Jesus, this thread is sometimes like deaf people talking to each other.
People tried to show symptoms of transphobic attitudes that are so prevalent in our culture that they brainwash pretty much everyone into feeling more or less uncomfortable (internalized transphobia) with the idea of sleeping with a trans woman. That does not mean that person is transphobic, no. It is society's fault, not the individual's because we don't have full control over already internalized feelings and thoughts when it comes to sexual preferences.
But apparently people thought they were being called transphobic themselves, thought the word was misused and therefore the word losing its meaning for when it really would be accurate to use it (e.g. people who actually oppress trans women, as opposed to people who are accepting or even supportive but just don't want to sleep with a trans woman) and the freedom to their sexual preferences negatively questioned. It is perfectly fine if you don't want to sleep with a trans woman, that doesn't make you transphobic. It merely means you have some subconscious, internalized transphobia which no one can blame you for.
To quote one of my previous posts:
As for the extreme accusation of people being bigots/transphobes for not wanting to sleep with a trans woman, that's an extremely flawed stretch; even I myself felt very uncomfortable with the idea even long after I came out to myself, yet I'm a lesbian trans woman myself. So it can be all the more understood that people who are straight cis men could have a much harder time becoming comfortable, if ever. It's not their fault, we have less control over our inner sense of comfort or lack thereof than we'd think, especially when it's been so deeply ingrained due to decades of society brainwashing us into thinking that it's horribly wrong and disgusting.
People can work on their internalized transphobia, but those who won't fully be able to get rid of that sense of discomfort regarding sleeping with a straight/bi trans woman are at no fault so long as they accept trans people as their identified gender in every other way. It's society's fault, so calling those people at all transphobic, especially when they are actually supportive, is not going to help anyone; if anything, it will just anger them.
I also think that most people who posted here have never knowingly seen a perfectly passing trans woman, because when they perfectly pass then unless they tell you, you will not know, so you only know of trans people who didn't pass whom you weren't attracted to due to their masculine features and/or lack of voice practice that made them not pass, were a turnoff.
To give an example on what voice practice and medical transitioning can achieve:
On August 04 2013 12:36 shinosai wrote: I'm not trying to police anyone's sexual life. It is so completely ridiculous that this strawman keeps being made. I don't care who you sleep with. But if you come in here and say you won't sleep with a woman because she's black or a transsexual woman because she is trans, then yea, I'm going to call that indecent. Because you are being prejudiced against someone for nothing other than how they were born. That doesn't mean I'm controlling your sexual life, or that I want to. All it means is that I'm pointing out that your preferences reveal harmful underlying attitudes.
I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it.
And I reserve the right to point out that this distinction has no scientific basis behind it, and contributes to transphobia.
If you really think someone chooses not to sleep with a transsexual because they're prejudiced then you really are delusional. It's logical and fairly human to accept a transsexual for who they are mentally, yet you can't change the fact they were born into a body you aren't primarily attracted to. If someone doesn't want to sleep with a black woman that doesn't make them racist. It's called sexual preference -- sex isn't just physical, it's also mental.
On August 04 2013 12:36 shinosai wrote: I'm not trying to police anyone's sexual life. It is so completely ridiculous that this strawman keeps being made. I don't care who you sleep with. But if you come in here and say you won't sleep with a woman because she's black or a transsexual woman because she is trans, then yea, I'm going to call that indecent. Because you are being prejudiced against someone for nothing other than how they were born. That doesn't mean I'm controlling your sexual life, or that I want to. All it means is that I'm pointing out that your preferences reveal harmful underlying attitudes.
I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it.
And I reserve the right to point out that this distinction has no scientific basis behind it, and contributes to transphobia.
Get out of my bedroom please.
Because no matter how many times you say you aren't going in there, there you are, underneath the bed or in the closet or behind the drapes.
Exactly what harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed by a lack of sexual attraction to a certain classifiable section of humanity.
The exact same kind of crazy you're pushing can also be used against straight people for not being attracted to the same sex or gay people not being attracted to the opposite sex; what kind of harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed there?
You CANNOT come to a thread like this, have a discussion about issues like this and then when someone points out a flaw in your reasoning relegate your argument to "GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY SEXUAL LIFE!". What the fuck!
And yeah what Iyerbeth said. If you find someone attractive as a woman and later find out that she's trans and think that's good enough of a reason to IMMEDIATELLY discontinue the relationship for that reason alone, I do see it as a clear connection to transphobia. It's an understandable reaction due to our culture, but I still see it as irrational.
I do believe that if we did some more digging into people's subconscious (including mine) we *would* find thoughts "there's a man in there", "that person once had a penis, that's disgusting", "what will my friends think" and the like.
It's quite possibly transphobic and irrational at a base level, but I draw the line in calling somebody on anything that is essentially beyond their control.
I do realise there's a difference between not being attracted to someone, and being attracted to someone until some reveal. That said, there's a metric fuckton of things I find unattractive, and cannot 'fix' through rational/logical thought processes.
I don't know, I can't really think of an analogy that isn't silly. Closest I can think of is in scifi where you have androids and whatnot. Even if physically and functionally they're indistinguishable, some people will see it as something synthetic and artificial vs 'real' people.
You see it all the time in marketing of things that are 'natural'. For whatever reason this confers positive connotations to a great many people, no matter how irrational that is.
