Is not wanting to date trans individuals transphobic?

[Senethro]

If your beliefs regarding transfolk are the sort that would get you into conflict as a doctor, politician or issuer of marriage licenses if you were to act authentically on them, then they probably qualify as transphobic.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

Seems a rather arbitrary line in the sand to draw to me (aside from the fact that it would more technically be androphobia as stated earlier... although not really as that seems to be an actual phobia, not just a dislike of).

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

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.

So I'm a bit confused.

Are you implying that its thansphoic to be attracted to genetic women but not trans-women (or males for that matter)?

 

[Omega124]

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.

There are women who are, for various reasons, infertile (Turner Syndrome, intersex, or simply just born with a defective reproduction system of some capacity). If you want to discriminate potential mates for being infertile, that is one thing. I wouldn't personally agree with that, and that certainly doesn't have anything to do with physical attraction (since I doubt you can just look at a person and go "oooh, she's infertile"), but that has to do with them being infertile. Not being trans. There's an important distinction there, because, again, transwomen are not the only infertile women in existence. And on the rate technology is going, transwomen might not be infertile in a few decades (perhaps even when I'm at the age of raising a family), which means that line of logic goes out the window.

So, if infertility is your reason, say that. Don't make it about the trans.

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.

In that case, if the other person isn't interested in defending an assertion that I am lesser than them, it should be automatically assumed I'm not. Because this isn't about "favorite ice cream flavor", or "was that film good or bad", this is a topic about personhood and human rights, which has real, consequential baggage attached to it.

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.

Again, latent transphobica directly effects me, so I do not have time for it, no.

 

[Evie]

The "homo-" equivalent (for an heterosexual male) of not being attracted to transwomen would be "I am not attracted to lesbians". In both cases, you are expressing that possessing the characteristic we're discussing (being transgendered ; being homosexual) make a person unattractive to you.

(You can expand it to "I am not attracted to transgendered people" vs "I am not attracted to homosexual people", but the principle remain the same).

"Men are not attractive to me" can be homophobic if it comes from the fact that you have a deep revulsion at the idea of you yourself being gay, but that's a wholly different can of worm, and has more in common with "I don't want to get my balls cut off!" than with "I don't want to date a transgendered person!)

 

[Farm Boy]

There are women who are, for various reasons, infertile (Turner Syndrome, intersex, or simply just born with a defective reproduction system of some capacity). If you want to discriminate potential mates for being infertile, that is one thing. I wouldn't personally agree with that, and that certainly doesn't have anything to do with physical attraction (since I doubt you can just look at a person and go "oooh, she's infertile"), but that has to do with them being infertile. Not being trans. There's an important distinction there, because, again, transwomen are not the only infertile women in existence. And on the rate technology is going, transwomen might not be infertile in a few decades (perhaps even when I'm at the age of raising a family), which means that line of logic goes out the window.

So, if infertility is your reason, say that. Don't make it about the trans.

Infertility is no joke. You need to discuss it and account for it in relationships. I don't regret my life decisions, and the ones that revolved around infertility are probably the best I've ever made. I would encourage people to think similarly, but not all of it is fun and not everyone is going to want to sign up for it and figure science will science away all the problems within a useful timeframe. If trans is heavily associated with infertility and alternate family building methodology, if family building is at all a potential concern you cannot ignore the issue for much past a pump and dump.

 

[Evie]

No one was joking about infertility, and I don't think anyone in this thread has implied that infertility is a bad reason not to date someone. I've said that I'd perfectly understand someone not dating me because I can never have their children ; Meg has pretty clearly implied it's a reason she respects too.

But if infertility is your reason, then list infertility as your reason.

 

[Omega124]

Infertility is no joke. You need to discuss it and account for it in relationships. I don't regret my life decisions, but not all of it is fun and not everyone is going to want to sign up for it and figure science will science away all the problems within a useful timeframe. If trans is heavily associated with infertility and alternate family building methodology, if family building is at all a potential concern you cannot ignore the issue for much past a pump and dump.

Read what I said again. I never said infertility concerns aren't valid. It's just that infertility has nothing to do with physical attraction, and that transpeople are not inhertingly infertile, both in the now with pre-op trans people (which is a whole different can of worms since I'm focusing on post-op for my arguments so I'm not going to get into that beyond simply stating that's a possibility, but yes there is at least one recorded case of a transman giving birth), and in the future with uterus/testes transplants, in which research for is happening. So to make it about the trans when its about the infertility is dubious.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In that case, if the other person isn't interested in defending an assertion that I am lesser than them, it should be automatically assumed I'm not. Because this isn't about "favorite ice cream flavor", or "was that film good or bad", this is a topic about personhood and human rights, which has real, consequential baggage attached to it.

