Leelah Alcorn, transgender teen, commited suicide

[Butter!]

And not all bi sexuals are pansexuals. Plenty wouldn't date a transperson as well.

As for the example, there are plenty of people saying they wouldn't judge someone on partner choice for any reason. Why is that so fundamentally different from refusing to date someone who had more sexual partners than you or more than you are comfortable with? People are saying that they wouldn't judge someone on their partner criteria and this is a great reducto ad absurdum example.

It's different because one is a bit of their history and the other is the fundamental criterion making up the sexuality of the person, at least in the eyes of a partner. In my experience at least, that sort of thing is insurmountable.

On the other hand, I don't even know the full sexual history of most of the people I've dated because I never asked. Because I don't care. But whether I asked about their genitals or not, it would become pretty damn obvious once we got intimate.

And no **** all bisexuals aren't pansexual. That's why I listed both terms.

ETA - It occurred to me that you might be back to the example of a transperson who passed so well that I really couldn't tell unless I was told. As noted earlier, there really isn't a convincing surgery for creating a "working" penis for transmen at this time, but I assume it's on the horizon. So I thought about that hypothetical some more (a person to whom I'm attracted who appears male, functions sexually as a male, but then reveals he was not born male), and I am pretty damn certain that would not make a lick of difference to me. If I'm attracted to someone, we're getting along well, and the sex goes down the way I prefer sex go down, then I wouldn't mind if my partner was born a llama (joke, joke), used to be in the KKK, had a former career in porn, or came into the world with a vagina (not jokes).

So that's the best I can do.

 

[Butter!]

Here's the complicated problem in the issue of the preference of sex partners.

Nobody (usually) cares much if an individual dislikes blondes, or short women, or tall men, or whatever. But a problem occurs if enough people vocally dislike a certain category and make it a thing. Imagine if there were groups of people discussing how awful short women were, and protestors (or worse) gathering around every wedding to a short woman, and discussions about how exactly to define short (is it under 5'3"? 5'? Or at least 4" shorter than the husband?)

Short women would find themselves at least made fun of, and perhaps seriously rejected as wives and girlfriends. Their lives would be impacted, not because a few random individuals didn't like short women, but because it was a thing--fostered, spread, made public, encouraged, perhaps even attempts at being legislated.

It's happened with interracial marriages, with gay marriages, with transexuals wanting to marry the opposite sex after transition.

But where's the starting point? I think there would be little objection to a few people sitting around saying, "I'd never marry a woman taller than me," "I like redheads," "I like Asian chicks," "[a white woman] I'd never marry a black man." But when society's horror, protesters, lynch mobs and legislation prevented black men from marrying white women, there was a problem.

People are going to draw the line differently. Some are going to jump quickly and nip in the bud anything that sounds like sharing that could normalize an opinion. Others are going to let personal opinion alone but fight legislation, protests, and obvious preaching.

I don't really know where the line is personally. I'm admittely tender-hearted on the idea of any category of people being rejected out-of-hand by many of their potential mates, because finding love is hard enough. But people have individual preferences and as long as they don't become too widespread, there's always someone for somebody and they can marry or live together in peace. But how widespread is widespread? What starts or encourages categorical prejudice? Is it easier to stop it when it's small or wait and tackle legisation, speeches, policies or protests? I don't know.

Great post, Pup. Good insights indeed.

And Cavemonster, your follow-up thoughts as well.

This is why I love this forum. So much to think about.

 

[shuttlt]

or came into the world with a vagina

I dream of a world where we each get a vagina and a penis. How many problems would that not resolve?

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's different because one is a bit of their history and the other is the fundamental criterion making up the sexuality of the person, at least in the eyes of a partner. In my experience at least, that sort of thing is insurmountable.

On the other hand, I don't even know the full sexual history of most of the people I've dated because I never asked. Because I don't care. But whether I asked about their genitals or not, it would become pretty damn obvious once we got intimate.

And no **** all bisexuals aren't pansexual. That's why I listed both terms.

