Is not wanting to date trans individuals transphobic?

[Akka]

Well, yes, you saying I'm not "natural" I would consider to be very hateful

Except you can't deny you were born with the body of a man. Finding factual statements "hateful" is just nonsensical.
You can resent that I can't be attracted to someone who isn't born with the body of a woman, but judging it is then judging personal preferences, and is no different in nature than a judging a lesbian for being attracted to women. Be cautious here, it can pretty easily backfire.

If you believe I am strawmanning you, please can you point out where I misrepresent your argument?

Everytime you equate "not wanting to date a trans" with "considering trans lesser people". That's broken logic at best, strawmanning at worst, and the problem is that it underlies the entirety of all your arguments.

I actually did mention it.

Here is more infomation on that mechanism if you're interested. The really interesting thing about it is that you can get this effect on peers who aren't actually genetically related to each other if they are raised together, and that siblings who are separated at birth won't develop this mechanism to prevent inbreeding with each other, but with the children they are raised with (if any).

You mentioned it but you completely avoided the whole point, so it's just as if you completely ignored it.

The point is : despite my sister (or mother) being a woman like any other woman, I still discriminate VERY STRONGLY against her, and I still consider her ABSOLUTELY NOT dating material, to the point of disgust (and honestly, even far more disgust than even the idea of having sex with a man). Yet you don't mind it, you don't call it "sisterphobia" and blame me for being a bigot against my family, and you don't consider it's a sign I see her as a "lesser human being".
Yet when I apply the exact same kind of discrimination to transperson, you lose your crap and start seeing "phobia" everywhere. So what ?
Don't hide behind the "biologically, blabla", I specifically pointed I would also find the idea of banging a long-lost sister that I saw for the first time absolutely repulsive.

---

No, it doesn't.

Ah good, so homosexuals aren't discriminated against and we can lay to rest all these threads about it then ?

 

[bernie14]

I believe I made my case in my previous post, including posing the question to commodore/manfred/you than you seemed to have decided to avoid. If you could tell me exactly you do not understand in specific, I can try to address you, but otherwise I don't think re-summarizing my post would really change anything if you claim to not understand anything from it.

which question was that?...I must have missed it or not seen the connection

 

[Ryika]

I believe I made my case in my previous post, including posing the question to commodore/manfred/you than you seemed to have decided to avoid. If you could tell me exactly you do not understand in specific, I can try to address you, but otherwise I don't think re-summarizing my post would really change anything if you claim to not understand anything from it.

I think it's more that both sides disagree on the assumed consequences, not that the opposing side does not understand your point.

The main weakness of your argument is that you don't have a way to prove that the intersectionality you're talking about even exists, let alone that it actually has the effect you think it has. You go at it as if that were an established fact, but it's just an assumption that you make based on questionable ground.

Or if it is not, then you have not provided the evidence required to show that it is not, you have just established it as true by asserting that it is true. That's what you'd have to fix for your argument to be persuasive.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Ah good, so homosexuals aren't discriminated against and we can lay to rest all these threads about it then ?

You think people who are discriminated against have a psychological disorder? Seriously?

 

[Akka]

You think people who are discriminated against have a psychological disorder? Seriously?

You're the one saying it, actually.

 

[EgonSpengler]

You're the one saying it, actually.

Show me where I said that.

 

[Akka]

Show me where I said that.

Are you playing dumb ?
You're the one trying to imply that people who don't want to date trans have anxiety disorder.
I'm using your own definition to show that, following such definition, homosexuality is an anxiety disorder.

Now you try to ignore the whole exchange and remove the context ?
That's so openly dishonest it's bordering on the comical.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Are you playing dumb ?
You're the one trying to imply that people who don't want to date trans have anxiety disorder.
I'm using your own definition to show that, following such definition, homosexuality is an anxiety disorder.

Now you try to ignore the whole exchange and remove the context ?
That's so openly dishonest it's bordering on the comical.

You stated that "being homosexual causes problems in life." It doesn't. That's false. People who are homophobic frequently cause problems for homosexuals, but that's not the homosexual's psychological issue. In that instance, it would be the homophobic person who may have the disorder, not the gay person. You're trying to draw an analogy between a phobia and sexuality.

