Are you Politically Correct?

[Zardnaar]

It's part of the reason why i can't really be bothered with the attempts in this thread to "logically' or "objectively" defend transphobia in this thread.

It's punching down on an already marginalised group in society and i genuinely believe that they (cispeople, white males, the "norm", but not all) feel threatened by any attempt to equalize the playing field in terms of language, norms and behaviour. They think (even if they won't come out and say it) that treating transpeople with a basic level of dignity and humanity comes at their expense and is a threat to them, hell this applies to ALL minorities and even women, when it comes to treating them as equals or being respectful. It's why there is such a big pushback, such a defensiveness on their part, such an eagerness to be petty over matters that barely impact upon them, why they have this victim mentality and feel they are "losing the culture war".

The reality isn't that they are losing power, but that society is slowly unstacking the priviledges and social power they assumed were always there's and it's going to continue to equalize and they're just going to have to deal with that.

I have had a look at some trans forums and the topic was something like "Is it transphobic to refuse to date trans people".

Some people claimed that it is even pre op. To paraphrase they called hetero men who would not date trans with penis transphobic.

Some were claiming that post op it was still transphobic. AFAIK sex won't be the same and I don't want kids as such but I want that option. My wife doesn't want kids, if she did I would probably go along with it. And adoption here is functionally impossible.

I would be interested in your opinion on this. The way I look at things is people are wired the way they're wired if they're not pan sexual it's just the way it is.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It's tricky, i don't think genital preference is inherently trans or homophobic, the difference is if the individual rejects dating trans people because they believe there is something inherently wrong with them or that they are lesser than cispeople.

Post op it becomes easier, regardless if she was born with a "natural" set of female genitals, it shouldn't matter.

 

[Zardnaar]

A natural set will be different though yes?

Can't get to crude I suppose, I'm talking physically having sex.

That and no kids, idk if that counts as transphobic or not. It's a moot point I've been with my wife coming up 19 years

IRL I'm more concerned if someone I'm talking to would go have a meal with us and throw back a couple of beers ( or tea if Muslim and I know halal places). Happy hour $3 craft beers tonight stout+IPA then a Bud at home. Pass that test I think we're good.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

A natural set will be different though yes?

How would you know?

Are you going to do a study? Even between cis-females, it can vary, often dramatically.

 

[Arwon]

If we're gonna start talking about straight men dating trans women I'ma chuck Contrapoints in here just for people's interest

 

[red_elk]

And no, it's not about choosing it on "political correctness grounds", because as I said near the start of the thread, "political correctness" is something invented by conservatives to (effectively) insult (the American) liberal mindset. It rapidly loses effectiveness when you compare it to political spectrums present in other countries, because the American mainstream political chart is basically centre-to-right, with very little mainstream leftist representation (with some notable and mostly recent exceptions). I'm British. My concept of "liberal" is different to yours, and my concept of "conservative" is different to yours. Less than I'd like these days, given the increasing right-wing bent of UK politics, but hey. Still different.

If you think I'm American, thank you for a compliment to my written English, but I'm not

Men and women are men and women. If you insist on calling someone a trans man, you're excluding them from being a "man" and assigning them to some convenient group that you don't then have to associate with. This is a form of exclusion, not inclusion, within society.

It's only exclusion if we consider being man/woman a privilege and transmen/transwomen as second grade people. But we don't. We don't fight racism by calling black people white, we aim to give them equal rights instead.
As I already said, distinction can be important in some cases. If I go to dating app, I'm looking for a woman in traditional sense of this word and not interested in dating biological man.

 

[Zardnaar]

How would you know?

Are you going to do a study? Even between cis-females, it can vary, often dramatically.

As I said afaik it won't be the same. Can't be to crude here I suppose.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The implication being that you would somehow be able to tell, in the case of dating a post-op transwoman, who didn't tell you about her being trans?

 

[Gorbles]

If you think I'm American, thank you for a compliment to my written English, but I'm not

It's only exclusion if we consider being man/woman a privilege and transmen/transwomen as second grade people. But we don't. We don't fight racism by calling black people white, we aim to give them equal rights instead.
As I already said, distinction can be important in some cases. If I go to dating app, I'm looking for a woman in traditional sense of this word and not interested in dating biological man.

1. I didn't. I was talking about the etmyology of "political correctness". You seen to be using it exactly as American (conservatives) tend to do, however (which isn't exactly difficult in this online age; it increases the spread of terminology between groups of people). I'm explaining why it's not a handy catch-all because it's created explicitly based on a political spectrum of a single country.

2. It's not the same as racism. I mean, apart from the obvious and searchable fact that yes, trans people are marginalised and treated as second-class across modern (Western) society (mainly because I can't speak for countries beyond that sphere), it's not being a man or being a trans man. A trans man is a man. You're the one trying to make it separate; trying to make just a "man" some kind of a separate identifier. There's no need. Simply accept trans men as men (and women as women, and so on), and that whole problem (for you, at least), goes away.

3. Your dating preferences are your own, and trans folk aren't the only people that could possibly have body parts you're not expecting. To project that solely onto the domain of trans people is singling them out unfairly, and is transphobic - your discomfort at encountering something you might not want, but apparently only when matching with trans people on a dating app. And even if somebody wanted to argue that that's a minor thing to call "transphobic", insisting that a trans woman is a biological man is definitely transphobic, and runs completely at cross-purposes of this little debate about calling trans men men, and trans women women. If you're still calling them a biological "other", then you're not even attempting to respect who they are.

 

[Zardnaar]

1. I didn't. I was talking about the etmyology of "political correctness". You seen to be using it exactly as American (conservatives) tend to do, however (which isn't exactly difficult in this online age; it increases the spread of terminology between groups of people). I'm explaining why it's not a handy catch-all because it's created explicitly based on a political spectrum of a single country.

2. It's not the same as racism. I mean, apart from the obvious and searchable fact that yes, trans people are marginalised and treated as second-class across modern (Western) society (mainly because I can't speak for countries beyond that sphere), it's not being a man or being a trans man. A trans man is a man. You're the one trying to make it separate; trying to make just a "man" some kind of a separate identifier. There's no need. Simply accept trans men as men (and women as women, and so on), and that whole problem (for you, at least), goes away.

3. Your dating preferences are your own, and trans folk aren't the only people that could possibly have body parts you're not expecting. To project that solely onto the domain of trans people is singling them out unfairly, and is transphobic - your discomfort at encountering something you might not want, but apparently only when matching with trans people on a dating app. And even if somebody wanted to argue that that's a minor thing to call "transphobic", insisting that a trans woman is a biological man is definitely transphobic, and runs completely at cross-purposes of this little debate about calling trans men men, and trans women women. If you're still calling them a biological "other", then you're not even attempting to respect who they are.

I would w

The implication being that you would somehow be able to tell, in the case of dating a post-op transwoman, who didn't tell you about her being trans?

AFAIK the foreplay would give it away.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Comparing gender identity to calling yourself a religious head of state proves it's definitely not me understanding English.

It's also a classic argument to absurdity, so hopefully red_elk comes back to take you to task on that.

It wasn't a comparison, it was an analogy. A perfectly apt one too. Not agreeing with a claim a person makes about a particular aspect of their identity, completely regardless of what that is (whether it be gender or pope-ness or number of legs or status as member of the Zrabian royal family from the planet Xlixnax) is not a denial of the fact that the person exists, nor a statement that you don't want them to exist, nor even a statement that they don't have the right to make the claim about themselves that you, personally, do not agree with.

The examples I gave within the brackets may well be absurd (at least some of them), but the argument doesn't hinge on their specifics at all. And you of all people shouldn't be quibbling over the specifics of examples should you

Edit: In fact let's just swap it completely around if you really do find the "comparison" too absurd. Let's say you don't claim to be the Pope at all, but instead claim something utterly mundane and demonstrably true like that you have two legs. You can point them out, and count them in front of me, and demonstrate this to be the case. What if I simply refuse to accept this and insist that you only have one leg? There are many criticisms you could level at me for responding in that way, but it still wouldn't make any sense to claim I was denying your existence, or your right to exist, or your right to claim to have two legs. Would my insistence have any effect on your ability to comfortably walk away on your two legs, secure in the knowledge that you did indeed have two legs and that I was just wrong? Would you really feel compelled to claim that I was quite literally denying your existence? Two legs or the Pope, it's a fallacious argument either way.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

A trans man post op is just a man who has mutilated themselves

I mean... one would hope they hadn't done it themselves.

 

[Gorbles]

It wasn't a comparison, it was an analogy. A perfectly apt one too. Not agreeing with a claim a person makes about a particular aspect of their identity, completely regardless of what that is (whether it be gender or pope-ness or number of legs or status as member of the Zrabian royal family from the planet Xlixnax) is not a denial of the fact that the person exists, nor a statement that you don't want them to exist, nor even a statement that they don't have the right to make the claim about themselves that you, personally, do not agree with.

The examples I gave within the brackets may well be absurd (at least some of them), but the argument doesn't hinge on their specifics at all. And you of all people shouldn't be quibbling over the specifics of examples should you

Inventing an extraterrestrial royal to support your disagreement with disagreeing with a claim that can cause people a lot of distress (if not supported) is not helping your case. Disagreeing with a trans person's statement of who they are is a denial of that existence. Because, uh, you're disagreeing with it.

Now, I'd imagine with your current train of thought you're really trying to pin this on the semantic notion that your words cannot make the person physically cease to exist, but what I'm talking about is (and has been a lot of way through this thread, if you were reading my posts instead of just hoping to score some cheap shots) is identity. Which comes a lot from your psyche. Your words can absolutely have an impact on another's mind, and disagreeing with someone's identity is by definition not supporting it.

Thanks for admitting your appeal to extremes, anyhow.

EDIT

And to your edit, again, you're changing the context, scope and parameters of the hypothetical to try and put me in some kind of unwinnable position. Good thing it's a stupid hypothetical, for the following reasons:

1. You are assuming the other person has one leg. A trans man is not assuming you are a man. That's a subversion of the context.
2. Without getting onto the subject of disability, saying you have one leg when you (in this dumb scenario) apparently still have two is not the same thing as not being in the right body for your gender and sense of self. Gender identity is not the same thing as "how many legs you have".

Another ridiculous comparison designed to dismiss and demean the valid plight of trans folk.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Inventing an extraterrestrial royal to support your disagreement with disagreeing with a claim that can cause people a lot of distress (if not supported) is not helping your case.

Oh lord. To anyone who understands how analogies work it makes no difference whatsoever how comical the example is if it's functionally the same in the key aspect, which it is (i.e. it is "a claim made about an aspect of one's identity or being" and it makes no difference what the claim is, or how absurd or mundane it is, to the argument about how a second person denying the claim affects the first). In case you posted that while I was still adding the extra bit at the end via an edit, just focus on that bit if it helps.

 

[Lexicus]

Thanks for admitting your appeal to extremes, anyhow.

The problem is these examples he's using don't capture the salient features of the situation at all. And the fact that apparently thinks they do just shows the extent of his ignorance of the topic.

if it's functionally the same in the key aspect, which it is

Yeah, no, it definitely isn't

 

[Gorbles]

Oh lord. To anyone who understands how analogies work it makes no difference whatsoever how comical the example is if it's functionally the same in the key aspect, which it is (i.e. it is "a claim made about an aspect of one's identity or being" and it makes no difference what the claim is, or how absurd or mundane it is, to the argument about how a second person denying the claim affects the first). In case you posted that while I was still adding the extra bit at the end via an edit, just focus on that bit if it helps.

Haha, ahh, nope.

Me refusing to believe the restaurant has served ham on my no-ham pizza is not the same as me refusing to believe in the existence of, say, ghosts. You're giving all these silly analogies based on belief, or more specifically in this case the abstract rejection of someone's claims. But by removing (and changing) the context, you make them seem the same, even when they're actually not.

Refusing to believe somebody claiming themselves to be the Pope (an actual religious figurehead whose appointment is governed by committee) is not the same as refusing to agree with (or defer to, or respect) a trans person's belief in their own identity.

 

[rah]

I've never really understood the bathroom thing. I don't go into a bathroom to have sex. (well maybe once when I was way way younger) So as long as every minds their own business, who cares.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Me refusing to believe the restaurant has served ham on my no-ham pizza is not the same as me refusing to believe in the existence of, say, ghosts.

No you're missing the point again. The argument isn't about the beliefs themselves, it's about the reaction to someone else not sharing your belief, regardless of what that belief is. It's the latter part of that that is the point under examination, which is precisely why it is immaterial what the specific belief chosen for the example is. So your ham-pizza and ghosts beliefs actually are functionally interchangeable.

Now if you want to switch to a conversation where you're directly comparing the beliefs/facts/whatever themselves then you can do that, but that's a different conversation.

(As an aside, please note how you've actually switched to giving examples where the belief is about something external to oneself, rather than being about a part of one's own identity. I don't know if this was a deliberate tactic to further muddy the waters, but note that all of my examples, as absurd as they were, were at least of the correct form to be swapped in and out in the analogy, which yours technically aren't.)

 

[red_elk]

2. It's not the same as racism. I mean, apart from the obvious and searchable fact that yes, trans people are marginalised and treated as second-class across modern (Western) society (mainly because I can't speak for countries beyond that sphere), it's not being a man or being a trans man. A trans man is a man. You're the one trying to make it separate; trying to make just a "man" some kind of a separate identifier. There's no need.

I disagree. I would like to keep distinction between men/women and transmen/transwomen. In many situations in daily life, people are interested in biological sex of the person they are interacting with, rather than their social gender.

Simply accept trans men as men (and women as women, and so on), and that whole problem (for you, at least), goes away.

My problem goes away? I don't have problem.

Your dating preferences are your own, and trans folk aren't the only people that could possibly have body parts you're not expecting. To project that solely onto the domain of trans people is singling them out unfairly, and is transphobic - your discomfort at encountering something you might not want, but apparently only when matching with trans people on a dating app.

I think it's not me who is projecting here
The only thing I said is that I don't want to date transwoman, everything else about "singling out" and "body parts" were your assumptions.

And even if somebody wanted to argue that that's a minor thing to call "transphobic", insisting that a trans woman is a biological man is definitely transphobic, and runs completely at cross-purposes of this little debate about calling trans men men, and trans women women.

But they are biological men. Or whatever definition is more appropriate, they have XY chromosome set or their sex at birth was male. We can change social rules to make minorities life more comfortable, but there is no point in denying biological reality.

 

[Lexicus]

In many situations in daily life, people are interested in biological sex of the person they are interacting with, rather than their social gender.

....such as?

The only thing I said is that I don't want to date transwoman, everything else about "singling out" and "body parts" were your assumptions.

"I don't have to own the logical implications of my statements"