On August 04 2013 12:36 shinosai wrote: I'm not trying to police anyone's sexual life. It is so completely ridiculous that this strawman keeps being made. I don't care who you sleep with. But if you come in here and say you won't sleep with a woman because she's black or a transsexual woman because she is trans, then yea, I'm going to call that indecent. Because you are being prejudiced against someone for nothing other than how they were born. That doesn't mean I'm controlling your sexual life, or that I want to. All it means is that I'm pointing out that your preferences reveal harmful underlying attitudes.
I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it.
And I reserve the right to point out that this distinction has no scientific basis behind it, and contributes to transphobia.
Get out of my bedroom please.
Because no matter how many times you say you aren't going in there, there you are, underneath the bed or in the closet or behind the drapes.
Exactly what harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed by a lack of sexual attraction to a certain classifiable section of humanity.
The exact same kind of crazy you're pushing can also be used against straight people for not being attracted to the same sex or gay people not being attracted to the opposite sex; what kind of harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed there?
You CANNOT come to a thread like this, have a discussion about issues like this and then when someone points out a flaw in your reasoning relegate your argument to "GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY SEXUAL LIFE!". What the fuck!
And yeah what Iyerbeth said. If you find someone attractive as a woman and later find out that she's trans and think that's good enough of a reason to IMMEDIATELLY discontinue the relationship for that reason alone, I do see it as a clear connection to transphobia. It's an understandable reaction due to our culture, but I still see it as irrational.
I do believe that if we did some more digging into people's subconscious (including mine) we *would* find thoughts "there's a man in there", "that person once had a penis, that's disgusting", "what will my friends think" and the like.
It's quite possibly transphobic and irrational at a base level, but I draw the line in calling somebody on anything that is essentially beyond their control.
I do realise there's a difference between not being attracted to someone, and being attracted to someone until some reveal. That said, there's a metric fuckton of things I find unattractive, and cannot 'fix' through rational/logical thought processes.
I don't know, I can't really think of an analogy that isn't silly. Closest I can think of is in scifi where you have androids and whatnot. Even if physically and functionally they're indistinguishable, some people will see it as something synthetic and artificial vs 'real' people.
You see it all the time in marketing of things that are 'natural'. For whatever reason this confers positive connotations to a great many people, no matter how irrational that is.
I'd add to your point that you can also draw parallels to the internet where you can not only be mentally and emotionally attracted to someone's personality, but even physically. All they have to do is give you the right description which turns you on. Give/show them the wrong one and all of those feelings dissipate immediately.
Repulsion of transsexuals isn't really nested in the change from knowing they're transsexual. It's in the broader repulsion of transsexuals -- in general. Until the stigma against transsexuals, for whichever reason logic/rationale it is governed by is removed, anyone who has it and aren't able to overcome it will always be turned off after the 'change,' and that change itself is rational and normal. The argument really lies in not whether or not the repulsion is right or wrong, but whether or not its rational.
On August 04 2013 12:36 shinosai wrote: I'm not trying to police anyone's sexual life. It is so completely ridiculous that this strawman keeps being made. I don't care who you sleep with. But if you come in here and say you won't sleep with a woman because she's black or a transsexual woman because she is trans, then yea, I'm going to call that indecent. Because you are being prejudiced against someone for nothing other than how they were born. That doesn't mean I'm controlling your sexual life, or that I want to. All it means is that I'm pointing out that your preferences reveal harmful underlying attitudes.
I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it.
And I reserve the right to point out that this distinction has no scientific basis behind it, and contributes to transphobia.
Get out of my bedroom please.
Because no matter how many times you say you aren't going in there, there you are, underneath the bed or in the closet or behind the drapes.
Exactly what harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed by a lack of sexual attraction to a certain classifiable section of humanity.
The exact same kind of crazy you're pushing can also be used against straight people for not being attracted to the same sex or gay people not being attracted to the opposite sex; what kind of harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed there?
You CANNOT come to a thread like this, have a discussion about issues like this and then when someone points out a flaw in your reasoning relegate your argument to "GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY SEXUAL LIFE!". What the fuck!
And yeah what Iyerbeth said. If you find someone attractive as a woman and later find out that she's trans and think that's good enough of a reason to IMMEDIATELLY discontinue the relationship for that reason alone, I do see it as a clear connection to transphobia. It's an understandable reaction due to our culture, but I still see it as irrational.
I do believe that if we did some more digging into people's subconscious (including mine) we *would* find thoughts "there's a man in there", "that person once had a penis, that's disgusting", "what will my friends think" and the like.
It's quite possibly transphobic and irrational at a base level, but I draw the line in calling somebody on anything that is essentially beyond their control.
I do realise there's a difference between not being attracted to someone, and being attracted to someone until some reveal. That said, there's a metric fuckton of things I find unattractive, and cannot 'fix' through rational/logical thought processes.
I don't know, I can't really think of an analogy that isn't silly. Closest I can think of is in scifi where you have androids and whatnot. Even if physically and functionally they're indistinguishable, some people will see it as something synthetic and artificial vs 'real' people.
You see it all the time in marketing of things that are 'natural'. For whatever reason this confers positive connotations to a great many people, no matter how irrational that is.
Ok, that's fair. It's possible that for some people it's impossible to fix these subconscious biases and, yeah, maybe calling them transphobic is too harsh, I don't know.
On August 04 2013 12:36 shinosai wrote: I'm not trying to police anyone's sexual life. It is so completely ridiculous that this strawman keeps being made. I don't care who you sleep with. But if you come in here and say you won't sleep with a woman because she's black or a transsexual woman because she is trans, then yea, I'm going to call that indecent. Because you are being prejudiced against someone for nothing other than how they were born. That doesn't mean I'm controlling your sexual life, or that I want to. All it means is that I'm pointing out that your preferences reveal harmful underlying attitudes.