God, I knew posting in this thread was a mistake as soon as I did it.

 

[Akka]

You stated that "being homosexual causes problems in life." It doesn't. That's false. People who are homophobic frequently cause problems for homosexuals, but that's not the homosexual's psychological issue. In that instance, it would be the homophobic person who may have the disorder, not the gay person. You're trying to draw an analogy between a phobia and sexuality.

No, I'm just showing your poor attempt at laying blame could backfire. And yes, it was a mistake for you to come and try to apply a ridiculously broad definition of disorder just so you could apply it to whoever is convenient.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Again, let me ask you what I asked commodore. For what reason why would a woman in this hypothetical want to break off a relationship when she found out I'm trans that doesn't ultimately lead to a values judgement of transpeople being lesser than cispeople? I guess I just have a hard time rationalizing how someone would not want to date someone who is trans (in general, not a specific trans person) other than for fertility issues or finding something wrong with trans identity in itself.

If you're using "lesser" as a synonym for "less desirable" then I agree with you, but I don't think you're doing that. I think you're using "lesser" to mean some sort of lower form of life, or something "wrong". I don't see a good reason to equate the two things though. I mean I don't find men attractive, or old or fat women, or burn victims, but that doesn't mean I rate any of those groups less highly as human beings as my evaluation of someone's worth doesn't really correlate to how much I want to stick things in them (unless we're talking about a knife of course, in which case that usually would correlate to my evaluation of their worth).

 

[Omega124]

Except you can't deny you were born with the body of a man. Finding factual statements "hateful" is just nonsensical.

Sure, I can readily admit as a transwoman, I was born with male genitals. That doesn't make sex changes unnatural. Hell, if I was really desperate enough, and technological advances towards genital reconstruction never happened, I could always just take a sharp rock and cut my dick and balls off. If I did it before puberty, I wouldn't even develop most male tertiary features, and I would probably more resemble a very masculine woman with mutilated genitals than anything else.*

The fact we can have the technology though, makes that above hypothetical irrelevant. We can make genital reconstruction that's indistinguishable from "natural" vaginas to the layperson. I could live my entire post-op life without my partner finding out if I'm good enough at scrubbing my internet history, especially since I'm a lesbian and thus the fertility issue isn't an issue for me.

One claim does not beget the other.

You can resent that I can't be attracted to someone who isn't born with the body of a woman, but judging it is no different than a judging lesbian for being attracted to women. Be cautious here, it can pretty easily backfire.

I'm confused by this claim. Are you saying there's no difference between me judging you for being repulsed to trans people and judging a lesbian for being attracted to a woman? I want to be clear what you mean by this before I continue this train of thought.

Everytime you equate "not wanting to date a trans" with "considering trans lesser people". That's broken logic at best, strawmanning at worst, and the problem is that it underlies the entirety of all your arguments.

One, that's not a strawman. Strawmanning is a deliberate misrepresentation of someone else's argument, which I am still waiting for a direct, specific example of. Two, nobody has yet to present a counterclaim to what I just said beyond a general "you're wrong". You're content with just saying I'm wrong without actually saying why I'm wrong. I have asked so many times for anyone to provide an example of why someone wouldn't be physically attracted to a transperson that doesn't involve transphobia, which no one can even provide a claim! How can I argue if there's no argument to argue against? I'm just arguing with myself.

Otherwise, I don't believe you've actually presented any argument in that section so

You're right, I didn't. All I did was to ask how I was strawmanning you, which you have yet to provide a concrete example. Sorry for actually trying to be polite?

You mention it but you completely avoid the whole point, so it's just as if you completely ignored it.

The point is : despite my sister (or mother) being a woman like any other woman, I still discriminate VERY STRONGLY against her, and I still consider her ABSOLUTELY NOT dating material, to the point of disgust (and honestly, even far more disgust than even the idea of having sex with a man). Yet you don't mind it, you don't call it "sisterphobia" and blame me for being a bigot against my family, and you don't consider it's a sign I see her as a "lesser human being".

Yet when I apply the exact same kind of discrimination to transperson, you lose your crap and start seeing "phobia" everywhere. So what ?

Don't hide behind the "biologically, blabla", I specifically pointed I would also find the idea of banging a long-lost sister that I saw for the first time absolutely repulsive.

