed to be protected by law, notwithstanding the minority who don't like that. It's just as serious even if you don't feel that way.

Don't the US have laws stating that trans women are women? I don't think anyone here is trying to make it lawful.

What is this about protecting women? Are you subtling suggesting trans women are likely to be perverts, or do you think other people think so?

I am not sure if state laws over there actually DO allow this. If it hasn't yet then it damn well should. Rereading the OP, wanting to date a trans woman has nothing to do with whether or not you think they should piss in a woman's restroom.

Earlier you directly confronted me about this and I told you I do get flaccid. You just don't want to believe what people are telling you certain things.

I must have missed that post.

Tell you what. If you DO get flaccid upon hearing that they are trans when you originally had a boner, then guess what, even the ones throwing the word "bigot" around in anger already stated that they think it is bigotry if:

- You would be attracted to such person otherwise.

If you get flaccid, that is involuntary. In which case it doesn't even matter if you wanted to date a trans woman or not, you couldn't.

So at worst they could falsely call your dick a bigot.

 

[Herpes Reasons]

What is it about the actual transition that disinterests you, though?

To me, they're not in a fully female body. Mentally, emotionally, their persona, who they are is female but their physical body was birthed male. I prefer to be with a woman who doesn't just identify their gender as female but was also born in a physical female body as well. That is MY preference. That isn't me saying 'ewwwwwwwwww' to anyone else who would be in a romantic relationship with a trans female. That isn't me trying to limit their rights, limit their ability to adopt, limit their ability to enjoy every single area of life they can. That is ME saying I would prefer to date a woman who has ALWAYS been a woman, gender wise AND physically.

 

[UrbanRats]

Bigotry isn't the same as predjudice.

That's why i'm saying "coming from a place of bigotry", a bigoted culture can still have an influence on a non-bigoted individual.
Not that i'd want to turn this into a semantics argument though.

 

[Herpes Reasons]

That's why i'm saying "coming from a place of bigotry", a bigoted culture can still have an influence on a non-bigoted individual.
Not that i'd want to turn this into a semantics argument though.

Seems to me that you're arguing that it's coming from a place of bigotry within that person when in reality you should say they're displaying a type of prejudice. Words matter.

 

[Van Owen]

They're taking offense because they aren't being given tolerance and understanding. If cishet folk are allowed to be ignorant and completely disown attraction to an entire demographic, regardless of personal, individual characteristics, transgender people are more than welcome to take offense to that.

They aren't, though. Not every "cishet folk" are opposed to dating someone who is transgendered, obviously. Just like every white man shouldn't be offended if a segment of black females feel like excluding them from their dating pool.

Christ, if I had an artificial limb I can understand how that might turn people off and make them might not want to date me, but someone that has transitioned or is transitioning can't understand why an artificial vagina or penis might be a turnoff to a straight man?

 

[Griss]

I think you're guilty of thinking of this in abstraction rather than in reality. If you aren't attracted to men, it follows that you wouldn't be attracted to trans men and cis men. It doesn't follow that you wouldn't be attracted to a trans woman, because a trans woman would not (necessarily, though obviously different people pass socially more or less successful than others) appear to be a man (or male). If you perceived her to be female, and you were attracted to her, you would be attracted to her as if she were female. That's why I'm saying this conversation says more about your perceptions than it does about any objective reality.

I don't think that they are disingenuous concerns; I think they are bigoted.

I don't think they're inborn. And even if they are, I know in my own experience that I used to be deeply unsettled by the idea and now I don't have that issue. So, whether it's learned or something you're born with, it's not something you're stuck with.

No, you see, the bolded is where I think you're misunderstanding heterosexuality. I could have sex with a very masculine looking pre-op FtM transsexual once I knew the body was female, that there was a natural vagina there. The most important parts of what arouse me would still, in that case, be present.

