Support NeoGAF

[hachi]

Sex (not sexuality) IS defined biologically. Gender identity or any other social construct of gender is not.

Yes and no; the distinction between sex and gender is overused theoretically, and is a very recent distinction in the first place, one always associated with a certain political or ideological framework.

This is a bit like the inevitable young undergrad who recently heard of the distinction between signifier / signified, and who runs around to "deconstruct" the supposed arbitrariness he suddenly sees everywhere. But to use it that way is a tremendous simplification that doesn't even hold up in the source material of structuralist and poststructuralist linguistics.

Likewise, we can say that sex and gender are separate, and yet the latter is in many ways inextricably caught up with the former, a fact which is not lessened by the possibility for variation within the themes. The amusing thing in this conversation is that the entire existence of transgenderism, as it is self-represented, is a testament to the fact that gender and sex cannot be held apart; for there would be no immense compulsion (under the threat of catastrophic psychological consequences or suicide) to have ones body massively altered by surgery if it weren't for the fact that sex and gender cannot be held in contradiction in a person without consequences. The ability to occupy a gendered position requires that the body be brought into alignment to at least some extent lest it feel inadequate or inauthentic even to the individual him/herself -- this seems to be the underlying logic of the disorder to begin with.

 

[RM8]

If I knew a woman was trans, that would be her dominant identity to me, for better or for worse.

Even if you don't want to date her (and honestly it's your right to date whoever you want IMO), it'd be cool if you could work on this. Reducing someone to a trait like this is pretty dehumanizing. I don't know any trans person as far as I know, and while it may be shocking to learn that someone I know is trans, or if I befriend a trans person right now, I'd do everything in my hands to see past that trait.

 

[Simply Sarah]

I sure do love how this thread changed from being about if it's really possible to accept and respect a trans person if you wouldn't date them because of it into a thread full of people confidently asserting I (and any other trans fakewoman) am male and/or a man and there's nothing I can do about it because BIOLOGY!

 

[esms]

And unless they can literally move their brain into the body of a woman, that will always be the case. I am very sorry if that offends those who are trans and wish they were the opposite gender, but you are not in fact a man or a woman.

Societies change, though. Perhaps sometime in the future, trans or gay or lesbian won't be a person's dominant identity, but right now, to the majority of people, these words define the individuals affected.

 

[wildfire]

I don't understand the point of this thread. I don't want to date a transwoman, the why is irrelevant. Nobody's going to guilt trip me into being aroused by transwomen, and I'm certainly not going to date someone out of some weird sense of duty.

If you forced me to tell you why, I'd say it's the idea that bothers me. The idea that the person used to be a biological male, the idea that her vagina is a reconstructed penis, etc.

I'm not ashamed of it, why would I be? I'm not proud of it either. Maybe I could slowly get used to the idea and work on it with a long-term partner, but why would I go through that? It would be long and not particularly enjoyable. At best you guys might manage to make me feel bad about myself with your arguments, super.

You don't get the point of the thread because you didn't read the OP. Do you tell women to see transgender women as women? Would accept a woman telling you to accept a trans man as a man in situation where a woman wouldn't be accepted?

If your answer is no to both, then this thread wasn't about you. It's about the people who would say yes while still having the same stance you do on dating.

There are deep underlying problems about social acceptance and enforcement when living with 2 viewpoints that are contradictory.

 

[squidyj]

I haven't dated a transgender person, I don't know what it's like.
I have nothing against doing so but if it turns out I'm not comfortable with it or enjoying it I don't think there's anything wrong with me not wanting to continue.

 

[Simply Sarah]

Yes and no; the distinction between sex and gender is overused theoretically, and is a very recent distinction in the first place, one always associated with a certain political or ideological framework.

This is a bit like the inevitable young undergrad who recently heard of the distinction between signifier / signified, and who runs around to "deconstruct" the supposed arbitrariness he suddenly sees everywhere. But to use it that way is a tremendous simplification that doesn't even hold up in the source material of structuralist and poststructuralist linguistics.

Likewise, we can say that sex and gender are separate, and yet the latter is in many ways inextricably caught up with the former, a fact which is not lessened by the possibility for variation within the themes. The amusing thing in this conversation is that the entire existence of transgenderism, as it is self-represented, is a testament to the fact that gender and sex cannot be held apart; for there would be no immense compulsion (under the threat of catastrophic psychological consequences or suicide) to have ones body massively altered by surgery if it weren't for the fact that sex and gender cannot be held in contradiction in a person without consequences. The ability to occupy a gendered position requires that the body be brought into alignment to at least some extent lest it feel inadequate or inauthentic even to the individual him/herself -- this seems to be the underlying logic of the disorder to begin with.

And I made the massive mistake in this thread of trying to engage people on the broad dichotomy ground when it was brought up instead of going right towards this approach from the start. Oops.

Edit: And thank you for this post.

 

[CrocMother]

I know it's hard to wrap your mind around, but there are women born with penises, and men born with vaginas.

Nature has failed to neatly organize us into set categories, and I for one think it's for the better.

 

[Photolysis]

I wouldn't date a transgender person. I don't find transgenderism attractive, and have no control over that.

