Support NeoGAF

[Simply Sarah]

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.

Let's see. Said poster accused me of trying to set them up with gotcha questions instead of just clearly answering, called me male out of hand, and insults my intelligence. So I get a bit worked up and call them a bad name and I'm the unambiguous villain. Gotcha.

 

[airmangataosenai]

For me it's similar to religion. If it makes the person feel better or "Complete" by being called a man/woman it's not my place to tell them they can't be called that, but I don't truly see them as the opposite gender they were born as even if they went through extensive surgery. If someone wants to be called he instead of she or vice-versa then I don't really mind obliging though.

 

[lexi]

You can at least pretend to be a decent person asshole.

On the contrary, I appreciate the forthrightness. He's just saying in 20 words what a majority of other people say 'politely' in 100

 

[Kinsei]

For me it's similar to religion. If it makes the person feel better or "Complete" by being called a man/woman it's not my place to tell them they can't be called that, but I don't truly see them as the opposite gender they were born as even if they went through extensive surgery. If someone wants to be called he instead of she or vice-versa then I don't really mind obliging though.

Somehow I think you think this makes you a nice person. It doesn't.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Let's see. Said poster accused me of trying to set them up with gotcha questions instead of just clearly answering, called me male out of hand, and insults my intelligence. So I get a bit worked up and call them a bad name and I'm the unambiguous villain. Gotcha.

Yup, then he is a dick about it. I don't condone what he said either, but then again I'm not really paying attention to him because he seems to have an issue of people are out to get him. What I'm saying is, don't go down to his level. You're cooler than he is.

 

[MUnited83]

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.

Gender is not genetic, so yeah, that's a bigoted belief.

 

[Tenumi]

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.

So... I take it that your answer to this question:

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

is none, based on your comment.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Somehow I think you think this makes you a nice person. It doesn't.

If you see me as a bad person for it, there's not much I can do about that. But just remember that if someone says they embrace the transgender community but wouldn't date a transgender person they're essentially saying the same thing. I feel like the religion comparison is fair: An individuals wishes/beliefs can be respected without being fully embraced.

 

[Simplet]

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?

There are tons of women I don't want to date, the vast majority of them in fact. You're still not getting your point accross.

 

[Septimius]

So... I take it that your answer to this question:

is none, based on your comment.

Wow. This is... I'm being accused of defining sex poorly, and I ask for clarification as to what it's being implied that I'm saying wrong, when I'm saying I don't wish to argue about what the sex is, then this is the counter I get. I'm out.

 

[Griss]

Somehow I think you think this makes you a nice person. It doesn't.

Why doesn't it? It seems like a personally acceptable way to deal with people, no? Is having any kind of dissenting view on trangenderism enough to make you a bad person even if you respect the rights of said people and treat them as they wish? Because, if so, that's insane. You don't want rights, in that case, you want ideological subordination.

 

[Mr. Pointy]

I probably could date a transgender person. But I don't begrudge people who don't believe they could because romantic/sexual attraction never works quite the same platonic friendship or respect.

 

[Simply Sarah]

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?



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.



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. Could you please tell me what you're referring to, when you're saying "medical definition of sex has changed"?

First off, it's comical that you think only the one true medical definition (as defined by you) matters rather than what laypeople think for a societal issue. Second, since you seem to love not explicitly stating your positions and then attacking people when they try to make sure they're not misrepresenting you, are you asserting that anyone that is intersex is female? Third, if the answer to two is yes then are you stating that intersex babies should be corrected to "proper female" after birth?

And what I'm saying is that increasingly medical ethics dictates that an intersex child be allowed to choose their sex upon growing up instead of it being forced on them at birth. You understand the most basic of medical understandings of sex, but you're utterly ignoring that more complicated situations exist outside of that normal box and are increasingly being addressed in a more nuanced manner.

 

[CapNBritain]

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?

I think your argument fails to appreciate that some people place both cis and trans women under the umbrella of all women. They can all be women, but they are distinct subsets. So some people are uncomfortable dating trans women, but are comfortable treating trans women as women in general.

As to your specific example of trans women in women's bathrooms, some people are comfortable with women's bathrooms being open to ALL women. Some are only comfortable with women's bathrooms being open to cis women.

I'm torn on this as, as there are many (cis?) women who don't want men or trans women (women born as men) in women's bathrooms. I've heard about the concept of "safe spaces" and many people don't feel safe with trans women in women's bathrooms. I think that this fear is rooted in the same kind of fear that prevents men like me from wanting to date trans women. I feel like it comes from the same place that makes people commit terrible acts against the trans community.