You actually wouldn't be able to tell she was your long-lost sister without taking a genetic test, or being shown the birth certificate, etc. So yes, the biological stuff still very well applies. If you don't like that answer, I'm sorry, but the best understanding of human sexuality fundamentally disagrees with your position. Your long-lost biological sister wouldn't register as a sister, while your adopted sister would. And if you're still disgusted by that, then it's a learned trait stemming from the social taboo of inbreeding, and not anything biological.

That being said, let's assume all of that is true. So what? You'd still likely see her a sister in the social understanding, and thus you'd have platonic love towards her. You'd wouldn't want to bang her, but you're also not going around telling her that she deserves it when people don't want to be with her, and that she's an unnatural abomination. It's not even the same ballpark of a situation.

*I'd probably also die of blood loss or an infection if I actually did that, but there are cases of some Byzantine eneuchs going through that extreme of genital mutilation and surviving. There is also the case of a person in Gregory of Tour's History of the Franks where someone who was at least castrated as a small youth actually did end up living as a woman and that being considered acceptable enough by Frankish society, for an even better example.

which question was that?...I must have missed it or not seen the connection

OK, I can summarize my points from here. Sorry about the mixup, hope this helps.

So, my argument is basically, I'm making the connection that people who would discriminate on a partner solely for being trans is showing latent transphobia, and that this would effect not just the realm of dating, but any sort of human interaction involving a trans person (Now that I mention it, I actually did a research project on here with that exact premise, and I did get evidence pointing a connection of this relationship). I asked Commodore, and then repeated the question to Manfred, and told you to look at both of those responses since I didn't feel like repeating it a third time but I probably should have in hindsight and I apologize, to please provide an example of someone not being physically attracted to trans people (in general, not a specific transperson) that isn't rooted in transphobia. The point of this excersize is to demonstrate through socratic irony that there is actually none, but since no one is even engaging in that thought, I'm thinking its already demonstrating itself. From there, I can better show how the transphobia is there, and can exist in other facets of life

The main weakness of your argument is that you don't have a way to prove that the intersectionality you're talking about even exists, let alone that it actually has the effect you think it has. You go at it as if that were an established fact, but it's just an assumption that you make based on questionable ground.

Well, again, the immediate evidence I have for this connection is the project I did here a few weeks ago, where I did find a weak but still existing relationship between willingness to date trans people and support of trans public policy. And the fact it was only a weak relationship can be explained by the small sample size.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And the fact it was only a weak relationship can be explained by the small sample size.

Oooooooh that's so dangerously close to implying "is" there.

Edit: Actually if you think about it it's entirely predictable that such a correlation would exist, but the fact that it exists doesn't actually mean very much. Certainly not what you seem to think it does.

I think it's safe to assume that anyone who doesn't support trans public policy (I'm assuming this means recognition of rights or gender status or whatever) is overwhelmingly unlikely to want to date a trans person. Similarly, anyone who is willing to date a trans person is overwhelmingly unlikely to NOT support trans rights. So as long as any people exist that do not support trans rights, you're pretty much inevitably going to see that correlation. But that in no way proves that anyone who does not want to date a trans person does not support trans rights. That would be like deducing that all people with testicles have testicular cancer.

 

[Omega124]

If you're using "lesser" as a synonym for "less desirable" then I agree with you, but I don't think you're doing that. I think you're using "lesser" to mean some sort of lower form of life, or something "wrong". I don't see a good reason to equate the two things though. I mean I don't find men attractive, or old or fat women, or burn victims, but that doesn't mean I rate any of those groups less highly as human beings as my evaluation of someone's worth doesn't really correlate to how much I want to stick things in them (unless we're talking about a knife of course, in which case that usually would correlate to my evaluation of their worth).

I mean, I apologize if I am diminishing other people's experiences, but to my knowledge, the elderly, the fat, and burn victims don't experience the same sort of systemic discrimination in society that trans people face, including the higher assault and murder rates, the greater risk of depression and other mental afflictions, the greater rates of poverty, higher chances of being sexually assaulted, and the constant dehumanization present in the media. It's not really the same, Manfred.

 

[Farm Boy]

Two, nobody has yet to present a counterclaim to what I just said beyond a general "you're wrong".

