Is not wanting to date trans individuals transphobic?

[metalhead]

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?

People aren't always conscious of how they treat other people. If a person is irrationally turned off physically by a trans person, it isn't unreasonable to think that may inform their attitude towards trans people in general. That this doesn't apply to you is good. But I wouldn't broadly assume this doesn't apply to anyone, because it seems unlikely to me that societal attitudes towards certain groups aren't impacted by a widely held presumption that said group collectively aren't worth dating. So there is value in calling out this irrational distaste for what it is.

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.

A deal breaker for what? For any social interaction? For getting a cup of coffee with? A drink? Dinner? A shag? Marriage?

You have to understand, when you say, "I would never date X," that potentially covers an awfully wide range of social interactions. It could just be casually doing something alone with the person every once in a while. I certainly understand not wanting to spend time around someone who is going to smoke around you, but you can actually date someone for a long time and never be subjected to cigarette smoke. So are you sure you're really not prejudging their character?

 

[civver_764]

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

When you call certain thoughts "hateful" that is exactly what you're doing. We all know that it's just another step towards it being considered "hate speech" and then outlawed altogether. It's pretty clear what the agenda here is.

 

[Lexicus]

People aren't always conscious of how they treat other people. If a person is irrationally turned off physically by a trans person, it isn't unreasonable to think that may inform their attitude towards trans people in general.

It's something to notice and work against, not something to pathetically attempt to justify with increasingly absurd ad hoc rationalizations.

 

[Ryika]

A deal breaker for what? For any social interaction? For getting a cup of coffee with? A drink? Dinner? A shag? Marriage?

You have to understand, when you say, "I would never date X," that potentially covers an awfully wide range of social interactions. It could just be casually doing something alone with the person every once in a while. I certainly understand not wanting to spend time around someone who is going to smoke around you, but you can actually date someone for a long time and never be subjected to cigarette smoke. So are you sure you're really not prejudging their character?

Now you're just trying to force things to become ridiculous.

It's a deal breaker for any interaction that I wouldn't be willing to take part in with any other other person that I don't want to enter a relationship with. "Hey, want to have a romantic dinner?" would be an obvious one, "Hey want to go have a drink tonight?" would not be. Although, if having a drink entails sitting in a room where tons of people are smoking, it might still be a deal breaker, but as you might have realized, that's still not a judgement on their character.

 

[metalhead]

Exactly. It's annoying how simple people can be.

"You just want to police my thoughts!"

No, I'd wager all people have terrible, unkind thoughts from time to time. No way to stop it and I wouldn't want to anyways. But you don't have to be a dick because of them.

 

[civver_764]

Also for the record I think it's obvious that "date" in this context means "have sex with".

 

[Lexicus]

Once they accuse you of that it's a tacit admission that their opinion/thoughts is/are indefensible and so, to paraphrase Troy Barnes, they're making a lame attempt to try and pass the hot seat to you.

 

[metalhead]

Now you're just trying to force things to become ridiculous.

It's a deal breaker for any interaction that I wouldn't be willing to take part in with any other other person that I don't want to enter a relationship with. "Hey, want to have a romantic dinner?" would be an obvious one, "Hey want to go have a drink tonight?" would not be. Although, if having a drink entails sitting in a room where tons of people are smoking, it might still be a deal breaker, but as you might have realized, that's still not a judgement on their character.

What if they don't smoke around you? And don't take you places where people are smoking? What if they recently quit?

Why do you chafe so much at simple questions? It's hardly as simple as "That person smokes, I would never date them." The reason it matters is because there are a lot of different permutations of "date" and "smoker." If you aren't even going to account for that, then perhaps you are judging a person's character.

 

[Crezth]

When you call certain thoughts "hateful" that is exactly what you're doing. We all know that it's just another step towards it being considered "hate speech" and then outlawed altogether. It's pretty clear what the agenda here is.

I have not called anything hateful. Is it possible you're tilting at windmills?

 

[civver_764]

I have not called anything hateful. Is it possible you're tilting at windmills?

I'm not going to name names but certain people in this thread have. I also meant "you" in the general sense, and it wasn't even you to whom I was replying. So I'm not sure why you thought that was about you specifically.