I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it.
And I reserve the right to point out that this distinction has no scientific basis behind it, and contributes to transphobia.
Get out of my bedroom please.
Because no matter how many times you say you aren't going in there, there you are, underneath the bed or in the closet or behind the drapes.
Exactly what harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed by a lack of sexual attraction to a certain classifiable section of humanity.
The exact same kind of crazy you're pushing can also be used against straight people for not being attracted to the same sex or gay people not being attracted to the opposite sex; what kind of harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed there?
You CANNOT come to a thread like this, have a discussion about issues like this and then when someone points out a flaw in your reasoning relegate your argument to "GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY SEXUAL LIFE!". What the fuck!
And yeah what Iyerbeth said. If you find someone attractive as a woman and later find out that she's trans and think that's good enough of a reason to IMMEDIATELLY discontinue the relationship for that reason alone, I do see it as a clear connection to transphobia. It's an understandable reaction due to our culture, but I still see it as irrational.
I do believe that if we did some more digging into people's subconscious (including mine) we *would* find thoughts "there's a man in there", "that person once had a penis, that's disgusting", "what will my friends think" and the like.
Or we would find thoughts of "This person can never give me kids, and I want a kids" (Whilst this admittedly include some ciswomen, a transgender has an a priori knowledge which ciswomen seldom have). Or we would find thoughts of "this person didn't trust me, does she really feel she can't be honest with me? What else has she lied about?". Both of those reasons SCREAM transphobe right?!
The thing is, there is a choir in this thread who are VERY busy accusing others of being transphobes, when there are in fact plenty of non-transphobic reasons as to why one would immediately break it off with a transgender in the situation outlined. It is hilarious that those that declare themselves defenders of morality are the ones in this thread wanting to limit the personal freedom of others - to the point where we have had posters stating that they did not care for others freedom as long as they could get their sexytime. It is an interesting insight into what reactions and treatment from those who so long have been suppressed the "privileged", cisgendered, heterosexuals can expect when they define their own sexuality. It is deplorable and hypocritical. Shame on you.
On August 04 2013 12:36 shinosai wrote: I'm not trying to police anyone's sexual life. It is so completely ridiculous that this strawman keeps being made. I don't care who you sleep with. But if you come in here and say you won't sleep with a woman because she's black or a transsexual woman because she is trans, then yea, I'm going to call that indecent. Because you are being prejudiced against someone for nothing other than how they were born. That doesn't mean I'm controlling your sexual life, or that I want to. All it means is that I'm pointing out that your preferences reveal harmful underlying attitudes.
Of course, you are policing it. What you're saying is not different from what Westboro Baptist Church members are saying, it's just less extreme and less "in your face". They are saying "sleeping with X is immoral" while you're saying "not sleeping with X is immoral", same thing, essentially.
Don't pretend that (most, save for Arkless or whatever his nickname was) people came here to say just that. It was a part of a much broader discussion, when we tried to explain why not disclosing is a serious problem.
And I reserve the right to point out that this distinction has no scientific basis behind it, and contributes to transphobia.
No scientific basis? Really? How is someone's birth sex and having suffered from sex-gender mismatch not a scientific basis? You can make a distinction between people who have (already) been through chickenpox and those who have not. That is a distinction based on one's medical history and it's valid. I don't see why the same cannot apply to transsexuality. Political correctness has no place in science.
On August 04 2013 12:36 shinosai wrote: I'm not trying to police anyone's sexual life. It is so completely ridiculous that this strawman keeps being made. I don't care who you sleep with. But if you come in here and say you won't sleep with a woman because she's black or a transsexual woman because she is trans, then yea, I'm going to call that indecent. Because you are being prejudiced against someone for nothing other than how they were born. That doesn't mean I'm controlling your sexual life, or that I want to. All it means is that I'm pointing out that your preferences reveal harmful underlying attitudes.
I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it.
And I reserve the right to point out that this distinction has no scientific basis behind it, and contributes to transphobia.
Get out of my bedroom please.
Because no matter how many times you say you aren't going in there, there you are, underneath the bed or in the closet or behind the drapes.
Exactly what harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed by a lack of sexual attraction to a certain classifiable section of humanity.
The exact same kind of crazy you're pushing can also be used against straight people for not being attracted to the same sex or gay people not being attracted to the opposite sex; what kind of harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed there?
You CANNOT come to a thread like this, have a discussion about issues like this and then when someone points out a flaw in your reasoning relegate your argument to "GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY SEXUAL LIFE!". What the fuck!
And yeah what Iyerbeth said. If you find someone attractive as a woman and later find out that she's trans and think that's good enough of a reason to IMMEDIATELLY discontinue the relationship for that reason alone, I do see it as a clear connection to transphobia. It's an understandable reaction due to our culture, but I still see it as irrational.
I do believe that if we did some more digging into people's subconscious (including mine) we *would* find thoughts "there's a man in there", "that person once had a penis, that's disgusting", "what will my friends think" and the like.
Or we would find thoughts of "This person can never give me kids, and I want a kids" (Whilst this admittedly include some ciswomen, a transgender has an a priori knowledge which ciswomen seldom have). Or we would find thoughts of "this person didn't trust me, does she really feel she can't be honest with me? What else has she lied about?". Both of those reasons SCREAM transphobe right?!
