Is not wanting to date trans individuals transphobic?

[Lemon Merchant]

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

Please don't take it as an insult. I didn't mean it that way. Nor was I trying to imply that women are somehow superior to men.

I meant it in terms of a woman's emotional life. Women are permitted to express their emotions more than men are. Men are constrained in that area by societal roles and attitudes. "Men must be strong!' "Show no emotion!" "Big boys don't cry." That sort of thing. I would not want to live under those constraints.

 

[Evie]

I have a sneaking suspicion, hopefully unfounded, that was meant more in an "I will quote you whenever sexism or feminism comes up" sort of way. Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Please don't take it as an insult. I didn't mean it that way. Nor was I trying to imply that women are somehow superior to men.

I meant it in terms of a woman's emotional life. Women are permitted to express their emotions more than men are. Men are constrained in that area by societal roles and attitudes. "Men must be strong!' "Show no emotion!" "Big boys don't cry." That sort of thing. I would not want to live under those constraints.

Its always better to see the glass as a half full. But at the end there is really not much difference between the two genders. You start with one constrain trying to liberate and emancipate yourself while enjoying more freedom elswhere and I do the same in differents aspects of my life....

 

[Synobun]

Moderator Action: Bringing up bestiality and identifying as an animal (i.e. otherkin) in trans-related discussions is going to stop right here. It is not, and never will be, a legitimate question or theory to bring up in a reasonable discussion. It is woefully disrespectful and absent of intellectual merit. Doing so serves only to dehumanize transgender individuals.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

You may notice that I favored completely accepting him as a dog. Right up to sending him to the pound, and ten days later when no one had adopted him putting him down.

 

[Narz]

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.

When women reject me I feel sorry for them and hope they get over their Narzaphobia

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I have a sneaking suspicion, hopefully unfounded, that was meant more in an "I will quote you whenever sexism or feminism comes up" sort of way. Hopefully I'm wrong.

If you are addressing me, I don't get your point. If not, just ignore this little bit of confusion.

 

[Evie]

I was commenting on what Mechanicalsalvation told you. Namely, saying that I suspect he was grateful to hear you say that because he,s going to use the quote whenever someone claims women are discriminated against/victims of sexism/etc to "prove" otherwise.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I was commenting on what Mechanicalsalvation told you. Namely, saying that I suspect he was grateful to hear you say that because he,s going to use the quote whenever someone claims women are discriminated against/victims of sexism/etc to "prove" otherwise.

more precisely: I am glad for women to be glad that they are women becouse even though I love women I prefer not to be one.

 

[Evie]

Fair enough, and my apology for my overly suspicious mind, then

 

[Ryika]

I mean, it's only natural, isn't it? Generally, people are... well, not "happy", but "fine" with who or what they are, be it men, women, dogs, or even cats. (Think about that. Cats like being cats, how awful is that?)

It usually takes a really dire situation, or an ideology, to make you resent your existence and make you only see the negatives of that one aspect of your identity, and only see the positives that other people of other identities have.

 

[metatron]

So, for about the, what, seventh time in this thread?

It's not racist to prefer characteristics that are associated with certain racial backgrounds. It's kind of unfortunate, and it's not hard for it to get pretty creepy, but that's sexuality for you. Humanity is the faulty prototype of itself. Where it gets problematic, if you'll excuse the ess-jay-dub-ism, is framing this in explicitly racial terms, in framing a preference for Caucasian bone-structures as "I don't like black people". That step, and being comfortable with that step, is definitionally racist.

Ok, so we accept that what you anglospherians insist to call "race" is a gradual thing.
And we have established in countless threads as part of the ideology you people are pushing that gender is a seemless continuum.

Now, of course i can understand what you are saying here about highly "race"-correlated preferences: Don't categorise. Never say never.

But... there is this custom that holds that... for example it is highly inappropriate for a straight person to hit on a gay or lesbian by accidend, let alone intentionally.
Here we do categorise and we do say never. (And in reverse just the same, but at least that is decried as homophobia by your tribe often enough).
Now both these principles may be fine. But i have just the slightest suspicion that in time you'll have to figure out which one is more fine than the other.

And yet at the same time the internet is full to the brim with people who...

• identify as transsexual (and gay/lesbian, as applicable)
• don't physiologically transition in any way, shape or form
• claim that they are absolutely entitled to the sexual interest of cis gay/cis lesbian people (as applicable)
• claim that if they don't get that society as a whole must be transphobic
• blame me for that - me, the cis straight male with a slightly eccentric taste and horrible gaydar
• who in turn proclaims at this point: "eff it! i should've been a merperson!"

I am sure you can see how, enough cynicism provided, one may just wonder what the difference is again between cis, straight people and all these non-transitioning, gay/lesbian, transsexuals.
Except entitlement.

The point being: Patience is a limited commodity.
Not sure, if calling your potential allies "racist" left, right and center is the way to go.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I mean, it's only natural, isn't it? Generally, people are... well, not "happy", but "fine" with who or what they are, be it men, women, dogs, or even cats. (Think about that. Cats like being cats, how awful is that?)