I really think you put too little emphasis on the role of genitals in sexuality, and too much on physical appearance, which frankly means far less once you move away from the hypothetical and look at how people fuck out in the real world. You get lots of ugly, unattractive heterosexuals hooking up with ugly members of the opposite sex, but you won't find them dating outside of their genital / sexual preference. Many people sleep with women they're not attracted to much or at all just for access to a vagina to get off with. Not a pleasant thought, but definitely true, and a powerful instinct for all hetero men. I imagine plenty of women are the same in reverse, we all have a sexual drive. It leads me to believe that the the sex of a person / their genitals matter more than the actual appearance does. If there were a bunch of beautiful 'born' women out there born without vaginas and still without vaginas I think they'd really struggle to date normally, and I certainly wouldn't date them because PinV sex is a prerequisite of dating to me. Genitals matter.

Well, I would think probably not. But we are talking about a person you would be attracted to. It might be the case that there would be proportionally fewer trans women who meet your standards than there are cis women, sure.

But that's just it. I'm not denying it; I'm saying that those reservations or concerns exist, and that their basis is in the cissexist idea that the genders of transsexual people are somehow "fake" or "artificial." I think that idea is the logic that runs through your posting on this subject, is it not? Otherwise I don't think you would have made the arguments that you have.

Do you not accept the difference between 'gender' being a mental thing, a social construct and sex being physical? Since we're sexually attracted to the physical aspect of a person, how is it contradictory to say 'I'm attracted to the female sex rather than gender'. How does this deny the gender of trans people when it deliberately leaves the concept of gender out of attraction? This is why I could sleep with a pre-op FtM person, even if their physical appearance might not be too attractive to me, I can ignore the gender appearance sexually if the biological sex is the one I'm attracted to.

I also really want to stress that I'm not in 100% agreement with anyone; infinitesimally close to 100% maybe, but everyone has personal experience that prevents that from happening. Last night, there were a handful of people advocating semantics - not using "a transgender" or "transgenered," etc. - but were doing so in a way that understandably comes off as abrasive to the other side. I went out of my way to PM a poster regarding their methods, highlighting that this is a forum with a majority of sheltered individuals that have a hard time making distinctions between objectivity and subjectivity, let alone ones in possession of the attention span to actually read back more than two pages. I was nothing but cordial. And, you know what? They were nothing but cordial back. I was not shouted out of their inbox for being "cishet scum" or for "being ignorant about the other side." I was thanked for highlighting the environment that's been cultivated here, and we left it at that. There's room for both sides to improve, but the difference is that one side is providing substantially more objective evidence than the other.

We really need some kind of ban on drive-by posts without actual explanations at this point. We get at least two or three new posters every page that pop in, say "I'm cool with trans women. I'd just never date a trans woman." and leave it at that, never to post again. We're getting upset with those people because they aren't backing up their arguments with tangible information.

Part of the problem is that when people do give explanations and put their necks on the line they're laughed at for their sexual ideas, preferences or experiences (as I was yesterday) have said thoughts doubted as disingenuous, or ignored entirely in favour of the easier task of taking on someone who just blew in and popped off a stupid one-liner. This happens on both sides. It was upsetting to see the thread get so out of control last night, though. There was so much anger and there's no need for it at all when you have time to type out your replies. The more serious the issue the more you need to discuss it in a calm manner, imo, and that's much easier on a message board than in person, where things can get heated quickly.

I'd love to see a 'Longform' board on GAF, though, where a post has to be a minimum of 300 words or some such to get you started in a thread. Would make people read and take effort before posting, and keep the people not interested in such effort out. It would probably be a wasteland

 

[User 73706]

They aren't, though. Not every "cishet folk" are opposed to dating someone who is transgendered, obviously. Just like every white man shouldn't be offended if a segment of black females feel like excluding them from their dating pool.

Christ, if I had an artificial limb I can understand how that might turn people off and make them might not want to date me, but someone that has transitioned or is transitioning can't understand why an artificial vagina or penis might be a turnoff to a straight man?

The cishet individuals who are tolerant of them aren't the ones I'm talking about. For every one progressive individual that would date a transgender individual, there's swaths more that don't want to because "that's just their opinion."