You have to demonstrate how someone disagreeing with you is any sort of assertion that you are lesser than them, or in any way infringes your human rights. I mean, you're making the positive claim here so by your own logic the onus is on you to back that up. You can't just say it as if it's self-evident because I don't see how it is.

Again, latent transphobica directly effects me, so I do not have time for it, no.

Again, you kind of have to demonstrate how this is transphobia (latent or otherwise), or how it directly affects you.

 

[Farm Boy]

Trans and infertility are linked pretty securely right now. God willing, the distinction will be more meaningful in the future. I hope it comes soon. In the meantime, we have what we have, yes? I cannot overstate the level of my shared hopes with you when it comes to transplant technology improving even if the pieces involved happen to be different.

 

[Akka]

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.

I have provided answers, not specifically to you but to those who asked about it. But I know you don't like these answers and you consider them invalid.

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

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.

And Traitorship argument is just a big pile of crap of the usual racism-obsession we see far too often. I'll just repeat the same thing that more or less answer the thread and just show how idiotic this argument is :

No. Just as not being interested in men, doesn't make you androphobic.

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 find it humorous to hear about "safe space" when half this thread was about people trying to shut down others from voicing the opinions they disliked, and trying to cry about said opinion being insulting while they dished out actual insults in spades themselves.

The hypocrisy has been denounced from the start, but it's still very alive and kicking.

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.

No. Just as not being interested in men, doesn't make you androphobic.

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.

What would I need to back up my assertions that I don't find men or family members attractive ? And would you manage to point that I'm "wrong" about not being attracted to them ?

I don't feel sorry for people who want to treat important social issues as an ideological hit and run.

Who I want to bang is not a social issue.

As for why I am so invested into this topic, it's because, again, this is my personhood that is being violated.

If you feel violated by what others find desirable, the problem is you, not them.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The "homo-" equivalent (for an heterosexual male) of not being attracted to transwomen would be "I am not attracted to lesbians". In both cases, you are expressing that possessing the characteristic we're discussing (being transgendered ; being homosexual) make a person unattractive to you.

Err... so now you're equating gender identity with sexuality? And that's even ignoring the other differences.

 

[Commodore]

transwomen are not the only infertile women in existence.

Nor did I say they were. However, as of right now, I know with 100% certainty that a transwoman cannot bear children. You asked for a true biological difference between transwomen and ciswomen and I just gave you one. You can't really use the "but there are ciswomen who are infertile as well" because infertile ciswomen are the outliers that are not representative of the (for lack of a better term) "norm" for ciswomen. The "norm" for transwomen right now is that they cannot bear children. That is a biological difference between cis and transwomen right now, not a social construct.

And on the rate technology is going, transwomen might not be infertile in a few decades (perhaps even when I'm at the age of raising a family), which means that line of logic goes out the window.

And I said as much in my post. I also hope that medical science makes those advances because once transwomen can be truly indistinguishable from ciswomen in every way, then we won't even have to use the terms trans and cis anymore. You'll all just be women.

 

[Evie]

Well, yeah. And both Meg (I think) and I for sure understand that people who have a problem with dating an infertile person will necessarily have a problem with dating trans people - we're just suggesting that it would be more accurate (and nicer) to present it as stemming from infertility.

No. Just as not being interested in men, doesn't make you androphobic.

IF. Akka. If. Is a two-letter word expressing a conditional clause (in this case, the condition being "using this sentence to express revulsion...") so very hard to grasp?

Not being interested in trans does not make you transphobic in and of itself. Revulsion toward trans does.

Err... so now you're equating gender identity with sexuality? And that's even ignoring the other differences.

In the context of comparing homophobia and transphobia, yes, because homophobia is a sentiment based on sexuality and transphobia is a sentiment based on gender identity. Homophobia is certainly not a reaction to other people's gender or other people's gender identity, and treating it as such make absolutely no sense. "Not being interested in men is not homophobia" is a nonsensical, self-evident statement, because homophobia has nothing to do with another person's gender.

 

[Farm Boy]

That would be cool. But if you start talking about breeding early in the dating process, isn't that stigmatized as "creepy" or "overly attached" or just "weird?" Women in their 30s start getting realistic about that, generally, and they are constantly slammed as needy and desperate. Demanding a fertility test of your spouse-to-be before the vows is frowned on, isn't it? It doesn't fit with the western presentation of love. But it still might be sensible. Not everyone is going to feel called to try and be bigger.