But for many women the fear is also valid. It's not black or white.

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 think the "preference" to only date cis women that myself and many other men share comes from both nature and nurture. There is a general trend for men to be attracted to fertility. But there are also societal pressures, which I believe should be examined.

 

[Jenov]

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.

Pediatric surgical intervention is still recommended in many cases depending on the underlying reason for the malformality.

Some literature on the subject: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/772502_1

Now it's true that not ALL intersex are automatically assigned as female anymore. There's much more investigation and decision making involved depending on the type of malformality, the chromosomal picture, family input, sociological reasons, etc. But basically, there are a few different types and underlying reasons for why intersex occurs, and surgery and/or hormones is given depending on a multitude of assessments.

Where did Septimius assert that all intersex were automatically female sex?

 

[Kinsei]

Why doesn't it? It seems like a personally acceptable way to deal with people, no? Is having any kind of dissenting view on trangenderism enough to make you a bad person even if you respect the rights of said people and treat them as they wish? Because, if so, that's insane. You don't want rights, in that case, you want ideological subordination.

It's like thinking gay people are freaks and then feeling good about yourself that you decide not to call them that (or slurs) in public. I accept there will always be people like him in the world but the least they can do is stop deluding themselves.

 

[Zornack]

It's like thinking gay people are freaks and then feeling good about yourself that you decide not to call them that (or slurs) in public. I accept there will always be people like him in the world but the least they can do is stop deluding themselves.

Talk about reaching. At no point in the original post you quoted did the poster talk about having any urge to call trans people slurs or about thinking that trans people are sub-human or freaks. What he/she described and what you are describing are totally different.

 

[wildfire]

There are tons of women I don't want to date, the vast majority of them in fact. You're still not getting your point accross.

If you see them as women why are you disinterested in dating them?

 

[Kinsei]

Talk about reaching. At no point in the original post you quoted did the poster talk about having any urge to call trans people slurs or about thinking that trans people are sub-human or freaks. What he/she described and what you are describing are totally different.

He flat out said I'm not who I know I am. It's just as bad.

 

[MikeyB]

It's like thinking gay people are freaks and then feeling good about yourself that you decide not to call them that (or slurs) in public. I accept there will always be people like him in the world but the least they can do is stop deluding themselves.

So I think group A is a "freak". I mention that to my closest friends.

They ask, "so they shouldn't marry?"
I say, "Oh no, of course they should marry."
They ask, "so they shouldn't be able to adopt?"
I say, "No! Those freaks can totally raise kids!"
They ask, "So you wouldn't limit their rights in any way despite them being a freak?"
I say, "That's right. Dudes liking dudes is freaky but has no bearing on their moral or legal standing in society."

What's the issue? That's like thinking that... I don't know... people who collect 100s of video games are weird. Not my thing (and possibly I wouldn't date them), but they're still a person.

 

[gutter_trash]

freedom of choice also entails freedom of preference

 

[finowns]

There are tons of women I don't want to date, the vast majority of them in fact. You're still not getting your point accross.

Sure he is, you're just being difficult.

 

[Simply Sarah]

Pediatric surgical intervention is still recommended in many cases depending on the underlying reason for the malformality.

Some literature on the subject: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/772502_1

Now it's true that not ALL intersex are automatically assigned as female anymore. There's much more investigation and decision making involved depending on the type of malformality, the chromosomal picture, family input, sociological reasons, etc. But basically, there are a few different types and underlying reasons for why intersex occurs, and surgery and/or hormones is given depending on a multitude of assessments.

Where did Septimius assert that all intersex were automatically female sex?

It's my best guess because Septimius has been too busy accusing me of playing gotcha games to make clear what their position is. But they did state that sex was clear in intersex cases so that's what I figured was most likely. I assume what people's positions are and "I/They didn't say that!". I try to ask for clarity on a position and I'm trying to set a gotcha trap.

 

[Simplet]

If you see them as women why are you disinterested in dating them?

Do you mean transwomen or all the other women I don't want to date?

If you mean transwomen I already said it, in the post you quoted on the last page.

Sure he is, you're just being difficult.

No he isn't. If he can't formulate the argument that you assume he has in a way that makes sense, is there really an argument there? You can try too if you want.

