|
On August 01 2013 02:17 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:
I would define a "real" woman as you say, as someone who is 100% woman and does not have any obviously male characteristics. Every trans female I have met, you can look at them and be able to tell. You can see the male attributes. How is that the same? I can understand the cause and I fight for their equality in every regard, but you can't say a trans woman is physically equivalent to a person born a woman. Even disregarding procreation, there are very obvious physical appearance differences. I am sure you're aware of this, but your criteria are a bit lacking. There are easily female-born women ("100% woman") who have male characteristics (e.g. broad shoulders + small hips, masculine face, little-to-no chest, etc.). By your definition, they wouldn't be "real women" either due to their male characteristics.
He doesn't want to say it, but what he means is that you could never erase the man, only cover it up.
|
On August 01 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy.  But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. A trans woman can not get pregnant, making it a false analogy. Additionally, and please do not take this the wrong way, but in every trans person I have met, its not a 100% conversion. There are always obvious amounts of male mixed into the female, sometimes even mostly male. I am not attracted to men, and having male attributes is very unattractive to me. A black woman looks entirely like a woman and not a man at all. And a black woman would be able to have my children. So given the fact that there are 2 different situations, how can you say its my responsibility to change what I want? I think until a man is able to 100% convert to female, its not reasonable to say people should see trans women as the same as people born as women. The differences can be quite large. On August 01 2013 01:48 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 theodorus12 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. Very bad analogy. A black women is EXACTLY the same as a white women. But a trans "women" is not, she is not capable of giving birth to a child. And because the biological desire to reproduce is in everyone of us, it's only normal, that people are more attracted to a real women than a trans person. I agree it was a bad analogy, but trans women are still real women. Not arguing against anyone's right to only want to sleep with cis women though. I would define a "real" woman as you say, as someone who is 100% woman and does not have any obviously male characteristics. Every trans female I have met, you can look at them and be able to tell. You can see the male attributes. How is that the same? I can understand the cause and I fight for their equality in every regard, but you can't say a trans woman is physically equivalent to a person born a woman. Even disregarding procreation, there are very obvious physical appearance differences. What about cis-gendered women who are infertile? Are you not sexually attracted to them? I can understand why you might not want to date an infertile woman or a trans woman if you really want to have biological offspring with your partner. But that's a committed serious relationship that extends well beyond mere sexual attraction. If you're talking about plain old poppin a stiffy, I really don't think the infertile argument works. Klondikebar, at some point you have to give people the option of having personal taste. You can't force them to admit they would be attracted to someone that they don't feel they would be. They are not going to be able to make a logic argument about their personal taste, only that it is theirs and you can ALWAYS make a counter argument that they might be attracted to a transgender person. At best, you should try to make them put their preference at tactfully as possible. At the end of the day, we are all entitle to date whoever we want and we shouldn't have to justify it to people.
Except that that exact logic can be applied in all sorts of bigoted ways. Like "it's just my preference to only date white people." I'm forcing the logical reasons because we have a lot of internalized "-ism's" that we don't realize we have. And confronting them and saying "huh, there really is not logical reason I wouldn't bang person X" you end up making yourself better off as a person.
Now, if you meet a trans person I'm not saying you have to immediately hop into bed with them just to prove how tolerant you are. That would be moronic. They could be ugly, they could be crazy, they could just be mean. But just making blanket statements about your preferences when, in practice, we judge people individually on their attractiveness, seems rather silly and an excuse to just not admit to some internalized prejudices.
|
On August 01 2013 02:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:17 babylon wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:
I would define a "real" woman as you say, as someone who is 100% woman and does not have any obviously male characteristics. Every trans female I have met, you can look at them and be able to tell. You can see the male attributes. How is that the same? I can understand the cause and I fight for their equality in every regard, but you can't say a trans woman is physically equivalent to a person born a woman. Even disregarding procreation, there are very obvious physical appearance differences. I am sure you're aware of this, but your criteria are a bit lacking. There are easily female-born women ("100% woman") who have male characteristics (e.g. broad shoulders + small hips, masculine face, little-to-no chest, etc.). By your definition, they wouldn't be "real women" either due to their male characteristics. He doesn't want to say it, but what he means is that you could never erase the man, only cover it up.
You couldn't be more wrong.
|
On August 01 2013 02:30 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 01 2013 02:17 babylon wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:
I would define a "real" woman as you say, as someone who is 100% woman and does not have any obviously male characteristics. Every trans female I have met, you can look at them and be able to tell. You can see the male attributes. How is that the same? I can understand the cause and I fight for their equality in every regard, but you can't say a trans woman is physically equivalent to a person born a woman. Even disregarding procreation, there are very obvious physical appearance differences. I am sure you're aware of this, but your criteria are a bit lacking. There are easily female-born women ("100% woman") who have male characteristics (e.g. broad shoulders + small hips, masculine face, little-to-no chest, etc.). By your definition, they wouldn't be "real women" either due to their male characteristics. He doesn't want to say it, but what he means is that you could never erase the man, only cover it up. You couldn't be more wrong.
