Is not wanting to date trans individuals transphobic?

[Crezth]

It is computerphobic to not accept that a computer passing as if it was a human is actually not a human.

Yet the human-centric attitude around makes it less of an issue, so we are stuck to debating baby steps.

Λέων μὲν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δὲ βοῦς, ἄνθρωπος δὲ νῷ - What makes a man but his intellect? If a machine could not be distinguished from a man by mere conversation, what basis would you have to discriminate? - This is a rhetorical question because it's off-topic, but you are the one who snarked it.

How, exactly, is it not prejudiced to say, "I'd never date a smoker, on account of them being a smoker?"

It is prejudice. It is a pre-judgement of the person based on some attribute you have stereotyped.

Obviously because I have no problem with the person who is smoking, but with the habit of smoking.

Then say, "I would never date the habit of smoking." See how absurd that is? Because you cannot separate sin and sinner, your claim that you have no problem with smokers is not credible.

Again, I don't see why "knowing that a person has had a past as a gender they're not attracted to" cannot be a valid deal-breaker for a person. You just call it transphobia for reasons that you still haven't explained.

It can be a deal-breaker, certainly, but it is transphobic because it is refusing to associate with someone because they are trans. The reasoning of the refused association is that they are trans. Hence, it is trans-phobic. This is an elementary concept that people in this thread insist on misunderstanding to make excuses for their own incoherent philosophy on the matter.

There is nothing wrong with admitting there are only certain types of people whose sex parts you feel inclined to interact with. The question now becomes if transphobia is wrong or not, and as you and the other prejudiced folks in this thread have pointed out, you can hardly be held accountable for having feelings. What makes the difference is how you choose to act on those feelings.

Going on a date with someone isn't marrying them. It's not even the end of the world. It's a normal mode of social interaction for most people, and one that is preeminently affected by prejudices. The only solution for this is to be aware of our prejudices and to call them as they are rather than wheedle about how it's not really transphobia, because it is.

Now, if you want to use this opportunity to bring up "smokerphobia," go right ahead. But I'll tell you the same thing: that is a prejudice, and prejudices make people foolish.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The point isn't that everyone needs to be open to dating trans people in all circumstances. Or even that you (not you specifically) must stop feeling revulsion at the thought or you're a terrible person. But there is certainly utility in recognizing the fundamental irrationality in rejecting a trans person solely on account of them being trans.

It's messy. The transition from intolerance to tolerance is long. People don't just shed intolerance. Even willing people who vocally advocate on behalf of all LGBT people are squishy about it as it pertains to them personally. The point is, recognizing it as fundamentally irrational eliminates its power. That's all. People always presume that the goal is thought control, but it isn't that at all. You may not be able to control it, or even want to. But you do have control over how it manifests in your behavior. As with any problematic impulse, reaction, or emotion, control is the key.

Yes but...

Bold #1 - I've already said that this is well past being "tolerant" even before you get to this point.
Bold #2 - Other than posting about this in a couple of directly relevant internet discussion where the point has been brought up, my assertion is that this does not manifest in my behaviour. Nor do I see any reason to categorically state that this must necessarily manifest in any significant negative behaviour. This is what I said before. The only "evidence" for any such link that's been presented was Meg's survey, which was flawed as has already been explained.

I see no reason to label any of this transphobia. I know I already said "check the dictionary", but not because I think dictionaries are sacrosanct and that word meanings can't change. It's more that I think you're destroying the usefulness of the word. If someone is actively hostile against trans people, or even passively hostile, then labelling them as a transphone serves some useful function for society at large (or at least can do so). If you broaden the scope of the word to include people who aren't even remotely hostile, but simply don't want to have intimate and personal relations with them, then you neuter it and render it a non-word. What's the point of that?

Surely you can see how a culture that marginalizes people - and make no mistake, people en masse deciding that a particular group is sexually undesirable serves to marginalize that group - puts them in greater danger of all kinds of terrible things happening to them.

But what if that's just how it is? If people en masse really do find that group sexually undesirable, what do you propose to do about it? You've already said in any individual case it's acceptable, but those individual cases are going to add up aren't they? So you can either try to put measures in place to directly stop those terrible things, or... you can somehow force people to start finding them sexually attractive against their will in the hope this will indirectly stop those terrible things? You see why this is bad yet?

