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.
If you could please direct me to what you think is your strongest argument against my thesis, that would be highly appreciated, and I will be more than willing to address it. I only really read the first page before jumping in, and, again, this thread moved fast.
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.
Except that sexual discrimination based off of sex is the main form (I'll get to another one later) of sexual discrimination that has any biological basis in reality (It's like we call them both sex for a reason
). Animals (including people) actually
are wired to have preference towards men or women, and towards what sex and how strong that preference is can vary wildly. Homosexual activity between animals is well documented within the animal kingdom, again varying between species. The reason for a straight sex drive should be very self-evident, but even a gay sex drive can actually be advantageous genetically since it keeps population count under control, and frees adult animals to use their resources to help their genetic nieces and nephews, thus increasing their likelihood to have offspring themselves.
And to nip what I think is the likely retort in the bud, sex changes, while not
normally found in H. sapiens, is something that happens in nature, and those animals immediately accept the sex changer for the sex it changed itself as (in fact, sex changes often occur for the expressed purpose of breeding). Those animals have no way to tell that female used to be a male unless they personally knew that specimen before the sex change. There is no reason to believe that H. sapiens has evolved a way to instinctively know the birth sex of another human, but merely of the sex of the immediate present.
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.
It's almost like if you tell a certain group of people that they're lesser than the population at large and that its ok to discriminate social relationships with them, then they're going to vehemently disagree with you.
Nobody has told you you're not allowed to say your opinions. But that doesn't shield you from the fallout of actually articulating them, either. Free speech isn't freedom from criticism, and people will readily point out how your vile your conclusions are if they are in fact vile.
No. Just as not being interested in men, doesn't make you androphobic.
See above.
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 ?
You don't. I readily accept sexual discrimination based on sex is biological and not a social construct. You tell me you're attracted only to women? I have no reason to dispute that.
Who I want to bang is not a social issue.
Systemic discrimination is, however. And the idea that trans people are somehow lesser dating material than ciswomen is definitely based on the principle that we are lesser than our cis counterparts. Even if you remove the infertility issues, discrimination still can and does come from people with no interest in child rearing.
If you feel violated by what others find desirable, the problem is you, not them.
It's all intersectional. The world of dating is not seperate from the rest of society. The same implicit biases that affect the dating sphere effects everything else. If society agrees that I am a lesser person for being trans in dating, then the very same people would likely carry their biases in issues of employment, legal system, politics, etc, etc, etc.
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.
Yes, yes it does.
I'm not a "used to be a man". I am a
woman. Ever since I had a sexual identity, I identified as female. I repressed it for a few years because of being afraid of my fall from societal grace (which, as evidenced by this thread, did happen), but as long as I have been biologically aware of the male and the female, I have always identified as the female. I simply just have the wrong body.
No. Just as not being interested in men, doesn't make you androphobic.
See above
And yes, informations learned afterward can make attraction change, so it's perfectly possible to be attracted to someone, then learn something about them, and lose attraction. This post-information attraction has been explained in this very thread, you just have to read.
I agree with this paragraph. Information can change someone's attraction. In this example, someone learned I was trans, and stopped being attracted to me for being trans. It was the information of being trans, and only of being trans in itself (it was a lesbian relationship!), which turned the relationship sour. Since I was the ideal partner until I was revealed to be trans, the rejection of me for being trans is transphobia.
I'm pretty certain I'll never encounter a man that I will want to date, nor that I'll ever want to date my sister.
Does that mean said crucial distinction fails and I'm androphobic and familyphobic ?
Discrimination based off of familial relationship is in fact another well observed biological discrimination. This phenomenon, where young children raised in close familial proximity will develop strong barriers to physical attraction is very well documented, even. It helps keeps genetic lines healthy by discouraging inbreeding. No one faults you for this.
Fair enough. On that point, you won't get any disagreement from me. I was talking in terms of long-term relationships though.
It wasn't meant to be. I think you'll find you and I are more in agreement on issues regarding transpeople than you may think.
No disagreements here then. I think you're pretty cool. Thanks for the clear up.
Another possibility is that the other woman could be feeling lied to since you never told her you were trans from the get-go. She may also be feeling that if you hid that fact from her until the third date when it casually slipped out, there could be other things you are hiding from her as well which would create trust issues in her mind. Now, I'm not saying you should be obligated to reveal that information if you don't feel it's relevant, I'm just giving another possibility besides transphobia why the hypothetical woman in this scenario would break things off with you.
But why would she be "lied to" about my status as trans, unless being trans was something negative? If I walked like a woman, quacked like a woman, and made love like a woman, does that not make me a woman? Why would me being trans have any bearing on the present
except that being trans in itself is held to be something wrong. Which is, of course, transphobia.
The main point being that you never truly know what's going on in someone's head or the real reasons for why they do what they do. So to assume transphobia without concrete proof that is the person's true motivation for their actions is a little unfair.
Sure, she could give something like fear of trust issues as a reason. But this is really just getting into conscious vs subconscious transphobia.
Okay well for me that breaks down at number 7, where you label it as transphobia. Because, as I've said, I'm immensely uncomfortable with widening the scope of that word to include people who are not willing to sleep with/have romantic relations with someone. I mean no widely-accepted definitions of the word go that far and I don't think they should.
So obviously in this sort of case I can see how it directly affects you yes, but I don't agree that it's transphobia. I also don't see how someone deciding they are incompatible with you means they are seeing you as lesser, or how it infringes your human rights.
Again, let me ask you what I asked commodore. For what reason why would a woman in this hypothetical want to break off a relationship when she found out I'm trans that doesn't ultimately lead to a values judgement of transpeople being lesser than cispeople? I guess I just have a hard time rationalizing how someone would not want to date someone who is trans (in general, not a specific trans person) other than for fertility issues or finding something wrong with trans identity in itself.
ok....hold on, let's ASSUME that if someone does not find (or states will NEVER find) a transwoman sexually attractive, that person can be labeled a "transphobe".....NOW, the assumption is that that person will ALSO discriminate against transpeople???? seems like a stretch....
See the same question.