Since I wasn't speaking about facts, I was speaking about perceptions... I literally cannot be wrong.
Unless this guy's perception isn't what I think it is, but I highly doubt that. I'm sure, in the spirit of being tolerant, he will come around to say: "No! No! No! That's not what I meant at all!" but he will still not want to bang transgenders so there it is.
|
|
|
On August 01 2013 02:13 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. A trans woman can not get pregnant, making it a false analogy. Additionally, and please do not take this the wrong way, but in every trans person I have met, its not a 100% conversion. There are always obvious amounts of male mixed into the female, sometimes even mostly male. I am not attracted to men, and having male attributes is very unattractive to me. A black woman looks entirely like a woman and not a man at all. And a black woman would be able to have my children. So given the fact that there are 2 different situations, how can you say its my responsibility to change what I want? I think until a man is able to 100% convert to female, its not reasonable to say people should see trans women as the same as people born as women. The differences can be quite large. On August 01 2013 01:48 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 theodorus12 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. Very bad analogy. A black women is EXACTLY the same as a white women. But a trans "women" is not, she is not capable of giving birth to a child. And because the biological desire to reproduce is in everyone of us, it's only normal, that people are more attracted to a real women than a trans person. I agree it was a bad analogy, but trans women are still real women. Not arguing against anyone's right to only want to sleep with cis women though. I would define a "real" woman as you say, as someone who is 100% woman and does not have any obviously male characteristics. Every trans female I have met, you can look at them and be able to tell. You can see the male attributes. How is that the same? I can understand the cause and I fight for their equality in every regard, but you can't say a trans woman is physically equivalent to a person born a woman. Even disregarding procreation, there are very obvious physical appearance differences. What about cis-gendered women who are infertile? Are you not sexually attracted to them? I can understand why you might not want to date an infertile woman or a trans woman if you really want to have biological offspring with your partner. But that's a committed serious relationship that extends well beyond mere sexual attraction. If you're talking about plain old poppin a stiffy, I really don't think the infertile argument works.
The infertile and the dude'ness argument are for 2 different things. I would never choose to start a long term relationship with someone I knew was infertile. I would also never choose to start a long term relationship with someone who has male attributes, as they would be unattractive.
On August 01 2013 02:17 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:
I would define a "real" woman as you say, as someone who is 100% woman and does not have any obviously male characteristics. Every trans female I have met, you can look at them and be able to tell. You can see the male attributes. How is that the same? I can understand the cause and I fight for their equality in every regard, but you can't say a trans woman is physically equivalent to a person born a woman. Even disregarding procreation, there are very obvious physical appearance differences. I am sure you're aware of this, but your criteria are a bit lacking. There are easily female-born women ("100% woman") who have male characteristics (e.g. broad shoulders + small hips, masculine face, little-to-no chest, etc.). By your definition, they wouldn't be "real women" either due to their male characteristics. Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:12 heliusx wrote:
Transgender are literally the worse when it comes to playing the bigot-card. Anyone at all who doesn't agree with their opinions on gender and sexuality are instantly attacked and labeled. And then in the same breath are confused by the fact that no one understands them. For me there are obvious differences between a born and trans female and it should come at no surprise that most heterosexual males feel the same. You clearly haven't wandered into radical feminist waters. :O This is actually a very civil discussion. Feel free to contribute something less toxic, lol.
I think you're downplaying just how significantly male-like a lot of trans women look. And while I would also not date any woman with the characteristics you described, I see it as a different level than someone who basically looks like a guy with some woman mixed in. I'm not the one who was trying to define what a real woman is, I was relating the concept to what the person I quoted said. I don't have some definition of a real woman. But I think you can understand that there are certain physical attributes that are present in trans women which obviously come from the fact that they used to be male. But I also would not date a girl with any of the attributes you listed, such as broad shoulders.
|
On August 01 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:30 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 02:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 01 2013 02:17 babylon wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:
I would define a "real" woman as you say, as someone who is 100% woman and does not have any obviously male characteristics. Every trans female I have met, you can look at them and be able to tell. You can see the male attributes. How is that the same? I can understand the cause and I fight for their equality in every regard, but you can't say a trans woman is physically equivalent to a person born a woman. Even disregarding procreation, there are very obvious physical appearance differences. I am sure you're aware of this, but your criteria are a bit lacking. There are easily female-born women ("100% woman") who have male characteristics (e.g. broad shoulders + small hips, masculine face, little-to-no chest, etc.). By your definition, they wouldn't be "real women" either due to their male characteristics. He doesn't want to say it, but what he means is that you could never erase the man, only cover it up. You couldn't be more wrong. Since I wasn't speaking about facts, I was speaking about perceptions... I literally cannot be wrong. Unless this guy's perception isn't what I think it is, but I highly doubt that. I'm sure, in the spirit of being tolerant, he will come around to say: "No! No! No! That's not what I meant at all!" but he will still not want to bang transgenders so there it is.