Sexual attraction is not default offered. It can be offered. Finding fault in failing to extend it is the realm of fedoralord nice guys who feel they deserve sexual attraction for some reason or other. That we, typically, presume men to be more open to blanket offering sexual desire to members of the desired gender is itself a fault of both DTF society and traditional/patriarchal blame-free men's sexuality. That it's being twisted in a somewhat more novel direction here with better intentions does not make it any more right to shame somebody for being into skinny girls, or old girls, or fat girls, or black guys, or "jerks," or w/e. It is what it is and we blanket it everywhere too much already.

Traitorfish is, uncaracteristically, in the wrong on the first page. Least that'd be my take on it. Not that it would be worth much past the principle, I know. Also for what it's worth, I think this all will get better. Not fast enough, for sure, but it will. I have faith in that. I hope you'll feel it's justified on my part.

 

[Ryika]

Well, again, the immediate evidence I have for this connection is the project I did here a few weeks ago, where I did find a weak but still existing relationship between willingness to date trans people and support of trans public policy. And the fact it was only a weak relationship can be explained by the small sample size.

That argument is nonsensical, all you've shown is that people who are biased against trans individuals tend to not want to date trans individuals. Well d'uh, I would never have thought that the people who do not want trans individuals to have rights, would be less willing to date them.

The opposite conclusion that you're drawing that therefor anybody who doesn't want to date trans people for whatever reason is biased against them does not follow at all.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I mean, I apologize if I am diminishing other people's experiences, but to my knowledge, the elderly, the fat, and burn victims don't experience the same sort of systemic discrimination in society that trans people face, including the higher assault and murder rates, the greater risk of depression and other mental afflictions, the greater rates of poverty, higher chances of being sexually assaulted, and the constant dehumanization present in the media. It's not really the same, Manfred.

Erm, well... I'd be amazed if those groups didn't face a fair amount of discrimination actually, but that's besides the point. You're deducing that someone sees you as "lesser" based solely on them not wanting to date you because of a certain characteristic you have. If someone else doesn't want to date someone else because of some other characteristic, then it's comparable. Whether or not those two characteristics have exactly the same consequences in all other aspects of life is entirely irrelevant to your deduction.

 

[Akka]

Sure, I can readily admit as a transwoman, I was born with male genitals.

So there is nothing "hateful" about saying it.

I'm confused by this claim. Are you saying there's no difference between me judging you for being repulsed to trans people and judging a lesbian for being attracted to a woman? I want to be clear what you mean by this before I continue this train of thought.

I don't see one in any case. Attraction is what it is, and all the blaming and the insults and the attempts to shame someone into considering his attraction "wrong" won't change who one feels attracted to one bit.
And if telling people who they should or shouldn't be attracted to doesn't ring a bell in your head about what happened to homosexuals, then maybe you should drop your blinders.

"You should/shouldn't be attracted to [X], or it means you're [derogative word]."

One, that's not a strawman. Strawmanning is a deliberate misrepresentation of someone else's argument, which I am still waiting for a direct, specific example of.

Telling me "you are saying I'm a lesser being" when I say "I'm not attracted to you" seems a misrepresentation of what I say, yeah.

Also, there is a superb, magnificent strawman in this very post. Let me extract it.

You'd still likely see her a sister in the social understanding, and thus you'd have platonic love towards her. You'd wouldn't want to bang her, but you're also not going around telling her that she deserves it when people don't want to be with her, and that she's an unnatural abomination. It's not even the same ballpark of a situation.

Everything after "you wouldn't want to bang her" is just your delirium inserting tons of words I never said. It's rather impressive.
I'm using "I'm not attracted to trans but I'm not considering them inferior beings, just like I'm not attracted to my sister but I don't consider her an inferior being", I'm even SPECIFICALLY using this example to highlight this point.
And you manage to insert from God-knows-where "abomination", "you deserve to be hated" and so on.
That's, like, wow. I mean, wow.
BTW, it also works to answer the part below :

Two, nobody has yet to present a counterclaim to what I just said beyond a general "you're wrong". You're content with just saying I'm wrong without actually saying why I'm wrong. I have asked so many times for anyone to provide an example of why someone wouldn't be physically attracted to a transperson that doesn't involve transphobia, which no one can even provide a claim! How can I argue if there's no argument to argue against? I'm just arguing with myself.