The thing is, there is a choir in this thread who are VERY busy accusing others of being transphobes, when there are in fact plenty of non-transphobic reasons as to why one would immediately break it off with a transgender in the situation outlined. It is hilarious that those that declare themselves defenders of morality are the ones in this thread wanting to limit the personal freedom of others - to the point where we have had posters stating that they did not care for others freedom as long as they could get their sexytime. It is an interesting insight into what reactions and treatment from those who so long have been suppressed the "privileged", cisgendered, heterosexuals can expect when they define their own sexuality. It is deplorable and hypocritical. Shame on you.
Except for the fact that it's been said plenty of times that no one with a problem with trans people shouldn't be told (by both sides), that the discussion was from the stand point of a one night stand and that relationships were different, that the issue was the feelings related to 'she's a man' not just not liking someone and you have apparently missed all of this or are purposely misrepresenting people.
I beleve I'm far from the only person who has also said having a response of revulsion towards sleeping with a trans person, whilst in almost all situation is undeniably transphobic in nature, doesn't make the person actually a tranphobe.
On August 04 2013 12:36 shinosai wrote: I'm not trying to police anyone's sexual life. It is so completely ridiculous that this strawman keeps being made. I don't care who you sleep with. But if you come in here and say you won't sleep with a woman because she's black or a transsexual woman because she is trans, then yea, I'm going to call that indecent. Because you are being prejudiced against someone for nothing other than how they were born. That doesn't mean I'm controlling your sexual life, or that I want to. All it means is that I'm pointing out that your preferences reveal harmful underlying attitudes.
I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it.
And I reserve the right to point out that this distinction has no scientific basis behind it, and contributes to transphobia.
Get out of my bedroom please.
Because no matter how many times you say you aren't going in there, there you are, underneath the bed or in the closet or behind the drapes.
Exactly what harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed by a lack of sexual attraction to a certain classifiable section of humanity.
The exact same kind of crazy you're pushing can also be used against straight people for not being attracted to the same sex or gay people not being attracted to the opposite sex; what kind of harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed there?
You CANNOT come to a thread like this, have a discussion about issues like this and then when someone points out a flaw in your reasoning relegate your argument to "GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY SEXUAL LIFE!". What the fuck!
And yeah what Iyerbeth said. If you find someone attractive as a woman and later find out that she's trans and think that's good enough of a reason to IMMEDIATELLY discontinue the relationship for that reason alone, I do see it as a clear connection to transphobia. It's an understandable reaction due to our culture, but I still see it as irrational.
I do believe that if we did some more digging into people's subconscious (including mine) we *would* find thoughts "there's a man in there", "that person once had a penis, that's disgusting", "what will my friends think" and the like.
Or we would find thoughts of "This person can never give me kids, and I want a kids" (Whilst this admittedly include some ciswomen, a transgender has an a priori knowledge which ciswomen seldom have). Or we would find thoughts of "this person didn't trust me, does she really feel she can't be honest with me? What else has she lied about?". Both of those reasons SCREAM transphobe right?!
The thing is, there is a choir in this thread who are VERY busy accusing others of being transphobes, when there are in fact plenty of non-transphobic reasons as to why one would immediately break it off with a transgender in the situation outlined. It is hilarious that those that declare themselves defenders of morality are the ones in this thread wanting to limit the personal freedom of others - to the point where we have had posters stating that they did not care for others freedom as long as they could get their sexytime. It is an interesting insight into what reactions and treatment from those who so long have been suppressed the "privileged", cisgendered, heterosexuals can expect when they define their own sexuality. It is deplorable and hypocritical. Shame on you.
Except for the fact that it's been said plenty of times that no one with a problem with trans people shouldn't be told (by both sides), that the discussion was from the stand point of a one night stand and that relationships were different, that the issue was the feelings related to 'she's a man' not just not liking someone and you have apparently missed all of this or are purposely misrepresenting people.
I beleve I'm far from the only person who has also said having a response of revulsion towards sleeping with a trans person, whilst in almost all situation is undeniably transphobic in nature, doesn't make the person actually a tranphobe.
The lying part would still be appropriate even for the one-night stand, but yes, go ahead and rule it out because it is inconvenient to you. It falls completely in line with the discussion that was had with Kwark about whether or not consent to to sex with a ciswoman could be interpreted to consent to sex with a transwoman where Kwark argued that it couldn't as it could be perceived as conning someone into having sex with you. This is much the same reason why people break things off with someone when they find out they have been lied to.
The notion I am disagreeing with is the "in almost all situation[s] is undeniably transphobic in nature". There are plenty of non-transphobic reasons for not wanting to have sex with a transgender. If you had said "in many" you and I would not disagree at all. Lastly, you were not the choir I was talking about - that choir was Klondikebar et. al.
EDIT: The discussion with Kwark ran completely off the rails before it even got started, so whilst it ended up only exploring the "because she is a man" argument, that is really not the only argument that can be raised to support Kwark.
On August 04 2013 12:36 shinosai wrote: I'm not trying to police anyone's sexual life. It is so completely ridiculous that this strawman keeps being made. I don't care who you sleep with. But if you come in here and say you won't sleep with a woman because she's black or a transsexual woman because she is trans, then yea, I'm going to call that indecent. Because you are being prejudiced against someone for nothing other than how they were born. That doesn't mean I'm controlling your sexual life, or that I want to. All it means is that I'm pointing out that your preferences reveal harmful underlying attitudes.
I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it.