Rofl, what he meant is that he is not attracted to what we perceive as male characteristic. Not all trans women has them. Those that transition before puberty basically have none.
Look, at one point in your life, you saw a person that was trans, but you didn't know and you couldn't have known.
|
i can't help but think this "perfect trans woman" that people explain is hard to come by, i've never seen one and i'd imagine its only possible through latest medical improvements. and some treatments require pre-puberty if i'm correct? that means the first generation of "real" trans woman are emerging now, unless such technology for neo vajayjay and hormone treatment, etc exited for decades. only interaction i've had is a man with breasts in his 40 with pink hair, that does appraisals for my shop.
so this is a fairly new thing, this perfect trans woman (i've seen pretty ones in asia but their voice gives it away right away), reminds me of the story in china where a guy sued and divorced his wife after their first child because of how ugly the child is. he found out after the new child that the woman was actually really fucking ugly but had plastic surgery.
|
On August 01 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:30 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 02:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 01 2013 02:17 babylon wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:
I would define a "real" woman as you say, as someone who is 100% woman and does not have any obviously male characteristics. Every trans female I have met, you can look at them and be able to tell. You can see the male attributes. How is that the same? I can understand the cause and I fight for their equality in every regard, but you can't say a trans woman is physically equivalent to a person born a woman. Even disregarding procreation, there are very obvious physical appearance differences. I am sure you're aware of this, but your criteria are a bit lacking. There are easily female-born women ("100% woman") who have male characteristics (e.g. broad shoulders + small hips, masculine face, little-to-no chest, etc.). By your definition, they wouldn't be "real women" either due to their male characteristics. He doesn't want to say it, but what he means is that you could never erase the man, only cover it up. You couldn't be more wrong. Since I wasn't speaking about facts, I was speaking about perceptions... I literally cannot be wrong. Unless this guy's perception isn't what I think it is, but I highly doubt that. I'm sure, in the spirit of being tolerant, he will come around to say: "No! No! No! That's not what I meant at all!" but he will still not want to bang transgenders so there it is.
haha. All this pussy footing around is weird. If someone doesn't want to bang a transgender, so be it. That doesn't make you a bigot regardless of what some people would have you believe. And just because a few transgendered may pull it off well does not factor into me not wanting to have sex with someone born as a man.
|
On August 01 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. A trans woman can not get pregnant, making it a false analogy. Additionally, and please do not take this the wrong way, but in every trans person I have met, its not a 100% conversion. There are always obvious amounts of male mixed into the female, sometimes even mostly male. I am not attracted to men, and having male attributes is very unattractive to me. A black woman looks entirely like a woman and not a man at all. And a black woman would be able to have my children. So given the fact that there are 2 different situations, how can you say its my responsibility to change what I want? I think until a man is able to 100% convert to female, its not reasonable to say people should see trans women as the same as people born as women. The differences can be quite large. On August 01 2013 01:48 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 theodorus12 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. Very bad analogy. A black women is EXACTLY the same as a white women. But a trans "women" is not, she is not capable of giving birth to a child. And because the biological desire to reproduce is in everyone of us, it's only normal, that people are more attracted to a real women than a trans person. I agree it was a bad analogy, but trans women are still real women. Not arguing against anyone's right to only want to sleep with cis women though. I would define a "real" woman as you say, as someone who is 100% woman and does not have any obviously male characteristics. Every trans female I have met, you can look at them and be able to tell. You can see the male attributes. How is that the same? I can understand the cause and I fight for their equality in every regard, but you can't say a trans woman is physically equivalent to a person born a woman. Even disregarding procreation, there are very obvious physical appearance differences. What about cis-gendered women who are infertile? Are you not sexually attracted to them? I can understand why you might not want to date an infertile woman or a trans woman if you really want to have biological offspring with your partner. But that's a committed serious relationship that extends well beyond mere sexual attraction. If you're talking about plain old poppin a stiffy, I really don't think the infertile argument works. Klondikebar, at some point you have to give people the option of having personal taste. You can't force them to admit they would be attracted to someone that they don't feel they would be. They are not going to be able to make a logic argument about their personal taste, only that it is theirs and you can ALWAYS make a counter argument that they might be attracted to a transgender person. At best, you should try to make them put their preference at tactfully as possible. At the end of the day, we are all entitle to date whoever we want and we shouldn't have to justify it to people. Except that that exact logic can be applied in all sorts of bigoted ways. Like "it's just my preference to only date white people." I'm forcing the logical reasons because we have a lot of internalized "-ism's" that we don't realize we have. And confronting them and saying "huh, there really is not logical reason I wouldn't bang person X" you end up making yourself better off as a person. Now, if you meet a trans person I'm not saying you have to immediately hop into bed with them just to prove how tolerant you are. That would be moronic. They could be ugly, they could be crazy, they could just be mean. But just making blanket statements about your preferences when, in practice, we judge people individually on their attractiveness, seems rather silly and an excuse to just not admit to some internalized prejudices.