 

[Sign]

Full disclosure: I am a straight white cisgender male.

I would absolutely date / marry a trans woman and if we wanted kids down the line we could always adopt. Also, I think trans people should use whatever bathroom they feel most comfortable with. Hopefully, everything I've said so far has been fairly innocuous and I apologize if something I say next is not. No offense is intended.

I do think it is possible for people to have preferences, at least to some degree. Here is my reasoning!

From what I can tell the mind knows what the proverbial "picture" should look like (gender identity and gender sex aligned). After all, if a person gender identity doesn't match their gender sex they can / will suffer from gender dysphoria. The mind is aware of what the whole should look like.

This being true, I think it would stand to reason that the mind knows what either picture should look like (male or female) and thus what their focus of attraction would look like. From there, how far a persons preferences (what they find acceptable) stray from said picture would be determined by where they fall on the spectrum of sexuality. For example, if I had to check a box it would Straight. But, in reality I'm mostly attracted to femininity. If I see a pretty girl out-and-about and I'm attracted to her...then I'm attracted to her. Whatever I can't see in that moment is irrelevant, I'm attracted. For me, the picture is closer to a silhouette. Now, let's say someone is "Straighter," than I am on the spectrum. They may require that picture I spoke about before to be more defined. What they can't see may count for more.

This is my logic for how some people may be okay with dating / marrying a trans women who (whom? oh, god T_T) still has a penis, and how some may not.

As for people who still have reservations after a trans person has gone through surgery...I think some are justified. If a person wants children, for example, I could see them only wanting to date cis women. With that being said, I think the ground gets shaky when a person could say, have sex with an individual be told after the fact they are trans and suddenly feel grossed out. I think that is when introspection is in order.

These are my feelings on things. I don't know if it is a particularly helpful or insightful contribution though, T_T.

And you probably don't like the word cisgendered because it makes you feel alien and unusual. Wow I wonder what that's like.

I just wanted to say that I really liked this quote ^_^ !

 

[UrbanRats]

I don't think it's fair to blame it all on culture, either. People are born somewhere on the gay/straight scale, it's genetics, not choice.

I'm straight. The idea of having sex with a man is repulsive to me. Now get rid of the male parts and replace them with female parts and make the person physically appear female. Ok, the thought of sex with this person isn't exactly repulsive to me anymore, but on some level it's still conflicting with what I'm wired to be attracted to.

I'm saying part of that repulsion is the deeply ingrained taboo of having sex with another male, which is surely part of our biology (in case of heterosexuals, of course), but also very heavily pushed culturally as something innatural and repulsive, this is true whether you're personally homophobic or not, our society has been and still is full of homophobic messages, more or less subtle.
I think it's fair to assume much of that cultural baggage is still living deep within our skin, and when you remove the more obvious biological flags (someone actually looking like a male) whatever mental hangup remains, at least a good part of it, is likely to be culturally driven.

I'm not at all suggesting that sexual attraction is merely cultural, but we're arguing from the position of a transwoman being indistinguishable from a ciswoman, so the hangup is more abstract.

Seems to me that you're arguing that it's coming from a place of bigotry within that person when in reality you should say they're displaying a type of prejudice. Words matter.

English isn't my native language, so i'm probably making my point sound more confusing than i should, but what i'm trying to say here, is that what came from a bigoted cultural reasoning and shaped the modern culture we live in, ripples in what are your actual subconscious prejudices.

 

[BamfMeat]

Here's a general question for the masses:

Have you ever consciously chosen what you are and aren't attracted to? By that I mean, do you ever remember shaping your own attractions to what you think would be best for you? NOT gender, I'm talking specifics within the gender you're attracted to. IE a certain body type, a certain characteristic, etc.

I have personally, but I'm curious to know if that's common/uncommon.

 

[Van Owen]

The cishet individuals who are tolerant of them aren't the ones I'm talking about. For every one progressive individual that would date a transgender individual, there's swaths more that don't want to because "that's just their opinion."

