Support NeoGAF

[Erin S Kittens]

while we're at it, can you drop the "white" part of that statement?

it's really annoying when people keep saying that specific thing. just say cis men.

Ewwwwwww, really? Erasing racism? White men make more money for the same work than white women make more than black men make more than black women. That's just one example. I'll drop the 'white' bit over my dead body.

It's also ignorant to make statements that imply that all of those men are the same. Just like it would be ignorant to make a statement implying and race or group of people are all the same.

So I guess you're just about as good as the rest of society.

Where did I say they were all the same?

 

[Ties]

while we're at it, can you drop the "white" part of that statement?

it's really annoying when people keep saying that specific thing. just say cis men.

?????

 

[John Kowalski]

I wish people would try harder than simply accepting that you can't argue with taste. I mean clearly that is ripe for malicious abuse, and it's impossible to discern whether it actually contributes to the heart of the matter, which is having one's "preferences" biased against transgenders because of innate negative discriminatory feelings towards them. One would hope those who find themselves somehow in the position of not feeling attracted to transgenders (or who would otherwise not involve themselves romantically with them) while also not harboring any ill feelings towards them would try a bit harder to discern how exactly that equilibrium exists. Then again maybe i just haven't read enough of the thread.

Worse still is the opinion that it's fine and dandy just to ensure that transgenders don't face transgressions of inalienable rights while so much potential disguised bigotry seems to ferment just underneath the surface... which would nevertheless affect them in fundamental ways.

while we're at it, can you drop the "white" part of that statement?

it's really annoying when people keep saying that specific thing. just say cis men.

Doesn't work when privilege is often accumulated through the intersectionality of various factors. Perhaps if you expand to a more global perspective where race privilege is acquired differently but i imagine that for the most part posters on gaf are most experienced and versed in american/western privilege statuses, where the privilege of being white cis and male cannot be wholly represented without the specific mention of those contributors.

 

[Griss]

fucking lol @ not prejudiced with this attempt

like wtf

How on earth is that prejudiced? Have you read my other posts? I have said from the start that the natural biology of women and even just the concept of it turns me on, and that vulvas turn me on. I did not choose that preference, I have felt it since I felt any sexual feelings whatsoever.

No different to me not being turned on at all by large breasts. Can't say exactly why, but I know that it's the case, so that influences my choices accordingly.

 

[Zornack]

?????

Looks to me that cis asian women are the new cis white men.

 

[Spoo]

Regarding the bolded, it just isn't, because we're not talking about being soul mates here, we're talking about fucking, and when you talk about fucking what matters is what gets your dick hard and what doesn't. For me, the concept that someone has a fake vagina and 'male organs' inside them makes me a floppy fish. I can't help that. Similarly, if someone was missing a nose or burned or whatever I almost certainly wouldn't fuck them either. It's not a rejection of them as a person, it's an acknowledgement that my fucking lizard brain just doesn't want to bone them - nothing more.

This is harshly stated, but I think a fairly well-realized point. Me, personally, if I had virtual guarantees that there's no major difference, I think I could date a transgender person, but I don't know in the actual sex department how I would react to it. Like I don't know if I could be aroused by it. I certainly wouldn't let the thought that it *could* happen stop me from trying, but if I wasn't aroused for whatever reason, I'd have to assume that it comes down to basically not being into it.

Of course, the more salient point is, we have worked real hard -- and continue to work real hard -- to make sure people can have sex with who they want to have sex with, and respect those choices. We can't turn around now and try to dictate to others who they can and can't have sex with -- or who they absolutely must consider having sex with -- because... well, that's the conservative view point, isn't it?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Let's not pretend that plenty of cis men and women don't have constructed breasts, chests, butts, and lots of other tweaked pieces of human architecture.

This is a disingenuous argument. Surely one can differentiate between enhancing existing body parts and creating entirely new body parts.

 

[Nephtis]

Ewwwwwww, really? Erasing racism? White men make more money for the same work than white women make more than black men make more than black women. That's just one example. I'll drop the 'white' bit over my dead body.

so you only have it out for white people? you're a lot more prejudiced than I thought then.

?????

seriously, that's annoying. stop it. I'm not even white. but what does race have to do with this topic? and why are white people being the only ones shat on?