Right, but in this case you are asking someone if they are willing to have sex with someone, not accept them as part of a community or give them a job. Or to put it this way, the discussion is similar to trying to force someone who is admittedly gay to say that they could date someone of the opposite sex, and accusing them of being a bigot if they say no. People have a right to be attracted to who they are attracted too and you can't call them a bigot because of their personal taste.
|
On August 01 2013 02:36 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 01 2013 02:30 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 02:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 01 2013 02:17 babylon wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:
I would define a "real" woman as you say, as someone who is 100% woman and does not have any obviously male characteristics. Every trans female I have met, you can look at them and be able to tell. You can see the male attributes. How is that the same? I can understand the cause and I fight for their equality in every regard, but you can't say a trans woman is physically equivalent to a person born a woman. Even disregarding procreation, there are very obvious physical appearance differences. I am sure you're aware of this, but your criteria are a bit lacking. There are easily female-born women ("100% woman") who have male characteristics (e.g. broad shoulders + small hips, masculine face, little-to-no chest, etc.). By your definition, they wouldn't be "real women" either due to their male characteristics. He doesn't want to say it, but what he means is that you could never erase the man, only cover it up. You couldn't be more wrong. Since I wasn't speaking about facts, I was speaking about perceptions... I literally cannot be wrong. Unless this guy's perception isn't what I think it is, but I highly doubt that. I'm sure, in the spirit of being tolerant, he will come around to say: "No! No! No! That's not what I meant at all!" but he will still not want to bang transgenders so there it is. Rofl, what he meant is that he is not attracted to what we perceive as male characteristic. Not all trans women has them. Those that transition before puberty basically have none. Look, at one point in your life, you saw a person that was trans, but you didn't know and you couldn't have known.
Is that so? I wonder, if he saw a trans with no male characteristics, would he still want to date them? 90% of men wouldn't, if they found out.
Also, I seriously doubt that is true, and even if it was, like I said, to most men... it wouldn't matter.
|
On August 01 2013 02:36 jinorazi wrote:
i can't help but think this "perfect trans woman" that people explain is hard to come by, i've never seen one and i'd imagine its only possible through latest medical improvements. and some treatments require pre-puberty if i'm correct? that means the first generation of "real" trans woman are emerging now, unless such technology for neo vajayjay and hormone treatment, etc exited for decades. only interaction i've had is a man with breasts in his 40 with pink hair, that does appraisals for my shop.
so this is a fairly new thing, this perfect trans woman (i've seen pretty ones in asia but their voice gives it away right away), reminds me of the story in china where a guy sued and divorced his wife after their first child because of how ugly the child is. he found out after the new child that the woman was actually really fucking ugly but had plastic surgery.
They definitely exist, and I've a good friend who is one. Granted she came from a rich family so that probably figured into the success of her change. We're talking the full deal transformation, including jaw shaving, adam's apple reduction, and full genital surgery. She is one of the most hilariously crazy people I've ever met (she once nonchalantly showed me her goods so that I could comment on their authenticity lol), and you'd definitely never know she was once a man unless she told you.
|
Except that that exact logic can be applied in all sorts of bigoted ways. Like "it's just my preference to only date white people." I'm forcing the logical reasons because we have a lot of internalized "-ism's" that we don't realize we have. And confronting them and saying "huh, there really is not logical reason I wouldn't bang person X" you end up making yourself better off as a person.
How the shit is this bigoted? I don't find certain skin tones particularly appealing. How does this make me a bigot anymore than liking certain body shapes makes me a bigot...?
There are literally no logical reasons for any attraction beyond "I like this, they have it, so I like them." Seriously, that's all it is. I don't go out of my way to construct huge logical arguments every time I see a pretty woman somewhere. I'm just like "oh, she looks really pretty."
If it's any consolation, I don't think I'd date an amputee or someone with a serious physical disability, either. Not that I have anything against such people, but, like it or not, I do prefer certain things in the physique of my partner. That doesn't make a bigot anymore than liking the colour blue makes me a big.
