Is not wanting to date trans individuals transphobic?

[Timsup2nothin]

It's hard to say unless it actually happens to me. But it probably would bother me because they are hiding something pretty big. You said dating, which implies at least a time span of several weeks. I'm not expecting to know everything about my partner, but a life changing event should be on that list of what I do know about my partner. I knew these things about my past gf (it wasn't like she said she was never married and didn't have kids). And yes, the possibility of having children is important to me.

And while I can't say this for sure, I'm reasonably sure the personality of someone who was female their whole life is different than one who changed to female later in life. Experiences as a kid are important, and do shape your personality. Even negative experiences.

Well, they aren't hiding it, else you wouldn't know. There is certainly room for a difference of opinion on when the "right time" to bring it up. Your gf probably wrestled a bit with exactly when to mention exes and kids. I'm glad for both of you that her choice on that worked out.

 

[Ryika]

That's a question with no right answer anyway, some people will find it's a deal breaker that the person didn't tell them immediately and for them that might be a reason to break up, and other people will be thankful that the person didn't tell them immediately and instead did their best to find a good situation for it, because they might have ended the relationship before it even started, without even giving the person they have come to love a chance.

 

[Omega124]

Yes, for reasons I have extensively covered in contre and mine's Ask A thread, located conveniently in my signature.*

Like, I'm not going to die on a hill to force people to date me if they're squicked by the fact that I'm trans (hell, that probably would actually save me time to find out my prospective partner is just a hole of a particular animal), but, I think traitorfish said it best on the first page (emphasis mine).

I'm prepared to believe that some people find all black women unnattractive. I'm just not prepared to believe this is a judgement disconnected from their attitude towards black people in general.

I mean, own your towering personal defects, y'know?

Like, again, no reasonable is going to force people to date someone you don't like. No one is insinuating that you're obligated to say yes to a trans person. But if you say no because they are trans, that is literal transphobia.

*Totally didn't make this post to plug that thread, not at all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You must have read some pretty different posts than me, because it's very clear that someone wants me to change my opinion into their.
And funnily, as pointed several times, it's eerily close to the actual homophobic arguments : "well, like men if you want, but don't say it and don't express it" (of course with the obvious difference that there isn't any of the stigma or hardship about being homosexual, but the principle of wanting to enforce an opinion about sexual preferences is a carbon copy).

No Akka, it really isn't. Oda hasn't tried to tell you that you have to date trans people, or even accept their existence. What she has said is that you don't get to say that she is a man. The actual parallel is that you insist that I don't get to say you are a bigot, which I consider quite reasonable of you so I don't. When the subject of one's opinion is, in fact, someone else, I think it is reasonable to put some limitations on their freedom to express their opinion that I wouldn't put on their opinion regarding, say, the weather.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

It's not like anyone here has mooted or even hinted at the idea of policing attraction, right?

 

[Akka]

No Akka, it really isn't. Oda hasn't tried to tell you that you have to date trans people, or even accept their existence. What she has said is that you don't get to say that she is a man.

Wrong. What was asked to me is to change how I perceive Oda and that I have no right to have a different perception. So, basically, thought police and "think what I tell you to think, you have no right to have your own thoughts". That's the sticking point.

And actually, in fact, I didn't say "you are a man", I said "for me, you're still a man". I know it's not pleasing, but that's how it is in my mind. It's not even a decision, it's just how I perceive things - asking me to say something else is just telling me "I don't care about your perception, either shut up or obey". Which is a rather funny argument to see the self-proclaimed most liberal posters fall in line behind to defend

When the subject of one's opinion is, in fact, someone else, I think it is reasonable to put some limitations on their freedom to express their opinion that I wouldn't put on their opinion regarding, say, the weather.

I'm going to go back to the ugly/beautiful girl example (because, and I doubt it's coincidental, nobody has countered it yet) : she can think herself beautiful (or ugly). I can think she is ugly (or beautiful). She doesn't get to tell me how I find her, it's up to me and nobody can change that (not even myself actually, unless you find a way to decide who you find pretty and who you don't). And people can call me an animal hole because my own perception of her beauty is different than hers, but that's just showing their own unability to deal with people having different opinions, not my supposed bigotry.

You can say "I consider myself [X]", but you can't (and shouldn't) control how others perceive you. What you can ask is respect - and you can't redefine "respect" as being "think the way I tell you to", that doesn't work like that.

Like, again, no reasonable is going to force people to date someone you don't like. No one is insinuating that you're obligated to say yes to a trans person. But if you say no because they are trans, that is literal transphobia.

Second post of the thread :

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

Unless you can counter this, your argument is bogus.

 

[Evie]

"I'm not attracted to men" is a preference regarding men, not a preference regarding gays. So no, it's not actualy a parallel for "I'm not attracted to transgendered people" toward transgendered people.

