Is not wanting to date trans individuals transphobic?

[Ryika]

Wait, what? So why did you point out that I'm not free from ideologies then?

Because I think you have an overly negative view of what it means to be a woman thanks to "victimhood feminism". That was mostly based on the impressions I have about you from the posts I've read. Not that I think you're particularly ideological driven, but I do think your view on the matter is tainted.

Actually, why did you address my post about what it feels to be transgendered at all?

Well, it appears that we've been talking really far past each other then.

The way I understood your post is that you think that being a woman mostly brings downsides, and that you would not transition were it not for the inherent feeling of presenting as the wrong gender in the first part, which I took to be your perspective on the female identity in light of the "Women would not feel happy if they were oppressed"-discussion.

But it appears you already interpreted my first post to be about trans identities (which, looking back at the discussion, I can certainly understand given that I didn't quote anybody), so in your mind of course there was nothing to even return to.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There's definitely some crossed wires going on here. I definitely found it confusing that Valessa wrote all that in response to Oda describing how being trans feels, as if it was talking about the same thing, but then in the very last sentence said she wasn't talking about being trans at all. Ehhhhhh?!

 

[Ryika]

To be fair, I was awake for like... 60 hours when I made that post, looking back at her posts now, especially with that added knowledge, it's pretty obvious to me that she wasn't talking about what I was trying to talk about, and that I somehow managed to entirely miss that.

 

[Akka]

To be fair, I was awake for like... 60 hours when I made that post

As much as I love coffee, I feel I have to tell you to dial it down on it severely

 

[metalhead]

I once knew a guy who told me that he found all black women unattractive. I could not believe it. But he insisted they were all unattractive to him, no matter whom I presented and as I pressed on, incredulous, he grew very annoyed. I don't get it to this day, but maybe this really just exists? I don't know. Still can not wrap my head around it.

I agree in theory that someone saying "I don't find people of X race attractive" is not necessarily a racist statement. But how do you view an entire race as ugly if you aren't racist? Did he preface that statement with, "I'm not racist, but . . . ?"

 

[Omega124]

I think you should be more careful with this kind of argument. You start by invoking "transgender identity" (your own words) to distinguish it from sexual orientation. So far so good. But you end by stating that "there is no reason to make a distinction between trans and ciswomen that isn't based on transphobia".

Because there isn't. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender identity in this context. Humans do not possess a hidden transceiver that can detect if somebody is trans, intersex, cis, etc. Sure, we have an idea of what is masculine and feminine constructions (due to social constructs), which might cause some trans people, particularly those pre-HRT, to have red flags. But those that have been hormones for a significant period of time, that have features that match the gender they're transititioning to? The only way you'd be able to tell they're trans is being told.

I don't think anyone defines her own identity as "ciswoman", that is not a thing, women thing of their their gender identity merely as "women". Trans(woman) is a different category you are using, and one that you go as far as defining as an identity, something that sets you apart as a member of a restricted group.

Ok, if you stick to this argument then you can indeed claim that not wanting to date a "transwoman" is "transphobia". But you also must agree that a "transwoman" is different from a "woman" in that it has an identity (transgender identity) that a woman does not have. Is this really what you wish? Doesn't this hamper the demand of, as a transwoman, being treated just a woman would? I mean, what one's partner identifies as is rather important in a choice of partners. We do have many "identities", whether or not a particular one matters, and how it does, is up to the people involved. But it seems reasonable that it can make a difference for some people.

OK I think I need to clarify something because something is not being properly expressed. I'm basically arguing the cis vs trans dichotomy is a social construct. I'll even explicitly say it: the cis vs trans dichotomy is a social construct.

However, there is a common misconception from people that when people say that something is a social construct, that it means that something isn't real. Gender divides exist in society. Racial divides exist in society. It takes a really willfully ignorant person to argue that people aren't treated differently because of their gender or race or whatever else that has been called social constructs. The term social construct instead means that something is artificial. As in, that thing being called a social construct has only bearing whatsoever because we as humans assign value to it beyond any objective biological purpose. If we as people stopped assigning any value to that particular concept, it would cease to exist at all.

So yes, in the context of my argument, I am saying that, currently, presently, in society, there is a meaningful distinction between transwomen and ciswomen solely due to the way society treats the two groups differently (as evidenced by this thread even existing). However, no meaningful physical distinction differentiates an infertile ciswoman with a transwoman. Therefore, I reject the idea that trans and cis women should be treated differently due to their gender identity, and that the social construct shouldn't exist. However, I am not a society (yet ), so I unfortunately do not have the power to simply erase social constructs unilaterally. The best I can possibly do is argue against oppression based on imaginary concepts by trying to show the underlying issues of a particular viewpoint. This, of course, requires me to engage in a worldview where the social construct exists, in order to show why it shouldn't exist. Thusly, I have to use the distinctions to argue the distinction doesn't exist.