EDIT: I'd also never have sex with anyone without getting pretty clear about what I expect from relationships, what I think about birth control, abortion, marriage, and so on. If the person I'm talking to is a trans woman and she doesn't tell me that she underwent complete reconstruction/is infertile then I would feel pretty deceived. I mean, I'm always honest with my partners about illnesses or major issues that plagued my life beforehand. I think that preferring not to sleep with someone on the grounds that you can't help but think about their trans* status in the back of your mind is a perfectly legitimate reason not to sleep with someone. In fact, any reason is a good reason not to sleep with someone, because you aren't obligated to sleep with anyone. Your body is your own, and you can pick and choose which people are allowed to touch it based on the number of clouds in the sky, for all I care.
Personally, I probably wouldn't be able to date a trans woman. I don't have anything against trans people, by any means, but I do have an extremely obsessive personality, which means that the notion of them having undergone reassignment therapy (no, it is not the same thing as circumcision) would needle the back of my mind constantly. Furthermore, and more important, the idea of sexual dysphoria is completely foreign to me. I just haven't the foggiest idea what it must feel like, and I don't think I'd be able to empathize very well with the trans woman in question. I don't really see how this makes me bigoted, since it's just a preference. There are lots of categories of people that I almost certainly would date. Doesn't mean I absolutely wouldn't, but barring some massive exception, I don't think I'd ever date someone from various groups of people. That's not to say I wouldn't be friends, or even really close friends, with people in these groups, but just that I don't want to be sexually intimate with them, since I take sexual intimacy seriously and don't have sex with someone unless I'm very certain that I want to/don't have any reservations (rational or otherwise).
I don't really understand why you have such a huge problem with this. Nobody goes around calling people bigots for saying that they don't care for tattoos on their partners, or neon hair, or genital piercings, or facial piercings, or whatever. It's just preference; you like what you like. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and all that.
|
On August 01 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 01:51 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 theodorus12 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. Very bad analogy. A black women is EXACTLY the same as a white women. But a trans "women" is not, she is not capable of giving birth to a child. And because the biological desire to reproduce is in everyone of us, it's only normal, that people are more attracted to a real women than a trans person. I don't know if the attraction that you're thinking of goes down that deep. A lot of people are attracted to other things that are not evolutionarily advantageous (see homosexuals, etc.). Since you likely don't know someone is a trans woman then your attraction to them would be based solely on what you see. I can understand a viewpoint of someone saying "I want to my wife to bear my children and thus I wouldn't want a long term relationship with a trans woman" but to argue that they are inherently not attractive seems strange. As for whether the analogy is a good one or not, I guess I can't really see myself dating a black woman. I'm not sure if that's a manifestation of a prejudice, or a benign preference, but I would say that on the whole I find black women less attractive than those of other races. No, it's not strange for transsexual people not to be inherently not attractive to most heterosexual people. It stems from a very fundamental biological/evolutionary drive. I also think your example of homosexuality is counter-productive, because homosxuality is a prime example of misdirected sexual attraction. While it's not politically correct, homosexuality is abnormal. It is natural (the same way many other conditions you may be born with are), as in it is not a matter of choice, it is an aberration. As far as I know, it's rooted in an abnormal brain structure (which is potentially caused by hormonal imbalance during prenatal life, IIRC). That has been disproved in natural with several species of animals, all who display homosexual behavior that is not abnormal or due to some brain dysfunction. Any attempt to argue otherwise is silly.
First of all, we're talking about human homosexuality, which, as far as I know, is rooted in abnormal brain structure. I don't see how several other species are relevant here. In case of homo sapiens, it is abnormal. Are you talking about animals for whom sex plays more than a single role? E.g. in case of chimpanzees homosexual rape is used to exert dominance. Or are you talking about species whose members are genuinely attracted to members of the same sex?
Second of all, IIRC, while there are many species with some tendency towards homosexuality, they still constitute less than 1% of all species.
