Is not wanting to date trans individuals transphobic?

[Ryika]

Really? You think there is some good reason to tell someone "All that you've gone through isn't enough for me. To me, you're still a man." other than hate, or spite, or some other nastiness? What do you offer as an alternate motive, counselor? I'm certainly open to find reasonable doubt, but as of now I don't have any believable alternate theory.

Saying it like that would not be very nice, but no, I don't think it would be hate speech.

Of course, the more polite variant would be something like: "Sorry, I just can't get over that you were born as a man/woman. This is a deal breaker for me."

That would most certainly not be hate speech in my book.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not going to go quite that far, only because I think this is an area where people, especially people my age and older, have been quite explicitly conditioned to view trans people as deviant, not deserving of love and affection, certainly not deserving of feelings of intimacy and attraction. That's a lot to overcome. What a decent person can do is set that aside and recognize the error in their thinking, even if deep down they'll never quite change their way of thinking. I mean, the only thing we ever had to counter that conditioning was The Crying Game.

I guess that's fair. I mean, I've made a lot of progress on this issue myself just in the last year or two, so I'm not trying to be harshly judgmental here. But I will note that when I expressed a position close to what some folks in this thread have been arguing, and was told it was problematic by trans people, my response wasn't to argue with them, it was oh okay this is something I need to work on. Which is what we were discussing above.

They just said "no, thanks" and went their way. In my opinion their ability to be responsible for keeping their thoughts rather than braying their prejudgement makes them not likely to be transphobic, or contribute to the uncomfortable cultural climate.

Thing is, though, the scenario here is generally going to be one where the deal was going to be sealed but then one way or another "I'm trans" came into it, and suddenly our hypothetical guy is no longer down. I don't really see any way for this to pan out in such a way that it isn't obvious.

I'm judging you. I thought that seemed to be the purpose of this thread, honestly. To share our judgements on each other's morality. More specific since you want - I'm calling your line of thinking barbaric, uncivilized, animalistic. It's <snipped>.

This is most unproductive. And I'm not sure whether you're rejecting out of hand the notion of collective social responsibility or whether you just want to carve out an exception such that your views and actions don't contribute to any larger problems.

It's not. What they should called is a butthole.

Let's apply this to race: "I don't date black people." Well okay, I'm not going to force you to have sex with a black person without your consent, but I am going to say that your practice of not dating black people is racist, because it is.

 

[civver_764]

Perhaps in terms of pure logic, yes, but I find it generally unlikely that a person who "finds trans people unattractive" for no other reason than that they're trans is also going to advocate for trans equality.

What is "trans equality" exactly?

 

[Farm Boy]

And you calling it racist is out of line. It's poisonous to toss people who have prejudices in the very last bastion of the appropriate place to have a prejudice for any or no reason at all in with the Klan. Nobody has a right, implied or explicit, to my interest in romantic/sexual activity. Savagery.

 

[Akka]

It's not just poisonous, it's simply completely debasing the very meaning of the term, making it an empty shell to be tossed at anyone for any pretext.
On the other hand, it's the guy who redefines racism as not applicable to white people, so we should not be surprised that his definitions is out of whack and means more or less nothing.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

Why are you equating willingness to have someone as a romantic partner with being patient and empathetic with them (not to mention equating it with "tolerant" of course)? Given that I don't see that link, I of course consider it to be a mischaracterisation.

 

[Lexicus]

And you calling it racist is out of line.

No, it isn't. And I'm not going to budge on that so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

It's poisonous to toss people who have prejudices in the very last bastion of the appropriate place to have a prejudice for any or no reason at all in with the Klan.

Funny, because I originally had typed that I would call those people racist, and changed it to the practice precisely to forestall this sort of objection. Calling something someone does racist is not the same as tossing them in with the Klan. If they identify with the racist thing so heavily as to be unable to distinguish between themselves and it, I would suggest that is their problem, not mine.

I also think that more generally we may be operating on different wavelengths as far as the significance of calling something racist. My view is that virtually every aspect of US culture is suffused with racism, so calling some practice, opinion, action, etc. racist is not such a big deal. Perhaps you see things differently, such that an accusation of racism is a bigger deal to you.

Ditto, by the way, for the gender binary stuff that's relevant to this thread. Toxic gender ideology is rampant in the US and elsewhere.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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 unreasonable to insist that it must do (or very likely does) by default, in the absence of anything that would indicate that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah, so my preferences are ...

No, and no one said they should be. Just like my internal dialog that says "arrogant frog" every time you say something like this is just a matter of my childhood conditioning. But generally speaking I keep that conditioning to myself, because I really have no desire to be wildly offensive to millions of people most of whom I don't even know and many of whom, including you, I actually like, respect, or both. No one is asking you to swallow your preferences and take actions you don't want to take. All that is being suggested is that you take some responsibility about how you express your preferences to others, particularly the others who are adversely affected by people of similar preferences who act with reckless abandon on those preferences.

Thing is, though, the scenario here is generally going to be one where the deal was going to be sealed but then one way or another "I'm trans" came into it, and suddenly our hypothetical guy is no longer down. I don't really see any way for this to pan out in such a way that it isn't obvious.

Challenging, for sure. I'd say the key element is acknowledging that this sudden turn of affairs is your problem, and keeping that front and center as a filter for everything that you say. It's similar to the same tightrope I walk when a friend invites me to join them in their drug of choice. I don't partake, but I am not compelled to say "you effing junkie get out of my life" either.