The wider topic of gender... I have no idea. I try to base my opinions on empirical evidence where possible, and there isn't enough scientific knowledge at present. The link from earlier is very interesting however, and I will have to read up on it later.

If we could determine the root cause of gender identity, it would help enormously for me in answering the question. It's possible to imagine many different scenarios, from it being due to macroscopic brain structure (and thus there is such a thing as a 'male' or 'female' brain), to a 'misfiring' of a module of the brain, to an incredibly complicated and fuzzy thing which has traditionally been divided -- quite possibly falsely -- into a dichotomy. I look forward to advances in science being able to find a better answer in the future.

All I can really do in the meantime is try to treat others with respect and dignity.

 

[wildfire]

And I made the massive mistake in this thread of trying to engage people on the broad dichotomy ground when it was brought up instead of going right towards this approach from the start. Oops.

Well I have appreciated your input on the dichotomy aspect.

 

[John Kowalski]

You are one of the few who sees the contradictory nature I'm referring to.

I'm not willing to accept my stance as bigotry but if I don't fully acknowledge a trans person as male or female when it comes to sex then I'm being disingenuous about how society should treat them. Based on responses in this that's that case for some posters here but they are unable to see it because personal rights only extends to what they are comfortable with and not what other people are uncomfortable with. Those people just have to deal with it because those people should be progressive even though they themselves aren't as progressive as they see themselves as.

The problem i'm seeing, as i've touched on some older threads, is a cognitive dissonance between the belief that one is progressive (thus supporting progressive causes that are "external" to them) and the incapacity to actually internalize those values in a way that would shape their personal, intimate personal space (which to me reads as the american emphasis on personal space/individualism/similar values). Much like the equivalent cognitive dissonance that affects many other aspects of discrimination (i.e. class/race), there seems to exist this prevalent belief that progressiveness exists and is the default status quo, which in turn becomes the crutch that permits easily avoiding these more important questions that strive to discern what drives people's core motives and identities. Consider how common "progressive additives" as i like to call them are in this thread. "I'd date a transgender, gotta try everything right?" (adding the progressive notion that trying different experiences is good, avoiding the exposed notion that transgenders are inherently different), "I wouldn't date a transgender, it's my preference" (adding the progressive notion that one's ideals are sacred, skipping the very important step of analyzing preference to discern what stands behind it), "I wouldn't date transgenders, but i defend their right to dedicated fundamental rights (adding the progressive notion that transgenders have inalienable rights, skipping the very subjective and potentially maliciously intended first half of the sentence). They may not be indicative of how the writer actually feels, but they are indicative of what they believe to be needed for their opinion to be accepted in a public space.

Now i'm just rambling. I just think that in few year's time we'll come to the conclusion that all the advancement of LGBT causes has done very little to shape how most people actually feel about them, something they do not delve into or expose because it conflicts deeply with how progressive they believe themselves to be.

If I'm understanding him correctly, he regards trans women as transgender first and woman second when it comes to dating. So it boils down to he wouldn't date a man or a transgendered woman, period.

I'd be hard pressed to disagree with him as well. If I knew a woman was trans, that would be her dominant identity to me, for better or for worse.

I don't quite care what he thinks or doesn't think, but he did a terrible job of explaining it and then blamed Haly's argument for sucking? That belittles Haly's very proper questioning of his posts and that's not ok, especially compared to what little effort he seemed to put into his posts.

 

[User 479360]

The bottom line is that people can't control what they find attractive and there's no need to shame them for that, but at least we can be respectful of how each individual would like to be labeled as gender-wise.

Exactly

I've been looked at on online dating by a transgendered male (who's now a female) and went to high school with a guy who chose that path. Good for them, but I couldn't ever think of them sexually.

If I was messaged or talked to, I'd just politely decline interest.

 

[Kinsei]

And unless they can literally move their brain into the body of a woman, that will always be the case. I am very sorry if that offends those who are trans and wish they were the opposite gender, but you are not in fact a man or a woman.

I see we have another one that fancies himself a king of gender. Did you not see how that worked out for the last one?

 

[Petrie]

Societies change, though. Perhaps sometime in the future, trans or gay or lesbian won't be a person's dominant identity, but right now, to the majority of people, these words define the individuals affected.

That's fine. We are not at a point where we can truly make that the case though.

I see we have another one that fancies himself a king of gender. Did you not see how that worked out for the last one?

man and woman have very clear definitions. If we choose to change those definitions, so be it.

Your body does not work the way someone born that gender does. We do not yet have the capabilities to fix that. I hope one day we do for the sake of all, but right now you can become something closer to male or female, but you can not change from one to the other 100%.

 

[Switch Back 9]

Nice to see yet another thread devolve into a fucking "privilege" argument.

The issue is not that white males are treated extra special, the issue is that a lot of other people aren't treated at the same level. Flying off the handle and saying stupid inane shit like #notallcismales or whatever the fuck is so godamn counterproductive and makes people either get really defensive or really angry.

