• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
If being a little bit squicked out by the prospect of cock-sex with someone in the uncanny valley between male and female makes me a transphobe, then a transphobe is what I am.

Heterosexuals don't have to apologize to anyone for their sexual turn-ons and turn-offs. Homosexuals don't have to justify their sexual attractions to any damn person. Transsexuals don't have to apologize. Why should cissexuals have to?
Click to expand...

The idea that anyone has a duty to find another attractive is, and has always been, a fringe theory that nobody really need take seriously. Whether it's weirdos advocating political lesbianism or cranks talking about the "cotton ceiling", I don't really see why this merits any serious consideration other than to try to smear a broader civil rights movement with a lunatic fringe.

The dating police aren't coming.
 
Earthborn said:
Nobody has to apologise for anything. For everybody it is true; either you like someone, or you don't.

But if someone insists that they need to subject someone to a chromosomal test before they can decide whether or not they like them, I think that is a bit weird. No kinkshaming.
Click to expand...

Okay but you're dancing around the issue, picking and choosing arguments to have, pretending this all exists in a vacuum.

Yes we can all pick and choose our own partners, that's a meaningless truism. But concepts are being presented that make certain decisions, regardless of our "right" to make them, wrong.

Look at it this way.

If my preferred sexual partner is a woman and if there is no difference between a biological male who defines as a woman and a biological female who defines as a woman (and yes that is EXACTLY the argument being made) then how can I be "right" to to not want a biological man who identifies as a woman as a partner.

And again answer the question actually being asked. I'm not talking about my "right" to pick whatever sexual partner I choose, I'm talking about the actual choice being the right one to make.

Or let's throw this grenade into the discussion. Is not liking a partner of a different race racist? How is that different?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay but you're dancing around the issue, picking and choosing arguments to have, pretending this all exists in a vacuum.

Yes we can all pick and choose our own partners, that's a meaningless truism. But concepts are being presented that make certain decisions, regardless of our "right" to make them, wrong.

Look at it this way.

If my preferred sexual partner is a woman and if there is no difference between a biological male who defines as a woman and a biological female who defines as a woman (and yes that is EXACTLY the argument being made) then how can I be "right" to to not want a biological man who identifies as a woman as a partner.

And again answer the question actually being asked. I'm not talking about my "right" to pick whatever sexual partner I choose, I'm talking about the actual choice being the right one to make.

Or let's throw this grenade into the discussion. Is not liking a partner of a different race racist? How is that different?
Click to expand...

It's pretty well understood there's a huge difference in giving people leeway to have personal preferences and allowing discriminatory public policy to exist.

But yeah, to your question: someone who categorically refuses to date certain races is almost certainly motivated by some level of racism. An individuals personal prejudices expressed through the dating market is not a policy concern. Nobody is trying to regulate this level of interpersonal interaction, but people might form opinions about an individual's character accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Again answer the question asked, not the one you want to answer.

I'm not talking about my "right" to do something. I know I can do it and nobody will stop me so no need to response as if I'm worried about "dating police."

I'm asking, conceptually, why under the definition of "trans" that is being presented, it's a correct (or indeed even meaningful) answer.

I'm not asking if it's okay that I'll date a woman with a vagina but not one with a penis. I'm asking how under the argument being made it's the correct answer.

So there's some difference between a woman with a vagina and one with a penis that magically exists only in dating preferences but not in bathroom, sports, and pronouns?

Why aren't you angry about the fact that I'm "defining someone by their genitals" before I'll sleep with them?
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Again answer the question asked, not the one you want to answer.

I'm not talking about my "right" to do something. I know I can do it and nobody will stop me so no need to response as if I'm worried about "dating police."

I'm asking why under the definition of "trans" that is being presented, it's a correct (or indeed even meaningful) answer.

I'm not asking if it's okay that I'll date a woman with a vagina but not one with a penis. I'm asking how under the argument being made it's the correct answer.

So there's some difference between a woman with a vagina and one with a penis that magically exists only in dating preferences but not in bathroom, sports, and pronouns?

Why aren't you angry about the fact that I'm "defining someone by their genitals" before I'll sleep with them?
Click to expand...

Some might find it objectionable, some not. Such is the nature of the world.

Why I'm not angry is because an individual's dating preferences are, strictly speaking, not really that important compared to other issues. The same way I might consider someone who has racial dating preferences to be operating on pretty clear racial prejudice, but I also don't really care about that level of petty animus. I might think less of them personally, but that's about it.

It's a waste of effort to try to explain to someone why they should feel a certain way about trans people when it comes to the more intimate decisions in their lives. I'd be happy if we just got to the point that anti-trans bigotry wasn't enforced by the muscular arm of the state.
 
Last edited:
Reality is not determined by importance of the question.

There cannot be a meaningful distinction the exists when I choose a sexual partner that doesn't exist in bathrooms, sports, and pronouns.

So now not only is there an undiscovered 3rd "Gender Soul" Axis to go along with sex and gender, it phases in and out of existence, not there when I want a date, there when I want to watch Men's Basketball.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Reality is not determined by importance of the question.

There cannot be a meaningful distinction the exists when I choose a sexual partner that doesn't exist in bathrooms, sports, and pronouns.

So now not only is there an undiscovered 3rd "Gender Soul" Axis to go along with sex and gender, it phases in and out of existence, not there when I want a date, there when I want to watch Men's Basketball.
Click to expand...