 

[Griss]

It's like thinking gay people are freaks and then feeling good about yourself that you decide not to call them that (or slurs) in public. I accept there will always be people like him in the world but the least they can do is stop deluding themselves.

It is absolutely nothing like that. Homosexuality is largely known and understood by the public at large. Someone people are attracted to the opposite sex and it has ever been so. We all get that, and western people all understand that now. There's no argument, if you don't like gays you're an irrational bigot. End of.

But with transgenderism, issues like what exactly gender is, what biological sex is, how those two things interact, what exactly causes transgendism, how common it is... none of these things are firmly established in the mind of the public at all, and not all are even scientifically known. So innocently ignorant opinions are bound to be everywhere. In this situation, all one can do is act in the nicest way possible towards your fellow human beings while society works out what the standards are.

It's not at all outrageous for someone to decide that internally, they define people by biological sex, not gender. It's not outrageous for someone to say, 'you know what, I don't think someone who transitions into being a woman is the same as a born woman, even if they're similar', because there's plenty of evidence to support that, just as there is for the other side. When that person subverts their belief that there's a difference between cis women and trans women and treats them all exactly the same - for their sake - that's evidence of a good person, not a bad one, surely.

It's my best guess because Septimius has been too busy accusing me of playing gotcha games to make clear what their position is. But they did state that sex was clear in intersex cases so that's what I figured was most likely. I assume what people's positions are and "I/They didn't say that!". I try to ask for clarity on a position and I'm trying to set a gotcha trap.

You made a ridiculous assumption about something Septimus never even touched on and now you won't own it.

 

[M0nochromatic]

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.



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.

Very well thought out and insightful post. It provides a very different perspective when viewing the content in this discussion through this lens.

 

[wildfire]

I think your argument fails to appreciate that some people place both cis and trans women under the umbrella of all women. They can all be women, but they are distinct subsets. So some people are uncomfortable dating trans women, but are comfortable treating trans women as women in general.

As to your specific example of trans women in women's bathrooms, some people are comfortable with women's bathrooms being open to ALL women. Some are only comfortable with women's bathrooms being open to cis women.

I'm torn on this as, as there are many (cis?) women who don't want men or trans women (women born as men) in women's bathrooms. I've heard about the concept of "safe spaces" and many people don't feel safe with trans women in women's bathrooms. I think that this fear is rooted in the same kind of fear that prevents men like me from wanting to date trans women. I feel like it comes from the same place that makes people commit terrible acts against the trans community.

But for many women the fear is also valid. It's not black or white.

I didn't make that mistake in the underlined. I knew some people see the subsets as only the superset. I wasn't addressing them and said they should ignore the topic. This thread is targeted at those you realize exist and identified in the bolded portion.

What's the point in telling cis women to understand trans women are women when we ourselves who wouldn't date a trans women because we in reality don't see them as women?

 

[John Kowalski]

Very well thought out and insightful post. It provides a very different perspective when viewing the content in this discussion through this lens.

Well that's good because i feel like my brain borked from thinking that much!

 

[finowns]

Do you mean transwomen or all the other women I don't want to date?

If you mean transwomen I already said it, in the post you quoted on the last page.



No he isn't. If he can't formulate the argument that you assume he has in a way that makes sense, is there really an argument there? You can try too if you want.

The question is how you internally view transwomen. If you prefer to not date them what is the criteria that goes into forming that preference.

 

[Tesseract]

my predilections are offensive

 

[wildfire]

Do you mean transwomen or all the other women I don't want to date?

If you mean transwomen I already said it, in the post you quoted on the last page.

Well I made the mistake of giving you an out in that post you responded to. Do you tell women who don't see trans women as women to accept them as such?

 

[injurai]

I like this whole line of conversation. Just quoting it so others can pick up from here.

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.

I've tried to read most responses in here. I think I may have done the most to answer something along those lines. But the conversation blew right past it. Tried to draw attention because I thought the points would be relevant in shaping the discussion and got only one response telling me I should probably read up on hormones which was probably the least important point that I touched out. But I still think the points are pretty important to note. As their has been a lot of dismissing of heterosexual nature throughout the thread.

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.

In the political sphere you hear those on the left complain about this being the problem of leftist liberals. Unabashed tolerance for tolerances sake, political correctness, and constant progressiveness. I don't think every drive by sentiment is bad, it's very little to go by. You have to remember we are on a forum and it's not exactly the best form of debate. There is no moderation whatsoever. I'm talking about formal Oxford style moderation, not forum mods. There are a bunch of other problems which really make this discussion trying to get through. I don't think we should presume too much about the intentions of posters as to whether it's be effective in the current progressive climate or what not.