|
On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. A trans woman can not get pregnant, making it a false analogy. Additionally, and please do not take this the wrong way, but in every trans person I have met, its not a 100% conversion. There are always obvious amounts of male mixed into the female, sometimes even mostly male. I am not attracted to men, and having male attributes is very unattractive to me. A black woman looks entirely like a woman and not a man at all. And a black woman would be able to have my children. So given the fact that there are 2 different situations, how can you say its my responsibility to change what I want? I think until a man is able to 100% convert to female, its not reasonable to say people should see trans women as the same as people born as women. The differences can be quite large. On August 01 2013 01:48 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 theodorus12 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. Very bad analogy. A black women is EXACTLY the same as a white women. But a trans "women" is not, she is not capable of giving birth to a child. And because the biological desire to reproduce is in everyone of us, it's only normal, that people are more attracted to a real women than a trans person. I agree it was a bad analogy, but trans women are still real women. Not arguing against anyone's right to only want to sleep with cis women though. I would define a "real" woman as you say, as someone who is 100% woman and does not have any obviously male characteristics. Every trans female I have met, you can look at them and be able to tell. You can see the male attributes. How is that the same? I can understand the cause and I fight for their equality in every regard, but you can't say a trans woman is physically equivalent to a person born a woman. Even disregarding procreation, there are very obvious physical appearance differences. What about cis-gendered women who are infertile? Are you not sexually attracted to them? I can understand why you might not want to date an infertile woman or a trans woman if you really want to have biological offspring with your partner. But that's a committed serious relationship that extends well beyond mere sexual attraction. If you're talking about plain old poppin a stiffy, I really don't think the infertile argument works. Klondikebar, at some point you have to give people the option of having personal taste. You can't force them to admit they would be attracted to someone that they don't feel they would be. They are not going to be able to make a logic argument about their personal taste, only that it is theirs and you can ALWAYS make a counter argument that they might be attracted to a transgender person. At best, you should try to make them put their preference at tactfully as possible. At the end of the day, we are all entitle to date whoever we want and we shouldn't have to justify it to people. Except that that exact logic can be applied in all sorts of bigoted ways. Like "it's just my preference to only date white people." I'm forcing the logical reasons because we have a lot of internalized "-ism's" that we don't realize we have. And confronting them and saying "huh, there really is not logical reason I wouldn't bang person X" you end up making yourself better off as a person. Now, if you meet a trans person I'm not saying you have to immediately hop into bed with them just to prove how tolerant you are. That would be moronic. They could be ugly, they could be crazy, they could just be mean. But just making blanket statements about your preferences when, in practice, we judge people individually on their attractiveness, seems rather silly and an excuse to just not admit to some internalized prejudices. Right, but in this case you are asking someone if they are willing to have sex with someone, not accept them as part of a community or give them a job. Or to put it this way, the discussion is similar to trying to force someone who is admittedly gay to say that they could date someone of the opposite sex, and accusing them of being a bigot if they say no. People have a right to be attracted to who they are attracted too and you can't call them a bigot because of their personal taste.
Umm...no. Being gay is a sexual orientation by which you are attracted to the same sex. Trans women are women, they fall well within the realm of "opposite sex" for heterosexual men.
And again, "personal taste" is just a hand waving argument to excuse a belief without justification. And we don't give "personal taste" a free pass. If I told you I only dated white people just because it was my "personal taste" you'd raise an eyebrow and say "uh-huh...sure." I'm applying the same logically coherent thought process here. And unless you're gonna get bent outta shape at people who think only dating white people is "personal taste" you don't get to get bent outta shape at me.
|
On August 01 2013 02:45 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 01:51 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 theodorus12 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. Very bad analogy. A black women is EXACTLY the same as a white women. But a trans "women" is not, she is not capable of giving birth to a child. And because the biological desire to reproduce is in everyone of us, it's only normal, that people are more attracted to a real women than a trans person. I don't know if the attraction that you're thinking of goes down that deep. A lot of people are attracted to other things that are not evolutionarily advantageous (see homosexuals, etc.). Since you likely don't know someone is a trans woman then your attraction to them would be based solely on what you see. I can understand a viewpoint of someone saying "I want to my wife to bear my children and thus I wouldn't want a long term relationship with a trans woman" but to argue that they are inherently not attractive seems strange. As for whether the analogy is a good one or not, I guess I can't really see myself dating a black woman. I'm not sure if that's a manifestation of a prejudice, or a benign preference, but I would say that on the whole I find black women less attractive than those of other races. No, it's not strange for transsexual people not to be inherently not attractive to most heterosexual people. It stems from a very fundamental biological/evolutionary drive. I also think your example of homosexuality is counter-productive, because homosxuality is a prime example of misdirected sexual attraction. While it's not politically correct, homosexuality is abnormal. It is natural (the same way many other conditions you may be born with are), as in it is not a matter of choice, it is an aberration. As far as I know, it's rooted in an abnormal brain structure (which is potentially caused by hormonal imbalance during prenatal life, IIRC). That has been disproved in natural with several species of animals, all who display homosexual behavior that is not abnormal or due to some brain dysfunction. Any attempt to argue otherwise is silly. First of all, we're talking about human homosexuality, which, as far as I know, is rooted in abnormal brain structure. I don't see how several other species are relevant here. In case of homo sapiens, it is abnormal. Are you talking about animals for whom sex plays more than a single role? E.g. in case of chimpanzees homosexual rape is used to exert dominance. Or are you talking about species whose members are genuinely attracted to members of the same sex? Second of all, IIRC, while there are many species with some tendency towards homosexuality, they still constitute less than 1% of all species.