 

[Akka]

Not wanting to date trans individuals for the reason that they are trans is strictly transphobic. You may feel this is a justifiable prohibition, but there is no other word to describe a person who avoids trans individuals because they are trans.

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

Thanks mankind for computers and copy-paste.

The question asked by this thread makes even less sense if one considers that dating is an extremely fluid concept. Let's say that you met this really nice girl. You hit it off, then you discover she has a penis. Now of course she is an invalid contender for your heart even if you got along really well. In my book, that is called denying yourself a potentially fulfilling experience based on prejudice. I wouldn't even waste time judging someone for being that ignorant because I'm too busy pitying them instead.

Wow, you must have a very busy time pitying the 95 to 98 % of humanity who aren't bisexual and are denying themselves potential partners based on prejudice.

Nope. Try again, and this time respond with something that isn't an offensive strawman.

You don't appear to understand how physical attraction or relationships actually function, so I think I'll just leave it here.

Oh God the irony.
That's standing up comedy right here.
Or the usual metric ton of hypocrisy. Considering the source, probably the latter.

 

[Kyriakos]

Λέων μὲν ὄνυξι κρατεῖ, κέρασι δὲ βοῦς, ἄνθρωπος δὲ νῷ - What makes a man but his intellect? If a machine could not be distinguished from a man by mere conversation, what basis would you have to discriminate? - This is a rhetorical question because it's off-topic, but you are the one who snarked it.



It is prejudice. It is a pre-judgement of the person based on some attribute you have stereotyped.



Then say, "I would never date the habit of smoking." See how absurd that is? Because you cannot separate sin and sinner, your claim that you have no problem with smokers is not credible.



It can be a deal-breaker, certainly, but it is transphobic because it is refusing to associate with someone because they are trans. The reasoning of the refused association is that they are trans. Hence, it is trans-phobic. This is an elementary concept that people in this thread insist on misunderstanding to make excuses for their own incoherent philosophy on the matter.

There is nothing wrong with admitting there are only certain types of people whose sex parts you feel inclined to interact with. The question now becomes if transphobia is wrong or not, and as you and the other prejudiced folks in this thread have pointed out, you can hardly be held accountable for having feelings. What makes the difference is how you choose to act on those feelings.

Going on a date with someone isn't marrying them. It's not even the end of the world. It's a normal mode of social interaction for most people, and one that is preeminently affected by prejudices. The only solution for this is to be aware of our prejudices and to call them as they are rather than wheedle about how it's not really transphobia, because it is.

Now, if you want to use this opportunity to bring up "smokerphobia," go right ahead. But I'll tell you the same thing: that is a prejudice, and prejudices make people foolish.

It is way too off-topic to reply here There is an AI thread currently running in the Science forum, about this issue

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is prejudice. It is a pre-judgement of the person based on some attribute you have stereotyped.

It isn't a judgement of the person at all. I'm tall. That isn't a judgement, it's a fact. If a girl says "I don't date guys that are more than eight inches taller than me because looking up all the time puts a crick in my neck" I don't take it as a "judgement of me." It is just her experience interacting with a fact about me. Smoking is similar.

 

[Crezth]

It isn't a judgement of the person at all. I'm tall. That isn't a judgement, it's a fact. If a girl says "I don't date guys that are more than eight inches taller than me because looking up all the time puts a crick in my neck" I don't take it as a "judgement of me." It is just her experience interacting with a fact about me. Smoking is similar.

"I don't date guys that are more than 8 inches taller than me... because looking up is uncomfortable" the bolded is the rationale. This is, indeed, a fact; or a feeling based on an objective appraisal of fact. There has not been a single stereotyped aspect of trans-individuals in this thread that can be applied to all trans-individuals in the same way. Hence, not wanting to date trans-individuals is a transparent prejudice based on stereotypes about what it means to be a transperson.

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

Yes, it does make you androphobic. What other word is there for someone who avoids men because they are men? This is why we have words, you know.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You, yourself, are responsible for your thoughts and feelings. You can pontificate about tolerance all you want, but if in your thoughts and feelings you are not tolerant of people, you have nobody to blame for that but yourself.

You have to explain why being entirely supportive of someone's choices, rights, life etc, and even being happy socialising with them, but just not wanting to sleep with them is "not tolerant". I can't blame others for my thoughts and feelings no, but I can blame them for mischaracterising them as intolerance.

