Is not wanting to date trans individuals transphobic?

[Manfred Belheim]

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!!!"

That's not my point at all. Who even said anything about trying to start a fight (other than yourself, in that post you just added after I said that)?

 

[Ryika]

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.

No, it's not surprising that she did, but I do think it's unreasonable.

I mean, let's make another example:

"I wouldn't want to date an MRA, because in my mind MRAs are bigots."
-> That doesn't actually mean that you think all MRAs are bigots, that just means that you have met enough MRAs, and they've all been bigots, that the idea of "MRA" and "bigot" are now so close to each other that you would not feel comfortable with the idea of dating one.

"I wouldn't date a cop because I've been treated badly by cops all my life, so I can't help but to think of to see an abuser when I hear a person is a cop."
-> Same here. This doesn't actually mean you think all cops are abusers, it doesn't mean that you think the specific cop who was also reading that thread is an abuser. It just means that your thinking process defaults to thinking a certain thing, and that thing prevents you from seeing them as a dating partner, even though they might know that it's "wrong" in a way.

So yeah, I think there is a clear difference between what he said, and what people accuse him of.

If for no other reason than I'm quite sure being referred to as "it" is pretty much a universal source of offense.

That seems to be rather common use of the word "it". "No matter what you think about this person, it's still a person." - not quite correct I guess (should be "they're" instead of it?), but people write it like that all the time.

 

[Evie]

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?

Awwww, what a cute little doggie. Who's your owner?

And yes, if I said "all mra are bigots", any MRA present would be justified in thinking I'm calling them a bigot. Because that IS in fact what I'd be doing.

"All X are Y. Z is an X. Z is thus a Y" is one of the most basic forms of logic.

 

[Akka]

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 that's not the point. The point is "would you find it acceptable that people are prevented to express their opinion if it doesn't conform to what someone has decided" ?
Of course it's a rhetorical question, because it's the definition of an oppressive, authoritarian society and you're very vocal about how you would dislike said society. I'm just pointing the cognitive dissonance of fighting censorship when it's against one's opinion, and enforcing when it goes one's way.

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.

That's maybe the root of the problem. You seem to automatically assume that there is an intention to insult or offend. I'm just stating a fact concerning my state of mind. It might be unpleasant, but there is no intention to offend.
Wanting to quell dissenting opinions and impose one's own is much more offensive in my mind, and doing so in the name of tolerance makes me see red. Also, that's the entire subject of the thread, and I find utterly ridiculous to prevent people to answer the question in the title if it isn't the one they would want to hear.

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.

I was writing it in the general meaning of "there is still a man inside", not to addess someone AS "it".
Admitedly the sentence was pretty badly written. I apologize and will attempt to deflect it to my french (where "c'est toujours un homme quelque-part en-dedans" hasn't the same offensive tone, though it's still pretty awkward as a sentence).

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.

No, when the QUESTION is about how you feel about X, then expressing your feelings about X is not intended to offense, it's intended to answer the question.
Once again, it's down to not accepting answers that aren't the ones one would like to hear. It's showing disinterest in the answers and only wanting to enforce opinions.

Awwww, what a cute little doggie. Who's your owner?

Edit : okay, who is this supposed to answer to ? I'm having a doubt.

 

[Evie]

Civver764 (I think that's the right numbers), who hypothetized about identifying as a dog, and to whom I am thus demonstrating the outcome of that particular line of thinking. On my cell so harder to check if the post has been edited or what.

 

[Akka]

So yeah, I think there is a clear difference between what he said, and what people accuse him of.

Yes there is a difference between what I said and what people think it means, but no it's not really that. The "X is part of Y so what I perceive about X I perceive about Y" is true.
What is not true is the part where "what you think about me is an offense because I don't think the same about me". THAT part is unreasonable (I'm still waiting for the counter to the ugly/beautiful girl parallel BTW).

That seems to be rather common use of the word "it". "No matter what you think about this person, it's still a person." - not quite correct I guess (should be "they're" instead of it?), but people write it like that all the time.

Yeah, that was kinda how I intended it.

 

[Evie]

And how I took it. In all fairness, I see nothing wrong with that particular part of your post.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But that's not the point. The point is "would you find it acceptable that people are prevented to express their opinion if it doesn't conform to what someone has decided" ?
Of course it's a rhetorical question, because it's the definition of an oppressive, authoritarian society and you're very vocal about how you would dislike said society. I'm just pointing the cognitive dissonance of fighting censorship when it's against one's opinion, and enforcing when it goes one's way.

Maybe we can chalk most of this up to a difference in language. But in the English of this paragraph the distinction I apply is still being expressed as blurred.

Do I find it acceptable if people are prevented from expressing their opinions on issues? No. If there is some place where I have come across differently I regret it. I do express opinions on a great many issues, a lot of them quite forcefully, but it has never been my intention to imply that someone I disagree with on an issue should not be allowed to say so.