How about saying, "boy it sure is unfair that trans-people, or POC, get shit on in so many ways" and working from there instead of going straight to making white males feel shitty for being white males just because they have it easier. The way a lot of you present your argument makes it seem like you want to bring cis white males down to that level of oppression rather than elevating yourselves to a similar and fair level of freedom and opportunity.

All this hate and vitriol, on both sides, will get us nowhere.

 

[Simplet]

You don't get the point of the thread because you didn't read the OP. Do you tell women to see transgender women as women? Would accept a woman telling you to accept a trans man as a man in situation where a woman wouldn't be accepted?

If your answer is no to both, then this thread wasn't about you. It's about the people who would say yes while still having the same stance you do on dating.

There are deep underlying problems about social acceptance and enforcement when living with 2 viewpoints that are contradictory.

Well I still don't understand what you're going for. A transwoman tells me she's a woman, then ok, she's a woman. She's just a woman I don't want to date. That's not contradictory.

 

[Septimius]

And my response to that was to ask if birth genitals are how you intended to define sex and if, therefore, intersex conditions can result in someone neither male nor female.

See, I knew this was what you were getting at. I told you to stay away from technicalities. These are not technicalities. They're clear cut. Their sex is well-defined.

@septimus, would you date a biological woman if she was born without a vagina (or it was destroyed somehow) and she had to have a new one medically constructed for her?

See above.

His argument sucked? Do you really think your equivalence of having no attraction to men and having no attraction to transgenders was anything but ripe for misunderstandings?

My rebuttal was concerning him saying it's prejudice to say you'd never date a transgender. It isn't. It's the same way that I'm not interested in dating men. It isn't to say I view M2F as gender male, or to touch upon the subject of it being homosexuality or not, but I am rebutting the sucky argument that it is somehow prejudice to say one would never date a transgender. Because it isn't. That's why the argument sucked, no matter how poor my rebuttals may have been.

Well I still don't understand what you're going for. A transwoman tells me she's a woman, then ok, she's a woman. She's just a woman I don't want to date. That's not contradictory.

I like the simplicity of this statement.

 

[Takuan]

I know it's hard to wrap your mind around, but there are women born with penises, and men born with vaginas.

Nature has failed to neatly organize us into set categories, and I for one think it's for the better.

Aren't those hermaphrodites? Do they fall into the same category of a male or female who functionally matches his/her expressed sex, but does not identify with it?

 

[esms]

Even if you don't want to date her (and honestly it's your right to date whoever you want IMO), it'd be cool if you could work on this. Reducing someone to a trait like this is pretty dehumanizing. I don't know any trans person as far as I know, and while it may be shocking to learn that someone I know is trans, or if I befriend a trans person right now, I'd do everything in my hands to see past that trait.

I understand this view is far from perfect. As sad as at is, I don't know if this will ever change, and I see it around me all the time. "This is my gay friend," "This is my black friend," etc.

Exposure would probably solve it. I have gay friends that I refrain from defining them by that characteristic. The problem is that trans people don't have a "coming out" like gay people, so that everyone in their social circles and beyond knows who they are and who they're attracted to.

I had a back and forth earlier in this thread about when a trans woman would disclose that she is indeed trans. She said before intimacy/second, third date area. This keeps exposure to a minimum which, in turn, doesn't encourage empathy. They're relegated to the sidelines.

I'm sure we'll get to a point eventually where trans people have coming outs for friends and family when they can be free of fear of violence because of their identity. And at that point, trans may drop from their dominant identity to society. But that time is not now.

That's fine. We are not at a point where we can truly make that the case though.

Agreed.

 

[Dragonborn]

If I met an awesome girl who turns out to be transgender, I'm not going to lie and say it wouldn't phase me but I don't think I'd mind in the long run.

 

[CapNBritain]

I don't understand the point of this thread. I don't want to date a transwoman, the why is irrelevant. Nobody's going to guilt trip me into being aroused by transwomen, and I'm certainly not going to date someone out of some weird sense of duty.

If you forced me to tell you why, I'd say it's the idea that bothers me. The idea that the person used to be a biological male, the idea that her vagina is a reconstructed penis, etc.

I'm not ashamed of it, why would I be? I'm not proud of it either. Maybe I could slowly get used to the idea and work on it with a long-term partner, but why would I go through that? It would be long and not particularly enjoyable. At best you guys might manage to make me feel bad about myself with your arguments, super.

I think we feel the same way (apparently a lot of people in this thread do), but I think it's important to at least try and reflect on WHY we have these feelings. I think these uncomfortable feelings are a root cause of why there is so much hatred towards trans people and we should be brave enough to confront that part of ourselves.