 

[emzie]

Akka, perhaps your point might be better stated as, "I'm not attracted to masculine features" -- last photo I posted in members photo thread, you can see my adam's apple. That's an understandable aversion.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: When someone says that you are being a jerk, the polite thing would be to not carry on being a jerk.

When multiple people say that you're being a jerk, your claiming that you have the right to that opinion, whatever it might be, whilst absolutely correct, does not mitigate your being a jerk.

CFC's prime directive is not to be a jerk. This is the final warning on that subject.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Akka]

"I'm not attracted to men" is a preference regarding men, not a preference regarding gays.

It might be androphobia (it probably is not) ; it certainly cannot be homophobia.

True. But as you say, it's still not androphobia. It's just "I'm not attracted to men". It's the exact same thing here - if someone who find disgusting the idea of intimacy with a man isn't an androphobe, why would someone who find disgusting the idea of intimacy with a transperson be a transphobe ?

Akka, perhaps your point might be better stated as, "I'm not attracted to masculine features" -- last photo I posted in members photo thread, you can see my adam's apple. That's an understandable aversion.

Yes, but the thing is, it's not only about the masculine features. I mean, obviously I tend to dislike masculinity in girls, but that's about the part of attractiveness which is based on physical appearance. What makes a transperson unattractive to me is not the appearance, it's the, in spite of a better word, "essence". A bit like my sister or a very girly-looking man : it's not about what the person looks like, it's about what I perceive the person to be (a family member or a man, for these instances ; in fact the incest example has already been used in this thread to try to convey the idea).
And before someone jump on saying "if it's the fact of being trans which makes them unattractive to you, then it IS transphobia !!!", please read the answer to Oda right above, tyvm.

Yes it sucks for a transperson who wants to be recognized as a different gender, and though I'm not sorry about having my own perception, I can be sorry for the pain my perception cause. The lack of justice of it all still has absolutely no influence on how I perceive things (to re-use the several-used previous example, it's also completely unjust for a girl to be born butt-ugly, I can still feel for her pain of being rejected because she looks ugly, in the end I'm still not attracted to her because of said ugliness).

So yeah, life sometimes sucks, and I'm happy for transpersons who find someone who like them and don't care about the trans part, but I'm not one of these.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wrong. What was asked to me is to change how I perceive Oda and that I have no right to have a different perception. So, basically, thought police and "think what I tell you to think, you have no right to have your own thoughts". That's the sticking point.

I said absolutely nothing about what you think, or are allowed to think. I specifically addressed what you are saying.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Altering your body by surgical procedure so you better fit your mental image of what you should look like is hardly a novel thought.

Sure, but in this case you are screwing with a whole, sensitive and in one way or another important organ. And I say "screwing" because it is a very invasive procedure, replacing natural functional organs with an artificial tissue-construct, which can lead to all kinds of problems, as I understand. Okay so people feel they really should have a vagina. And not having one causes them distress. But is that truly a sort of physical response? Like the brain "rejecting" a body part? Or is that distress perhaps a "mere" outgrowth of the general mental struggle to redefine oneself? If the latter, it just seems a bit like a denial-strategy to me. They got a male body. That is just how it is. No OP will change that. And as that is so, I think a stable and healthy trans identity needs to come with the acceptance of this basic fact. If you can accept that, why do you need to operate so invasively on it? What is the gain, beyond being more easier able to tell yourself that you do not have a male body? With hormones and other surgical procedures, the gain is clear. People will more easily accept you as a woman. But your junk is usually tugged away.
Maybe I just don't understand the distress that is going on and it is arrogant of me to judge and advice like that from the distance. But that is just the POV that makes most sense to me.

I'll also note that denying who I am ("To me you're still a man) is not stating a preference. It's denying the very basis of what a transgendered person *is*. That, I have no hesitation in labeling intolerance, and (since, like homophobia, transphobia is used to cover not only fear but hostility and intolerance toward) transphobia.

I am perfectly fine with accepting that you understand yourself as a woman and believe you absolutely deserve the courtesy of having that understanding respected.
However, biologically, your are still a man, and I don't think you can fault people for seeing you as the biological gender you are, especially when it comes to sex and romance.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sure, but in this case you are screwing with a whole, sensitive and in one way or another important organ. And I say "screwing" because it is a very invasive procedure, replacing natural functional organs with an artificial tissue-construct, which can lead to all kinds of problems, as I understand. Okay so people feel they really should have a vagina. And not having one causes them distress. But is that truly a sort of physical response? Like the brain "rejecting" a body part? Or is that distress perhaps a "mere" outgrowth of the general mental struggle to redefine oneself? If the latter, it just seems a bit like a denial-strategy to me. They got a male body. That is just how it is. No OP will change that. And as that is so, I think a stable and healthy trans identity needs to come with the acceptance of this basic fact. If you can accept that, why do you need to operate on it? What is the gain, beyond being more easier able to tell yourself that you do not have a male body?
Maybe I just don't understand the distress that is going on and it is arrogant of me to judge and advice like that from the distance. But that is just the POV that makes most sense to me.

