Is not wanting to date trans individuals transphobic?

[Akka]

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"?

If you can point me at a non-bad faith example where I actually was a bigot, it's fine. If you call me bigot because I have an opinion that doesn't please you but don't call a bigot the guy who has the same behaviour but in a way that's fine with you, it's not.

I don't see that playing out well, because for me they are pretty much indistinguishable.

One expresses a fact ("you're X"). The other expresses a perception ("for me, you're X"). That's a pretty fundamental difference. If my mother had neglected me and I hated her (I don't !), I would say "for me, she's not my mother", which would describe my emotional relationship toward her, but it would not change the fact that she gave birth to me.

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.

So "think but don't speak" is okay now ? That's pretty enlightening.
I wonder if you would apply these exacting levels of restrictive expression about what your opinion of Trump is. It's an opinion about someone else after all. Will you be okay to be able to think whatever you want about him but be forbidden to express it ?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think it's a slightly disturbing line in the sand to draw when we start defining any kind of "-phobia" in terms of "not willing to have sex with", because that's really, really not where the line should be drawn.

As an arachnophobe I feel particularly strongly about this*.

(*yes that doesn't really make any sense if you think about it for more than a second, but I wanted to say it)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So "think but don't speak" is okay now ? That's pretty enlightening.
I wonder if you would apply these exacting levels of restrictive expression about what your opinion of Trump is. It's an opinion about someone else after all. Will you be okay to be able to think whatever you want about him but be forbidden to express it ?

Thanks, that's a pretty good example. By and large I express opinions about things Trump does far more than I express opinions about what he is. There are exceptions to that, but in every case when I make such an exception it is, take this to the bank, intended to be insulting and since he isn't likely to hear it I acknowledge that it is pointless.

But in this conversation we aren't talking about name calling a remote public figure, we are talking about participants in a conversation together. Whether I said "Akka, you are a bigot," or "Akka, to me you are a bigot," I would be saying it with every intention of being insulting...and note that I still haven't said either one, and I'm not going to. Your claim though that how you would respond, in either case, would involve demanding "proof" of some sort is beside the point. You would be offended, and my intention would be to offend, and you, I, and everyone else would be fully aware of that.

What everyone has been trying to get across to you is that you are saying something that gives offense, not to a remote public figure but to someone else who is right here in this conversation. No one is telling you not to think it. Mostly I think we are just trying to see how committed you are to this seemingly perverse desire to be offensive.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think it's a slightly disturbing line in the sand to draw when we start defining any kind of "-phobia" in terms of "not willing to have sex with", because that's really, really not where the line should be drawn.

As an arachnophobe I feel particularly strongly about this*.

(*yes that doesn't really make any sense if you think about it for more than a second, but I wanted to say it)

You underestimate yourself...I think that made perfect sense within the context of the point you were trying to make. I am not an arachnophobe, but I can say with certainty that sex with a spider has never even crossed my mind.

 

[Omega124]

I think it's a slightly disturbing line in the sand to draw when we start defining any kind of "-phobia" in terms of "not willing to have sex with", because that's really, really not where the line should be drawn.

As an arachnophobe I feel particularly strongly about this*.

(*yes that doesn't really make any sense if you think about it for more than a second, but I wanted to say it)

Honestly I get you're trying to be funny, but comparing not wanting to have sex with trans people as being equitable to not wanting to have sex with spiders is frankly insulting since, well, we're people. Like, bestiality is ethically dubious at best (and I would say immoral), and certainly also illegal, while sex with trans people is.... not either of those.

It's the same dehumanizing excrement we trans people have to deal with every day.

 

[innonimatu]

So basically :

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.

It seems to me that you are right, and that we witness around the world every day examples of such attitudes backfiring.

I was thinking about a similarly contentious issue, gay marriage. The state recognized it, and civil society had to do it. But it was never demanded of individual people to say "I approve it", not of organized groups (religions) to endorse it. Had that been attempted my guess is that things would have gone violently bad, quickly. Now, some years after that, we do see some religions officiating such marriages. None had to be compelled to do it, and in fact I don't believe any could be compelled.