The problem i'm seeing, as i've touched on some older threads, is a cognitive dissonance between the belief that one is progressive (thus supporting progressive causes that are "external" to them) and the incapacity to actually internalize those values in a way that would shape their personal, intimate personal space (which to me reads as the american emphasis on personal space/individualism/similar values). Much like the equivalent cognitive dissonance that affects many other aspects of discrimination (i.e. class/race), there seems to exist this prevalent belief that progressiveness exists and is the default status quo, which in turn becomes the crutch that permits easily avoiding these more important questions that strive to discern what drives people's core motives and identities. Consider how common "progressive additives" as i like to call them are in this thread. "I'd date a transgender, gotta try everything right?" (adding the progressive notion that trying different experiences is good, avoiding the exposed notion that transgenders are inherently different), "I wouldn't date a transgender, it's my preference" (adding the progressive notion that one's ideals are sacred, skipping the very important step of analyzing preference to discern what stands behind it), "I wouldn't date transgenders, but i defend their right to dedicated fundamental rights (adding the progressive notion that transgenders have inalienable rights, skipping the very subjective and potentially maliciously intended first half of the sentence). They may not be indicative of how the writer actually feels, but they are indicative of what they believe to be needed for their opinion to be accepted in a public space.

Now i'm just rambling. I just think that in few year's time we'll come to the conclusion that all the advancement of LGBT causes has done very little to shape how most people actually feel about them but do not delve into or expose because it conflicts deeply with how progressive they believe themselves to be.

The cognitive dissonance you describe is exactly right. Although I feel like it's less about people's opinions in public and more about how they want to reconcile their desired progressive attitudes with their ingrained beliefes/feelings.

Well I still don't understand what you're going for. A transwoman tells me she's a woman, then ok, she's a woman. She's just a woman I don't want to date. That's not contradictory.

I don't think it is contradictory, because there is a difference between a cis and a trans woman. But like I've said, I think we should try and look at why we feel this way. I'm sure that people who do have problems with trans people also have the same feelings, but perhaps magnified and without the same amount of self-reflection and control.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

I'm not sure this is true, at least how I read it. Slave owners had sex with slaves-- it didn't change their perception of the slaves.

Good point; I was referring more to modern times though. There's a whole host of shit from back in those days the vast majority don't believe in anymore.

In a modern, civilized society, I'd say it has a role in how we perceive and to what extent we have empathy towards others. These are strong emotions, after all.

This doesn't make sense. Just because I'm not sexually attracted to some doesn't mean I'm going to love them or care for them any less than I would with someone who I happen to be attracted to. By the same token, I don't have to love someone that I'm attracted to. To conflate the two interchangeably like that is weird to me.

Platonic vs. romantic. And in this case, micro vs. macro. You personally may do it this way, but if there are enough people out there who go the other way, that can bring things down on the macro level.

Other than that, I'm glad we can see eye-on-eye on this

 

[esms]

I don't quite care what he thinks or doesn't think, but he did a terrible job of explaining it and then blamed Haly's argument for sucking? That belittles Haly's very proper questioning of his posts and that's not ok, especially compared to what little effort he seemed to put into his posts.

Fair enough. I think the back and forth between them could be chalked up to a misunderstanding, but that's just me.

 

[Simply Sarah]

See, I knew this was what you were getting at. I told you to stay away from technicalities. These are not technicalities. They're clear cut. Their sex is well-defined..

Then do say how it's well-defined.

 

[Septimius]

I know it's hard to wrap your mind around, but there are women born with penises, and men born with vaginas.

Nature has failed to neatly organize us into set categories, and I for one think it's for the better.

Do you have any idea why? Do you understand what it is? Do you understand the fallacy you're producing? Abusing rare medical cases, cases that are nothing like the way you describe it, as hermaphrodites aren't "women with penises", but rather with a very, very strange situation going on around the crotch. There is no penis with a urethra. These are not to say "nature has failed to neatly organize us". It's not even a mutation, it's a malformed, by a medical definition.

Then do say how it's well-defined.

With you not accepting my previous post, wherein I tell you why the anatomy posters on my wall are divided into two, where one half is male, and the other female, then you're trying to strong-arm me into a trap, wherein you can spring out, just as before, and say "aha, but what about so and so". I don't like such a game. If you seriously lack the knowledge of biological sex, there's heaps of lecture for you to enjoy. Please don't believe that you're winning any argument by convincing laymen to argue what sex is, only to take them on a technicality.

 

[Korten]

Maybe I've read these last 17 pages wrong... But If I get the general idea from at least one of the arguing sides...

Is that unless you find every race and gender to be attractive, than you're a bigot. Since they seem to believe that your sexual preference is the same thing as your prejudices. Which is really bonkers. I personally don't find black woman to be physically attractive, however that doesn't mean I can't find black woman to be beautiful or 'sexy' but that doesn't mean I feel physically attractive to them.

If you believe that somehow I am a bigot for this- then believe what ever you think. Because I'm not a bigot. It seems that some people won't be satisified until everyone's sexual orientations, preferences, whatever, are all the same for every human being.

 

[Tenumi]

Do you have any idea why? Do you understand what it is? Do you understand the fallacy you're producing? Abusing rare medical cases, cases that are nothing like the way you describe it, as hermaphrodites aren't "women with penises", but rather with a very, very strange situation going on around the crotch. There is no penis with a urethra. These are not to say "nature has failed to neatly organize us". It's not even a mutation, it's a malformed, by a medical definition.

...You realize you just pretty much said "This doesn't fit my argument, so stop using it", right?

 

[wildfire]

Well I still don't understand what you're going for. A transwoman tells me she's a woman, then ok, she's a woman. She's just a woman I don't want to date. That's not contradictory.