 

[Griss]

Let's not pretend that plenty of cis men and women don't have constructed breasts, chests, butts, and lots of other tweaked pieces of human architecture.

Okay, well we're getting into completely different territory here but I won't sleep with someone I know has fake breasts, because it's fucking unnatural and I can't stand the thought of it. So my sexual preferences here are 100% consistent, even if they are unusual.

 

[BamfMeat]

It absolutely does have place here, this whole thread is about treating transgender people the same as we would other genders. The word dehumanizing is thrown around so much now that it has lost the gravity of its meaning. If he would have said I wouldn't let one near me or I wouldn't touch him or her with a ten foot pole. That is dehumanizing, saying I would have sex with them but not date them is a far cry from dehumanizing.

Are you fucking kidding me right now? What he said is *literally* the definition of dehumanization.

de·hu·man·ize
dēˈ(h)yo͞oməˌnīz/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: dehumanizing
deprive of positive human qualities.

He's saying that literally, all that the person is, is a pretty face that he can stick his dick into. He's reducing the person down to a face and a mouth. Please, I'll go the other way - tell me, in no uncertain terms, how it's *not* dehumanizing to say that. If you can, I'm not adverse to admitting I'm wrong.

Also, saying you'd have sex with someone but not date them is objectifying them.

ob·jec·ti·fy
əbˈjektəˌfī
verb
"good poetry objectifies feeling"
degrade to the status of a mere object.

In this case, the "mere object" is something you'd stick your dick into. What goes along with objectifying something? Dehumanizing them.

Please, support your claims. I will entertain them then.

EDIT: to be clear, I don't look down on people who go down on me.

But if they're going down on you, you have to look down to see them! /badjoke

 

[esms]

seriously, that's annoying. stop it. I'm not even white. but what does race have to do with this topic? and why are white people being the only ones shat on?

We're guilty of a lot of shit, brah.

 

[MikeyB]

I wish people would try harder than simply accepting that you can't argue with taste.

It's a matter of the question. The not dating was framed against regarding their gender and letting use a washroom rather than "what's the basis for any objections you may have to dating a trans person".

"Date vs. washroom?" Clearly preferences vs. rights.
"Reasons for not dating?" Yeah, the basis of tastes is worth examining.

 

[User 479360]

I respect transgendered folks and their right to a normal, happy life. I don't want them to be bullied or shat upon because of the way they've chosen to live in order to feel right. It's not fair, and I can only imagine how it feels.

I couldn't date one, though, just based on personal preference and attraction. Nothing 'personal' though.

 

[Union Carbine]

You're thinking of "enhancements". When it comes to breasts, I'd agree that they're the same plastic operation. Surely, you must be able to see through the semantics you're trying to split hairs with?

Except I don't think it's semantic. I think that it's the trans aspect of it, much more than the authenticity of the flesh, that's the concern.

 

[bsod]

In this case, the "mere object" is something you'd stick your dick into. What goes along with objectifying something? Dehumanizing them.

You are reaaallllyyy reaching here.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Are you fucking kidding me right now? What he said is *literally* the definition of dehumanization.

de·hu·man·ize
dēˈ(h)yo͞oməˌnīz/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: dehumanizing
deprive of positive human qualities.

He's saying that literally, all that the person is, is a pretty face that he can stick his dick into. He's reducing the person down to a face and a mouth. Please, I'll go the other way - tell me, in no uncertain terms, how it's *not* dehumanizing to say that. If you can, I'm not adverse to admitting I'm wrong.

Also, saying you'd have sex with someone but not date them is objectifying them.

ob·jec·ti·fy
əbˈjektəˌfī
verb
"good poetry objectifies feeling"
degrade to the status of a mere object.

In this case, the "mere object" is something you'd stick your dick into. What goes along with objectifying something? Dehumanizing them.




But if they're going down on you, you have to look down to see them! /badjoke

Except I literally didn't say that. Why must you put words in my mouth?

 

[jillytot]

Now imagine a woman telling this to a gay man. Or a straight man exclaiming the above to a lesbian. This is the notion of sexual orientation: to reject sexual intercourse with some people "no matter how amazing, beautiful, smart, accepting, loving, or funny the are." Those of us who are unable to regard transwomen as precisely the same as cis-women in a sexual context are perfectly capable of regarding transwomen as women, full stop, in social contexts.