Calling something "insulting" or "transphobic" will lead to it being called "hateful" which lead it to being called "hate speech" which will lead to it being illegal. There are already campaigns for this. When you (the general you) say that something is "denying the right to exist" there is a clear agenda behind that.

 

[Crezth]

I'm not going to name names but certain people in this thread have. I also meant "you" in the general sense, and it wasn't even you to whom I was replying. So I'm not sure why you thought that was about you specifically.

Because you replied to a post replying to my posts and talking about the tone of the discussion I was carrying on. So if you aren't willing to stand toe to toe with me, cut it out with the trolling.

Calling something "insulting" or "transphobic" will lead to it being called "hateful" which lead it to being called "hate speech" which will lead to it being illegal. There are already campaigns for this. When you say that something is "denying the right to exist" there is a clear agenda behind that.

This is off-topic and frankly manic speculation. Take it somewhere else.

 

[metalhead]

This is America. Hate speech ain't illegal here and never will be.

 

[civver_764]

The only time something is called "hate speech" is when somebody is trying to censor it.

 

[Ryika]

What if they don't smoke around you? And don't take you places where people are smoking?

Then all the better for friendships, etc. Dating? No thanks.

What if they recently quit?

Then they're not a smoker.

Assuming they're not constantly talking about it, or feel like they're going to go back to smoking any minute, I would consider them a dating option just like anybody else. (And no, that's not a parallel to a transgender person)

 

[Crezth]

By "transgender person," do you mean "people who identify as transgender?" Because that could feasibly change the entire demographic you're excluding. On a technicality. Do you see how silly that is?

Also, how do you know? Could you accidentally even fall in love with someone before you learned about their unfortunate preexisting condition? If so, then what in hell do you mean by "date?"

It's clear disgust is the primary motivating feeling here, but it's also important that you understand that this disgust is a feeling and a judgment formed based on what you assume transgender people are like. That's not fair. I'm not saying you need to go bang 10 trannies right now in order to be a decent person, but at least be honest that you could break someone's heart by telling them "Oh sorry I don't date trannies" after you already won their heart with a few dates.

Empathy goes a lot further than an on/off switch or a yes/no answer to the dating question. As a matter of fact, personally, I don't understand why anyone would bother making a sweeping statement about the kind of people they date, unless they were trying to chum the water for a deliberate catch, or if it was a principle that was important to them. In the latter case I find it awfully hard to accept benign motivations.

 

[Akka]

Yes. Hence the relevance of the "finding out out she's your sister" example. Which also doesn't imply that you support the removal of rights and murder of your siblings. The whole point of that example isn't to deflect of avoid anything, it's to ask you why you don't apply the same standards in that situation.

Amusingly, I notice that answering the part in bold has been carefully avoided so far

(well, it's been avoided since the beginning of thread, so not really a surprise, but I notice it's been quoted and the answer has been focused to nitpick on the non-bolded part, purposedly avoiding the actual central point)

 

[metalhead]

I answered it above. The short answer is, copulating with a family member has potentially very negative practical consequences, so specifically having an aversion to it and ceasing attraction to a sibling makes logical sense. No such consequence, no such logical reason for avoiding a trans person, and in fact a trans person offers no chance of reproduction at all. Fewer potential negative consequences than even sleeping with a cis person. But go ahead and keep believing the situations are equivalent if it makes you feel better.

And the strawman of "transphobic = supports murdering trans people" is asinine. Nobody is arguing that, but who am I to interrupt a strawman circle jerk?

 

[danjuno]

So, Crezth, in the scenario you originally posed, is the girl planning to have SRS in the near future/as soon as she can? If so, does she expect me to have intimate relations before the surgery?

 

[Lexicus]

And the strawman of "transphobic = supports murdering trans people" is asinine.

I mean...being transphobic is indirectly supporting the murder of trans people imo...

 

[metalhead]

Indirectly and perhaps unwittingly, sure. But that's exactly why awareness is so important. One can both find trans people unattractive and still advocate for trans equality. One's personal distate need not be problematic. Of course, if one is also trying to offer all manner of justifications for how their transphobic attitude is really no big deal, that may be a different beast altogether.

Social and cultural conditioning is extremely powerful and difficult to overcome completely. But the two, while certainly related, are not tautologically so. It's fair to give the benefit of the doubt, though it's badly flagging in a few cases.