I do believe it is quite legitimate for you to say publicly what you personally feel or believe on contentious issues. You're not advocating anything violent or illegal. It is also legitimate for other people to complain about it and to explain to you that they believe it somehow harms them. An easy end to the conversation would be to simply agree to disagree. Where this gets dangerous is if people get forcefully silenced, yet keep thinking the same and are resentful over being silenced.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It seems to me that you are right, and that we witness around the world every day examples of such attitudes backfiring.

I was thinking about a similarly contentious issue, gay marriage. The state recognized it, and civil society had to do it. But it was never demanded of individual people to say "I approve it", not of organized groups (religions) to endorse it. Had that been attempted my guess is that things would have gone violently bad, quickly. Now, some years after that, we do see some religions officiating such marriages. None had to be compelled to do it, and in fact I don't believe any could be compelled.

I do believe it is quite legitimate for you to say publicly what you personally feel or believe on contentious issues. You're not advocating anything violent or illegal. It is also legitimate for other people to complain about it and to explain to you that they believe it somehow harms them. An easy end to the conversation would be to simply agree to disagree. Where this gets dangerous is if people get forcefully silenced, yet keep thinking the same and are resentful over being silenced.

The key word, again, is ISSUES. Have your opinions on contentious ISSUES. Speak them, debate them, examine them. But expressing your opinion on someone elses manhood, especially when expressed directly to them, has only one purpose. And since we can't actually just get down and fight in this medium doing something here that can only be for the purpose of starting a fight is just useless.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Honestly I get you're trying to be funny, but comparing not wanting to have sex with trans people as being equitable to not wanting to have sex with spiders is frankly insulting since, well, we're people. Like, bestiality is ethically dubious at best (and I would say immoral), and certainly also illegal, while sex with trans people is.... not either of those.

It's the same dehumanizing excrement we trans people have to deal with every day.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was commenting on the possible overuse of "phobia" rather than any such comparison of trans people and spiders. I once was told I was homophobic by a gay man and responded "no I'm not, you're just such an unpleasant anatomy part that being gay can't save you."

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You underestimate yourself...I think that made perfect sense within the context of the point you were trying to make. I am not an arachnophobe, but I can say with certainty that sex with a spider has never even crossed my mind.

Well I meant the bit about me personally feelings strongly about it didn't make sense because, as an arachnophobe anyway, it wouldn't create any weird implications for me

Honestly I get you're trying to be funny, but comparing not wanting to have sex with trans people as being equitable to not wanting to have sex with spiders is frankly insulting

Well, luckily I wasn't doing that

 

[Ryika]

But in this conversation we aren't talking about name calling a remote public figure, we are talking about participants in a conversation together. Whether I said "Akka, you are a bigot," or "Akka, to me you are a bigot," I would be saying it with every intention of being insulting...and note that I still haven't said either one, and I'm not going to. Your claim though that how you would respond, in either case, would involve demanding "proof" of some sort is beside the point. You would be offended, and my intention would be to offend, and you, I, and everyone else would be fully aware of that.

But neither of these are a representation of the situation in this thread. Akka did not address anybody, he made a general statement that was meant to explain why he would not date trans people, and people responded to that as if he had addressed them.

 

[innonimatu]

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.
...
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.

I think you should be more careful with this kind of argument. You start by invoking "transgender identity" (your own words) to distinguish it from sexual orientation. So far so good. But you end by stating that "there is no reason to make a distinction between trans and ciswomen that isn't based on transphobia".

I don't think anyone defines her own identity as "ciswoman", that is not a thing, women thing of their their gender identity merely as "women". Trans(woman) is a different category you are using, and one that you go as far as defining as an identity, something that sets you apart as a member of a restricted group.

Ok, if you stick to this argument then you can indeed claim that not wanting to date a "transwoman" is "transphobia". But you also must agree that a "transwoman" is different from a "woman" in that it has an identity (transgender identity) that a woman does not have. Is this really what you wish? Doesn't this hamper the demand of, as a transwoman, being treated just a woman would? I mean, what one's partner identifies as is rather important in a choice of partners. We do have many "identities", whether or not a particular one matters, and how it does, is up to the people involved. But it seems reasonable that it can make a difference for some people.
Some thinks are just facts of life, and one is better of accepting them and moving on taking them into consideration, that fighting reality. Perhaps there are "transphobic" people in the sense that they wouldn't engage with one. So what?