And I reserve the right to point out that this distinction has no scientific basis behind it, and contributes to transphobia.
Get out of my bedroom please.
Because no matter how many times you say you aren't going in there, there you are, underneath the bed or in the closet or behind the drapes.
Exactly what harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed by a lack of sexual attraction to a certain classifiable section of humanity.
The exact same kind of crazy you're pushing can also be used against straight people for not being attracted to the same sex or gay people not being attracted to the opposite sex; what kind of harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed there?
You CANNOT come to a thread like this, have a discussion about issues like this and then when someone points out a flaw in your reasoning relegate your argument to "GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY SEXUAL LIFE!". What the fuck!
And yeah what Iyerbeth said. If you find someone attractive as a woman and later find out that she's trans and think that's good enough of a reason to IMMEDIATELLY discontinue the relationship for that reason alone, I do see it as a clear connection to transphobia. It's an understandable reaction due to our culture, but I still see it as irrational.
I do believe that if we did some more digging into people's subconscious (including mine) we *would* find thoughts "there's a man in there", "that person once had a penis, that's disgusting", "what will my friends think" and the like.
Or we would find thoughts of "This person can never give me kids, and I want a kids" (Whilst this admittedly include some ciswomen, a transgender has an a priori knowledge which ciswomen seldom have). Or we would find thoughts of "this person didn't trust me, does she really feel she can't be honest with me? What else has she lied about?". Both of those reasons SCREAM transphobe right?!
The thing is, there is a choir in this thread who are VERY busy accusing others of being transphobes, when there are in fact plenty of non-transphobic reasons as to why one would immediately break it off with a transgender in the situation outlined. It is hilarious that those that declare themselves defenders of morality are the ones in this thread wanting to limit the personal freedom of others - to the point where we have had posters stating that they did not care for others freedom as long as they could get their sexytime. It is an interesting insight into what reactions and treatment from those who so long have been suppressed the "privileged", cisgendered, heterosexuals can expect when they define their own sexuality. It is deplorable and hypocritical. Shame on you.
Except for the fact that it's been said plenty of times that no one with a problem with trans people shouldn't be told (by both sides), that the discussion was from the stand point of a one night stand and that relationships were different, that the issue was the feelings related to 'she's a man' not just not liking someone and you have apparently missed all of this or are purposely misrepresenting people.
I beleve I'm far from the only person who has also said having a response of revulsion towards sleeping with a trans person, whilst in almost all situation is undeniably transphobic in nature, doesn't make the person actually a tranphobe.
[snip]
The notion I am disagreeing with is the "in almost all situation[s] is undeniably transphobic in nature". There are plenty of non-transphobic reasons for not wanting to have sex with a transgender. If you had said "in many" you and I would not disagree at all.
[snip]
I did mean most, but I'd be interested in hearing why you think many is more appropriate? Reasons such as not wanting to sleep with anyone who has had cosmetic surgery, is unable to have children, isn't attractive are obviously not, but typically the reasons given are some variant, however nicely intoned, of 'she's still a man' which is why I said 'in almost all situations'. Would you disagree?
The problem with actual examples of being turned off by finding out someone is trans is that there are so many variables to play with you often wont know if its actual transphobia or just something else. What if the person is turned off by the fact that youre xy and not xx (theyd be equally turned off if they found out their partner has AIS). Is that no longer a phobia?
It all becomes quite muddled. I do agree however that if you had sex with a woman and it was great, and somehow by finding out later shes trans you feel repulsion or other strong negative emotions (which isnt related to having been lied to but to the fact that shes trans itself), then that indicates a phobic reaction. Simply being turned off by something isnt enough for it to be a phobia, there has to be a fairly strong emotional response. Being a little uncomfortable with heights does not constitute acrophobia!
The same would hold true if the sole reason you feel strong negative emotions before sex is her past (ie if she had told you she had AIS youd be fine with it but since she told you she is trans youre freaking out). If that alone is enough to make you freak out, then its most likely a phobia. If youre just turned off, then its not necessarily a phobia, though perhaps irrational.
And if you feel turned off by finding out before sex, then it could be any number of reasons only some of which would be phobic in nature. Just feeling turned off by something whether it be a present physical attribute or a persons past isnt being phobic, not anymore so than feeling a little uncomfortable with heights would be considered a phobia. And just like some people can never be a 100% comfortable with heights no matter how many basejumps they perform, some people will never be 100% comfortable with the idea of having sex with a trans, even if they were to have sex with loads of transwomen. Neither are correctly classified as phobia based on that sole fact alone.
On August 04 2013 19:36 Snusmumriken wrote: The problem with actual examples of being turned off by finding out someone is trans is that there are so many variables to play with you often wont know if its actual transphobia or just something else. What if the person is turned off by the fact that youre xy and not xx (theyd be equally turned off if they found out their partner has AIS). Is that no longer a phobia?
Nope, but I don't think anyone could actually make that argument without it being at some level a 'not a real woman' argument in the real world.
Shiori explained pretty well how not having gender dysphoria yourself means that you'd be dealing with a partner who has a major part of them that you're never really going to be able to understand or connect with them.
Sexual attraction isn't just about physical attraction. If I saw an extremely hot girl and it turns out she's trans then I could be "turned off" by this without finding her any less physically attractive and it's not necessarily about her on some level not being a real woman, it's just an extra complication that I don't want or need.
On August 04 2013 20:39 Reason wrote: Shiori explained pretty well how not having gender dysphoria yourself means that you'd be dealing with a partner who has a major part of them that you're never really going to be able to understand or connect with them.