But there is a serious issue of conflating arguments, and trying to the devil in the other person's morals. It's this extreme retaliation that is very troubling. Not actually engaging in conversation. Far too much posturing and take cheap shots at low hanging fruit to avoid any deep escalation into discussion. Even after people spend hours and dozens of posts, they still keeping skimming through surface arguments. Overcoming the pitfalls of this style of discussion though can be talked through, but the ad hominem attacks are extremely hard to overcome. For many it's the easy way to dismiss something. Not sure if it's necessarily because progressive ideals must triumph but it's the "progressive" ideals that are on the back foot in this thread. So defensive nasty retaliatory ad hominem attacks are being made.

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 think a there might be something to see in this. I won't write off that having a trans relation won't work, but I've tried did state why I'm not confident that it would work for me. Partly for some of the reasons you mention. But what happens when these arguments are made in here? Let's say one of those points was ill made. Instead of someone respecting your sexuality and identity. Perhaps saying, maybe there is something else that is making you the way you are. Giving you your preferences. They deny you your preferences saying the genitals look just the same, hormones help kick in the female traits. Saying you just can't get past your bigoted prejudice. Once again ad hominem attacks, and dodgy arguments to boot.

 

[Jenov]

It's my best guess because Septimius has been too busy accusing me of playing gotcha games to make clear what their position is. But they did state that sex was clear in intersex cases so that's what I figured was most likely. I assume what people's positions are and "I/They didn't say that!". I try to ask for clarity on a position and I'm trying to set a gotcha trap.

I've followed along the conversation with only half attention, but my read is that Septimius doesn't like the use of interesex individuals with ambiguous sexual genitalia or chromosomal malformations to be used as debating pieces in transgender issues and/or as a means of changing the biological definition of sex. But since he seems to have left the thread, I digress.

 

[Platy]

It is absolutely nothing like that. Homosexuality is largely known and understood by the public at large. Someone people are attracted to the opposite sex and it has ever been so. We all get that, and western people all understand that now. There's no argument, if you don't like gays you're an irrational bigot. End of.

But with transgenderism, issues like what exactly gender is, what biological sex is, how those two things interact, what exactly causes transgendism, how common it is... none of these things are firmly established in the mind of the public at all, and not all are even scientifically known. So innocently ignorant opinions are bound to be everywhere. In this situation, all one can do is act in the nicest way possible towards your fellow human beings while society works out what the standards are.

Science knows exactly as much about transgender people than homosexual people.
It has theories about what causes, what brain parts are relevant and knows it ever existed.

freedom of choice also entails freedom of preference

Problem arrives when that preference goes from "I don't like tall women" to "I don't like people who has A+ blood"

One is understandable, other makes no sense.

Edit :

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.

The problem is how you define a black woman in this "one drop rule" world.... if she has everything you feel atracted and you discover she has a black dad and considers herself black and you suddenly loose all atraction to her than yes, this is VERY racist

 

[Simplet]

The question is how you internally view transwomen. If you prefer to not date them what is the criteria that goes into forming that preference.

Well I'm sorry to say but I have no idea where you're heading either, what do you mean how I "internally view" transwomen? I'm not even trying to be a smart ass here.

As for a criteria, I don't have any criteria, but I said on the last page why I'm not comfortable dating transwomen.

Well I made the mistake of giving you an out in that post you responded to. Do you tell women who don't see trans women as women to accept them as such?

I guess I would? The case never presented itself.

 

[kmax]

I think it's important to come to terms with that people have different tastes and preferences. Even though we might not agree with some of them, doesn't mean that we can say whether it's wrong for some people to feel that way or not, because if that were to be case, what is there to say that our views are the correct ones? Who is the arbitrator in such a case? It's a dangerous game to play and a slippery slope, so it's something I quite frankly have no interest in engaging in. I don't care who or what other people are into. It is perfectly within everyone's right to be attracted to whoever they want. You can't judge a person as being prejudiced based on that fact alone, since it's not even a choice to be attracted to someone, you just are. If I see a beautiful woman walking down the street, I'm going to think of her as a beautiful woman, even though she could be transgender. Would I want to sleep with her knowing the fact? No. There are many crucial factors that need to click on a personal and a sexual level, and it's just something I'm not comfortable with.