 

[Akka]

IF. Akka. If. Is a two-letter word expressing a conditional clause (in this case, the condition being "using this sentence to express revulsion...") so very hard to grasp?

Not being interested in trans does not make you transphobic in and of itself. Revulsion toward trans does.

I perfectly read the "if", and it still perfectly applies, because the idea of being intimate with a man (or anyone from my somewhat-close family) does revulses me. So according to your simplistic reasoning, it means I'm androphobic (it would also means I'm family-phobic if such phobia existed).

 

[Omega124]

You have to demonstrate how someone disagreeing with you is any sort of assertion that you are lesser than them, or in any way infringes your human rights. I mean, you're making the positive claim here so by your own logic the onus is on you to back that up. You can't just say it as if it's self-evident because I don't see how it is.



Again, you kind of have to demonstrate how this is transphobia (latent or otherwise), or how it directly affects you.

OK, I'll briefly sum it up in a brief hypothetical. You tell me where this breaks down for you

1. I am female/a woman, and at the time of this hypothetical, have underwent SRS. I am also attracted to women, so I am trying to date other women.
2. I go on a date with a woman. She is unaware of my medical history, but she is super nice to me, and in general we're super companionable
3. We have fun sexy times. Since I have the right parts, and well made parts to boot, nothing is wrong and we have a lot of fun
4. On the third date or so, I casually mention I'm trans because its directly relevant to a story I'm telling or what not.
5. Suddenly, she is no longer interested in me, and breaks off the relationship.
6. The only thing that changed is the added knowledge of my past medical history. For all intents and purposes, I was her ideal woman until she found out I was trans.
7. Since she liked me before she found out I was trans, and did not like me after I found out I was trans, and nothing else changed ergo transphobia was involved in discriminating against me.

Trans and infertility are linked pretty securely right now. God willing, the distinction will be more meaningful in the future. I hope it comes soon. In the meantime, we have what we have, yes?

Unfortunately, yes. :\

Nor did I say they were. However, as of right now, I know with 100% certainty that a transwoman cannot bear children. You asked for a true biological difference between transwomen and ciswomen and I just gave you one. You can't really use the "but there are ciswomen who are infertile as well" because infertile ciswomen are the outliers that are not representative of the (for lack of a better term) "norm" for ciswomen. The "norm" for transwomen right now is that they cannot bear children. That is a biological difference between cis and transwomen right now, not a social construct.

See my second post on this thread

There is no functional difference between a ciswoman and a post-op transwoman's genitals to a layman person (and is hard to distinguish even for trained gynecologists). The process of sexual reassignment surgery for MTF individuals has been perfected for anything other than childbirth or natural lubrication, which doesn't matter for sexual attraction at all. The only way you'd be able to tell a passing transwoman with a ciswoman apart is if they tell you.

I've already acknowledged the infertility aspect a long time ago. Again, I'm also focusing on physical attraction, in which fertility plays no role in. This isn't really a "gotcha" argument at all.

Also, I disagree. If there is infertile ciswomen, then that means the distinction between trans and cis is not the infertility, but something else (the social construct). Thusly, the infertility has nothing to do with dividing trans and cis, and thus is not actually the difference between the two.

I acknowledge Akka's post but I need to shower and I can tell that will take a long time to pick apart so I'll save it for afterwards.

 

[warpus]

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.

Really? That seems like a rather extreme conclusion to draw.

Just because you don't want to date someone doesn't mean that you hate their guts or anything they self-identify as or any groups they belong to. Personally I could not see myself dating someone who used to be a man. This is supposed to imply that I am bigoted against people who are trans? That's ridiculous.

 

[Evie]

Are you open to the possibility that you may, someday, meet a trans person who could change your views on that matter?

That, to me, seem to be the crucial distinction.

 

[metalhead]

The whole fertility thing seems to me to be a huge cop-out on the question posed in the OP.

"Dating" is not exclusively about mating. It is fundamentally a social activity, and while I can't speak for everyone (obviously), I can say with certainty that I went on dates with people with whom long-term compatibility or even short-term, physical intimacy was never on the table. So if you say you would "never date a trans person" does that mean you'd never go on a single date with a trans person under any circumstances? Because that seems pretty transparently transphobic to me. And if you're using fertility as a reason that seems like a BS reason for not going on a date with someone.

Just because you don't want to date someone doesn't mean that you hate their guts or anything they self-identify as or any groups they belong to. Personally I could not see myself dating someone who used to be a man. This is supposed to imply that I am bigoted against people who are trans? That's ridiculous.

You mean a woman born with male parts.

What do you mean by "date?" If you'd never go on the social outing colloquially called a "date" with a trans person, then yeah, you're bigoted against trans people.