Sexual attraction isn't just about physical attraction. If I saw an extremely hot girl and it turns out she's trans then I could be "turned off" by this without finding her any less physically attractive and it's not necessarily about her on some level not being a real woman, it's just an extra complication that I don't want or need.
On August 04 2013 12:36 shinosai wrote: I'm not trying to police anyone's sexual life. It is so completely ridiculous that this strawman keeps being made. I don't care who you sleep with. But if you come in here and say you won't sleep with a woman because she's black or a transsexual woman because she is trans, then yea, I'm going to call that indecent. Because you are being prejudiced against someone for nothing other than how they were born. That doesn't mean I'm controlling your sexual life, or that I want to. All it means is that I'm pointing out that your preferences reveal harmful underlying attitudes.
I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it.
And I reserve the right to point out that this distinction has no scientific basis behind it, and contributes to transphobia.
Get out of my bedroom please.
Because no matter how many times you say you aren't going in there, there you are, underneath the bed or in the closet or behind the drapes.
Exactly what harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed by a lack of sexual attraction to a certain classifiable section of humanity.
The exact same kind of crazy you're pushing can also be used against straight people for not being attracted to the same sex or gay people not being attracted to the opposite sex; what kind of harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed there?
You CANNOT come to a thread like this, have a discussion about issues like this and then when someone points out a flaw in your reasoning relegate your argument to "GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY SEXUAL LIFE!". What the fuck!
And yeah what Iyerbeth said. If you find someone attractive as a woman and later find out that she's trans and think that's good enough of a reason to IMMEDIATELLY discontinue the relationship for that reason alone, I do see it as a clear connection to transphobia. It's an understandable reaction due to our culture, but I still see it as irrational.
I do believe that if we did some more digging into people's subconscious (including mine) we *would* find thoughts "there's a man in there", "that person once had a penis, that's disgusting", "what will my friends think" and the like.
Or we would find thoughts of "This person can never give me kids, and I want a kids" (Whilst this admittedly include some ciswomen, a transgender has an a priori knowledge which ciswomen seldom have). Or we would find thoughts of "this person didn't trust me, does she really feel she can't be honest with me? What else has she lied about?". Both of those reasons SCREAM transphobe right?!
The thing is, there is a choir in this thread who are VERY busy accusing others of being transphobes, when there are in fact plenty of non-transphobic reasons as to why one would immediately break it off with a transgender in the situation outlined. It is hilarious that those that declare themselves defenders of morality are the ones in this thread wanting to limit the personal freedom of others - to the point where we have had posters stating that they did not care for others freedom as long as they could get their sexytime. It is an interesting insight into what reactions and treatment from those who so long have been suppressed the "privileged", cisgendered, heterosexuals can expect when they define their own sexuality. It is deplorable and hypocritical. Shame on you.
Except for the fact that it's been said plenty of times that no one with a problem with trans people shouldn't be told (by both sides), that the discussion was from the stand point of a one night stand and that relationships were different, that the issue was the feelings related to 'she's a man' not just not liking someone and you have apparently missed all of this or are purposely misrepresenting people.
I beleve I'm far from the only person who has also said having a response of revulsion towards sleeping with a trans person, whilst in almost all situation is undeniably transphobic in nature, doesn't make the person actually a tranphobe.
[snip]
The notion I am disagreeing with is the "in almost all situation[s] is undeniably transphobic in nature". There are plenty of non-transphobic reasons for not wanting to have sex with a transgender. If you had said "in many" you and I would not disagree at all.
[snip]
I did mean most, but I'd be interested in hearing why you think many is more appropriate? Reasons such as not wanting to sleep with anyone who has had cosmetic surgery, is unable to have children, isn't attractive are obviously not, but typically the reasons given are some variant, however nicely intoned, of 'she's still a man' which is why I said 'in almost all situations'. Would you disagree?
On August 04 2013 12:36 shinosai wrote: I'm not trying to police anyone's sexual life. It is so completely ridiculous that this strawman keeps being made. I don't care who you sleep with. But if you come in here and say you won't sleep with a woman because she's black or a transsexual woman because she is trans, then yea, I'm going to call that indecent. Because you are being prejudiced against someone for nothing other than how they were born. That doesn't mean I'm controlling your sexual life, or that I want to. All it means is that I'm pointing out that your preferences reveal harmful underlying attitudes.
I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it.
And I reserve the right to point out that this distinction has no scientific basis behind it, and contributes to transphobia.
Get out of my bedroom please.
Because no matter how many times you say you aren't going in there, there you are, underneath the bed or in the closet or behind the drapes.
Exactly what harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed by a lack of sexual attraction to a certain classifiable section of humanity.
The exact same kind of crazy you're pushing can also be used against straight people for not being attracted to the same sex or gay people not being attracted to the opposite sex; what kind of harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed there?
You CANNOT come to a thread like this, have a discussion about issues like this and then when someone points out a flaw in your reasoning relegate your argument to "GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY SEXUAL LIFE!". What the fuck!
And yeah what Iyerbeth said. If you find someone attractive as a woman and later find out that she's trans and think that's good enough of a reason to IMMEDIATELLY discontinue the relationship for that reason alone, I do see it as a clear connection to transphobia. It's an understandable reaction due to our culture, but I still see it as irrational.
I do believe that if we did some more digging into people's subconscious (including mine) we *would* find thoughts "there's a man in there", "that person once had a penis, that's disgusting", "what will my friends think" and the like.