There's nothing non-progressive about having a preference in the people you date. The heart wants what the heart wants, etc.

You would NEVER tell a white woman that only dates black men that isn't progressive for not dating Asians, so it's pretty shitty to do it straight men that don't date transgendered people.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Well, I would think probably not. But we are talking about a person you would be attracted to. It might be the case that there would be proportionally fewer trans women who meet your standards than there are cis women, sure.

True we're mainly discussing attractive trans women but I'm still curious: if a man isn't attracted to a trans woman in large part due to her looking like a man, does that make him a bigot?

But that's just it. I'm not denying it; I'm saying that those reservations or concerns exist, and that their basis is in the cissexist idea that the genders of transsexual people are somehow "fake" or "artificial." I think that idea is the logic that runs through your posting on this subject, is it not? Otherwise I don't think you would have made the arguments that you have.

I think this is perhaps where the misunderstanding is. I believe transsexualism exists. There are people who believe they were born in the wrong body, and that is a legitimate phenomena. I'm not saying the concept is fake or artificial. My argument is that I couldn't be attracted to a trans woman, knowing she was physically born male. And knowing that while her mental femininity is every bit as real as my mother's femininity is, her body is the product of artificial, "fake" means. Be it surgery to create a vagina that isn't a vagina, no means of having children, hormones, etc. These are important physical distinctions to myself, and most men, that would be mental hurdles which prevent me from being attracted to a trans woman. Is a trans woman female? Yes. But I think it would be disengenuous to suggest there are no differences whatsoever between a trans woman and a genetic woman.

 

[wildfire]

When I started this thread I wanted to see if some people would acknowledge their inability to see transgendered individuals as the gender they identify as. I was hoping to eventually move past that talking point and rethink how we regard both them and cis women when talking about this.

This discussion hasn't really moved in a way to transition into the next step so I'll just throw my current thoughts on the solutions out there.

There are many solutions but I feel they mostly range from respecting cisgenders only or respecting both cisgenders and transgenders.

There are already men who and women who see transgenders as their sex only and not their gender. Their viewpoint is that transexuality is a fabrication of the mind and shouldn't be acknowledged as a gender they aren't. Such people shouldn't concern themselves with this topic because it isn't about them.

This topic is about those who lie about their viewpoints on transgenders. When you tell the cis opposite sex to see them as something you personally don't you are disrespecting them and transgenders. To say you will never sleep with a transgender is to deny their gender. Our sexuality is tied into many things but nothing is a stronger factor than our sex and gender.
If your outlook on life is that you are interested in a fucking or forming a relationship with a man or woman it shouldn't matter if they are cis or trans. Physical and mental capacity should matter more in those cases. If your outlook is to form a family it's understandable why there are hurdles now. Personally if I was living in the year 2150 and designer babies was affordable and widely adopted I wouldn't have any reason to see a potential partner as a barrier based on the circumstances of their gender.

We don't live in that world but we don't need to live in a world where we can't be honest with those who want to be treated equally and fairly.

The alternative extreme end is to acknowledge our cis opposite sex partners are right and deny transgenders certain rights based on their sex.

 

[Jaffaboy]

No, I'm not. What makes a man attractive to me is not simply what genitalia he has, but the whole suite of secondary sexual characteristics associated with the male body. This is why I am not attracted to women, but I do think that trans men are attractive - even (perhaps especially, for reasons I've explained earlier in the thread) ones who haven't yet had bottom surgery. If I were attracted to a man when I thought he was cissexual, and wasn't attracted to him when I thought he was transsexual, that would be the close equivalent (though not quite identical, for reasons I've also explained earlier).

And jhmtehgamr20xx, I agree. She makes the same point later in that paragraph when she says, "Gender-anxious cissexuals must begin to admit that the issues they have with our transsexual bodies stem directly from their own insecurities, from their own fear of having their own genders and sexualities brought into question."