ETA - It occurred to me that you might be back to the example of a transperson who passed so well that I really couldn't tell unless I was told. As noted earlier, there really isn't a convincing surgery for creating a "working" penis for transmen at this time, but I assume it's on the horizon. So I thought about that hypothetical some more (a person to whom I'm attracted who appears male, functions sexually as a male, but then reveals he was not born male), and I am pretty damn certain that would not make a lick of difference to me. If I'm attracted to someone, we're getting along well, and the sex goes down the way I prefer sex go down, then I wouldn't mind if my partner was born a llama (joke, joke), used to be in the KKK, had a former career in porn, or came into the world with a vagina (not jokes).

So that's the best I can do.

That is true for transmen, but it seems that people would treat the women who got the tissue engineered vagina's because they were born with out one differently from a transwoman, because of her history of having a penis at one time. So in that case it is purely about history.

Clearly you also have standards that would preclude men with mirco penis's as well and those with sufficient injury, dispite their being not transmen.

 

[tyr_13]

That is true for transmen, but it seems that people would treat the women who got the tissue engineered vagina's because they were born with out one differently from a transwoman, because of her history of having a penis at one time. So in that case it is purely about history.

Clearly you also have standards that would preclude men with mirco penis's as well and those with sufficient injury, dispite their being not transmen.

If so, so what? If not, so what? Why does it matter to you what someone's personal preferences are?

Is it your position that only those without preferences are being moral?

 

[Butter!]

That is true for transmen, but it seems that people would treat the women who got the tissue engineered vagina's because they were born with out one differently from a transwoman, because of her history of having a penis at one time. So in that case it is purely about history.

Clearly you also have standards that would preclude men with mirco penis's as well and those with sufficient injury, dispite their being not transmen.

That might be. I am not perfect. I consider sex an important factor for a healthy relationship, and so if that couldn't happen, a relationship maybe couldn't happen. Call me small-minded if you must. It's not that cut-and-dried though. Allow me to explain.

See, there's an additional designation here, and it's quite significant I think. The lack of a penis isn't the only thing that would be a factor in a sexual relationship with another woman or a transman. The presence of a vagina makes a big difference too. In sexual activity, I would be expected to reciprocate, which would mean (without getting graphic) pleasuring another vagina in some way. That is a huge turnoff for me.

So if a man I otherwise liked had a micropenis or a non-working penis, it's possible we could find ways to work around it, I guess. But I don't see how we could work around the presence of a vagina.

There's other more subtle factors too. I am attracted to men, on a psychological level. Beyond the penis, beyond the lack of breasts, beyond what I can even clearly categorize or describe. I don't think I should apologize for that, and I shan't.

 

[Butter!]

I dream of a world where we each get a vagina and a penis. How many problems would that not resolve?

Haha, word!

 

[Hellbound]

I dream of a world where we each get a vagina and a penis. How many problems would that not resolve?

Well, I would finally be able to comply with the directives given to me by many people: To go **** myself.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If so, so what? If not, so what? Why does it matter to you what someone's personal preferences are?

Is it your position that only those without preferences are being moral?

It is that people do judge people based on preferences. Rejecting a partner for the ethnicity of a former partner isn't something people are ok with. I chose that because I suspected people would feel more strongly about that as a vetting means that based on # of former partners.

So why is one more acceptable than the other?

We all have a list of things that we judge people for in what they will accept or not accept in a partner.

 

[Butter!]

It is that people do judge people based on preferences. Rejecting a partner for the ethnicity of a former partner isn't something people are ok with. I chose that because I suspected people would feel more strongly about that as a vetting means that based on # of former partners.

So why is one more acceptable than the other?

We all have a list of things that we judge people for in what they will accept or not accept in a partner.

Well, in my opinion, people can reject a romantic partner for whatever reason they want. I might not personally have the same priorities they do, or even see their priorities as harsh or bigoted, but I know that it's ultimately none of my goddamn business.

No one should force themselves into romantic or sexual unions that make them uncomfortable or squicked out simply to keep in line with evolving societal attitudes. Whether I agree with their reasons or not is of no consequence. It's not my relationship.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That might be. I am not perfect. I consider sex an important factor for a healthy relationship, and so if that couldn't happen, a relationship maybe couldn't happen. Call me small-minded if you must. It's not that cut-and-dried though. Allow me to explain.