 

[Farm Boy]

No, it isn't. And I'm not going to budge on that so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Nah, that thought doesn't rate that even that meager level of respect.

 

[Lexicus]

I'd say the key element is acknowledging that this sudden turn of affairs is your problem, and keeping that front and center as a filter for everything that you say. It's similar to the same tightrope I walk when a friend invites me to join them in their drug of choice. I don't partake, but I am not compelled to say "you effing junkie get out of my life" either.

Again, I guess that's fair.

Nah, that thought doesn't rate that even that meager level of respect.

I see you've completely ignored the meat of that post. Quite beneath you.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's rotten. Fit only to be spit on and tossed out to rot into something useful. Time fixes most things into something better. Just have to wait long enough.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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?

As I already explained, this isn't a "strawman". Higher assault and murder rates for trans people have been brought up and have been linked to transphobia. Which, let's be honest, they more than likely are, which is why expanding the scope of the word "transphobic" is such a bad thing to do because it is then literally equating "not wanting to date" with "wanting to murder". No straw to be seen here.

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.

So... it might not be a big deal, but if people tell you it is and you defend yourself too much... it becomes a big deal?

 

[Lexicus]

It's rotten. Fit only to be spit on and tossed out to rot into something useful.

I think it says just about everything that needs saying that you believe someone's refusal to date black people is worth defending but calling that refusal racist is beyond the pale.

 

[Akka]

No, and no one said they should be. Just like my internal dialog that says "arrogant frog" every time you say something like this is just a matter of my childhood conditioning. But generally speaking I keep that conditioning to myself, because I really have no desire to be wildly offensive to millions of people most of whom I don't even know and many of whom, including you, I actually like, respect, or both. No one is asking you to swallow your preferences and take actions you don't want to take. All that is being suggested is that you take some responsibility about how you express your preferences to others, particularly the others who are adversely affected by people of similar preferences who act with reckless abandon on those preferences.

No. If it was only about "don't be a jerk", everybody would agree and the thread would be dead in two pages. Nobody has supported the idea of insulting a transperson.

What is actually argued about, is a group of people who say that "if you aren't attracted to a trans because they're a trans, you're transphobic/bigot", and the other who say "no, it's just that it's outside my preferences, and I can totally feel negative attraction on a sexual point of view toward someone without considering them a lesser being". That's it. It's litterally 21 pages of that.
And it means that YES, there is a bunch of people who consider that the preferences of others are up to moral judgement. Which is on par with the most authoritarian governments in history, that they claim to hate, BTW.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As I already explained, this isn't a "strawman". Higher assault and murder rates for trans people have been brought up and have been linked to transphobia. Which, let's be honest, they more than likely are, which is why expanding the scope of the word "transphobic" is such a bad thing to do because it is then literally equating "not wanting to date" with "wanting to murder". No straw to be seen here.

I think what really set things off wasn't the "not wanting to date." I think it was that some people felt it necessary to add "because to me you are still a man and that makes me want to puke" and when it was pointed out that they sounded like they were saying the same sort of things that someone who may very well consider killing or otherwise oppressing a trans person to be "just desserts" they scoffed and tried to bluster out of it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No. If it was only about "don't be a jerk", everybody would agree and the thread would be dead in two pages. Nobody has supported the idea of insulting a transperson.

So why didn't you? You were told "don't be a jerk" and rather than agree and let this thing die in two pages you just keep on being a jerk. I mean, I've had fun, but if the endless looping of the thread was really going to bother you the solution was pretty obvious.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think it says just about everything that needs saying that you believe someone's refusal to date black people is worth defending but calling that refusal racist is beyond the pale.

No son, I'm saying that requiring a defense for a refusal to date is subhuman level thinking. We aren't even on the same level. I reject the premises required to even get to where you're starting as beneath contempt.

It is worse to attach the vernacular of literally murderous social struggle to it.

 

[Lexicus]

No son, I'm saying that requiring a defense for a refusal to date is subhuman level thinking. We aren't even on the same level. I reject the premises required to even get to where you're starting as beneath contempt.

Yes, and I find this...absurd...but whatever floats your boat I guess? I don't think you want to argue because you know you have no argument. "I don't date black people" is patently racist. "I don't date trans people" is similarly transphobic.

The goal would then be to get that person to examine their own problematic beliefs that lead to these sorts of rules. What you are saying is that such an endeavor is not even worth undertaking because, apparently, people's dating preferences are forbidden from questioning under any circumstances!

Well, that's how you end up with a stagnant swamp when you want a swift-flowing stream.

 

[Akka]

So why didn't you? You were told "don't be a jerk" and rather than agree and let this thing die in two pages you just keep on being a jerk. I mean, I've had fun, but if the endless looping of the thread was really going to bother you the solution was pretty obvious.

Because the "don't be a jerk" used in the thread was "if you aren't attracted to a trans because they're a trans, you're transphobic/bigot". So not at all "don't be a jerk".
It's true that there is endless looping, I seem to remember we already had an exchange that was near-exactly identical

I should really start the habit to prepare a serie of bullet arguments in such thread, so I can copy-paste them. It's true that it feels like repeating the same thing to a bunch of people with their fingers in their ears who repeat the same questions while actively avoiding the answers, and copy-pasting them would be more economical than bothering to rewrite the same arguments again and again while they are systematically ignored/twisted