If however you acknowledge that you have a stereotype in mind when you declare transpeople an unfit category for romantic association, then at least you are making an effort to respect other people, and that's all that anyone can ask of you.

What "stereotype"? What do you even mean by this?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"I don't date guys that are more than 8 inches taller than me... because looking up is uncomfortable" the bolded is the rationale. This is, indeed, a fact; or a feeling based on an objective appraisal of fact. There has not been a single stereotyped aspect of trans-individuals in this thread that can be applied to all trans-individuals in the same way. Hence, not wanting to date trans-individuals is a transparent bias based on prejudice about what it means to be a transperson.

Agreed completely. I was responding to what I quoted, which was about not dating smokers.

 

[Akka]

You, yourself, are responsible for your thoughts and feelings. You can pontificate about tolerance all you want, but if in your thoughts and feelings you are not tolerant of people, you have nobody to blame for that but yourself. Hence, if in your thoughts and feelings, you find yourself saying "I would never date a transperson, because they are trans," and then acting in accordance with that, you are transphobic. If however you acknowledge that you have a stereotype in mind when you declare transpeople an unfit category for romantic association, then at least you are making an effort to respect other people, and that's all that anyone can ask of you.

This thread could do with a lot less making elaborate justifications for why it's OK to judge people based on their demographic.

It's pretty funny to see the complete cognitive dissonance of someone advocating thought police in the name of tolerance.
I think we should name an Oceanian ministry about that.

Yes, it does make you androphobic. What other word is there for someone who avoids men because they are men? This is why we have words, you know.

Well, at least you're upfront about your complete ignorance of concept's definitions.
Or you're a mole working on demonstration by absurd.

 

[Ryika]

It is prejudiced to say you would never date a smoker. But you aren't judging them on some wholly irrational thing like being born with the wrong body parts, you're judging them for behavior of theirs which can potentially have serious negative health consequences for you (and them).

The whole idea of a phobia is that it is irrational.

You must using a different version of English than me, because you constantly come up with new definitions that don't make sense. Prejudice itself already has an irrational element, if you judge a person by something that makes sense, as in, if you have a good reason to make a judgement, then that's just that, a value judgement.

"prejudice
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."

It is prejudice. It is a pre-judgement of the person based on some attribute you have stereotyped.

No, this is BS. Prejudice would be if I made a judgement about what kind of person they are based on the fact that I know that they smoke, the judgement I make is an entirely rational, logical one, namely that they have a habit that is a deal breaker. I don't know anything about the person, and I don't pretend to know anything about them other than that I don't consider them a valid partner because of that habit.

 

[Crezth]

You have to explain why being entirely supportive of someone's choices, rights, life etc, and even being happy socialising with them, but just not wanting to sleep with them is "not tolerant". I can't blame others for my thoughts and feelings no, but I can blame them for mischaracterising them as intolerance.

I have mischaracterized nothing. If you would not tolerate a trans romantic partner, you are intolerant. The question you should be asking now is whether or not that's a bad thing, or if you in your own life should strive to be more patient and empathetic with people. There is an unreasonably narrow assumption in this thread that dating automatically translates to full penetration. This could not be further from the truth. There are, in fact, many kinds of dating and many kinds of relationships. So, if a person does not want to date transpeople, that is a personal problem they have related to their intolerance of transpeople.* (It may not be a problem, depending on your perspective, but it is the fact of the matter.)

*Oh, and their personal notion of what it means to date or be dating. A very important addition.

No, this is BS. Prejudice would be if I made a judgement about what kind of person they are based on the fact that I know that they smoke, the judgement I make is an entirely rational, logical one, namely that they have a habit that is a deal breaker. I don't know anything about the person, and I don't pretend to know anything about them other than that I don't consider them a valid partner because of that habit.

Your prejudice may indeed be rational or even logical. There's no need, however, for you to get so emotional and defensive here: my point was only that a prejudice is a pre-judgment about a person, or the quality of a person, which applies here as you are judging people prematurely based on stereotypes. The conclusions you draw from the stereotypes may seem perfectly logical to you, but it is easy to contrive ridiculous outcomes based on flawed premises!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's pretty funny to see the complete cognitive dissonance of someone advocating thought police in the name of tolerance.