The difference between the words abnormal and different and your willingness to use one instead of the other speaks volumes in terms of your shortsightedness and the likelihood that, at the base of your argument, there is a nasty bit of naturalistic fallacy going on.
|
On August 01 2013 02:48 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:45 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 01:51 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 theodorus12 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. Very bad analogy. A black women is EXACTLY the same as a white women. But a trans "women" is not, she is not capable of giving birth to a child. And because the biological desire to reproduce is in everyone of us, it's only normal, that people are more attracted to a real women than a trans person. I don't know if the attraction that you're thinking of goes down that deep. A lot of people are attracted to other things that are not evolutionarily advantageous (see homosexuals, etc.). Since you likely don't know someone is a trans woman then your attraction to them would be based solely on what you see. I can understand a viewpoint of someone saying "I want to my wife to bear my children and thus I wouldn't want a long term relationship with a trans woman" but to argue that they are inherently not attractive seems strange. As for whether the analogy is a good one or not, I guess I can't really see myself dating a black woman. I'm not sure if that's a manifestation of a prejudice, or a benign preference, but I would say that on the whole I find black women less attractive than those of other races. No, it's not strange for transsexual people not to be inherently not attractive to most heterosexual people. It stems from a very fundamental biological/evolutionary drive. I also think your example of homosexuality is counter-productive, because homosxuality is a prime example of misdirected sexual attraction. While it's not politically correct, homosexuality is abnormal. It is natural (the same way many other conditions you may be born with are), as in it is not a matter of choice, it is an aberration. As far as I know, it's rooted in an abnormal brain structure (which is potentially caused by hormonal imbalance during prenatal life, IIRC). That has been disproved in natural with several species of animals, all who display homosexual behavior that is not abnormal or due to some brain dysfunction. Any attempt to argue otherwise is silly. First of all, we're talking about human homosexuality, which, as far as I know, is rooted in abnormal brain structure. I don't see how several other species are relevant here. In case of homo sapiens, it is abnormal. Are you talking about animals for whom sex plays more than a single role? E.g. in case of chimpanzees homosexual rape is used to exert dominance. Or are you talking about species whose members are genuinely attracted to members of the same sex? Second of all, IIRC, while there are many species with some tendency towards homosexuality, they still constitute less than 1% of all species. The difference between the words abnormal and different and your willingness to use one instead of the other speaks volumes in terms of your shortsightedness and the likelihood that, at the base of your argument, there is a nasty bit of naturalistic fallacy going on.
A question, if it was an abnormality that could be reversed/cured, would you support the creation of that cure?
|
On August 01 2013 02:43 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Except that that exact logic can be applied in all sorts of bigoted ways. Like "it's just my preference to only date white people." I'm forcing the logical reasons because we have a lot of internalized "-ism's" that we don't realize we have. And confronting them and saying "huh, there really is not logical reason I wouldn't bang person X" you end up making yourself better off as a person. How the shit is this bigoted? I don't find certain skin tones particularly appealing. How does this make me a bigot anymore than liking certain body shapes makes me a bigot...? There are literally no logical reasons for any attraction beyond "I like this, they have it, so I like them." Seriously, that's all it is. I don't go out of my way to construct huge logical arguments every time I see a pretty woman somewhere. I'm just like "oh, she looks really pretty." If it's any consolation, I don't think I'd date an amputee or someone with a serious physical disability, either. Not that I have anything against such people, but, like it or not, I do prefer certain things in the physique of my partner. That doesn't make a bigot anymore than liking the colour blue makes me a big.
*sigh* I've addressed this before but I'll do it again. You can find certain skin tones more attractive than others. Say you don't care for darker skin tones, but I can bet you'd find black people who are sexually attractive. And I bet you can find white people who are unattractive. So, while you may have a preference, it's silly to say "I only fuck white chicks" because you're making a blanket statement about the unattractiveness of black people that is both untrue and...a judgement of beauty based on race is...sketchy.
The reason I'm still in this thread on this topic is because people are saying "I only fuck cis-gendered chicks." Which is just as nonsensical. Reason finally pointed out that his was not an exclusive preference which is fine. But if you're preferences are both that broad and completely exclusive, something weird is going on.
I'm aware that some of you just have non-exclusive preferences. I'm not really addressing you. It's the people who have made a very broad exclusion based on a characteristic that contains a huge range of attractiveness (particularly when people of said characteristic meet every other standard of attractiveness) and so it makes no sense to simply rule it out completely. There are trans women you would think are ugly but I guarantee you a quick google search can show you some trans women you'd fap to in a heartbeat.
