Louden Wilde
Muse
Good point - I should have mentioned a major part of the problem here is that we have official institutions pushing the ideology.
Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)
- Thread starter Elaedith
- Start date
- Status
Good point - I should have mentioned a major part of the problem here is that we have official institutions pushing the ideology.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The questions are, why would anybody think less of you for that? And, why do some people believe they are morally justified for thinking less of you for that.
Nobody thinks less of heterosexual men for being attracted to women. Nobody thinks less of homosexual men for being attracted to men. Why would that judgement change just because their gender identity runs counter to that attraction?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
That's silly. No, they shouldn't march over and demand an apology, that's a horrible thing to do.
On the other hand, the male should also not be mocked, derided, scorned, or called a transphobic bigot if all of their lust evaporates as soon as they learn that the beautiful person they're looking at has an 90% chance of having a penis.
Again, this is silly. The male shouldn't feel slighted... but they also shouldn't be harassed, labeled, or denigrated for terminating the relationship or for losing their sexual attraction to the female.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Fair point
I'm sure there are exceptions, but by and large, the idea of sex is probably present from prior to the first date for both parties. The actual undertaking might take several dates... but the thoughts are likely there from the start. That's kind of why dating is a thing in the first place.
Because if you follow the "gender and sex is 100% a matter of persona decree" that's where you kind of have to wind up unless you can maintain cognitive dissonance forever.
"Fake it until you make it" works with bad arguments. If you have to parrot a bad argument because you're scared you won't be seen as "woke" enough if you don't, eventually you'll start to believe it on an intellectual level and when that happens it is a lot harder to ignore its less savory conclusions any longer.
It's not that (statistically) anyone right now thinks that we all have to be "genital blind." It's that there are people who are literally in the process of inevitably talking themselves into.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Fair point
One thing that just occurred to me is that people select prospective partners from a dating pool that already filters for their overall sexual preference. No hetero woman starts dating another woman to see if there might end up being a love connection. This puts a transman who successfully passes as male in an awkward position. On the one hand, he probably owes it to any prospective date to let them know up front that he's not actually in their dating pool. On the other hand, telling someone, "actually, I'm female" kind of defeats the whole purpose of transitioning and passing.
Unlike LJ's bizarre "overheard in a restaurant" scenario, a woman who went o a date with a transman, believing they were male and hoping for a love connection, probably is justified in feeling misled when they discover that their date is actually female.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
This sort of thing is the entire reason that so many LGB are splitting off from historically LGBTQ+ organizations. Literally, they are being told that they are bigots and transphobes because they are same-SEX attracted.If this is "nutpicking"... then it's nutpicking on a damned almond plantation!
Louden Wilde
Muse
Below are all the mentions of genitals in the article, and some of the authors conclusions:
Again, I think once you've asserted that gender is more important than sex, you kind of have to push the idea that genitals are trivial
At present, we know very little about what the average cisgender person knows or thinks of trans bodies. Trans scholars have commented on cisgender people’s preoccupation with the sexual anatomy of trans people, relating it to a form of cissexist sexualization that ultimately reduces trans people to the state of their genitals (Serano, 2007). Considering this preoccupation with the genitals of trans people, what do cisgender participants imagine in terms of trans bodies, and how might this impact their consideration of trans people as
potential dating partners?
While it is important to be accepting of individuals’ identities
regardless of their anatomy, when it comes to real-life dating decisions, knowledge of, and questions about, trans bodies may be a pivotal factor in understanding the willingness of some to date trans partners. In other words, combined with the cisgender privilege of simply not needing to consider trans persons as potential dating partners in order to have a sufficiently large dating pool, sheer ignorance of transgender identities may be a very likely explanation for exclusionary response patterns. It is important to state, however, that while ignorance may play a role in the high rates of exclusionary responses, such ignorance is still indicative of widespread cisgenderism and cis-privilege within today’s society.
Finally, even among the trans-identified participants, there was still evidence of exclusionary and incongruent response patterns. This may be due to internalized cisgenderism and feeling that one’s own gender identity will be best affirmed by dating a cisgender person of the gender of one’s desire (e.g., a heterosexual trans man dating a cisgender heterosexual woman)
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I'm well aware of your position. I'm hoping ST will make some concrete positive declaration of his own values and reasoning about the question.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Inorite?
Big surprise: members of sexually dimorphic species, who reproduce strictly through the mixing of two distinct gametes are strongly predisposed to react to sexual dimorphic characteristics when it comes to copulation!
Back in the late 90s/early 2000s when Sodomy Laws were being overturned and it was a big thing, basically that forgotten first act of the Gay Marriage debate, you saw a certain defensive argument A LOT.