Wow, that's rich. The thread is basically entirely made of such, and several of them have been repeated endlessly. Half of what I answered directly to you have been that. I would need several pages to quote all the examples in the thread, but I think I can sum it up with these :

Rather, you decided beforehand that there was no good reason, and simply ignored any which have been provided.

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

Yeah you don't agree. I get that. You define transphobia as "making a difference between a transwoman and a ciswoman", which allows you to enter a nice realm of circular reasoning putting everyone who disagree as "phobic" and rejecting everything that doesn't fit the answer you wish to obtain as invalid. Problem is, like all circular reasoning it still doesn't change facts or reality.

And considering how you managed to twist the sister example above, you don't really look like you're ready to break out of this circular reasoning yet, even if you need to downright INVENT what people are saying.


Well, and to finish on a light touch :

You're right, I didn't. All I did was to ask how I was strawmanning you, which you have yet to provide a concrete example. Sorry for actually trying to be polite?

*cough* This sentence was one of yours, from the message I quoted, which ended up there just because I forgot to clean the quoted parts before posting (which is why it's not there anymore).

---

DTF society

Okay, just for my general culture : what IS this ?
I suppose it might means "Date To <snip>", but it's still a bit vague for me.

Moderator Action: Please avoid using inappropriate language on CFC. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[warpus]

Yes, yes it does.

Heck, I don't think I could date a farmer. Am I a farmer hater too, perhaps? Do I hate everyone who doesn't live in the city?

Who else do I hate? Maybe you could analyze my eating preferences in order to determine what other genders and races I hate too?

if you insist that it's an absolute fact such a person cannot exist, then that raises questions.

You drawing absurd conclusions from my dating preferences alone raises questions in itself.

It's possible I could one day fall in love with a devout Mormon. Yes, I mean, it's possible that one day I will be Rambo. Many things are possible. Yet I don't think it makes sense for me to go out on a limb and start dating a devout Mormon girl just in case I am completely wrong about my dating preferences. I know myself, I know what sort of a person I am likely to feel a romantic connection with, and which sort of person that is likely not to happen with.

I am not going to waste my time dating transgendered Mormon farmers just to make you guys feel better about your social justice nonsense.

If you think I am a hateful person I don't know what to tell you. You can judge me as you wish, I suppose. All I know is that I don't hate transgendered people, I support their decisions to be who they want to be, and I will defend them from people who are against that sort of thing. Could I one day fall in love with a transgendered person? Yes, it's possible. Many things are possible. However, life is short, and I prefer to stick to dating people who I know I am far more likely to be romantically compatible with. Screw me for being honest about it, right?

 

[innonimatu]

Maybe one day I'll be really attracted to really fat women, who the hell knows. Right now I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would never date someone who doesn't seem to some degree fit and healthy. It's not because I hate fat people. It's not because I have anything against them. It's because I don't see myself entering in a romantic relationship with somebody like that.

And that's fine.

Dunno, an obese person might call you obesophobic because of that! An obese woman is just like any other woman, except for some very specific purposes (if you want to go rock-climbing with your partner, or something like that). So why not date one? And you will complain that labeling you obesophobic, knowing the "evil" connotation of "phobic" would be an attempt to pressure you into dating obese women...

Now really, if that is being -phobic, let people be whatever -phobic they wish in selecting parters. That is reality, as I tried to point out previously: preferences need not be rational. The jump from having preferences (however strong) to assuming some kind of larger social discrimination is not warranted.

And I do understand where this comes from. Trans people have a hard time because they have a much reduced pool of potential mates. And it sucks and they'd like it to be otherwise. As would the obese who complain about the conventional standards of beauty, and so on. Problem is, telling people that they are evil if they won't date someone who is trans (and backing it with a theory that transwomen are physically like women) won't work, anymore than a gay men telling a straight dude that he's evil for not wanting to date men (and backing it with some theory that all people are somewhat bi or whatever one pulls as a justification). The best advice, imho, is still: don't fight reality, accept it and make the best of it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Let's go with: Down to Fornicate

It's not fornicate, but, you know.