If you are unwilling to date them that means for specific reasons you don't see them as women. If you accepted them as women then what more do you need to date them?

 

[User 479360]

Maybe I've read these last 17 pages wrong... But If I get the general idea from at least one of the arguing sides...

Is that unless you find every race and gender to be attractive, than you're a bigot. Since they seem to believe that your sexual preference is the same thing as your prejudices. Which is really bonkers. I personally don't find black woman to be physically attractive, however that doesn't mean I can't find black woman to be beautiful or 'sexy' but that doesn't mean I feel physically attractive to them.

If you believe that somehow I am a bigot for this- then believe what ever you think. Because I'm not a bigot. It seems that some people won't be satisified until everyone's sexual orientations, preferences, whatever, are all the same for every human being.

Well-said. I can't disagree with anything there.

I'm the same: I think a lot of black women are beautiful, and have found myself attracted to some sexually (Rihanna is one), but I generally don't feel that way. The same is true of some other ethnicities.

It's not a choice, nor is it something I love about myself. But we're all attracted to different people. That's fine.

Not many people have a fetish like mine, which is harmless, so I feel weird about that. However, I try not to feel bad about the above. I'm not a bigot because of it.

I find that I'm most attracted to smart women, even if they're a bit overweight like myself, and gothic girls.

 

[GamerJM]

Good thing I don't have to worry about this, I would date a trans woman regardless of whether she's transitioned physically and had sex reassignment surgery or not, to me she's just a woman, doesn't matter if she's biologically male or female or if she has a penis or a vagina, either way she's a woman and I'm attracted to women. But either way anyone who doesn't think they're women are bigots.

 

[Simply Sarah]

Do you have any idea why? Do you understand what it is? Do you understand the fallacy you're producing? Abusing rare medical cases, cases that are nothing like the way you describe it, as hermaphrodites aren't "women with penises", but rather with a very, very strange situation going on around the crotch. There is no penis with a urethra. These are not to say "nature has failed to neatly organize us". It's not even a mutation, it's a malformed, by a medical definition.



With you not accepting my previous post, wherein I tell you why the anatomy posters on my wall are divided into two, where one half is male, and the other female, then you're trying to strong-arm me into a trap, wherein you can spring out, just as before, and say "aha, but what about so and so". I don't like such a game. If you seriously lack the knowledge of biological sex, there's heaps of lecture for you to enjoy.

Oooooh, I see. You're one of those bastards that treats anyone that's intersex as female and thinks surgery should "correct" the baby immediately. You know, the kind of thing intersex advocates have been fighting against for years and which almost any major body which has looked at the question, including the WHO and UN last year, has said needed to stop. Gotcha. And no, I wasn't playing a game, I was trying to understand because it's somewhat impossible to discuss with someone unless you actually understand where they stand. But thanks for the compliment!

...You realize you just pretty much said "This doesn't fit my argument, so stop using it", right?

It's way easier than actually addressing what people have to say. Clearly the

 

[John Kowalski]

The cognitive dissonance you describe is exactly right. Although I feel like it's less about people's opinions in public and more about how they want to reconcile their desired progressive attitudes with their ingrained beliefs/feelings.

...yes that's also how i feel, i didn't explain myself well.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

I would not judge someone if they feel uncomfortable for dating me because I'm transsexual. I understand that for some people it can be a huge mental hurdle while others are completely alright with it.

But if you feel attracted to someone, asked them out, and later they tell you they are transsexual on a date, please give the person you asked out a chance, you might be pleasantly surprised how okay you might be with them. If you're not, that's fine too and ultimately its just something you can't handle for personal reasons. You at least treated the person respectfully and kindly, that's all that matters.

My boyfriend is a heterosexual cis-male, he's only been attracted to the opposite sex, and he's completely fine with dating me for the past three years even though I have male bits and he sees me as a woman. As he said himself, "If she says she's a woman, talks like a woman, looks like a woman, dresses like a woman, and acts like a woman, then to me she's a woman regardless if she has a penis or not."

 

[Griss]

The problem i'm seeing, as i've touched on some older threads, is a cognitive dissonance between the belief that one is progressive (thus supporting progressive causes that are "external" to them) and the incapacity to actually internalize those values in a way that would shape their personal, intimate personal space (which to me reads as the american emphasis on personal space/individualism/similar values). Much like the equivalent cognitive dissonance that affects many other aspects of discrimination (i.e. class/race), there seems to exist this prevalent belief that progressiveness exists and is the default status quo, which in turn becomes the crutch that permits easily avoiding these more important questions that strive to discern what drives people's core motives and identities. Consider how common "progressive additives" as i like to call them are in this thread. "I'd date a transgender, gotta try everything right?" (adding the progressive notion that trying different experiences is good, avoiding the exposed notion that transgenders are inherently different), "I wouldn't date a transgender, it's my preference" (adding the progressive notion that one's ideals are sacred, skipping the very important step of analyzing preference to discern what stands behind it), "I wouldn't date transgenders, but i defend their right to dedicated fundamental rights (adding the progressive notion that transgenders have inalienable rights, skipping the very subjective and potentially maliciously intended first half of the sentence). They may not be indicative of how the writer actually feels, but they are indicative of what they believe to be needed for their opinion to be accepted in a public space.