Interestingly, I have a gay friend who is very fond of telling me how he finds vaginas disgusting. I wonder what his stance would be with dating a trans man.

Anyway, I agree with the quote here and I'll admit that this is the problem I have with the thought of dating trans women, which I think I've made clear in my previous posts. Now what? What can I really do about it? How can I even begin to do something about it?

Other than dating ciswomen exclusively, which doesn't seem like an actual solution to the problem, I don't know where to go with this.

EDIT:

We don't live in that world but we don't need to live in a world where we can't be honest with those who want to be treated equally and fairly.

The alternative extreme end is to acknowledge our cis opposite sex partners are right and deny transgenders certain rights based on their sex.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree that you that you shouldn't have to live in a world where you can't be honest with people, and fear what their reaction would be when you are. Everyone should be treated equally and I think things are improving slowly for everyone. I don't understand your last sentence though, it's not about denying rights, it's about people not being open to dating certain people within their sexual preference, which I admit in some ways are shallow and selfish reasons. Can you really say it's someone's right to have sex or a relationship with anyone? Cos that sounds ridiculous. Could you elaborate? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you there.

 

[QuickSilverD]

They're taking offense because they aren't being given tolerance and understanding. If cishet folk are allowed to be ignorant and completely disown attraction to an entire demographic, regardless of personal, individual characteristics, transgender people are more than welcome to take offense to that.

You're still not getting it. I clarified above, and again, above twice over. You're completely writing off a group of people just because of a label.

a label that signifies something, a transgender person genitalia would just not be equal to someone born with it, technology is not at a point that allows human body transmutation. having this preference is not an attack on transfolks identity or humanity

 

[User 73706]

English isn't my native language, so i'm probably making my point sound more confusing than i should, but what i'm trying to say here, is that what came from a bigoted cultural reasoning and shaped the modern culture we live in, ripples in what are your actual subconscious prejudices.

Your assumption's right on the money.

Here's a general question for the masses:

Have you ever consciously chosen what you are and aren't attracted to? By that I mean, do you ever remember shaping your own attractions to what you think would be best for you? NOT gender, I'm talking specifics within the gender you're attracted to. IE a certain body type, a certain characteristic, etc.

I have personally, but I'm curious to know if that's common/uncommon.

Everyone chooses what they're attracted to, it's more a matter of whether or not people are self-aware enough to figure out where these attractions stem from such as culture or upbringing, and likewise whether or not they're willing to acknowledge where they may stem from when informed by a third party.

 

[Kinyou]

Everyone chooses what they're attracted to, it's more a matter of whether or not people are self-aware enough to figure out where these attractions stem from such as culture or upbringing, and likewise whether or not they're willing to acknowledge where they may stem from when informed by a third party.

I'm not sure how that makes it a choice. I know that I like certain food because I grew up with it. But knowing that wont suddenly make me able to choose if I like Curry or not.

 

[QuickSilverD]

The alternative extreme end is to acknowledge our cis opposite sex partners are right and deny transgenders certain rights based on their sex.

I honestly do not understand you, transgender people and cisgendered people have some level of difference between them, I can agree that transwomen and ciswomen are both of the same gender, while recognizing their sex (biology) is somewhat different, but some of you act as if acknowledging this is the same as wanting to take their rights away. which is crazy

 

[BreezyLimbo]

The side opposing you gets frustrated not when they dislike your position, but when you're not open to real progression or discussion. Nobody likes posters that come in here, give their two cents, back it up purely with "that's just how I feel" and then get mad when we're asking you to explain and all you can respond with is "I mean, I'm not sexist or anything, that's just my opinion! Why are you guys making such a big deal out of this?"

It's a tragedy of the commons situation. People are making such a big deal out of it because there are hundreds of thousands of people responding to them in the same fashion every day. It's not fun having to hear "they aren't a real woman, but I mean, I respect them like a real woman" every day.



Alright, bud. Here we go.