It usually takes a really dire situation, or an ideology, to make you resent your existence and make you only see the negatives of that one aspect of your identity, and only see the positives that other people of other identities have.

Which brings me to ask what part of "transpeople" is the one they dont feel identified with? Judging by my limited insights into spirituality its what is called the "vital being" where the problem lies. Its to a large extent responsible for most of our emotions and desires including sexuality and sexual atractions. This is of course to a large extent matter of belief but soul or psychic being are genderless. And to some extent this could be said of the mental part although the vital-emotional influence is is extremely strong and almost entirely composes that what we identify with.

 

[Evie]

I don't think you understand how identity works, Valessa.

It usually takes a really dire situation, or an ideology, to make you resent your existence and make you only see the negatives of that one aspect of your identity, and only see the positives that other people of other identities have.

I don't "only see the negatives" of being males and "only see the positives" of being female. Far from ; if it was a calculation of abstract positives of being male or being female, I'd stay male. I'm firmly of the opinion males have it better than female in our society as it currently exists (though this isn't the place to debate it).

Personally, I've phrased it to people as the sensation of wearing a wrong-sized, scratchy shirt. It may be a very pretty shirt, and perhaps, when you're keeping really busy or otherwise in high spirit, you don't notice too much. But the rest of the time, the shirt it's there, and when you try to move you feel it tight around you, limiting your movement and making it hard to breath, and you desperately want to yank it open or take it off so you can be comfortable. It's a constant nagging discomfort that drains you and make it increasingly hard to deal with the rest of what's life throwing at you - the feeling of the shirt wrapped far too tight around you, and itching like hell, and trapping you.

At some point, you just have to change. Especially once you realize there's another, better-sized shirt you could be wearing, even if doesn't suit you as well as the first.

Where does that sentiment come from? It's hard to say. Perhaps some "vital being" as MS suggests. Perhaps not. I'm a lawyer, not a psychologist, so I really can't say for sure.

 

[Ryika]

I don't think you understand how identity works, Valessa.

I don't "only see the negatives" of being males and "only see the positives" of being female. Far from ; if it was a calculation of abstract positives of being male or being female, I'd stay male. I'm firmly of the opinion males have it better than female in our society as it currently exists (though this isn't the place to debate it).

Personally, I've phrased it to people as the sensation of wearing a wrong-sized, scratchy shirt. It may be a very pretty shirt, and perhaps, when you're keeping really busy or otherwise in high spirit, you don't notice too much. But the rest of the time, the shirt it's there, and when you try to move you feel it tight around you, limiting your movement and making it hard to breath, and you desperately want to yank it open or take it off so you can be comfortable. It's a constant nagging discomfort that drains you and make it increasingly hard to deal with the rest of what's life throwing at you - the feeling of the shirt wrapped far too tight around you, and itching like hell, and trapping you.

At some point, you just have to change. Especially once you realize there's another, better-sized shirt you could be wearing, even if doesn't suit you as well as the first.

Where does that sentiment come from? It's hard to say. Perhaps some "vital being" as MS suggests. Perhaps not. I'm a lawyer, not a psychologist, so I really can't say for sure.

Yeah, but you're not an example of a person who is free from influence by ideologies that drag you into one direction while leaving out the "balancing" factors. That's entirely the point. Of course the shirt would feel more and more scratchy to you. "Only" seeing the positive/negative factors is of course an extreme state, one that you don't have to arrive at for a view to become unbalanced.

The fact that it gets worse over time for some is directly related to either a really bad set of circumstances related to that specific part of ones character (actually being oppressed for example), or outside influences, such as "Victimhood Feminism". Most people don't feel oppressed without somebody constantly telling them that they are, even if the net-value of benefits and downsides of their personal set of factors is not in their favor, as long as it's not tilted too far to one side, they still feel just fine.

Take the extreme, not even Muslim-women who are forced to cover up and have all sorts of restrictions in their daily lives feel oppressed.

I mean, just think about it. Feminist women feel oppressed while living in the west, Muslim women don't feel oppressed while living in the east. Clearly, the scratchiness of the shirt does not inherently become worse and worse over time.

So... ehh. No, I don't think your post represents reality at all. It's more like you're wearing a scratchy shirt, and that other type of person is wearing a tight leather suit. One person will think "Well, the shirt is scratchy, but at least I don't have to wear that skin-tight suit.", and that other person will think: "Well, that suit is tight, but at least I don't have to wear that scratchy shirt!"

Unless of course people constantly tell you how amazing that suit actually is, and how terrible your shirt is, people are usually fine with the clothes they're wearing.

People who actually get to wear that shirt/suit however might realize that it's not as nice as they thought:

Spoiler :

/edit: Just to be clear in case this gets misread - I'm not talking about transitioning here, I'm purely talking about how happy a person is with their identity in relation to other identities, trans-related "not feeling happy" with ones identity is completely different of course.

 

[Jabarto]

Please don't take it as an insult. I didn't mean it that way. Nor was I trying to imply that women are somehow superior to men.