Does that help? Do I need to clarify anything else?

Some thinks are just facts of life, and one is better of accepting them and moving on taking them into consideration, that fighting reality. Perhaps there are "transphobic" people in the sense that they wouldn't engage with one. So what?

There is a lot of toxic concepts melded into this one section that I don't know where to even begin here.

1. This is definitely off-topic, but given the current presently accepted models of universal phenomenon (general relativity and quantum mechanics), I find it hard to believe that there is such a thing as a "fact of life". Everything is retaliative to our ability to observe and comprehend, and in the field of physics we're already seeing those limits break down when we deal with scales far above or below what our biological sensors are built for. For society, which is ultimately created by humanity itself, this is even more true. There is nothing that forces a person to act a certain way beyond the person itself (this is true whether or not you accept free will. If you don't, then just add a subclause saying that its the neurochemical reactions internally within the person which causes a person to react a certain way). Therefore, there is nothing that forces people to act a certain way beyond the people within the group. Therefore, if the people who comprise society changes, the rules of society will necessarily change with it.

2. Regardless of point one, "accepting" oppression is being complicit to it. I refuse to act as an actor of my own oppression, so no, I will not accept the fact that its ok to discriminate against me simply because I am trans. I believe society can be better than it is now, and I'll be damned if I don't fight for it, in any way I possibly can. I may not be an effective actor of change at the present, and engaging in discussions may not be an ultimately effective tool to outreach people, but I know I can do this, so I do.

3. So what? The so what is that I'm treated like a second-class citizen. Don't be patronizing.

An interesting question that arises from this is: if ever sexual reassignment surgery could 100% change someone's body (let's ignore DNA, it's not really relevant), would it continue to make sense to talk of "transgender identity"?

No, see above. Can't wait for that day to come.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not racist to prefer characteristics that are associated with certain racial backgrounds. It's kind of unfortunate, and it's not hard for it to get pretty creepy, but that's sexuality for you. Humanity is the faulty prototype of itself. Where it gets problematic, if you'll excuse the ess-jay-dub-ism, is framing this in explicitly racial terms, in framing a preference for Caucasian bone-structures as "I don't like black people". That step, and being comfortable with that step, is definitionally racist.

Well, I've listened for years now to people telling me race is a social construct and I pretty much believe them. For those of us that are a bit more qualified in letting our sexual desire run free, I was definitely looking for cultural compatibility in a mate. Not that a nice Chinese or black American or New Yorker couldn't have been attractive enough to be genuinely interesting, but it would have been an uphill slog for the oh-so-desirable-prize that is me. I was looking for a small town Midwestern girl. Most of them, though yes not all of them, look similarish to me. That built habits into my eye for physical characteristics that persist. I also tend to prefer brunettes. I like brown eyes more than blue. White girls with at least a curve or two get my attention, usually, faster than other permutations. Once she starts speaking the language used starts being relevant to the attraction quotient. Constantly uptoning at the end of sentences drives the blood right back to my brain, usually. It's all so very shallow before it's deep. I suppose you can use the word "racist" if you want. It fits, technically. But that's also the word we use in the vernacular as the primary attribute of the Klan, and using it on people limiting their statements to who they want to mate with is out of line. At least in the American vernacular I'm familiar with, of course. Maybe that passes as acceptable elsewhere.

 

[warpus]

It's fine being attracted who you are attracted to and only dating out of that pool. If trans people don't end up being in that pool, then that's life. You can't control who you are attracted to.

What would be transphobic is if you say something snarky about why you don't date trans people.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So yes, in the context of my argument, I am saying that, currently, presently, in society, there is a meaningful distinction between transwomen and ciswomen solely due to the way society treats the two groups differently (as evidenced by this thread even existing). However, no meaningful physical distinction differentiates an infertile ciswoman with a transwoman. Therefore, I reject the idea that trans and cis women should be treated differently due to their gender identity, and that the social construct shouldn't exist. However, I am not a society (yet ), so I unfortunately do not have the power to simply erase social constructs unilaterally. The best I can possibly do is argue against oppression based on imaginary concepts by trying to show the underlying issues of a particular viewpoint. This, of course, requires me to engage in a worldview where the social construct exists, in order to show why it shouldn't exist. Thusly, I have to use the distinctions to argue the distinction doesn't exist.

Is there any room in your worldview for people who do not agree with you on this? Any room in anywhere other than the "animal hole" category that is?

 

[Omega124]

Is there any room in your worldview for people who do not agree with you on this? Any room in anywhere other than the "animal hole" category that is?