An interesting question that arises from this is: if ever sexual reassignment surgery could 100% change someone's body (let's ignore DNA, it's not really relevant), would it continue to make sense to talk of "transgender identity"?

 

[Evie]

More accurately, innonimatu, transwomen refers to a subset of women. All transwomen are women ; not all women are transwomen. Ciswomen is a shorthand for "women who are not part of the transwomen subgroup".

And yes, even if fully body alteration down to the genetic level was possible, it would still be a specific subset who share a unique experience (=having to live part of their lives in the wrong body and, generally speaking, in the wrong social identity), and thus transgendered identity would still exist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But neither of these are a representation of the situation in this thread. Akka did not address anybody, he made a general statement that was meant to explain why he would not date trans people, and people responded to that as if he had addressed them.

"To me, you're still a man" seems like a pretty direct statement at people who are here participating in the thread...one of whom I believe he was quoting in the post in question, making it appear even more as if it were a directed statement. He was given ample opportunity to acknowledge that the exact wording is routinely used to mean something other than what you think he meant, so perhaps such wording was not a good choice, but has not.

 

[innonimatu]

And yes, even if fully body alteration down to the genetic level was possible, it would still be a specific subset who share a unique experience (=having to live part of their lives in the wrong body and, generally speaking, in the wrong social identity), and thus transgendered identity would still exist.

It also seems to me that would be the case, but I wanted a better opinion.

I do not agree with transwoman referring to a subset of women, in the way the concept was used in the comment I was replying to. It seemed to refer to a mental identity that was unique, at least according to the way it was being expressed. Hence my commentary.

I do think that would be better to say that woman and trans are different "identities", and one can be both. But it's not an issue on which I am personally invested.

 

[Ryika]

"To me, you're still a man" seems like a pretty direct statement at people who are here participating in the thread...

Yeah, but that's not the statement he made. What he actually wrote was:

I am disgusted by the idea of dating a man. Not because I'm a misandrist or homophobic, simply because I'm straight and I'm born like that - physical intimacy with a man disgust me. Woah, breaking news, people are entitled (and have no choice anyway) about their sexuality !
I am disgusted by the idea of dating a trans. Not because I wish ill on the person, not even due to reasoning (about children or something), simply because to my mind it's still a man somewhere.

Oda Nobunaga then turned it into "To me you're still a man" when she responded.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oda Nobunaga then turned it into "To me you're still a man" when she responded.

And no one appears to be surprised that she took it that way. Because it is no surprise that she did. If for no other reason than I'm quite sure being referred to as "it" is pretty much a universal source of offense.

 

[Evie]

The idea that we should differentiate between "Members of group X have quality Y" and "You are Y" where "you" is member of group X is one of the most beautifully risible piece of hypocritixal sophistry the internet has produced.

"All X are Y" can and should be read by members of group X as "you are Y". Because it literally does say that.

Opinions do not become harmless or innocent just because you don't name names.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There are many, many threads on here which would go even worse than they do anyway if people were so ready to take, say, "white men" so personally. If someone's making a general point about a certain demographic, then it doesn't magically become a personal, targeted attack just because you fall into that demographic. I mean yes, it applies to you and it makes sense to react as such, but a genuine personal attack is more than just something that happens to apply to you. That's not sophistry, it's a legitimate distinction.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oda, that was really so much better said than I was about to say it, which involved an anecdote of trying to pick a fight in a bar with some French navy guys by using an ethnic slur I learned from my dad, but claiming said slur should not be taken as offense to present company like Akka just because he also is French.

I would defend myself by pointing out that I have already admitted to using such things with exactly that intent, and that it is absolutely true that I wouldn't say such a thing to Akka, here or in person because I really do have no desire to insult him or start a fight.

Manfred, I have to say that even with my long and unpleasant history I have never tried to start a fight by saying "You WHITE MAN!!!"

 

[civver_764]

If I think I'm a dog, are you denying my right to exist if you don't acknowledge that I'm a dog? Where do we draw the line?