See, I just think you miss the point when you talk about sexual preferences this way, as something that can be 'shaped' internally.

I did not choose to start being attracted to the opposite sex when I was 10/11. I did not choose to suddenly have the urge to have sex or to masturbate. I am not aware of why I find certain facial features pretty, and others sexy, and others ugly. I don't believe that any progressive analysis can change these basically instinctual urges.

Similarly, as I have said maybe 10+ times in this thread, it is clear that to mean the concept of female biology, including a natural vagina and fertility and all the rest of it, is a very large part of sexual attraction. No academic analysis of transgender womens' brains is going to change the fact that they were once (or perhaps still are) in a body with male traits, including sexual traits, and nothing will change the fact that this is a deal-breaking turnoff for me. There is no point to dating someone you are not attracted to, so that's the end of it.

People aren't saying that ones sexual preferences are 'sacred' so much as they're saying that they're essentially mysterious and immovable, which from my perspective certainly seems the case. I'm sure tons of people who grew up gay and desperately wished they weren't feel the same way. You want analysis of what stands behind such preferences? Instinct and reproductive imperative, expressed in all of us in different ways.

I would not judge someone if they feel uncomfortable for dating me because I'm transsexual. I understand that for some people it can be a huge mental hurdle while others are completely alright with it.

But if you feel attracted to someone, asked them out, and later they tell you they are transsexual on a date, please give the person you asked out a chance, you might be pleasantly surprised how okay you might be with them. If you're not, that's fine too and ultimately its just something you can't handle for personal reasons. You at least treated the person respectfully and kindly, that's all that matters.

My boyfriend is a heterosexual cis-male, he's only been attracted to the opposite sex, and he's completely fine with dating me for the past three years even though I have male bits and he sees me as a woman. As he said himself, "If she says she's a woman, talks like a woman, looks like a woman, dresses like a woman, and acts like a woman, then to me she's a woman regardless if she has a penis or not."

I hate to be rude, but do you have sex?

 

[Septimius]

...You realize you just pretty much said "This doesn't fit my argument, so stop using it", right?

The lack of understanding of the used medical cases draws a picture that the argument comes from a lack of understanding. The following argument that sex is a false dichotomy falls flat, and serves only as a distraction, not as anything useful. By all means, keep using it, but there's nothing to say towards it, since it is nonsensical.

Oooooh, I see. You're one of those bastards that treats anyone that's intersex as female and thinks surgery should "correct" the baby immediately. You know, the kind of thing intersex advocates have been fighting against for years and which almost any major body which has looked at the question, including the WHO and UN last year, has said needed to stop. Gotcha.

I say I'm opposed to the argumental kung-fu you're trying to use upon people, yet you continue to prove my point by doing exactly that. In response to that. Beautiful. Do you see that you actually do what I say I see you're doing? You leap at my argument saying "anatomy is taught by a book" to say that I'm somehow against something, and I'm even a bastard. It's just.. astounding.

And no, I wasn't playing a game, I was trying to understand because it's somewhat impossible to discuss with someone unless you actually understand where they stand.

No, you see, you force laymen to define something that's not easy to define, for them to fall prey to your argumental judo to strong-arm them into back-pedaling. What the sex is is something best learnt by reading about it, not by abusing it in discussion like you do.

 

[jasonng]

Maybe I've read these last 17 pages wrong... But If I get the general idea from at least one of the arguing sides...

Is that unless you find every race and gender to be attractive, than you're a bigot. Since they seem to believe that your sexual preference is the same thing as your prejudices. Which is really bonkers. I personally don't find black woman to be physically attractive, however that doesn't mean I can't find black woman to be beautiful or 'sexy' but that doesn't mean I feel physically attractive to them.

If you believe that somehow I am a bigot for this- then believe what ever you think. Because I'm not a bigot. It seems that some people won't be satisified until everyone's sexual orientations, preferences, whatever, are all the same for every human being.

It's really more about a deeper analysis as to why someone won't date a transgender, what is about a certain gender that is considered attraction, and so on. I can understand how some can find offense of being painted in broad strokes instead of being judged as an individual. I do believe there are fair reasons why one wouldn't pursue a relationship with on. My stance is more because of social implications.

 

[Petrie]

Good thing I don't have to worry about this, I would date a trans woman pre-op or post-op, to me they're just women, doesn't matter if she's biologically male or female or if she has a penis or a vagina, either way she's a woman and I'm attracted to women. But either way anyone who doesn't think they're women are bigots.

There's nothing bigoted about not believing someone lacking the things we use to define a man or woman genetically are not that gender.

You are not a man or woman just because you say you are or have surgery to become closer to one.

One day hopefully science will get us to a place where we can change that for those who want to.

Until then there are clear-cut definitions.

 

[Griss]

Oooooh, I see. You're one of those bastards that treats anyone that's intersex as female and thinks surgery should "correct" the baby immediately. You know, the kind of thing intersex advocates have been fighting against for years and which almost any major body which has looked at the question, including the WHO and UN last year, has said needed to stop. Gotcha. And no, I wasn't playing a game, I was trying to understand because it's somewhat impossible to discuss with someone unless you actually understand where they stand. But thanks for the compliment!