I am perfectly fine with accepting that you understand yourself as a woman and believe you absolutely deserve the courtesy of having that understanding respected.
However, biologically, your are still a man, and I don't think you can fault people for seeing you as the biological gender you are, especially when it comes to sex and romance.

Consider that while your genitals may seem to be extremely important, people routinely have cosmetic surgery on their nose, and that complications from such surgery, though rare, can adversely affect your ability to breathe. Kinda puts things in a different perspective.

 

[Senethro]

It definitely makes more sense to modify the body to suit the brain than vice versa.

 

[Omega124]

Unless you can counter this, your argument is bogus.

You're looking at it from the wrong angle. Transgender identity has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Nobody is transexual (as in literally exclusively sexually attracted to trans people of any stripe, mtf and ftm and everything in between) or cissexual. Trans has to do with the indiviual in question. I'm a woman who happens to be trans. The woman part is the one that's important, not the trans.

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 will admit the technology isn't quite there for FTM SRS, but at the rate research on sexual reassignment surgery is going, I wouldn't be surprised if we got working artificial penises within our lifetime, complete with the ability to ejaculate in some fashion (even if its not literal sperm). Once that point is reached, my thoughts on transmen would be the same as on transwomen. However, until then, I can understand being uneasy with commiting to a relationship with a transperson who has not undergone SRS and has no intention to (like most transmen, since its really not worth it to them). I myself can readily admit that genitals are super important in sex, and sex is important to relationships, and I can't reasonably expect someone to be happy when their partner has the wrong parts.

But when the partner does have the right parts, which is the case for post-op transwomen, then yes, you can not reasonably make a distinction between trans and ciswomen that isn't based on transphobia.

 

[Akka]

I said absolutely nothing about what you think, or are allowed to think. I specifically addressed what you are saying.

So basically :

"I don't care about your perception, either shut up or obey". Which is a rather funny argument to see the self-proclaimed most liberal posters fall in line behind to defend

I'm sure to remember it next time there is a debate about authoritarian right-wingers (who I don't support BTW, but I find hypocrital to see people blaming them for a behaviour while exhibiting the exact same one when it's about their opinion).
But it seems moderation enforces said thought police, so I guess I have nothing else to say, answering the question in the title is "being a jerk" if it doesn't go in The Approved Way.

At least this thread was enlightening about who is actually open-minded and who is just partisan.

Moderator Action: PDMA is not permitted, at all, for any reason. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Evie]

Lots of the procedures I outlined involve important organs, like Tim point out.

Importance of the organ is also fairly relative. To me, the organ in question is mostly what I use to pee. Fairly important, yes, but as my ability to do that is unlikely to be affected by the surgery...
Fathering children is not my thing, and in any event hormones are going to make that a non-option long before any operation. Neither is having sex as a male. At that point, the importance of my dangly bits diminishes rather drastically.

So when you say "a rather important part"...well, yes, but not as important (as Tim point out) as noses. Probably not significantly more important than breasts for women. Or ears, for that matter. And yet cosmetic surgeries around those are everyday things.

I get that from a social perspective, we're talking about "unmanning" someone. But for those of us who weren't men to being with, being "unmanned" is a neutral to desirable thing. Not a bad one.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And actually, in fact, I didn't say "you are a man", I said "for me, you're still a man".

Are you going to contend that while you demand that I not call you a bigot...a demand that I respect and accept...it would be just fine if I said "for me, you're a bigot"? I don't see that playing out well, because for me they are pretty much indistinguishable. In either case it is an expression of your opinion, which is normally a fine thing to do, but in this case it is an opinion about someone else. Since it is about someone else they have to be given consideration before I will defend your right to expression.

EDIT: in case it isn't clear, you are still free to think whatever you want.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Lots of the procedures I outlined involve important organs, like Tim point out.

Importance of the organ is also fairly relative. To me, the organ in question is mostly what I use to pee. Fairly important, yes, but as my ability to do that is unlikely to be affected by the surgery...
Fathering children is not my thing, and in any event hormones are going to make that a non-option long before any operation. Neither is having sex as a male. At that point, the importance of my dangly bits diminishes rather drastically.

So when you say "a rather important part"...well, yes, but not as important (as Tim point out) as noses. Probably not significantly more important than breasts for women. Or ears, for that matter. And yet cosmetic surgeries around those are everyday things.

I get that from a social perspective, we're talking about "unmanning" someone. But for those of us who weren't men to being with, being "unmanned" is a neutral to desirable thing. Not a bad one.

Okay I get it. It is just is not a big deal, so not in need of a great deal of justification. Alright, I can understand that.

 

[Evie]

Honestly, at this point, the operation is still up in the air for me - hormones is where my focus is. For the rest, I'll see later.