The onus is on people to prove that there is a meaningful distinction to be made (I can't prove a negative). So far, no one has ever even attempted to argue that, let alone convinced me.

 

[Akka]

The onus is on people to prove that there is a meaningful distinction to be made (I can't prove a negative). So far, no one has ever even attempted to argue that, let alone convinced me.

Rather, you decided beforehand that there was no good reason, and simply ignored any which have been provided.

BTW, attraction to people has no "justification". You're attracted or you're not, and it can be down to trivial details, perceptions or features that can be attractive to some and repulsive to others.
Your decision to flag such preferences as justifying an insult says more about you than about the people you put in a box.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The onus is on people to prove that there is a meaningful distinction to be made (I can't prove a negative). So far, no one has ever even attempted to argue that, let alone convinced me.

The onus may be on them if they wish to convince you that you're wrong, but what if they have no particular wish to do that?

 

[Omega124]

Rather, you decided beforehand that there was no good reason, and simply ignored any which have been provided.

This thread is really fast paced and has multiple conversations ongoing. I've only responded to posts in which I got notifications for. If you said something to me that I never responded to, I likely outright missed it.

BTW, attraction to people has no "justification". You're attracted or you're not, and it can be down to trivial details, perceptions or features that can be attractive to some and repulsive to others.
Your decision to flag such preferences as justifying an insult says more about you than about the people you put in a box.

This, again, harkens back to what Traitorfish said on the first page.

I'm prepared to believe that some people find all black women unnattractive. I'm just not prepared to believe this is a judgement disconnected from their attitude towards black people in general.

I mean, own your towering personal defects, y'know?

I think this post perfectly illustrates my ultimate opinion on this subject. I'm willing to believe some people find the concept of dating a trans person unattractive (even if they literally can not tell the difference apart without being told). I am not, however, willing to believe this isn't linked to latent transphobia.

The onus may be on them if they wish to convince you that you're wrong, but what if they have no particular wish to do that?

Then why are they posting on a thread where this is the literal topic that is being discussed? Or is this just supposed to be a safe space for people to say they find trans people icky?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Then why are they posting on a thread where this is the literal topic that is being discussed? Or is this just supposed to be a safe space for people to say they find trans people icky?

I didn't specifically mean in this thread, I just meant in general. But even if I did mean in this thread I don't see a contradiction. It's possible for someone to have a desire to state their own opinion, without also being particularly invested in convincing others that theirs is wrong. If I say the sky is green and you say it's blue, the onus is only on me to provide evidence if I care that you don't agree that it's green.

 

[Evie]

If attraction has no justification, why do you seek to justify it?

The more general problem here is also the distinction between "I have never been attracted to X" and "I am not attracted to X". In the former case, you're stating a fact, and one you have precious little control over: so far in your life, you haven't felt attraction to anyone who possessed that particular characteristic. Having not met all people who possess characteristic X, you are not leaping to the conclusion that people of group X are necessarily unattractive.

Not dating transgendered people because you have never (so far) been attracted to one is a perfectly rational, non-transphobic opinion.

"I am not attracted to X" takes your experience so far (lack of attraction toward people who feel X) and applies it wholesale to all members of group X you haven't met. Which is a preconceived (since you have never seen them), negative (unattractive is negative) opinion of these people. A preconceived, negative opinion of people you have never met...is textbook prejudice. And being prejudiced on the basis of race...is textbook racism.

(I wouldn't apply the same logic to homophobia or transphobia, because homophobia/transphobia, to me, are not merely the trans equivalent of racism - there's an element of direct hostility, fear or revulsion implied by phobia that is absent in the broader "racism").

Of course, if you use, "I am not attracted to X" states that there is something inherently repulsive, to the point where that repulsiveness cannot be overriden, about X...well, then that element of revulsion is present, and you're being X-phobic.

 

[Omega124]

I didn't specifically mean in this thread, I just meant in general. But even if I did mean in this thread I don't see a contradiction. It's possible for someone to have a desire to state their own opinion, without also being particularly invested in convincing others that theirs is wrong. If I say the sky is green and you say it's blue, the onus is only on me to provide evidence if I care that you don't agree that it's green.

If people are unwilling to back up their assertions, then they really vacate the right to complain when other people point out they're wrong. I don't feel sorry for people who want to treat important social issues as an ideological hit and run. As I remember once saying to you before, when it comes to contexts like this, put up or shut up is in full effect. If you (and this is a general you, not directed at a particular user) want to treat me lesser than a human being, you better have some solid evidence or I will shred you mercilessly.

