|
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."
Actually, I wouldn't bat an eye. You can date whatever race or religion or whatever you want. Personally, I don't find black women particularly attractive on average, so I generally speaking don't date them. I don't have some rule that's like "you shall not date black people" so much as I just don't really find the skin tone sexually appealing, same as how I don't really like fishnet stockings in terms of sexual appeal.
I've pretty much always tended to find myself attracted to white or Asian women. I'm not exactly sure how that makes me a bigot or is a cause for suspicion, because it's not like I just go out of my way to locate those two particular races. I just happen to find those groups attractive in a stronger way than other groups. I don't really understand what the problem with this is. I wouldn't date someone with a really strong accent, either, even if they spoke English grammatically perfectly, because I just really like clean and neutral-sounding diction. It's not that I have something against people with accents, but merely that I just don't find having an accent sexually arousing. Why is this a problem? How is this any less rational than any other sexual preference concerning one's physique or personality or whatever?
|
On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote: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:
[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 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.
But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing.
Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract.
|
On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote: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:
[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 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.
No one will raise and eyebrow if you say you are only attracted to white women, it has nothing to do with racism or anything, just like not wanting to date a transperson has nothing to do with being the small minded bigot you like to call people.
|
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?
I would be, given that it were utterly disentangled from a moral imperative.
|
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.
I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity.
People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me.
|
On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote: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:[quote] "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. But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing. Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract.
Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive.
If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images.
I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them.
|
On August 01 2013 02:52 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:43 Shiori wrote: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.
To be honest, I really haven't ever met a black woman that I've found particularly sexually attractive. The closest I've come to that is encountering girls who are mixed. I just really don't particularly like the look of very dark skin.
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.
I'm not making a blanket statement about the attractiveness of anyone. I'm making a statement about the attractiveness of physical traits that are closer to the average in some groups than others relative to my own mind. I'm not declaring that black people are unattractive. I'm saying that I don't find them particularly attractive. I just prefer pale skin tones in general, tbh, perhaps because I'm very pale myself.
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.
What does this even mean? How exactly is a sexual preference something "weird" going on? Like, I'd be wary of dating someone with a history of bipolar disorder or nervous breakdowns, but that doesn't make me a bigot; it just means that I'm not really confident in my ability to handle that and don't really want that sort of baggage in a relationship. Similarly, I have literally no fucking clue about how sexual dysphoria is, and nothing I've read has made it much clearer to me, so I'd rather not be in a relationship with a trans person because I frankly don't understand transgenderism well enough to actually judge whether I want to be in a relationship with a trans person. For me, it's just a matter of empathy, or rather, lack thereof.
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.
Shrug. As I said, I don't get sexual dysphoria or gender identity at all, so I wouldn't be able to understand my partner to begin with. Not wanting to date someone who I fundamentally don't understand isn't bigotry; it's very normal.
|
On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime 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. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me.
Well, considering that you've just defined your supposedly non-condescending use of the word abnormal in possibly the most condescending way possible, you'll have to forgive my taking what you say with a grain of salt. And comparing transgender folk with those with mental disabilities doesn't do your case any lip service.
|
On August 01 2013 02:58 farvacola 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? I would be, given that it were utterly disentangled from a moral imperative.
Well then your opinion is not so different from mine.
Take my brother for example. He is color-blind. I've asked him before if he would trade his color-blindness for "normal" eyes if it allowed him to see as perfectly as I do (I have perfect vision). He says no. He likes the fact that he sees colors in a way that most people can't and wouldn't change that. I've spoken to other people who say that they definitely would. They would trade away their color-blindness if possible.
Now, no one hesitates to call color-blindness a disorder of the eyes. It isn't bad, it doesn't make the person bad, but it is an abnormality. It is a disorder. Why then is there such a push against calling homosexuality an abnormality, a disorder?
|
On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime 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. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me.
But you are constantly pushing an evolutionary line of reasoning that has been heavily criticized by people more knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. There are other ways of approaching human behavior that do not reduce people down to biological impulses that are predetermined by genetic code in their DNA.