Or we would find thoughts of "This person can never give me kids, and I want a kids" (Whilst this admittedly include some ciswomen, a transgender has an a priori knowledge which ciswomen seldom have). Or we would find thoughts of "this person didn't trust me, does she really feel she can't be honest with me? What else has she lied about?". Both of those reasons SCREAM transphobe right?!
The thing is, there is a choir in this thread who are VERY busy accusing others of being transphobes, when there are in fact plenty of non-transphobic reasons as to why one would immediately break it off with a transgender in the situation outlined. It is hilarious that those that declare themselves defenders of morality are the ones in this thread wanting to limit the personal freedom of others - to the point where we have had posters stating that they did not care for others freedom as long as they could get their sexytime. It is an interesting insight into what reactions and treatment from those who so long have been suppressed the "privileged", cisgendered, heterosexuals can expect when they define their own sexuality. It is deplorable and hypocritical. Shame on you.
You are really, really good at changing the discussion from something very specific (not dating someone for an exclusive reason) and then changing that reason to something else. Which is what you did here. We went from "I don't want to date trans people for no other reason than that they are trans" to "I don't want to date trans people because I want kids." The difference seems rather obvious, but it's a very useful diversionary tactic in order to intentionally misrepresent the argument and make it look absurd.
I'm also willing to water down the language and say that the person who doesn't want to sleep with a biracial woman because they found out the father was black isn't racist, but has internalized racist beliefs. If it's that important to water down the word, then I will. If you don't want to sleep with a trans woman because she's a trans woman (not because you do not find her physically attractive, not because you want kids, not because of whatever reason you want to misdirect the thread in, but because she is trans) then maybe you're not a transphobe, but you definitely have internalized transphobic beliefs.
However, if you really do believe that the person who refuses to sleep with a passing biracial woman due to her father's skin color is a racist, then I do believe it's disingenuous to not make the same conclusion about the person in relation to the transsexual. It's the same sort of attitude. Now if you want to justify that with things like, "Well, I feel like she's different from a cis woman," that doesn't change anything here. No matter how good you think your reasons are for discriminating against people based on the color of their skin or the origin of their birth, those beliefs are still harmful to the people they are being directed at.
Sorry if I misread you then. I don't see how being christian is relevant though.
If you're an individual who doesn't want relations with someone who had a promiscuous past though, I don't see how that translates into a phobia. You did say those two examples "yes" both would be a phobia, when I fail to see how. They're a matter of personal preferences and values.
I didn't take the Christian point in to consideration as I wouldn't know how to having no real idea what it would mean, or if there could be some kind of standard response. I said the promiscuity one was a phobia in that instance, because the person knew their prospective partner was now completely monogomous. If someone is monogomous and you fear them cheating on you, that's an irrational fear. It probably has a rational basis, and I could understand someone being cautious about it, but the example was very specific in it's question which I read as thus:
"Person A wouldn't cheat. Person B knows person A wouldn't cheat. Person B fears person A will cheat. Is this rational?"
Edit:
On August 04 2013 07:38 Snusmumriken wrote: [quote]
ok thanks. Ill have to think about this. Intuitively I wouldnt categorically put anything and everything that deals with a persons past as phobia.
Hmm... In order to actually exclude any possible physical argument, lets assume there is a braintransplant procedure and a transwoman has her brain put in a female body (xx chromosomes, uterus and the rest). Mr Bean then meets this hot chick and wants to bang, but once her past is shared he feels turned off. Is that a phobia? Its does seem irrational, is that enough for it to be a phobia?
I would say probably, but it needn't necessarily be a transphobia.
You read the christian example correctly. It wasnt a great analogy either, its really hard to completely lock down every possibility in hypotheticals :/
Im still not sure if simply being irrational in their sexual preferences is enough for someone to be having a phobia. For me there would have to be irrational fear and/or disgust involved. Ill think about this a bit more though.
Lets assume Mr Bean is dating a beautiful woman. She has told him she has AIS (ie she is xy) and he knows all the implications. Hes allright with that, no problem. Eventually she finds out she actually doesnt have AIS but is transgender (lets assume she has amnesia so she actually didnt remember her past). She tells Mr Bean and he is turned off all of a sudden.
That, to me, is transphobia
What is AIS and the significance of it?
See when I hear things like homophobia or transphobia, I think at the very least you have to actually dislike someone because of the fact that they are homosexual or transsexual, maybe even go so far as thinking they are less human, deserve less rights, or want to commit hate crimes against them.
If you just aren't attracted to them, it just seems a matter of personal preferences that need not necessarily be motivated by irrational fears (although I won't deny it's possible that they could be, I won't say it's necessarily the case that they need be either).
I personally don't see anything wrong with simply not being attracted to anyone... I'm trans. Some people wouldn't want to date someone who's trans, and that's fine.
Just like some people don't want to date someone who is a guy or girl. Some people don't want to date people with red hair, or green eyes.
Everyone has preferences, and I don't see what someone finds unattractive to be the same as a phobia.
I still think that if one wants to be a decent human being, they should try to think about the situation and try to change that about themselves rather than just relegate it to "that's my preference and that's good enough".
Before I jump to any conclusions, is this a correct interpretation? - If you wish to have your penis surgically altered into a vagina and take hormones to alter your sexual characteristics, that's a rational preference which you are free to embrace - If you do not want to have sex with a transsexual, you are not a decent human being unless you actively try to change your irrational preferences
It's a medical issue that's been well documented and studied so yes, just as rational as taking care of a cleft palate as it's unsightly and causes emotional distress. The surgery isn't necessary to everyone but it will make the person's life better which is why it's rational.