Even if not all of us see eye to eye, there's clearly a modicum of progress being made here. A lot of it ultimately boils down to convenience, comfort and semantics - no one's going to change their outlook overnight - but people are willing to listen. If you actually bothered reading the thread, rather than locking in on a single word like "racist" and fighting tooth and nail to not have to explain how you feel because your feelings got hurt, you'd see that.

On phone but I was talking about myself. I mentioned last night I had preferences when it comes to who I date and someone accused me of being racist. Maybe some other posters are clearly being racist, I havent fully caught up or interpreted what they're saying. But when I was accused of being a racist, man thats infuriating.infuriating, especially knowing how many different types of girls Ive gone out with. And Im not simply jumping into the thread, Ive been keeping up as best as I could and it isnt my first time posting in this thread.

As for the first part, that really is up to a person. I want to date a naturally born woman. That is simply my preference. I dont think that makes me a bigot or makes me closed to discussion.

 

[User 73706]

moved to next page

 

[genjiZERO]

a label that signifies something, a transgender person genitalia would just not be equal to someone born with it, technology is not at a point that allows human body transmutation. having this preference is not an attack on transfolks identity or humanity

And even if it did you still wouldn't be able to change chromosomes.

 

[User 73706]

There's nothing non-progressive about having a preference in the people you date. The heart wants what the heart wants, etc.

You would NEVER tell a white woman that only dates black men that isn't progressive for not dating Asians, so it's pretty shitty to do it straight men that don't date transgendered people.

...except I would. Now, if she's got a lot in common with individuals that all happen to be black, and that's why she's seeing them, it's one thing. But if she's doing it out of some perverse counter to her parents' ignorant ideals, going specifically after these men because they are black, that's absolutely not cool. To reiterate, again:

Saying you prefer a race over another is not racist. Its personal taste and purely subjective. You're not valuing a race's ability to love as being superior to another. That would be racist.

That's pretty much the very definition of racism. Aesthetic preferences are one thing, but specifically tying preferences to "inherent" racial qualities is definitely racist on some level. Example:

1. "I don't like girls with frizzy hair." Not racist.

2. "I don't like black girls." Definitely racist.

3. "I don't like black girls because of their frizzy hair." May not be worth grabbing the torches and pitchforks for, but it is still racist by a baseline standard.

For one, not only are you making assumptions about an entire race and likely tying projection and personal experience to it unnecessarily, but you're also using small numbers of people as spokespeople or representatives for an entire race, aka stereotyping. Even if you may not consider it offensive or derogatory or whatever in the way that actively subjugating someone to prejudice because of race is, it's absolutely a racist thing to do, even if subtle. "I normally don't like spanish guys, but you're pretty cute," "you're so polite for a Scotsman," "this is the longest I've ever been with a black guy," etc. are all no-nos. You're absolutely allowed to have preferences, for example wanting someone with red hair or freckles or glasses or even being tan, but the second you actually tie those qualities to a race, positively or negatively, it's absolutely racially-charged and by extension racism.

I'm not sure how that makes it a choice. I know that I like certain food because I grew up with it. But knowing that wont suddenly make me able to choose to like Curry.

It's on a subconscious level, but a choice nonetheless. Let's say you try apple pie for the first time. It's good! Sweet, rich, warm. Based on these stimulants, you decide to continue to indulge, to partake. There's clearly a choice being made to eat this apple pie over, say, curry. If asked "what do you think," you're probably going to reply "apple pie is good!" and there's nothing wrong with that. But, if you get into a conversation with a friend later who also hasn't had apple pie, and you tell him you think it's good, and they go "oh, why's it so good?" you obviously can't just go "I dunno man, I just like it! Try it!" and expect everyone to go along with you. Either figuring out reasons, even as simple as "it's sweet and the crust adds a good crunch to it," or having them ask "is it because of the apple filling?" and you replying "yeah, that's the big thing" are totally okay. But, if you're specifically having a discussion to prove your point (such as the discussions going on in this thread), it's obviously not very conductive to discussion if all you can come up with is "I dunno man, I just like it! Try it!"