The point here is that i am revealing to you that you do not see trans women as women, but as something else, and therefore do not accept them as women. Disguise it all you want.

 

[Zornack]

The point here is that i am revealing to you that you do not see trans women as women, but as something else, and therefore do not accept them as women. Disguise it all you want.

Does a woman who refuses to date short men not accept them as men?

 

[Union Carbine]

Okay, well we're getting into completely different territory here but I won't sleep with someone I know has fake breasts, because it's fucking unnatural and I can't stand the thought of it. So my sexual preferences here are 100% consistent, even if they are unusual.

Fair enough.

 

[Ganzlinger]

There is a divide that is a hard to bridge.

For some people, accepting and respecting a transgender persons choice to transition is not enough, they are also expected to accept the transgenders new identity as fully a male/female as someone who was born the equivalent biological sex.

That's difficult for me, and not something likely to change, either through debate or life experience (Too old. )

I accept and respect a transgender persons choice to identity how they wish whether transitioned or not, I do not however agree with the idea that a person who has transitioned is no different to a person born of the sex a transgender person chose to identify as.

This I can understand is upsetting to a transgender person, it means there is therefore a "limitation" on how far I consider a person to have "become" the gender that they identify as, but the cold hard truth is yes, that is true, to me and others there is a limitation that falls short of fully male/female than no transgender person can go beyond.

I respect your choice, I respect your decision to identify how you choose and I am truly truly sorry that those limitations exist, but for me, in all honesty, they do, for others they do and the degree that you may or may not pass will not change this.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Simply Sarah]

Right, some women may have a masculine feature here or there. You can deal with that on an individual basis.

But we're talking about a whole group here. Basically all trans women have constructed breasts and a constructed vagina. Considering that we grow up learning to separate the sexes using genitals as one of the criteria, and then when we hit puberty we hetero males become obsessed with breasts and vaginas, the fact that this entire range of women all have non-natural breasts and non-natural vaginas is just a huge deal to most hetero men, and pretending it isn't does not serve anyone. Pretending trans women and cis women are the same physically doesn't serve anyone.

If 'being physically the same' is your standard of real women, there's going to be a problem because under that definition people aren't going to consider trans women 'real'. The whole point about gender being mental, and a social construct, is that it lets us get around this physical difference and say trans women are perfectly real.

This is wildly incorrect. Looking here, which references a study from 2011, the percentage of trans women that have had any sort of breast surgery is 18%. Yeah, 54% say they want it someday, but 28% say they don't want anything. Additionally, some percentage of those procedures are reconstructions for position and shape rather than any enlargement.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Ewwwwwww, really? Erasing racism? White men make more money for the same work than white women make more than black men make more than black women. That's just one example. I'll drop the 'white' bit over my dead body.



Where did I say they were all the same?

You said you avoid dating an entire group of people by making a sweeping generalization about them. If you really think every white man you meet is dangerous and ignorant, you're being pretty prejudiced.

This thread and all its armchair gender policemen illustrate why I avoid dating cis men, who are socialized to be dangerous and ignorant in a hierarchical system that's set up to privilege their views, wants, and needs.

 

[Nephtis]

We're guilty of a lot of shit, brah.

I get that, but all it does in this particular case (in my view anyway) just makes it seem like the "safe blanket" statement, and quite honestly, makes it somewhat tumblr-y. I can't take a person seriously when they go for that statement.

 

[hodgy100]

This is some straight-up bigotry.

As a hetero cisgendered male I've always found it odd and slightly disconcerting how most people treat it as a given that people like me would avoid dating a MTF. It's never come up, but I don't see why I shouldn't be open to the idea of falling in love with someone just because they're transgender.

I think of that episode of the IT Crowd. If you've seen the show, you know the one. Dude basically meets his perfect match, they're amazing together romantically, sexually and otherwise, but the moment he finds out she's MTF transgender, he freaks out and wants nothing to do with her. The show doesn't treat the joke ad "wow, look at this jerk and his prejudices" either. It's more "wow what a hilariously unfortunate situation for the guy!" As if it's a given that any hetero male would react the way he did. I love the show in general, but that kind of disgusted me.

you've got that wrong mate its most defiantly wow look at that dumb guy. Douglas is an idiot and the show constantly pokes fun at him for being extremely misogynist, clueless and shallow.