I really can not wrap my head around why people can't see trans women as just women and it confuses me as to why it's such a big problem.
I am fine with people having any preference and acting on it however they want, short of impinging on other people's basic rights. I don't even think people need medical documentation to justify their preferences. If somebody tells me he enjoys getting spat in the eyes, I will respect that without further ado. I will not feel obliged to personally do any spitting.
The first part where there's a problem, is where somebody labels a preference as irrational and indecent. It is particularly ironic in this thread, where people should know the problems with people thinking they have the right to police other people's sexual lives.
The second part where there's a problem, is where you try to dictate what sort of distinctions I am allowed to care about and demand that I use the same word for two things I consider conceptually different. I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it.
I do not want to violate anybody's basic rights based on this distinction, nor do I suggest that the law should differentiate on this basis.
You can think whatever you want, if you want to think that all people are really carrots then by all means do so; but I don't think that gives you the right to deny someone's identity based on your own personal beliefs.
There is a difference between being wrong about facts, i.e. people being carrots, and making a distinction some people consider irrelevant, i.e. transsexuality.
If somebody was born in Texas, lived most of his life in Texas and really enjoys rodeo, I will call him a Texan whenever that seems pertinent, even if he's now moved to Boston and self-identifies as just an American. Note that if I went around calling him a New Yorker, despite knowing him to not be one, just because I perceived him as one - that would be me being an idiot.
If somebody used to be a serial rapist, but is currently not raping and has no immediate plans for future rape, I am honestly not going to care if he self-identifies as just a normal person, even if that hurts his feelings.
If a guy took steroids to build his muscles, even if I really, honestly can't tell by look or feel, even if I had to use my time machine to discover this fact, I am still going to call him a steroid user, regardless of how many arguments he presents about his present body being indistinguishable from a natural one and his medical history being none of my business.
The idea that you have any right to dictate how other people are allowed to perceive you is outright preposterous. Your rights kick in if I: - violate your personal space - discriminate against you on the basis of irrelevant criteria when acting as a professional - spread falsehoods about you to other people (note: this does not include unpleasant or supposedly irrelevant truths) - go out of my way to be offensive, intentionally
On August 04 2013 22:12 Darkwhite wrote: The idea that you have any right to dictate how other people are allowed to perceive you is outright preposterous. Your rights kick in if I:
- violate your personal space - discriminate against you on the basis of irrelevant criteria when acting as a professional - spread falsehoods about you to other people (note: this does not include unpleasant or supposedly irrelevant truths) - go out of my way to be offensive, intentionally
Thought I'd just translate this bit:
The idea that you have any right to dictate how other people are allowed to perceive you is outright preposterous. Your rights don't kick in if I:
- don't violate your personal space - Discriminate against you on the basis of whatever I want so long as I can't lose my job - Prop up bigotry in society by arguing that you aren't a woman, despite all evidence to the contrary - Support bullying in the same regard as above - Spread your medical information to others - Support institutionalised transphobia - Ignore your wishes to be treated like anyone else - 'Accidentally' offend you, say by calling you a man or otherwise working to deny you your identity
I think that's all true, but I thought it looked better when it was a little clearer.
On August 04 2013 22:12 Darkwhite wrote: The idea that you have any right to dictate how other people are allowed to perceive you is outright preposterous. Your rights kick in if I:
- violate your personal space - discriminate against you on the basis of irrelevant criteria when acting as a professional - spread falsehoods about you to other people (note: this does not include unpleasant or supposedly irrelevant truths) - go out of my way to be offensive, intentionally
The idea that you have any right to dictate how other people are allowed to perceive you is outright preposterous. Your rights don't kick in if I:
- violate your personal space - Discriminate against you on the basis of whatever I want so long as I can't lose my job - Prop up bigotry in society by arguing that you aren't a woman, despite all evidence to the contrary - Support bullying in the same regard as above - Spread your medical information to others - Support institutionalised transphobia - Ignore your wishes to be treated like anyone else - 'Accidentally' offend you, say by calling you a man or otherwise working to deny you your identity
I think that's all true, but I thought it looked better when it was a little clearer.
Yes, translating Your rights kick in if I violate your personal space to Your rights don't kick in if I violate your personal space cleared everything up.
On August 04 2013 22:12 Darkwhite wrote: The idea that you have any right to dictate how other people are allowed to perceive you is outright preposterous. Your rights kick in if I:
- violate your personal space - discriminate against you on the basis of irrelevant criteria when acting as a professional - spread falsehoods about you to other people (note: this does not include unpleasant or supposedly irrelevant truths) - go out of my way to be offensive, intentionally
Thought I'd just translate this bit:
The idea that you have any right to dictate how other people are allowed to perceive you is outright preposterous. Your rights don't kick in if I:
- violate your personal space - Discriminate against you on the basis of whatever I want so long as I can't lose my job - Prop up bigotry in society by arguing that you aren't a woman, despite all evidence to the contrary - Support bullying in the same regard as above - Spread your medical information to others - Support institutionalised transphobia - Ignore your wishes to be treated like anyone else - 'Accidentally' offend you, say by calling you a man or otherwise working to deny you your identity
I think that's all true, but I thought it looked better when it was a little clearer.
Yes, translating Your rights kick in if I violate your personal space to Your rights don't kick in if I violate your personal space cleared everything up.
You're right, I missed a single word. Corrected it.
EPT