He said absolutely nothing of the sort, you are making wild assumptions here.

He's making the point that intersex babies aren't evidence that 'some women are normally born with penises', but rather some babies are born malformed in the genitals and intersex, and the presence of such babies does nothing to remove the strong biological divide between the sexes, or suggest that there's anything not set in stone about biological sex.

 

[Tenumi]

The lack of understanding of the used medical cases draws a picture that the argument comes from a lack of understanding. The following argument that sex is a false dichotomy falls flat, and serves only as a distraction, not as anything useful. By all means, keep using it, but there's nothing to say towards it, since it is nonsensical.

You've essentially said that intersex people do not exist/do not matter. You're ignoring them for the sake of protecting your position in this argument.

For reference, just how much studying have you done on sexuality and gender, professional or personal studying?

 

[John Kowalski]

My rebuttal was concerning him saying it's prejudice to say you'd never date a transgender. It isn't. It's the same way that I'm not interested in dating men. It isn't to say I view M2F as gender male, or to touch upon the subject of it being homosexuality or not, but I am rebutting the sucky argument that it is somehow prejudice to say one would never date a transgender. Because it isn't. That's why the argument sucked, no matter how poor my rebuttals may have been.

But why isn't it prejudice? How isn't it prejudice? Do you think that that which does not make you attracted to males (or that which lacks) is the same that does not make you attracted to transgenders? What is it? If you're claiming that that preference isn't driven in any way whatsoever by prejudice, what is it about it that makes it inherently immune to prejudice?

Do you really not see that you are skipping such an essential part of your argument that it literally becomes inert?

See, I just think you miss the point when you talk about sexual preferences this way, as something that can be 'shaped' internally.

I did not choose to start being attracted to the opposite sex when I was 10/11. I did not choose to suddenly have the urge to have sex or to masturbate. I am not aware of why I find certain facial features pretty, and others sexy, and others ugly. I don't believe that any progressive analysis can change these basically instinctual urges.

Similarly, as I have said maybe 10+ times in this thread, it is clear that to mean the concept of female biology, including a natural vagina and fertility and all the rest of it, is a very large part of sexual attraction. No academic analysis of transgender womens' brains is going to change the fact that they were once (or perhaps still are) in a body with male traits, including sexual traits, and nothing will change the fact that this is a deal-breaking turnoff for me. There is no point to dating someone you are not attracted to, so that's the end of it.

People aren't saying that ones sexual preferences are 'sacred' so much as they're saying that they're essentially mysterious and immovable, which from my perspective certainly seems the case. I'm sure tons of people who grew up gay and desperately wished they weren't feel the same way. You want analysis of what stands behind such preferences? Instinct and reproductive imperative, expressed in all of us in different ways.

I did not mean to infer anything about how sexual preferences work or how they develop. My argument was that an individual can have their most inwardly opinions and values (including, but exclusively their sexual preferences) polluted by discriminatory feelings, but who also display themselves externally as progressive and act outwardly as what they believe progressive to signify at any given moment. And that the cognitive dissonance between those internal and external attitudes is keeping them from actually addressing their innermost negative values. And that those negative values shape their selves in negative ways but that they are nevertheless blinded to that influence because, again, that cognitive dissonance forces them to find a way to rationalize those negative values either as part of, or totally divorced from what they believe being progressive to be.

What i want is for someone to actually show how and why those sexual preferences work and how they are inherently separate from what could potentially be negative discriminatory feelings towards transgenders.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Oooooh, I see. You're one of those bastards that treats anyone that's intersex as female and thinks surgery should "correct" the baby immediately. You know, the kind of thing intersex advocates have been fighting against for years and which almost any major body which has looked at the question, including the WHO and UN last year, has said needed to stop. Gotcha. And no, I wasn't playing a game, I was trying to understand because it's somewhat impossible to discuss with someone unless you actually understand where they stand. But thanks for the compliment!


It's way easier than actually addressing what people have to say. Clearly the

You're not winning over anyone by calling others bastards. Atleast, as I continue to read this topic, people who devolve into insulting another for their preference or opinion, I take what they say as lesser IMO. It's an interesting convo so far, but let's not set the growing tone by using insults.

 

[Fink]

There's nothing bigoted about not believing someone lacking the things we use to define a man or woman genetically are not that gender.

You are not a man or woman just because you say you are or have surgery to become closer to one.

One day hopefully science will get us to a place where we can change that for those who want to.

Until then there are clear-cut definitions.

they can get pretty close with surgery and hormones; no matter how close they get I'm sure some of you will still be like "not born that way, no way"

 

[Griss]

But why isn't it prejudice? How isn't it prejudice? Do you think that that which does not make you attracted to males (or that which lacks) is the same that does not make you attracted to transgenders? What is it? If you're claiming that that preference isn't driven in any way whatsoever by prejudice, what is it about it that makes it inherently immune to prejudice?