 

[bsod]

The point here is that i am revealing to you that you do not see trans women as women, but as something else, and therefore do not accept them as women. Disguise it all you want.

There's a difference between a biological "sex" and a social "sex". You can think yourself whatever sexual identifier you want in a social context, but your chromosomes don't change. The latter means more to some people than others.

 

[Jenov]

Self lubrication is possible as long as the skin used for the vaginal canal retains enough nerves. After a while the body will recognize it as a vaginal shaft and activates the lubrication process.

Er no? Anatomically that's not possible because MTF would be missing the actual glands that create lubrication, the Bartholin and Skene’s glands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skene's_gland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholin's_gland

Unless you're asserting that they would magically grow these glands into the skin? The only way I've heard of MTF being able to lubricate, or emulate vaginal lubrication was through some colon grafts, but it's not exactly the same as having vaginal glands dedicated to the purpose.

 

[spectral_method]

I respect, encourage and support trans peoples rights. But the person I date has to be able to bear my children. Shitty thing to say, but hey that's my right to choose who I date.

 

[Ties]

the tea is that the people complaining about broadbrushing white folk are broadbrushing trans folk

situational irony tbh

smfh

 

[BamfMeat]

Except I literally didn't say that. Why must you put words in my mouth?

"would not date, would let fellate".

So... the person is more than a face with a hole then? If that's the case, why wouldn't you date them?

Edit - also, you're right. You didn't literally say that. Literally, you didn't say that. But my question still stands.

 

[Ishida]

I share Evilore's opinion regarding this topic:

I would not date a transgender person.

Yup. I agree with Evilore's opinion. That's exactly how I feel.

 

[John Kowalski]

It's a matter of the question. The not dating was framed against regarding their gender and letting use a washroom rather than "what's the basis for any objections you may have to dating a trans person".

"Date vs. washroom?" Clearly preferences vs. rights.
"Reasons for not dating?" Yeah, the basis of tastes is worth examining.

Well it seems to me we're well beyond the scope of that first subject and well into the second. I've posted before about the conflict of taking preference into account when discussing fundamental rights, my most recent post is deep into the second matter.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

You said you avoid dating an entire group of people by making a sweeping generalization about them. If you really think every white man you meet is dangerous and ignorant, you're being pretty prejudiced.

Some white cis men overcome that socialization, but it's ignorant to pretend that socialization doesn't exist.

 

[Klyka]

If a person makes my penis tingle, then I don't care about details.

 

[Omegasquash]

seriously, that's annoying. stop it. I'm not even white. but what does race have to do with this topic? and why are white people being the only ones shat on?

White dude here, and you'd have to take a step back. It's a fact that cis straight white men aren't discriminated against at levels approaching what everyone else is. In a global context, I'm not being shit on at all and it's OK to draw attention to that in the name of fairness and equality.

 

[MikeyB]

"would not date, would let fellate".

So... the person is more than a face with a hole then? If that's the case, why wouldn't you date them?

You can date somebody because you have a lot of fun with them or you can see them as long-term potential, among other reasons. It has nothing to do with whether you see them as a person, but more to do with their potential as a partner for life.

 

[Ties]

If a person makes my penis tingle, then I don't care about details.

progressive

bookmarked

upvoted

 

[Septimius]

Except I don't think it's semantic. I think that it's the trans aspect of it, much more than the authenticity of the flesh, that's the concern.

There is no argument you can make that operations or supplements make anything "real" in any medical term. I'll allow it to be called an emulation, but it does not change the sex. The gender part of it is easy. I respect that all the way. Pretending it's real won't do anyone any favors. It's tough, but it's true. There is nothing wrong with anyone not minding dating someone that's trans. It's not wrong to have any sexual orientation. But to me, my sexual orientation pertains to the sex. I am heterosexual. I wish to date people of the opposite sex. Others have a gender-based interpretation of sexuality. Nothing wrong with that, either.

 

[SliceSabre]

I've been reading this thread and seeing some of the strangest arguments.

Some people seem to be almost presenting the argument that trans-people seem to have a right to be sexually desirable to other people or something akin to that argument. People can support you and your decision and desire to have equal rights but that doesn't mean they have to want to date you as well.

People simply have preferences for what they like. Should a gay man get offended that a straight man refuses to have sexual relations with them? Or a lady who likes skinny dudes and doesn't respond to the advances of an overweight man. You can't force somebody to have certain turn-on or desires they want out of a partner and them not wanting to be partners with you doesn't mean they reject you as a person.