As for why I am so invested into this topic, it's because, again, this is my personhood that is being violated. Transphobia in society systemically places me with more difficulties and fewer opportunities than my cis brethren for no fault by my own. I think that is inherently unfair, so I want to do my part to dismantle the system that puts me in an inferior position to the rest of you. I'm not able to defeat society's tools of oppression by myself, true, but it will never go away if people like me don't speak up and demand for equal treatment.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If attraction has no justification, why do you seek to justify it?

The more general problem here is also the distinction between "I have never been attracted to X" and "I am not attracted to X". In the former case, you're stating a fact, and one you have precious little control over: so far in your life, you haven't felt attraction to anyone who possessed that particular characteristic. Having not met all people who possess characteristic X, you are not leaping to the conclusion that people of group X are necessarily unattractive.

"I am not attracted to X" takes your experience so far (lack of attraction toward people who feel X) and applies it wholesale to all members of group X you haven't met. Which certainly does carry a certain amount of prejudice (in the sense of a preconceived opinion of those members of group X you have not yet met). When applied to members of a particular race, forming prejudice against them on the basis of their race is in fact textbook racism. On homo/transphobia, not so much, as transphobia is not "like racism, but against trans" (at least not in my opinion) - prejudice and stereotypes are definitely racist (and discriminatory), but may not be transphobic.

Alternatively, "I am not attracted to X" states that there is something inherently repulsive, to the point where that repulsion cannot be overriden, about X. And, frankly, that strong a repulsion...is indeed Xphobia.

I don't know... I think it's perfectly reasonable for a man to say "I'm straight" or "I'm not attracted to men" rather than "I've never yet met a man I was attracted to". I also think it's perfectly reasonable for some amount of inherent repulsion to inform that statement. I don't mean finding homosexuals to be repulsive, or the concept of homosexual relations as an abstract concept to be repulsive, but the idea of personally engaging in them. I don't think it's realistic to expect levels of attraction to be positive or at worst neutral. I mean, the the phrase "turn off" exists for a reason.

 

[Commodore]

the cis vs trans dichotomy is a social construct.

Not really. Especially when we start talking about long-term relationships. If you are dating a guy and he says he wants to get married and have children (meaning his own biological children just so you can't pull the adoption card on me), then you, as a transwoman, would not be very compatible for him. In that context there is a pretty big difference between transwomen and ciswomen that most certainly is not a social construct. No amount of HRT you go through or surgeries you get are going to give you the ability to bear and birth children like a ciswoman.

That's why even though I am certainly open to the idea of dating transwomen (I dated one for about 2 months years ago), I knew I'd never marry one because at some point I wanted to get married to a woman and have that woman be the mother of my children. And that's something a transwoman could never offer me. Now, if the day ever comes where they can give transwomen the ability to bear and birth children, then I will 100% agree with you that the trans vs. cis dichotomy is just a social construct.

 

[Evie]

Mind, as I've discussed earlier, "I am not attracted to men" is NOT to homophobia what "I am not attracted to trans" is to transphobia. The relation between the two is necessarily different (if only because a woman stating "I am not attracted to men" is very unlikely to be expressing homophobic sentiment). The equivalent statement to "I am not attracted to trans" would be "I am not attracted to gays". Which is...a considerably different statement, implying that there is something inherent about being gay that render otherwise attractive people unattractive.

I'll grant you that "I am not attracted to X" can be used as a reasonable short form (implying "so far, in my experience"), but then, if someone doesn't realize that's what you're doing and question the statement, clarify (that you were describing your life experience so far, not stating an absolute judgement value on all such people) instead of arguing there's nothing wrong with not being attracted to X.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If people are unwilling to back up their assertions, then they really vacate the right to complain when other people point out they're wrong. I don't feel sorry for people who want to treat important social issues as an ideological hit and run. As I remember once saying to you before, when it comes to contexts like this, put up or shut up is in full effect. If you (and this is a general you, not directed at a particular user) want to treat me lesser than a human being, you better have some solid evidence or I will shred you mercilessly

I just don't agree with this I'm afraid. It doesn't really matter to me what the issue under contention is, if two people hold opposing opinions about it, but neither are invested in convincing the other they are wrong, and neither has any problem with the other holding an opposing belief, then that's as far as it needs to go really. There's no need for them to back up their assertions at all. If one of the parties does have a problem with the other person holding an oppising belief, and is invested in convincing them they're wrong, then any onus is entirely on them, not the person they're challenging.

Having said that, I agree that they have no right to complain about being told they're wrong if they don't back up their assertions. But if they don't care about convincing the other person that they're wrong, and are happy for them to hold their own opinions, then that's not likely to bother them anyway. I was merely asking what room you had for such people in your world view. I guess the "shred them mercilessly" comment answers that.