Do you really not see that you are skipping such an essential part of your argument that it literally becomes inert?

Look, prejudice is defined as:
A preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

But someone fucking KNOWS what they are and aren't sexually aroused by. It's a mental thing, in their head, we all know what turns us on, and it's not hard to define. So if a person knows they aren't aroused by the concept of dating someone with a penis or a fake vagina, then their judgment is absolutely based on reason, seeing as arousal is a prerequisite for dating.

Since the arousal itself is not 'an opinion', but rather instinctual, there is no prejudice at play at any stage of this.

 

[Simply Sarah]

I say I'm opposed to the argumental kung-fu you're trying to use upon people, yet you continue to prove my point by doing exactly that. In response to that. Beautiful..

Ah yes. The evil trap that I never sprung. You totally caught me! It's not like there weren't other people in this same thread coming to different conclusions on things while also stating it was clear biology! Nope, I'm just evil and trying to make you fall into my trap!

And, for the record, since you seem to be stating the "Female unless a proper penis at birth", uh, just how outdated where the medical texts/doctors you learned from? This is almost comically out of touch with more modern medical ethics which increasingly view the automatic assignment and assumption of female as incorrect and unethical. Guess what? Medicine changes and adjusts to new information and thinking. And this applies to biological sex, too.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Look, prejudice is defined as:
A preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

But someone fucking KNOWS what they are and aren't sexually aroused by. It's a mental thing, in their head, we all know what turns us on, and it's not hard to define. So if a person knows they aren't aroused by the concept of dating someone with a penis or a fake vagina, then their judgment is absolutely based on reason, seeing as arousal is a prerequisite for dating.

Since the arousal itself is not 'an opinion', but rather instinctual, there is no prejudice at play at any stage of this.

Like fetishes. Like, some people may just be extremely aroused by feet. In this case, some people may be aroused by features exclusive to an ethnicity or race.

 

[Septimius]

You've essentially said that intersex people do not exist/do not matter. You're ignoring them for the sake of protecting your position in this argument.

How? How am I doing that, by saying the medical foundation upon which an argument is based is flawed? Could you please tell me how? I am trying to ensure that medical cases like being born with undefined genitalia or XXY or other such things are treated with a proper hand, not thrown about haphazardly to be abused as a punchline for an argument. Just how am I undermining their existence when I ask that they be used properly, if they are to be a part of your point?

But why isn't it prejudice? How isn't it prejudice? Do you think that that which does not make you attracted to males (or that which lacks) is the same that does not make you attracted to transgenders? What is it? If you're claiming that that preference isn't driven in any way whatsoever by prejudice, what is it about it that makes it inherently immune to prejudice?

Do you really not see that you are skipping such an essential part of your argument that it literally becomes inert?

I've said exactly why several times some pages back. I'm sorry you got in at a wrong time in the argument, but I was rebutting a poor argument against the preference of not dating transgender, it does not make a suitable place for you to try and counter that rebuttal, because that's something I've covered before. The first post I made was just to that point. Please refer to that.

And, for the record, since you seem to be stating the "Female unless a proper penis at birth", uh, just how outdated where the medical texts/doctors you learned from? This is almost comically out of touch with more modern medical ethics which increasingly view the automatic assignment and assumption of female as incorrect and unethical. Guess what? Medicine changes and adjusts to new information and thinking. And this applies to biological sex, too.

Just what exactly are you referring to? I've said that I do not like the way you try to strong-arm people into saying "oh look, you have stupid views" by forcing laymen to express something medically complex. You take that as an opportunity to point and laugh at the same assumption you're trying to set me up, that I've not at all played to. It's not nice.

 

[wildfire]

There's nothing bigoted about not believing someone lacking the things we use to define a man or woman genetically are not that gender.

You are not a man or woman just because you say you are or have surgery to become closer to one.

One day hopefully science will get us to a place where we can change that for those who want to.

Until then there are clear-cut definitions.

When it comes to genetics we should be careful with thinking what is and isn't clear.

For example your entire viewpoint on transgendered individuals is that they make a choice. In reality studies are increasingly proving that their brains are structured to match the opposite of what the rest of their body is. It seems they definitely are born with female brains in male bodies and vice versa. The birthing process of any species is highly variable.

I agree that clear cut definitions exist but I would point out those definitions can be flawed because they are based on ideas modern science couldn't clarify until recently.

 

[Goodstyle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2KsZHRrFpU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3BY72RF8vc

Not sure if this is transphobic or not...

Spoiler

Still funny though.

 

[Who]

But why isn't it prejudice? How isn't it prejudice? Do you think that that which does not make you attracted to males (or that which lacks) is the same that does not make you attracted to transgenders? What is it? If you're claiming that that preference isn't driven in any way whatsoever by prejudice, what is it about it that makes it inherently immune to prejudice?

Do you really not see that you are skipping such an essential part of your argument that it literally becomes inert?

You are blurring the lines of preference and prejudice and trying to make him feel guilty for not being attracted to a certain type of person.

That's terrible and stupid.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

I hate to be rude, but do you have sex?

I don't consider it rude, but just a bit silly to ask. However yes, I have sex with him.