See, there's an additional designation here, and it's quite significant I think. The lack of a penis isn't the only thing that would be a factor in a sexual relationship with another woman or a transman. The presence of a vagina makes a big difference too. In sexual activity, I would be expected to reciprocate, which would mean (without getting graphic) pleasuring another vagina in some way. That is a huge turnoff for me.

So if a man I otherwise liked had a micropenis or a non-working penis, it's possible we could find ways to work around it, I guess. But I don't see how we could work around the presence of a vagina.

There's other more subtle factors too. I am attracted to men, on a psychological level. Beyond the penis, beyond the lack of breasts, beyond what I can even clearly categorize or describe. I don't think I should apologize for that, and I shan't.

And the thing is that transmen are different than transwomen in how functional the genital surgery is. For many transmen it results in sexual disfunction. But that is still different from the men on this board who are scared off not by the current state of the woman in question, but by the past state. That no matter how attractive they are the history of a penis is a deal breaker. That is what I don't get.

It is judging someone for who they were not who they are now that bothers me.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, in my opinion, people can reject a romantic partner for whatever reason they want. I might not personally have the same priorities they do, or even see their priorities as harsh or bigoted, but I know that it's ultimately none of my goddamn business.

No one should force themselves into romantic or sexual unions that make them uncomfortable or squicked out simply to keep in line with evolving societal attitudes. Whether I agree with their reasons or not is of no consequence. It's not my relationship.

I agree with that, but there are those saying judging people based on that is always wrong. I don't agree with that.

 

[Butter!]

And the thing is that transmen are different than transwomen in how functional the genital surgery is. For many transmen it results in sexual disfunction. But that is still different from the men on this board who are scared off not by the current state of the woman in question, but by the past state. That no matter how attractive they are the history of a penis is a deal breaker. That is what I don't get.

It is judging someone for who they were not who they are now that bothers me.

Well, yes, I suppose it is different in that sense.

But people reject romantic partners for all sorts of strange reasons I don't understand too, some mentioned in this thread - tattoos? smoking? REALLY? To me, all of those seem ridiculous. But it's not my relationship, it's someone else's. And it's their prerogative, I guess, whether I agree or can even understand.

So in that way, I totally see your point. I guess we just have to chalk it up to an imperfect world full of imperfect people with strange ideas of what constitutes or cancels out attraction.

 

[Tony]

I agree with that, but there are those saying judging people based on that is always wrong. I don't agree with that.

Do you similarly "judge" gay men for their "sexism" for not wanting to be in romantic/sexual relationships with women? If so, your bigotry is consistent, so I guess that is something.

 

[Butter!]

I agree with that, but there are those saying judging people based on that is always wrong. I don't agree with that.

It seems like we can agree on more than I initially realized. Chalk it up to a tense and busy thread, I suppose.

 

[tyr_13]

It is that people do judge people based on preferences. Rejecting a partner for the ethnicity of a former partner isn't something people are ok with. I chose that because I suspected people would feel more strongly about that as a vetting means that based on # of former partners.

So why is one more acceptable than the other?

We all have a list of things that we judge people for in what they will accept or not accept in a partner.

The source of the preference does matter. Someone who earnestly doesn't want to date/mate with someone with certain skin colors for the same reason someone doesn't want to date/mate with someone of a certain hair color doesn't bother me, but someone who thinks that only black men are real men and therefore will only go with them does. (I've known more than one woman with that, to me, bizarre view.)

In short, I don't agree that one should necessarily be more acceptable than the other. I also see some preferences tend to have a much higher biological/neurological/nature based component than others, and I give those a much lower level of scrutiny. That is to say, I am much more questioning of the validity of someone saying they absolutely will not sleep with blonds than I am someone saying they only want to have sex with men. The first one I might question, "Why?" while the second wouldn't even register.

That first one by the way I think the most satisfying answer I could get would be, 'I don't really know, just something I feel'. This is in stark contrast to an answer like, 'they're all Nazis'.