Its all about what makes ya frisky and not everyone is made frisky by the same things.

 

[wildfire]

There is a divide that is a hard to bridge.

For some people, accepting and respecting a transgender persons choice to transition is not enough, they are also expected to accept the transgenders new identity as fully a male/female as someone who was born the equivalent biological sex.

That's difficult for me, and not something likely to change, either through debate or life experience (Too old. )

I accept and respect a transgender persons choice to identity how they wish whether transitioned or not, I do not however agree with the idea that a person who has transitioned is no different to a person born of the sex a transgender person chose to identify as.

This I can understand is upsetting to a transgender person, it means there is therefore a "limitation" on how far I consider a person to have "become" the gender that they identify as, but the cold hard truth is yes, that is true, to me and others there is a limitation that falls short of fully male/female than no transgender person can go beyond.

I respect your choice, I respect your decision to identify how you choose and I am truly truly sorry that those limitations exist, but for me, in all honesty, they do, for others they do and the degree that you may or may not pass will not change this.

Well if you are interested in exploring this aspect of whether or not it is a choice someone made a post earlier about brain patterns that is worth thinking about.

I get where you are coming from not being able to accept a transgender indivudal fully as the gender they identify as but being transgender is about having a mind where you born to be one gender even if your body doesn't match the outcome.

If somebody won't fully accept you the way you are, they aren't worth your time.

Sexuality isn't only penis and vagina btw.
Here's one of the many brain scans that reveal the differences between men and (trans-) women, it's very easy to understand.
BSTc is the Stria Terminalis wich is a part of the brain for anxiety and stress.

Another way to think about how messy birth can be there are women with Y chromosomes. It does alter their body in certain ways but not in any way that stops their sex from genetically being female.

 

[Nephtis]

White dude here, and you'd have to take a step back. It's a fact that cis straight white men aren't discriminated against at levels approaching what everyone else is. In a global context, I'm not being shit on at all and it's OK to draw attention to that in the name of fairness and equality.

It makes a person's cause seem so much weaker.

it's basically saying "oh, brown people aren't capable of discriminating because they're so much more discriminated against than white men".

we're talking about gender bias here. wait, maybe it's sexual bias? I still get the two confused when these topics come up. In any case, race shouldn't have a place in this discussion, especially when the statement used is so specific.

 

[Griss]

This is wildly incorrect. Looking here, which references a study from 2011, the percentage of trans women that have had any sort of breast surgery is 18%. Yeah, 54% say they want it someday, but 28% say they don't want anything. Additionally, some percentage of those procedures are reconstructions for position and shape rather than any enlargement.

I'm really sorry, because I misspoke there. In my mind we were all still talking about the hypothetical trans woman who is indistinguishable from a cis woman physically, in which case the surgeries would have had to have been performed.

Obviously many or most trans women do not have this option or have not reached that stage, or perhaps don't want to or don't feel it's necessary. I had tunnel vision there.

I don't understand how a person can say that / feel like they're a normal woman, though, and not want to remove the penis if it was a choice they could make.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Some white cis men overcome that socialization, but it's ignorant to pretend that socialization doesn't exist.

It's ignorant to imply that everyone falls under that socialization. You're still making an incorrect blanket statement about a whole group of people. You can try and justify it any way you want.

 

[QuickSilverD]

I share Evilore's opinion regarding this topic:

I would not date a transgender person.

I also agree with Evilore's opinion it is exactly how I feel about it.

What a polite and scientific way of saying "no it's gross."

Being the owner of this forum doesnt not make all of his opinions some kind of moral golden rule. In this case I would say his opinion is filled with toxic prejudices.

"Despite your transitioning, you obviously aren't going to look/feel like entirely like a real woman in many ways." is pretty obviously toxic and is kind of fucking weird when applied to cis woman as well. There are tons of cis woman with masculine features who don't "look like a real woman in many ways."

Only way I can conceive these arguments is if one assumes that cisgendered woman and a (post-op) transgender women are identical psychically, now I have never actually analysed a MtF vagina up close but I would be willing to bet a good among of money that those are not fundamentally equal to a "born with" one. I get the impression you guys do believe so, but you are wrong.