This, to me, is an entirely different question when the opinion expressed is about a person or people, rather than an issue. Expressing an opinion about a person or people is a luxury, not a right, and it is a luxury purchased with violence. I do it, fairly regularly, with regard to Trump, who I often refer to as Dingbat Donny. That's the hazard of public figures who are genuinely out of reach...I expect the bill in violence to never come due. But I seldom, if ever, do it with people here unless they have really pushed me to wit's end...I can't provide examples because they aren't in this thread to defend themselves, but I know I have used "Republican shill" as a straight out name calling epithet. But I find the entire "I call you a gender you don't prefer" to be a tasteless provocation that really has no point, given that the bill in violence can never be issued or collected.

 

[Akka]

This, to me, is an entirely different question when the opinion expressed is about a person or people, rather than an issue. Expressing an opinion about a person or people is a luxury, not a right, and it is a luxury purchased with violence.
[...]
But I find the entire "I call you a gender you don't prefer" to be a tasteless provocation that really has no point, given that the bill in violence can never be issued or collected.

As I said in the previous post :
- It's subject of the thread. What exactly are we supposed to do if we can't answer the subject ?
- An unpleasant answer is not an attack. The distinction seems pretty self-obvious with me.

 

[emzie]

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?

Do you identify as a dog?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As I said in the previous post :
- It's subject of the thread. What exactly are we supposed to do if we can't answer the subject ?
- An unpleasant answer is not an attack. The distinction seems pretty self-obvious with me.

Well, technically the thread title is a yes or no question, so you could have just said "no," but I acknowledge that you have a point. If you had gone with "no, I don't think I could keep 'she used to be a man' from crossing my mind and ruining things, but that isn't 'phobia'" I'd say that was a responsible answer.Even whatever you said that came across as "they are still men to me" (yes, 'they're' is the better English pronoun there than 'it's') could have been a responsible answer, if you had responded to the criticism that the chosen wording does directly reflect the wording used routinely in outright transbashing hate speeches by immediately looking to reword your position to distance yourself from that position, instead of going on the defensive.

Overall I personally think that you have differentiated yourself from that position, more from having had a number of helpers pushing you clear through distinguishing your position while trying not to bounce off those defenses than any obvious desire on your part, but I don't fault you for that. We can all be a bit prickly.

 

[Tristan_C]

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.

That was a good post.

Social validation is tug-of-war. Calling a guy she in both conversation and formal writing, if he's undergone surgeries and is on a hormone regimen and/or "self-identifies" as such, is part of the conflict and an attempt to direct how you perceive someone by controlling the language of your mind. It's nothing to me whether someone undergoes the surgeries, but the grasping for social validation involves a lot of pure 1984 crap. I hate giving ground to these kinds of people. They make my skin crawl.

And if, as a man, you aren't sexually attracted to men who undergo transformative surgeries and hormone regimens, there's an ominous new label out there for you, transphobic. It has a decorous dictionary definition but I expect it will be used to type-cast people at-will, basically as a thick-headed hateful religious knuckle-dragging neanderthal bigot. Just like homophobic the generation prior. Sort of a miniature N-word with its capacity to instantly foist subhuman characteristics on the target.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Social validation is tug-of-war.

Not to me. I'm perfectly willing to give social validation to all. I've never noticed it being in short supply. Has your experience been somehow different?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There are at least two dimensions to the problem. One is of an actual life with its many variations and perversions which is already quite a challenge both viewed individualy and colectively. And then there is the more purely mental perception of these things tied to morality and ideology. And the non-religious/less conservative ideologies are using the language as a tool for manipulation the same way just like any religious dogmatic would...

 

[civver_764]

Do you identify as a dog?

This guy does.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This guy does.

His desire to be "accepted as a dog" would vaporize instantly about the time his house was listed as an abandoned property and he was picked up and taken to the pound.

 

[Evie]

Maybe. Maybe not. I mean, being a woman, while considerably better, still has significant downsides compared to being a man...but identity doesn't care.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Maybe. Maybe not. I mean, being a woman, while considerably better, still has significant downsides compared to being a man...but identity doesn't care.

The clothes and shoes alone are worth it.

Seriously, though, it might have downsides, but I would never want to wake up as a man one day. I think women have a much richer life experience and are not as constrained by social roles.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Seriously, though, it might have downsides, but I would never want to wake up as a man one day. I think women have a much richer life experience and are not as constrained by social roles.

Thats very convenient to me as a man that women would think that, awesome...

 

[Ryika]

His desire to be "accepted as a dog" would vaporize instantly about the time his house was listed as an abandoned property and he was picked up and taken to the pound.

Well, a trans individual is not forced to undergo surgery for them to be "accepted as the sex they want to be", so why would we need to take away his human rights away for a person to have a valid expectation of being accepted as a dog? It's not quite the same thing of course, and you can't actually present as a dog, you can't accurately live as a dog, and anyone who wants to identify as a dog probably doesn't actually want to identify as a dog, but just be a human who pretends to be a dog every now and then.

At its core though, it's really the same problem as with people who want to be transracials, there is no argument that you can make for transgender individuals that you can't also make for any other "I identify as X"-individuals, unless you reduce transgenderism purely to people who have a physical condition related to it, which certainly is not all of them. In the end, the only thing that makes something be accepted by society is whether society is willing to accept it.

If millions of people suddenly wanted to identify as dogs, and had good reasons for why they want it, reasons that people can understand without being in that group themselves, then I have no doubt that over a few generations, transanimalism, or whatever you'd call it, would become a thing.