|
On August 01 2013 03:03 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:52 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:43 Shiori wrote: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. To be honest, I really haven't ever met a black woman that I've found particularly sexually attractive. The closest I've come to that is encountering girls who are mixed. I just really don't particularly like the look of very dark skin. Show nested quote +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. I'm not making a blanket statement about the attractiveness of anyone. I'm making a statement about the attractiveness of physical traits that are closer to the average in some groups than others relative to my own mind. I'm not declaring that black people are unattractive. I'm saying that I don't find them particularly attractive. I just prefer pale skin tones in general, tbh, perhaps because I'm very pale myself. Show nested quote +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. What does this even mean? How exactly is a sexual preference something "weird" going on? Like, I'd be wary of dating someone with a history of bipolar disorder or nervous breakdowns, but that doesn't make me a bigot; it just means that I'm not really confident in my ability to handle that and don't really want that sort of baggage in a relationship. Similarly, I have literally no fucking clue about how sexual dysphoria is, and nothing I've read has made it much clearer to me, so I'd rather not be in a relationship with a trans person because I frankly don't understand transgenderism well enough to actually judge whether I want to be in a relationship with a trans person. For me, it's just a matter of empathy, or rather, lack thereof. Show nested quote +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. Shrug. As I said, I don't get sexual dysphoria or gender identity at all, so I wouldn't be able to understand my partner to begin with. Not wanting to date someone who I fundamentally don't understand isn't bigotry; it's very normal.
1. We're talking about banging, not dating. Talking about how you couldn't emotionally support them is not relevant.
2. You've never seen a black chick you think is hot? Not in any movie, not on any tv show, not ever in real life? If that's actually true...yeah, racist. When you first see them you reduce their physical appearance to their skin color and write them off without actually looking at any of their other qualities. Maybe that offends you to hear...fine. But reevaluate how you notice people, because when you're writing off huge chunks of people because of one physical characteristic, you're doing it wrong. Scream "hormones" or "personal taste" all you want, you're wrong.
|
On August 01 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime 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. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me. Well, considering that you've just defined your supposedly non-condescending use of the word abnormal in possibly the most condescending way possible, you'll have to forgive my taking what you say with a grain of salt. And comparing transgender folk with those with mental disabilities doesn't do your case any lip service.
You're saying that comparing one group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal with another group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal is somehow wrong. You're essentially implying that people with Down syndrome are somehow inferior and comparing transsexuals with them is insulting for the latter. Way to make your self look like a small-minded bigot.
On August 01 2013 03:08 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime 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. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me. But you are constantly pushing an evolutionary line of reasoning that has been heavily criticized by people more knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. There are other ways of approaching human behavior that do not reduce people down to biological impulses that are predetermined by genetic code in their DNA.
Homosexuals themselves are the most vocal advocates of sexual attraction being something they are born with, and therefore having evolutionary roots, unless altered by some other factor.
And who exactly are you talking about when saying "more knowledgable people"? Actual scientists or gender/feminist ideologists?
|
On August 01 2013 03:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime 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:[quote] "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. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me. Well, considering that you've just defined your supposedly non-condescending use of the word abnormal in possibly the most condescending way possible, you'll have to forgive my taking what you say with a grain of salt. And comparing transgender folk with those with mental disabilities doesn't do your case any lip service. You're saying that comparing one group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal with another group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal is somehow wrong. You're essentially implying that people with Down syndrome are somehow inferior and comparing transsexuals with them is insulting for the latter. Way to make your self look like a small-minded bigot.
Can everybody chill for a minute?
farv was saying that its probably not a good idea to compare transgendered people to those with mental illnesses because its a classification they have fought against for a really long time. No need to call people bigots.
|
On August 01 2013 03:09 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:03 Shiori wrote:On August 01 2013 02:52 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:43 Shiori wrote: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. To be honest, I really haven't ever met a black woman that I've found particularly sexually attractive. The closest I've come to that is encountering girls who are mixed. I just really don't particularly like the look of very dark skin. 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. I'm not making a blanket statement about the attractiveness of anyone. I'm making a statement about the attractiveness of physical traits that are closer to the average in some groups than others relative to my own mind. I'm not declaring that black people are unattractive. I'm saying that I don't find them particularly attractive. I just prefer pale skin tones in general, tbh, perhaps because I'm very pale myself. 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. What does this even mean? How exactly is a sexual preference something "weird" going on? Like, I'd be wary of dating someone with a history of bipolar disorder or nervous breakdowns, but that doesn't make me a bigot; it just means that I'm not really confident in my ability to handle that and don't really want that sort of baggage in a relationship. Similarly, I have literally no fucking clue about how sexual dysphoria is, and nothing I've read has made it much clearer to me, so I'd rather not be in a relationship with a trans person because I frankly don't understand transgenderism well enough to actually judge whether I want to be in a relationship with a trans person. For me, it's just a matter of empathy, or rather, lack thereof. 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. Shrug. As I said, I don't get sexual dysphoria or gender identity at all, so I wouldn't be able to understand my partner to begin with. Not wanting to date someone who I fundamentally don't understand isn't bigotry; it's very normal. 1. We're talking about banging, not dating. Talking about how you couldn't emotionally support them is not relevant. 2. You've never seen a black chick you think is hot? Not in any movie, not on any tv show, not ever in real life? If that's actually true...yeah, racist. When you first see them you reduce their physical appearance to their skin color and write them off without actually looking at any of their other qualities. Maybe that offends you to hear...fine. But reevaluate how you notice people, because when you're writing off huge chunks of people because of one physical characteristic, you're doing it wrong. Scream "hormones" or "personal taste" all you want, you're wrong.