I meant it in terms of a woman's emotional life. Women are permitted to express their emotions more than men are. Men are constrained in that area by societal roles and attitudes. "Men must be strong!' "Show no emotion!" "Big boys don't cry." That sort of thing. I would not want to live under those constraints.

I know it's kinda not for this thread but this is pretty fascinating to me. You do have a point, men are expected to not display their emotions as openly, and a guy with feminine characteristics is generally judged for it more than a woman with masculine characteristics.

On the other hand, I'd still argue that women have it worse as far as social norms. They aren't allowed to be as openly sexual (and ironically they get judged for not being sexual enough at the same time!). A guy can enter a female dominated field like nursing and not have it be more than a curiosity, but there are some real horror stories of women in STEM fields.

I don't know where I'm going with this, really. I guess I just like that an initially straightforward claim like yours can reveal a lot about society and gender roles the more you think about it.

 

[Senethro]

Yeah, but you're not an example of a person who is free from influence by ideologies that drag you into one direction while leaving out the "balancing" factors. That's entirely the point. Of course the shirt would feel more and more scratchy to you. "Only" seeing the positive/negative factors is of course an extreme state, one that you don't have to arrive at for a view to become unbalanced.

The fact that it gets worse over time for some is directly related to either a really bad set of circumstances related to that specific part of ones character (actually being oppressed for example), or outside influences, such as "Victimhood Feminism". Most people don't feel oppressed without somebody constantly telling them that they are, even if the net-value of benefits and downsides of their personal set of factors is not in their favor, as long as it's not tilted too far to one side, they still feel just fine.

Take the extreme, not even Muslim-women who are forced to cover up and have all sorts of restrictions in their daily lives feel oppressed.

I mean, just think about it. Feminist women feel oppressed while living in the west, Muslim women don't feel oppressed while living in the east. Clearly, the scratchiness of the shirt does not inherently become worse and worse over time.

So... ehh. No, I don't think your post represents reality at all. It's more like you're wearing a scratchy shirt, and that other type of person is wearing a tight leather suit. One person will think "Well, the shirt is scratchy, but at least I don't have to wear that skin-tight suit.", and that other person will think: "Well, that suit is tight, but at least I don't have to wear that scratchy shirt!"

Unless of course people constantly tell you how amazing that suit actually is, and how terrible your shirt is, people are usually fine with the clothes they're wearing.

People who actually get to wear that shirt/suit however might realize that it's not as nice as they thought:

Spoiler :

/edit: Just to be clear in case this gets misread - I'm not talking about transitioning here, I'm purely talking about how happy a person is with their identity in relation to other identities, trans-related "not feeling happy" with ones identity is completely different of course.

Are you serious trying to argue against gender dysphoria? Because that's the only way to read this post that is replying to oda's description of the experience, regardless of caveat.

Lots of people in this thread could do with saying why they know better than the medical establishment.

 

[Akka]

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.

1) I wasn't said that at all - I was asked to withdraw my statement and basically "shut up and agree with me".

2) If people can't manage to read what I say for what it is, and instead treat me as guilty by association because it might look like how other hide less-than-savory attitude, it's on them, not on me. Asking for clarification is okay, but passing judgement out of convenience and refusal to consider what the person says is not.

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.

I think I've been much, much more attacked than I've attacked anyone. The double-standard is precisely one of the thing that annoys me the most - and it's actually the only thing I have attacked.

 

[Ryika]

Are you serious trying to argue against gender dysphoria?

No, I'm not.

Because that's the only way to read this post that is replying to oda's description of the experience, regardless of caveat.

No, it's not, that's entirely missing what I'm talking about; I'm not talking about trans identities at all.

I'm talking about "cis people" who don't have anything to do with gender dysphoria. My point is that a woman who was a woman, who is a woman, who will always want to be a women, will generally be happy with who she is just as much as a man who was a man, who is a man, who will always want to be a man, will generally be happy with being a man, even in light of the downsides that identity brings for them, UNLESS some really heavy stuff happens to them because of who they are, or people start pointing at the negatives constantly, while ignoring the positives/negatives of that other identity.

Generally speaking, both, being a man and a woman brings benefits and disadvantages that somewhat balance out in most cases, and we only tend to start resenting an aspect of ourselves when that starts to be a really negative factor for us. Being a woman is usually not such a factor, and of course a person who has become unhappy with their role in society, is not a person who has gender dysphoria, it's a person who is fine with being a woman, but thinks it brings only disadvantages, which is what they actually resent.

That post was a response to the discussion where Lemon Merchant said that she's happy with being a woman, and Mechanicalsalvation said he'll use that in the future as if it were some trump card to have a woman say she's happy, or think that she's not disadvantaged (which btw. I think she's right about, I feel the same way). It addressed the underlying (but unspoken) idea that women (or men for that matter) would have to be unhappy if they were disadvantaged. That is surely not the case.

So like I said in the edit of my post, trans-related causes of unhappiness with ones gender or sex are of course a wholly different building lot.

 

[Evie]

Edit : Wait, what? So why did you point out that I'm not free from ideologies then?

Actually, why did you address my post describing what it feels to be transgendered at all?