Also reducing someone's attractiveness to a completely binary scale of "characteristic X" or "not characteristic X" is far more shallow than caring how pretty they are.
|
On August 01 2013 02:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:48 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 01:51 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 theodorus12 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. Very bad analogy. A black women is EXACTLY the same as a white women. But a trans "women" is not, she is not capable of giving birth to a child. And because the biological desire to reproduce is in everyone of us, it's only normal, that people are more attracted to a real women than a trans person. I don't know if the attraction that you're thinking of goes down that deep. A lot of people are attracted to other things that are not evolutionarily advantageous (see homosexuals, etc.). Since you likely don't know someone is a trans woman then your attraction to them would be based solely on what you see. I can understand a viewpoint of someone saying "I want to my wife to bear my children and thus I wouldn't want a long term relationship with a trans woman" but to argue that they are inherently not attractive seems strange. As for whether the analogy is a good one or not, I guess I can't really see myself dating a black woman. I'm not sure if that's a manifestation of a prejudice, or a benign preference, but I would say that on the whole I find black women less attractive than those of other races. No, it's not strange for transsexual people not to be inherently not attractive to most heterosexual people. It stems from a very fundamental biological/evolutionary drive. I also think your example of homosexuality is counter-productive, because homosxuality is a prime example of misdirected sexual attraction. While it's not politically correct, homosexuality is abnormal. It is natural (the same way many other conditions you may be born with are), as in it is not a matter of choice, it is an aberration. As far as I know, it's rooted in an abnormal brain structure (which is potentially caused by hormonal imbalance during prenatal life, IIRC). That has been disproved in natural with several species of animals, all who display homosexual behavior that is not abnormal or due to some brain dysfunction. Any attempt to argue otherwise is silly. First of all, we're talking about human homosexuality, which, as far as I know, is rooted in abnormal brain structure. I don't see how several other species are relevant here. In case of homo sapiens, it is abnormal. Are you talking about animals for whom sex plays more than a single role? E.g. in case of chimpanzees homosexual rape is used to exert dominance. Or are you talking about species whose members are genuinely attracted to members of the same sex? Second of all, IIRC, while there are many species with some tendency towards homosexuality, they still constitute less than 1% of all species. The difference between the words abnormal and different and your willingness to use one instead of the other speaks volumes in terms of your shortsightedness and the likelihood that, at the base of your argument, there is a nasty bit of naturalistic fallacy going on. A question, if it was an abnormality that could be reversed/cured, would you support the creation of that cure?
calling it a cure means you've already made up your mind. You could say that a nose job is a "cure" for an unsightly nose, but a lot of people like their noses just the way they are. I don't see any reason why I would want to change my sexuality.
|
On August 01 2013 02:52 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:49 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 01 2013 02:48 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 01:51 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 theodorus12 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. Very bad analogy. A black women is EXACTLY the same as a white women. But a trans "women" is not, she is not capable of giving birth to a child. And because the biological desire to reproduce is in everyone of us, it's only normal, that people are more attracted to a real women than a trans person. I don't know if the attraction that you're thinking of goes down that deep. A lot of people are attracted to other things that are not evolutionarily advantageous (see homosexuals, etc.). Since you likely don't know someone is a trans woman then your attraction to them would be based solely on what you see. I can understand a viewpoint of someone saying "I want to my wife to bear my children and thus I wouldn't want a long term relationship with a trans woman" but to argue that they are inherently not attractive seems strange. As for whether the analogy is a good one or not, I guess I can't really see myself dating a black woman. I'm not sure if that's a manifestation of a prejudice, or a benign preference, but I would say that on the whole I find black women less attractive than those of other races. No, it's not strange for transsexual people not to be inherently not attractive to most heterosexual people. It stems from a very fundamental biological/evolutionary drive. I also think your example of homosexuality is counter-productive, because homosxuality is a prime example of misdirected sexual attraction. While it's not politically correct, homosexuality is abnormal. It is natural (the same way many other conditions you may be born with are), as in it is not a matter of choice, it is an aberration. As far as I know, it's rooted in an abnormal brain structure (which is potentially caused by hormonal imbalance during prenatal life, IIRC). That has been disproved in natural with several species of animals, all who display homosexual behavior that is not abnormal or due to some brain dysfunction. Any attempt to argue otherwise is silly. First of all, we're talking about human homosexuality, which, as far as I know, is rooted in abnormal brain structure. I don't see how several other species are relevant here. In case of homo sapiens, it is abnormal. Are you talking about animals for whom sex plays more than a single role? E.g. in case of chimpanzees homosexual rape is used to exert dominance. Or are you talking about species whose members are genuinely attracted to members of the same sex? Second of all, IIRC, while there are many species with some tendency towards homosexuality, they still constitute less than 1% of all species. The difference between the words abnormal and different and your willingness to use one instead of the other speaks volumes in terms of your shortsightedness and the likelihood that, at the base of your argument, there is a nasty bit of naturalistic fallacy going on. A question, if it was an abnormality that could be reversed/cured, would you support the creation of that cure? calling it a cure means you've already made up your mind. You could say that a nose job is a "cure" for an unsightly nose, but a lot of people like their noses just the way they are. I don't see any reason why I would want to change my sexuality.
And just as no one should be forced to get a nose-job, no one should be forced to get the hypothetical treatment.
I was asking something different. Would you fight against the mere existence and option of said treatment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