Suggesting that policing one's own thoughts is a responsible thing to do is not advocating for thought police.

 

[Ryika]

Your prejudice may indeed be rational or even logical. There's no need, however, for you to get so emotional and defensive here: my point was only that a prejudice is a pre-judgment about a person, or the quality of a person, which applies here as you are judging people prematurely based on stereotypes. The conclusions you draw from the stereotypes may seem perfectly logical to you, but it is easy to contrive ridiculous outcomes based on flawed premises!

I'm not being defensive or emotional, I'm just telling you that the way you're using the word "prejudice" doesn't make sense. I am not judging the quality of a person, I'm not judging them on stereotypes. I'm looking at their habit of smoking, know that I find smoking to be a deal breaker, and therefor don't consider them as a partner, no matter what they are.

It would be prejudice if my point was: "They're a smoker, so they have <character attitude X> that I don't like.", but that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that I find the habit of smoking to be disgusting enough to be a deal breaker.

 

[Crezth]

What is disgust but a feeling, a judgment? Your sophistry is effect-less against me!!

 

[Akka]

Suggesting that policing one's own thoughts is a responsible thing to do is not advocating for thought police.

When it's about policing them in a way that the other person wants, yes it is. It's "change your thoughts so that they are more agreeable to me", which is pretty much textbook thought police definition.
Well, let's not act surprised, that's what half the people in this thread have spent their entire time advocating for, and for the same supposed reason of "tolerance". While defending the exact opposite in other threads, when the tables are turned. It's even been pointed several times.

The cognitive dissonance is hardly new, I just quoted this one because it was especially egregious. Or it was a provocative argument meant to cause exactly that. This thread has become so surreal I'm starting to wonder, and Crezth's arguments are based on such broken definitions that I'm having a hard time not taking them as tongue-in-cheek or false flag.

We are also in full debate about the "logic" and "reasonable arguments" of how someone is attracted to another. Which would make me think that the people's arguing are 10-years old who have never experienced love or attraction (because to start talking all Spock-like about said subjects, you really have no excuse beyond this age), if I hadn't data that contradict it.
It's really surreal.

 

[Ryika]

What is disgust but a feeling, a judgment? Your sophistry is effect-less against me!!

A judgement of the habit of smoking, yes. Do you seriously not understand the difference? That's mind-boggling. oO

 

[Crezth]

A judgement of the habit of smoking, yes. Do you seriously not understand the difference? That's mind-boggling. oO

Habits do not exist in a vacuum, as I previously stated and you diligently ignored.

This thread has become so surreal I'm starting to wonder.

If you don't understand what we're talking about, please stop posting in this thread.

 

[Akka]

If you don't understand what we're talking about, please stop posting in this thread.

Okay, now I'm pretty certain I guessed what you're doing.

 

[Ryika]

Habits do not exist in a vacuum, as I previously stated and you diligently ignored.

No, I do not think like that. Just because a person is a smoker does not mean in my mind that they are somehow a disgusting person.
If that's the way you think... well, fine. Then if you were in my situation, then you would be prejudging a person.

Your argument is basically "Because I cannot separate the habit from the person, you can't either!", which is simply wrong.

 

[Crezth]

I am using words to describe things as they are. That is all I have done. Others are ascribing supernal political motivations to me and I cannot fathom why...

No, I do not think like that. Just because a person is a smoker does not mean in my mind that they are somehow a disgusting person.
If that's the way you think... well, fine. Then if you were in my situation, then you would be prejudging a person.

Your argument is basically "Because I cannot separate the habit from the person, you can't either!", which is simply wrong.

I am willing to accept that you believe you are not judging people, however I must insist this is not the case. A habit, especially one like smoking, is truly inseparable from a person or people because it is defined entirely by the actions of the person or people associated with the habit. If you disliked smoking yourself, that would be one thing, but we are talking about the actions of others, and you are making an excuse for why you should be at liberty to judge them; why you should be allowed to pre-judge them based on the habit which you have already reasoned against.

As far as I can understand, this is the primary motivation for you posting this thread: you want to be told that you are not prejudiced, and that this is ethical and you are a good person. Well, nobody can do that for you. The rationale you have outlined is explicitly transphobic. You would do better to focus your efforts now on reconciling this with your view of morality, rather than believing a good person can't be transphobic, apparently...?