You can use the preferences argument if you like, but you aren't fully accepting anyone as they are with that view point. Sure we can make laws and do what we can to mitigate the hatred and bigotry, but living in a world where few people accept you, welcome you, admire you, look up to you, treat you with more than forced respect... it's not an easy life to live.

Declaring that you would never date a trans person ever for any reason under any circumstances is still a condescending, ignorant, and discriminatory point of view. If you want to talk about reality you are saying you would immediately reject a person for this no matter how amazing, beautiful, smart, accepting, loving, or funny the are. They could be the perfect person for you but this one really meaningless detail will disgust you to such a degree that you would throw away all that away, tearing down both yourself and the other person in the process.

People's genitalia, a "meaningless detail" when it comes to dating? are you reading the shit you're writing?

 

[esms]

I get that, but all it does in this particular case (in my view anyway) just makes it seem like the "safe blanket" statement, and quite honestly, makes it somewhat tumblr-y. I can't take a person seriously when they go for that statement.

Agreed. At the same time, though, live and let live. If some militant feminist wants to blame a group that I'm a part of for all of the social ills in the country, so be it.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

It's ignorant to imply that everyone falls under that socialization. You're still making an incorrect blanket statement about a whole group of people. You can try and justify it any way you want.

#NotAllCisWhiteMen!!!!11

 

[collige]

I'm really sorry, because I misspoke there. In my mind we were all still talking about the hypothetical trans woman who is indistinguishable from a cis woman physically, in which case the surgeries would have had to have been performed.

Not for breasts.

 

[Platy]

Does a woman who refuses to date short men not accept them as men?

No problem if you refuse to date short trans women as long as you refuse to date short cis women

You not want to date a woman that has a penis
You not want to date a woman that has broad shoulders
You not want to date a woman that has fake breasts
You not want to date a woman that has a wig
You not want to date a woman that has 5 o clock shadow

It is all ok

If you find a trans woman that does not have anything of that and you STILL not date simply because she has an Y chromossome .... you have a problem

I'm really sorry, because I misspoke there. In my mind we were all still talking about the hypothetical trans woman who is indistinguishable from a cis woman physically, in which case the surgeries would have had to have been performed.

Easiest way to do this would be start hormones at puberty time, which is getting more common in developed countries as we speak... in this case only genital surgery is required

 

[Count Dookkake]

"would not date, would let fellate".

So... the person is more than a face with a hole then? If that's the case, why wouldn't you date them?

Yes, a person is more than that. I have never said or implied otherwise.

That said, I am not obligated to date all persons.

I'd wager all of us have rejected dates for any number of reasons that may seem shallow to others. Luckily, my taste in women has nothing to do with my feelings on the rights and legal protection of trans people.

Also, you have altered the words of my original post, fyi. If you wish to remain offended, at least make sure I said what you think I said.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

#NotAllCisWhiteMen!!!!11

As yes, the #notall joke. The tired joke people use here when they have no real rebuttal to their ignorant claims and want to try and defuse the situation. Thanks for the notification that I can stop paying attention to you, because you obviously have nothing to say at this point.

 

[Mumei]

Where did I say they were all the same?

I think the problem is that your defense of your original statement is easy to read that way. What started all of this is when you said, "This thread and all its armchair gender policemen illustrate why I avoid dating cis men, who are socialized to be dangerous and ignorant in a hierarchical system that's set up to privilege their views, wants, and needs." When challenged on this, you moved immediately to, "You deny the existence of cis male privilege? Good luck."

And I think it's easy to see at this point how one might read you as making sweeping claims about all cis men. I don't happen to think you are, because I saw the post where you said, "To clarify, I would date a white cis man if he was sufficiently educated on the systems of privileges and prejudices that rule our society, if he was actively anti-racist, if he was actively working to dismantle that hierarchy," but if someone happened to miss that post, and saw the multiple posts where you made generalized claims about "cis men" or "white cis men," it's understandable how they would think that is your opinion.

the tea is that the people complaining about broadbrushing white folk are broadbrushing trans folk

situational irony tbh

smfh

Right. And the thing about Erin's original comment is that all she was saying was that the ignorance on display on this topic is precisely the thing that discourages her from thinking of cis men as potential dating partners - and yet the same people who were saying the kinds of things that make her feel that way are the same people who get up in arms about that.