Either that or he's really strict and sees no reason to lower his standards. Why would someone bang someone they don't need to bang? If he can land someone who fits his interest, why bother with something lower? If I meet a trans woman who has even the slightest hint of male in her, she's totally written off. Why? I don't need her. I don't need to lower my standards. When I see a hint of dude, my dick goes soft. And despite this talk of a theoretically perfect trans woman, the sad truth is, science hasn't come far enough yet for a dude to turn into a woman. I feel like a lot of people are trying to call 95% perfect. Until its actually a perfectly female body, its not female and I have no interest.
Additionally, I think there is the psychological side. The person I would be banging is partially a dude who felt like they were born to be female. I can understand that. However, part of that brain is male. That is also going to turn my dick soft.
Way too much of your argument hinges on this perfect trans woman you love to describe but no one has ever seen. Then there's the argument that we've seen these girls but never realized. But what kinda argument is that? We just take your word for it that we've thought trans girls are hot in passing and didn't know it? Even in the event of that being true, there is a lot more analysis that goes down when its someone you're actually hanging out with and trying to get to know. There's gonna be a hint in there. And a hint is all it takes for me to say "NOPE, SEE YA".
|
On August 01 2013 03:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime 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:[quote] "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. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me. Well, considering that you've just defined your supposedly non-condescending use of the word abnormal in possibly the most condescending way possible, you'll have to forgive my taking what you say with a grain of salt. And comparing transgender folk with those with mental disabilities doesn't do your case any lip service. You're saying that comparing one group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal with another group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal is somehow wrong. You're essentially implying that people with Down syndrome are somehow inferior and comparing transsexuals with them is insulting for the latter. Way to make your self look like a small-minded bigot.
Reducing both transgender and mental disorder into "abnormalities" is the work of someone seeking to make a rhetorical point at the expense of both groups. I promise you that my brother with downs does not mind that I do not lump him into a category with transgenders.
|
On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote: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:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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. But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing. Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract. Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive. If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images. I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them.
So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions?
More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture.
At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want.
|
On August 01 2013 03:14 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime 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:
[quote]
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. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me. Well, considering that you've just defined your supposedly non-condescending use of the word abnormal in possibly the most condescending way possible, you'll have to forgive my taking what you say with a grain of salt. And comparing transgender folk with those with mental disabilities doesn't do your case any lip service. You're saying that comparing one group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal with another group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal is somehow wrong. You're essentially implying that people with Down syndrome are somehow inferior and comparing transsexuals with them is insulting for the latter. Way to make your self look like a small-minded bigot. Can everybody chill for a minute? farv was saying that its probably not a good idea to compare transgendered people to those with mental illnesses because its a classification they have fought against for a really long time. No need to call people bigots.
I was being sarcasting with the "bigot" remark.
|
On August 01 2013 03:14 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime 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:
[quote]
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. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me. Well, considering that you've just defined your supposedly non-condescending use of the word abnormal in possibly the most condescending way possible, you'll have to forgive my taking what you say with a grain of salt. And comparing transgender folk with those with mental disabilities doesn't do your case any lip service. You're saying that comparing one group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal with another group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal is somehow wrong. You're essentially implying that people with Down syndrome are somehow inferior and comparing transsexuals with them is insulting for the latter. Way to make your self look like a small-minded bigot. Can everybody chill for a minute? farv was saying that its probably not a good idea to compare transgendered people to those with mental illnesses because its a classification they have fought against for a really long time. No need to call people bigots.
My question is why have they have fought against said classification?
|
On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote: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:[quote] "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:
[quote]
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. But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing. Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract. Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive. If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images. I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them. So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions? More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture. At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want.
Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist.
|
On August 01 2013 03:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:14 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 03:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime 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:
[quote]
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. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me. Well, considering that you've just defined your supposedly non-condescending use of the word abnormal in possibly the most condescending way possible, you'll have to forgive my taking what you say with a grain of salt. And comparing transgender folk with those with mental disabilities doesn't do your case any lip service. You're saying that comparing one group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal with another group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal is somehow wrong. You're essentially implying that people with Down syndrome are somehow inferior and comparing transsexuals with them is insulting for the latter. Way to make your self look like a small-minded bigot. Can everybody chill for a minute? farv was saying that its probably not a good idea to compare transgendered people to those with mental illnesses because its a classification they have fought against for a really long time. No need to call people bigots. My question is why have they have fought against said classification?
Large and informative thread that you can find on that here. I don't really want to have to copy paste a bunch of arguments I made a year ago 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