Overall, I think the level of judging should be very low on personal preferences, even if I think it's useful to question these preferences/requirements for personal insight and growth. I was last weekend having a conversation that included the 'deal-breaker/requirements' for sex or dating. Personally my set for them overlap, with the former being slightly longer than the latter. But while discussing it, one of the participants talked her way through how her preferences and lists changed depending on where she was in her life, and realized that as she found out more about herself and what she really wants, the list got smaller. And more nuanced. There were a bunch like, 'I wouldn't date an older man or woman, unless...'

Getting way out of my point here. The why of the requirement matters. That's why even people who have less than socially acceptable requirements try to spin them in a positive way. ('I want a man who makes more than I do' turns into 'I want a peer'.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do you similarly "judge" gay men for their "sexism" for not wanting to be in romantic/sexual relationships with women? If so, your bigotry is consistent, so I guess that is something.

Being focused on one gender or set of reproductive organs I wouldn't take issue with. But those at least go to the current state of a partner, this goes beyond that, as people have said it doesn't matter what they look like or their genitalia is like, all that matters is that they used to have a penis.

So the fact is that people have said it goes beyond what they find attractive in a partner, to a visceral level.

It seems to be a level of homo or transphobia, that the mere history that they had a penis at one time is enough to make a partner that is in every way desirable now upsetting and traumatizing. And it is the assumption that this level of burried resentment is not resentment or their own issue to deal with is the issue.

Like I don't really take issue with someone who is say uncomfortable seeing physical affection between men, but knows that it is their issue to deal with as they wouldn't be made uncomfortable by an identical heterosexual display.

 

[deadrose]

deleted

 

[Butter!]

The source of the preference does matter. Someone who earnestly doesn't want to date/mate with someone with certain skin colors for the same reason someone doesn't want to date/mate with someone of a certain hair color doesn't bother me, but someone who thinks that only black men are real men and therefore will only go with them does. (I've known more than one woman with that, to me, bizarre view.)

In short, I don't agree that one should necessarily be more acceptable than the other. I also see some preferences tend to have a much higher biological/neurological/nature based component than others, and I give those a much lower level of scrutiny. That is to say, I am much more questioning of the validity of someone saying they absolutely will not sleep with blonds than I am someone saying they only want to have sex with men. The first one I might question, "Why?" while the second wouldn't even register.

That first one by the way I think the most satisfying answer I could get would be, 'I don't really know, just something I feel'. This is in stark contrast to an answer like, 'they're all Nazis'.

Overall, I think the level of judging should be very low on personal preferences, even if I think it's useful to question these preferences/requirements for personal insight and growth. I was last weekend having a conversation that included the 'deal-breaker/requirements' for sex or dating. Personally my set for them overlap, with the former being slightly longer than the latter. But while discussing it, one of the participants talked her way through how her preferences and lists changed depending on where she was in her life, and realized that as she found out more about herself and what she really wants, the list got smaller. And more nuanced. There were a bunch like, 'I wouldn't date an older man or woman, unless...'

Getting way out of my point here. The why of the requirement matters. That's why even people who have less than socially acceptable requirements try to spin them in a positive way. ('I want a man who makes more than I do' turns into 'I want a peer'.)

Oh my, this!

Very well put. It's far from a black and white issue, and that's the best I've seen the nuances described, honestly.


Also - at the end of the day, I can (and will) have my private judgments, of course. But I know that those feelings have no true bearing on what or whom () other people do or not do in their bedrooms. And that's how it should be, even if I sometimes might think someone's being unfair in their judgments.

 

[colander]

Everyone is entitled to reject potential romantic partners for any reason, even if those reasons are racist or transphobic ones or whatever. What sucks is seeing people in the thread acting like their own preferences for only dating cis women somehow mean that trans women are objectively not women, which is both terrible and ridiculous.

It is also troubling to see people reacting to the idea of finding out a potential partner is trans not merely with disappointment but with anger. I hope that those people understand that if that situation ever arises, it would be best for everyone if they kept that anger to themselves.