Proportionality is key. I'm not saying that people wouldn't form opinions on such dating stances, I'm saying that such responses are too inconsequential to really worry about.

So what if someone thinks less of you for refusing to date trans people? Why does that matter, both to you personally or generally?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
So what if someone thinks less of you for refusing to date trans people? Why does that matter, both to you personally or generally?
Click to expand...

I'm not about to have the "What does it matter to you if anyone thinks you're a hateful bigot who's committing a literal hate crime?" discussion again, lest of all with you.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm not about to have the "What does it matter to you if anyone thinks you're a hateful bigot who's committing a literal hate crime?" discussion again, lest of all with you.
Click to expand...

Refusing to date someone is not a crime, so it's not a hate crime regardless if it's motivated by animus.

It's probably for the best for everyone that people with negative views of trans people to avoid dating them. I really don't see the problem.
 
JoeMorgue said:
If my preferred sexual partner is a woman and if there is no difference between a biological male who defines as a woman and a biological female who defines as a woman (and yes that is EXACTLY the argument being made)
Click to expand...
Nobody made the argument that there is no difference between a biological male who identifies as a woman and a biological female who identifies as a woman.

... then how can I be "right" to to not want a biological man who identifies as a woman as a partner.
Click to expand...
It is okay to have preferences. If you prefer to date women, it is okay to be a bit disappointed if you find out the person feel attracted to tells you they're a transwoman. It is okay if you don't want to date people who look too mannish for your tastes. It would be a bit weird if you start dating transmen.

And again answer the question actually being asked. I'm not talking about my "right" to pick whatever sexual partner I choose, I'm talking about the actual choice being the right one to make.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this sentence.

Is not liking a partner of a different race racist?
Click to expand...
No, not liking a someone of a different race is not racist. Not liking them because they are a different race may be. It is okay to have a preference for a certain look or physical characteristics, even if those are much more common among some ethnic groups. It would be weird for a neo-nazi to date a black person, just because of a genetic test shows that black person to be mostly European.
 
Earthborn said:
Nobody has to apologise for anything. For everybody it is true; either you like someone, or you don't.

But if someone insists that they need to subject someone to a chromosomal test before they can decide whether or not they like them, I think that is a bit weird. No kinkshaming.
Click to expand...

The chromosomal test isn't necessary. The primary and secondary sexual characteristics are already visible.
 
Earthborn said:
The number of transphobes telling transwomen "you'll never be a man!" seems to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

Is that... is that even a thing?

It seems more logical that a transphobe would tell a transwoman "you'll never be a woman!" than "you'll never be a man!"
 
Earthborn said:
Nobody has to apologise for anything. For everybody it is true; either you like someone, or you don't.

But if someone insists that they need to subject someone to a chromosomal test before they can decide whether or not they like them, I think that is a bit weird. No kinkshaming.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure "like" is the important verb here. The word that really matters also has four letters, one of which is a k. It's very important to me, and I can only do it with females.

Yes, I know, there are other things I could do, and people even use the same word, but they aren't the same.

Wanting to do that thing, accepting no substitutes, is not weird. It also doesn't require a chromosomal test.
 
Maybe part of my inability to sypmathise with some of the arguments here is that I find a real big chunk of the people's faces I see every day don't have an earth shatteringly obvious gender. A lot do but plenty don't. It seems to me that there's a pretty large pool of people out there where I'm relying 100% on their presentation to assume their gender. So Prestige's 'males look like males, females look like females, you are just ignoring the truth' thing rings pretty hollow for me.
 
Earthborn said:
The study is about whether people would date people whose primary and secondary sexual characteristics are not in perfect alignment with each other.

You don't think it is surprising that gay males are attracted to people who don't look like males, and lesbians are attraced to people who do?
Click to expand...
Not at all.

Here's why:
In the out lesbian couples I am personally acquainted with (and there are several) one or both partners would fit the "butch" stereotype. By that, I mean, they have male haircuts, dress in what would be considered stereotypical male clothing, don't wear makeup, and have fairly masculine mannerisms. So, yeah, I can see lesbians being attracted to females who look and act masculine (like trans-men) but not to men and not to trans-women.

I have more specific reasons based on what a good friend has told me recently about her situation, but it's not my story to present.

I don't know as many male couples, so, while the results don't surprise me, I don't have the same supportive material regarding gay men. But I have been to a couple drag shows at gay bars and I noticed the audience was mostly gay men. The (relatively few) women in the crowd seemed to be straight friends supporting a friend who was performing or there with their gay male friend.
50% of trans-inclusive straight men would rather enter a homosexual relationship with a transman (who wouldn't want that relationship unless they are accepted as being a man) rather than a straight relationship with someone who looks like a woman, and you don't think that is a bit odd? My guess is that a lot of the respondents didn't quite understand the question. You'd be surprised how many people think transmen are m2f and transwomen are f2m.
Click to expand...

There is that possibility. But what image comes to mind when you envision a trans-man? Not everyone thinks Buck Angel. They may think Eliot Page, whose appearance is not super-masculine and many straight men probably still regard as "cute." In an actual relationship, the fact that one partner may actually perceive the other as female rather than male is likely to cause problems at some point, especially as transition progresses. But for dating? Sure. I'd consider dating Eliot Page, but not Buck Angel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom