Are you Politically Correct?

[TheMeInTeam]

If you don't want to have sex with trans people because they are trans, that is discrimination. You should not be forced, but your reasons for doing so involve discrimination. It's not an either / or case, here.

Discrimination implies some form of unfairness. If denying consent for *any reason* is valid, how can an arbitrarily selected reason *possibly* be unfair?

Or do you reject the proposition that denying consent for any reason (even nonsense reasons) is valid? That's a road I won't travel, but any assertion of discrimination *must* travel that road.

Given that identifying as a woman means the person is a woman, yes, it's a best rude, and at worst, transphobic.

It depends on what one means when they say "man" or "woman". Is that sex or gender? Per the former, it's not transphobic so much as it's *accurate*, and preferences are usually for opposite sex rather than gender.

In fact if it weren't accurate, the person wouldn't be trans at any point in life.

 

[jarred!]

Well, the entire subject of the thread is about a political movement which is based on ignoring facts to substitute them with agenda, so yeah, repeating a fact will be commonplace when facing its proponents, because they will simply ignore it. That's been the case for tens of pages by now.

I don't think anybody has ever contested the use or meaning of "transwoman" or "transman", so your entire argument is baseless as these words exists and have the accurate definition. The problem is not a definition that accepts their identity, the problem is the desire to redefine a concept that already exists so the identity is conflated with one that has an actual different meaning.

Also, I've already pointed it in a previous post, so your argument is especially disingenuous :

It's the definition of gender to which I was referring, not whatever you decided I was. I am glad you accept that people who are trans are allowed to exist, logically, since there are terms describing them in the dictionary. The point is the male/female dichotomy isn't fitting, and referring to someone as a male because they were born with a penis isn't always accurate. As a logician, it is you who is being disingenuous. The existence of a single person who doesn't fit your definition of gender disproves it.

 

[Senethro]

Ok, so what about an non-conventional romantic but non-sexual relationship, with a transperson, purely hypothetically speaking. That way specific issues of consent don't come up.

 

[red_elk]

That's one reason haircuts and gender identity aren't a good analogy. People get murdered for their gender identity.

A simple question which hasn't been answered:
Why refusing to have sex with transpeople just because they are transpeople is "transphobia" and "bigotry" -
but refusing to have sex with men just because they are men, is merely a sexual orientation?

 

[Gorbles]

Because trans folk can be men, or women (or another gender identity). Like, they're not some magical third category, and denying them their identity is core to transphobic lines of thought.

You folks are really twisting yourselves in pretzels here.

Discrimination implies some form of unfairness. If denying consent for *any reason* is valid, how can an arbitrarily selected reason *possibly* be unfair?

Or do you reject the proposition that denying consent for any reason (even nonsense reasons) is valid? That's a road I won't travel, but any assertion of discrimination *must* travel that road.

It depends on what one means when they say "man" or "woman". Is that sex or gender? Per the former, it's not transphobic so much as it's *accurate*, and preferences are usually for opposite sex rather than gender.

In fact if it weren't accurate, the person wouldn't be trans at any point in life.

The pretzels continue!

I'm just repeating myself with this, but I'll say it anyway: denying consent is valid, even if the reason is discriminatory. Like I said, it's not an either / or. Nor is the reason "arbitrary"; the reason is because the person is transphobic. Which includes, but is not limited to discomfort. Like, this isn't some profane title to take to your grave. It's something you can inform yourself about, to be less so in the future. Someone who is being transphobic, doesn't have to be forever. I recommend putting as much effort into reading about this kind of stuff as you do logical proofs to try and gotcha theoretical cases of bigotry out of existence. It looks like you're trying that bit too hard.

What people typically say is some conflation of the two. That doesn't make it better. Certainly, in red_elk's case, we case assume either or both as they obviously have no intention of not being transphobic, and don't seem to care about the label. Really not worth your time defending by proxy. I mean, think of what you could do if you put this logic towards defending trans folk (and your logic isn't purely logical; you are aligning along an axis of bias that trends to the most benevolent interpretation of any transphobic actions, both theoretical and actual in this thread). You're giving one group of people the benefit of the doubt, but oddly, never the other side of the topic, or posters like Cloud_Strife. You might want to do some thinking on why that is.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ok, so what about an non-conventional romantic but non-sexual relationship, with a transperson, purely hypothetically speaking. That way specific issues of consent don't come up.

It's the same deal. Why is it bad to not want a "romantic" relationship for *any* arbitrary reason? Trans people are a tiny subset of people one might say "I won't get into a romantic relationship with X". Let's say someone says that. Transphobic supposedly? Even if "X" also includes "all potential romantic relationships", of which trans is necessarily a subset? Then no, obviously.

That's one reason haircuts and gender identity aren't a good analogy. People get murdered for their gender identity.

Incidentally, historically people were murdered for their haircuts too. The example isn't as far off as one might expect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queue_(hairstyle)

I'm just repeating myself with this, but I'll say it anyway: denying consent is valid, even if the reason is discriminatory. Like I said, it's not an either / or. Nor is the reason "arbitrary"

My use of "arbitrary" was to demonstrate that denial of consent can happen with no standards whatsoever, on sheer whim. You could deny consent because someone doesn't like pretzels the same way you do, and that's valid. This supposedly wouldn't be discriminatory, but that makes assertions of discrimination in consent/relationships...awkward.

Someone who is being transphobic, doesn't have to be forever. I recommend putting as much effort into reading about this kind of stuff as you do logical proofs to try and gotcha theoretical cases of bigotry out of existence. It looks like you're trying that bit too hard.

You spend an awful lot of time talking about me rather than the topic/discussion. Not only is that poor debate practice, it's bad forum etiquette. "Discuss the post, not the poster" and whatnot. The reason for that is that in most cases, the poster isn't the topic.

You might want to reflect on that, as you continue insist on talking about me rather than about things I say. I get that you're probably doing it to avoid the latter, but still.

You're giving one group of people the benefit of the doubt, but oddly, never the other side of the topic, or posters like Cloud_Strife. You might want to do some thinking on why that is.

How am I not giving everyone the benefit of the doubt? Be specific. My posts are contrary to some of Cloud Strife's because some of those posts implied racism, bigotry, hate, and in one case an outright lie about what I posted. Not because of any association with trans. The only thing that actually annoys me in this topic is that we can't keep our definitions straight/consistent between posters and thus wind up spending a ton of time arguing over that without even acknowledging that's what's happening.

 

[Patine]

Because trans folk can be men, or women (or another gender identity). Like, they're not some magical third category, and denying them their identity is core to transphobic lines of thought.

You folks are really twisting yourselves in pretzels here.


The pretzels continue!

I'm just repeating myself with this, but I'll say it anyway: denying consent is valid, even if the reason is discriminatory. Like I said, it's not an either / or. Nor is the reason "arbitrary"; the reason is because the person is transphobic. Which includes, but is not limited to discomfort. Like, this isn't some profane title to take to your grave. It's something you can inform yourself about, to be less so in the future. Someone who is being transphobic, doesn't have to be forever. I recommend putting as much effort into reading about this kind of stuff as you do logical proofs to try and gotcha theoretical cases of bigotry out of existence. It looks like you're trying that bit too hard.

What people typically say is some conflation of the two. That doesn't make it better. Certainly, in red_elk's case, we case assume either or both as they obviously have no intention of not being transphobic, and don't seem to care about the label. Really not worth your time defending by proxy. I mean, think of what you could do if you put this logic towards defending trans folk (and your logic isn't purely logical; you are aligning along an axis of bias that trends to the most benevolent interpretation of any transphobic actions, both theoretical and actual in this thread). You're giving one group of people the benefit of the doubt, but oddly, never the other side of the topic, or posters like Cloud_Strife. You might want to do some thinking on why that is.

Let's put things in another light about the consent thing. A Black man asks a White woman on a date. For whatever reason, she declines. He accuses her of "being racist." The same logic is actually being used in this specific point, or could easily be so, and it's a VERY dangerous rabbit hole to go down.

 

[red_elk]

Because trans folk can be men, or women (or another gender identity). Like, they're not some magical third category, and denying them their identity is core to transphobic lines of thought.

This doesn't address my question, only regurgitates the same sentence which has been said a hundred times already.
If someone says he doesn't want to sleep with black people, you can't claim he is racist. Because in order to claim that you have to show that his racial prejudice is general, not just concerns his sexual preferences. If this person, for instance, also prefers to work and being friends with non-black people, that would be a good evidence.

Likewise, if I have nothing against men, elderly women or transpeople, have no problem with them being my friends or colleagues, just do not want intimate relationships with them, it doesn't make me a misandrist or transphobe. It's my personal business who to love and who not to. You can try to shame me for my intimate choices all you want, if you can't demonstrate that I otherwise mistrust or discriminate these people in my daily life, you'll just make fool of yourself.

 

[Gorbles]

@TheMeInTeam

If you're taking Cloud to task for the bigotry you observe, but aren't being that stringent to any of the other bigotry on show in this thread, including statements you're literally trying to find non-bigoted interpretations of, that is your evidence. If you can't see that, there's no way anything I say will convince you.

Similar to this ongoing thing about consent, which you're seemingly unable to see the difference between "I'm not having sex with this person because they're trans" and "I'm not having sex with this person because I don't find them attractive". Being trans isn't some kind of default aesthetic you can find yourself turned off from. It's the fact that they're trans that is the reason, and that is therefore discriminatory. We don't even have to play guessing games, because that was literally given as the reason.

Much like your very amusing derail to "not attacking the poster" when you've repeatedly told people that they're lying. I guess that's reasonable, because, I dunno. You're okay with it? I mean, I'm answering both what you say and tackling your apparent bias in this thread. In a thread about bigotry and discrimination, highlighting bias is naturally important. Not that it matters, because you responded by telling me to do the same thing, lmao. It's like, playground levels of debating tactics, here.

Let's put things in another light about the consent thing. A Black man asks a White woman on a date. For whatever reason, she declines. He accuses her of "being racist." The same logic is actually being used in this specific point, or could easily be so, and it's a VERY dangerous rabbit to go down.

The original context for this stated outright that the reason for not dating trans folk was because they were trans. It's not for "whatever reason", you see - the reason is clearly stated. If it wasn't, I'd have been nowhere near as strident in my language, here. To use the analogy you've raised, it'd be turning a black guy down for a date because he is black.

But hey, red_elk knows this, it's literally written in this thread, and all they're doing is wasting peoples' time as a consequence.

 

[Arwon]

In this thread I have learned that the most important thing about transgender rights is whether random dudes would want to have sex with trans-women.

And hell, I reckon that clearly proves trans-women are women because I can't think of anything more typically female them having your rights and personhood subordinated and derailed to dudes and their interests and sexual desires.

 

[Patine]

@TheMeInTeam

The original context for this stated outright that the reason for not dating trans folk was because they were trans. It's not for "whatever reason", you see - the reason is clearly stated. If it wasn't, I'd have been nowhere near as strident in my language, here. To use the analogy you've raised, it'd be turning a black guy down for a date because he is black.

But hey, red_elk knows this, it's literally written in this thread, and all they're doing is wasting peoples' time as a consequence.

But, in this particular case, it DOESN'T MATTER whether some form of prejudice is actually the reason for denying consent. In the issue of consent, in our post-barbarian, post-theocratic, post-@Mouthwash fantasy world, consent in that arena can be withheld for ANY reason AT ALL, without being accountable to the person denied it or society in general, or being a criminal or "anti-social" themselves. If you're applying "bigotry" as a reason one can NOT deny consent in this arena, you have ALREADY gone too far, and have opened a can of very nasty worms.

 

[Lexicus]

We're still waiting for an actual valid explanation about "morally neutral vs bigotted" reasons.

I suppose it is possible to be bigoted against women with short hair and that this is also a moral failing.

 

[Gorbles]

But, in this particular case, it DOESN'T MATTER whether some form of prejudice is actually the reason for denying consent. In the issue of consent, in our post-barbarian, post-theocratic, post-@Mouthwash fantasy world, consent in that arena can be withheld for ANY reason AT ALL, without being accountable to the person denied it or society in general, or being a criminal or "anti-social" themselves. If you're applying "bigotry" as a reason can NOT deny consent in this arena, you have ALREADY gone too far, and have opened a can of very nasty worms.

I didn't say bigotry was a reason to not deny consent. I've explicitly not said that, at least twice.

For the third time, denying consent is fine, but it doesn't make you any less of a bigot if you do it for bigoted reasons. For the third time, this is not an either / or situation. Using the fact that someone is trans is simply evidence of the bigotry, the situation being related to consent is an aside. The evidence of bigotry is what folks have been getting hung up about.

 

[Narz]

I suppose it is possible to be bigoted against women with short hair and that this is also a moral failing.

If only there were a list online showing what turn-offs are valid and which ones make me a very-bad-person™. I better just go down on everyone who asks just to be safe. Penis, vagina, metal-teeth, hey who am I to judg.... ahhhahhh, it's destroying my face....

 

[Gorbles]

If only there were a list online showing what turn-offs are valid and which ones make me a very-bad-person™. I better just go down on everyone who asks just to be safe. Penis, vagina, metal-teeth, hey who am I to judg.... ahhhahhh, it's destroying my face....

You'd think, at some point while typing that post, you'd realise that metal teeth by themselves don't magically eat your face. Apparently not.

Regardless, it sounds like you need to enforce consent in that kind of situation. Or maybe not hook up with a mechanised cannibal, which is apparently the completely realistic situation you're describing.

 

[Phrossack]

I suppose it is possible to be bigoted against women with short hair and that this is also a moral failing.

Honest, and not a trick or loaded question: is it ever not bigoted to not be attracted to someone, then? I'm not attracted to most people at all, and can't help it. Is that morally wrong?

 

[rah]

So the line is if you deny to date one before you meet them it's bad.
But if you meet them and they don't turn you on then that's ok.

 

[NovaKart]

Having a preference for what genitalia you like is not transphobic at all. What is transphobic is refusing to sleep with someone for the sole reason that they are trans. They have the genitals you like and as has been pointed out most of the time you just aren't even going to know the difference without asking.

And no one is saying you should be forced to sleep with people who are trans. If you have hangups about trans people that's your issue to work through, but don't whine about people calling you transphobic because, to borrow an argument some people in this thread really seem to like, that's just reality and the definition of the word.



If you are admitting your understanding of gender from which you have been arguing in this thread is based on dictionary definitions, may I humbly suggest looking up the Dunning-Kruger effect, pls and ty

Does the technology really exist for a transman to have a functional and realistic looking penis?

Also I’m doubtful that most transgender people pass as cisgender, I suppose this is a matter of opinion. I’d think especially there would be signs once you’re intimate with someone.

Besides, I’d imagine it takes a long time to totally transition and many transgender people you’d come across would be in that stage.

 

[Gorbles]

That's a lot of suppositions just to support your already defined-conclusion of "i think trans people don't look normal", NovaKart.

Honest, and not a trick or loaded question: is it ever not bigoted to not be attracted to someone, then? I'm not attracted to most people at all, and can't help it. Is that morally wrong?

It's complicated! Everyone has some amount of discrimination towards a wide variety of things for any number of reasons, and working through that is a complicated process, assuming the person in question even wants to try.

Yes, there are easily cases where it's not bigoted. But if your reason is because of prejudice, then that's bigotry. The person never had a chance - you'd already decided based on some apparent metric of themselves that they can't help, that they're not dateable. I'm not talking like bad hygiene, humour you don't jive with, or the like.

In your case, if you have problems simply finding people a turn-on in general, that sounds like a completely different thing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Honest, and not a trick or loaded question: is it ever not bigoted to not be attracted to someone, then? I'm not attracted to most people at all, and can't help it. Is that morally wrong?

I'd say shallow rather than morally wrong...but also pretty typical. When I was a youngster I was just as much inclined to slobber after the "traditional hottie" as the next guy was. It took a long time for me to get through to my lower brain that we should just get to know people and then decide whether we wanted to sleep with them or not.