"Nobody is saying gays are going to start getting married. Only the fringe and the extremists are saying that. We're just saying it shouldn't be illegal for them to have sex. That's all."
And that was nonsense and I knew it then. "They can have sex, but they can't get married" isn't a long term tenable position. If you argue for equality of gay sex, you don't leave yourself an intellectual argument to deny gay marriage. Arguing for one is arguing for the other down the road.
Now I'm not stupid I know as well as anyone the real argument was "Listen if we argue for gay marriage we going to freak the homophobes out so nobody say it" (See also basically insert like half the dialog from the movie Lincoln here.)
So you have to be careful about the base arguments you use. Saying, either directly or indirectly "Oh it doesn't matter I'm only using this argument at this step to get to the next step where it won't count anymore" is like a chess player telling you don't worry this move isn't about future moves. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
And it's especially not how it works when and if any this gets codified into laws. To argue that "Don't worry this law won't be used as precedent in future laws" is to argue against what the law is.
"Nobody is saying gays are going to start getting married. Only the fringe and the extremists are saying that. We're just saying it shouldn't be illegal for them to have sex. That's all."
And that was nonsense and I knew it then. "They can have sex, but they can't get married" isn't a long term tenable position. If you argue for equality of gay sex, you don't leave yourself an intellectual argument to deny gay marriage. Arguing for one is arguing for the other down the road.
Now I'm not stupid I know as well as anyone the real argument was "Listen if we argue for gay marriage we going to freak the homophobes out so nobody say it" (See also basically insert like half the dialog from the movie Lincoln here.)
So you have to be careful about the base arguments you use. Saying, either directly or indirectly "Oh it doesn't matter I'm only using this argument at this step to get to the next step where it won't count anymore" is like a chess player telling you don't worry this move isn't about future moves. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
And it's especially not how it works when and if any this gets codified into laws. To argue that "Don't worry this law won't be used as precedent in future laws" is to argue against what the law is.
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Perhaps you have me confused for someone else. I don't defend the weirdos who demand that people treat trans and cis women as identical in the dating market.
My point has always been that the demands of a few fringe voices doesn't really have much to do with what is actually being discussed regarding public policy, which has more to do with public accommodation and non-discrimination law.
I don't really see what the dating preferences of super open minded genderqueer people have much to do with whether or not they can take a piss in a certain restroom or not.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Sure, but even people who identified as bisexual had a strong preference for people whose primary and secondary sexual characteristics are in alignment. They like males who look like males and have male reproductive equipment, and they like females who look like females and have female reproductive equipment.
Even bisexual people rarely like males who look like females or females who look like males.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The absolute state of the trans-inclusionary argument. LOL.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.
What if a hot-blooded hetero cisman gets attracted to - and turned on by - a beautiful, confident woman at the next table to him in a restaurant? And then he overhears that his hormones have actually been stirred into action by...... a transwoman?!
Should he perhaps march over to her and demand an apology for making him feel so stupid and cheated in his now-wasted lust for her?
I can't think this whole line of argument is going to end very well (logically-speaking) for you. But I'm sure you'll tell me how my example is entirely unrelated in every way to what you're describing...
(PS: If you want another counterexample to do the same treatment to.... how about a hetero cisman starting to date a ciswoman; they are both really into each other, and after several dates the man's thoughts turn to sex (intercourse) - something which to him is an extremely important component of any relationship - but it's at this point the woman tells him that because of serious complications from endometriosis, she's unable to have intercourse. Should our man feel cheated and slighted that this woman has - somehow, and in his eyes - misrepresented herself to him from the get-go?)
First of all, being attracted to someone does not mean that you are interested in dating them. Nor does it imply that you are sexually compatible.
There are a number of reasons that two people could be sexually incompatible including an inability or unwillingness of one partner to have sex in the manner that the other deems necessary for their satisfaction.
And sexual incompatibility is a legitimate reason to end a dating relationship. No one needs to apologize for their sexual needs, limits, desires, anatomy, etc.
Removing someone from the dating pool because of sexual incompatibility does not imply or excuse the kind of behavior you describe here. Yes, there are people who will do that type of thing. But it's not inherent to the question of "are you willing to date a person who ______."
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Another entry in the "just trust me bro" file.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
No, this is another of those cases where you've been given repeated references and links and demonstrations, and you brush them off as either being "anecdotal" or "nutpicking".
Basically, reality doesn't agree with what you think it ought to be like, so you ignore anything that doesn't fit your pre-determined belief set.
- Status