No, it's not logical, but it seldom is when it comes to sexual orientation and preference. We can't choose the factors that gets our primitive instincts going, or what makes them distance ourselves. We know ourselves the best, and disregarding that fact would be hypocritical.

 

[ShemhazaiX]

Bathrooms having assigned genders is silly anyway. Unless it's a changing room, no one is wiggling their genitals around.

Have you been in a mens room before?

 

[MikeyB]

Problem arrives when that preference goes from "I don't like tall women" to "I don't like people who has A+ blood"

One is understandable, other makes no sense.

There is no conceivable way in which blood type would affect either personal history, world-outlook, personal projects, or physiology - various things that factor into attraction. If that were true for being a trans person, I could see your point.

 

[CapNBritain]

I didn't make that mistake in the underlined. I knew some people see the subsets as only the superset. I wasn't addressing them and said they should ignore the topic. This thread is targeted at those you realize exist and identified in the bolded portion.

What's the point in telling cis women to understand trans women are women when we ourselves who wouldn't date a trans women because we in reality don't see them as women?

I think the difference is plain: there are cis women and there are trans women. Both are women, but some people may still treat them differently depending on the circumstance. Now, why are some people ok with treating cis and trans women differently in regards to dating, but in regards to restrooms? That all depends on the person I guess?

I'm sure that the biological factor is present in why some men won't date trans women. And I'm sure that male privilege comes into effect on why some men don't consider cis women's feelings on having safe spaces. I'm sure there are a lot of other reasons too.

 

[John Kowalski]

I've tried to read most responses in here. I think I may have done the most to answer something along those lines. But the conversation blew right past it. Tried to draw attention because I thought the points would be relevant in shaping the discussion and got only one response telling me I should probably read up on hormones which was probably the least important point that I touched out. But I still think the points are pretty important to note. As their has been a lot of dismissing of heterosexual nature throughout the thread.

That's the kind of thing i was looking for, sorry for not having noticed it. Though in that instance i would argue that i wish people would give up more for love and think less of relationships as long term investments but that's a cultural thing and not under the scope of my animosity towards this subject.

my predilections are offensive

aren't you asexual? tessy i think you should relax and gather yourself, i don't like seeing you this way

 

[Tesseract]

aren't you asexual? tessy i think you should relax and gather yourself, i don't like seeing you this way

i am.

john, i have to go now. you must lower me into the steel.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

I watched a documentary about Vice Cops and as one said. "You gotta be careful around Trannies (man to woman), they talk and act like ladies, but they run and fight like men."

 

[Kinsei]

I watched a documentary about Vice Cops and as one said. "You gotta be careful around Trannies (man to woman), they talk and act like ladies, but they run and fight like men."

And this is relevant how?

 

[John Kowalski]

i am.

john, i have to go now. you must lower me into the steel.

do not go gently into the night friend

 

[wildfire]

I guess I would? The case never presented itself.

Well the topic of cis women's rights and transgender women's rights comes up every year in some form. You haven't committed to answer but just take into account quite a few guys make the following arguments.

You should accept transgender women as women because they are women.
I can't date transgender women because they have man parts.
Many of these cis women in the first case are making the same exact argument as the reasons these guys won't date a transgender.

In one case that doesn't personally affect cis men they make a point that transgender women are women. In another case that does affect themselves directly they deny the other person's gender.

 

[Soph]

If I would finally find that special someone I was looking for, I wouldn't care about his sex gender junk or the lack thereof. I already have enough ridiculous standards the partner needs to abide to, something as arbitrary as gender or sex should not be part of that equation.

 

[-COOLIO-]

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.

Now that I think about it, I could be a masculine, lesbian, woman in a male body. I'm not sure how I could tell though.

 

[finowns]

I think it's important to come to terms with that people have different tastes and preferences. Even though we might not agree with some of them, doesn't mean that we can say whether it's wrong for some people to feel that way or not, because if that were to be case, what is there to say that our views are the correct ones? Who is the arbitrator in such a case? It's a dangerous game to play and a slippery slope, so it's something I quite frankly have no interest in engaging in. I don't care who or what other people are into. It is perfectly within everyone's right to be attracted to whoever they want. You can't judge a person as being prejudiced based on that fact alone, since it's not even a choice to be attracted to someone, you just are. If I see a beautiful woman walking down the street, I'm going to think of her as a beautiful woman, even though she could be transgender. Would I want to sleep with her knowing the fact? No. There are many crucial factors that need to click on a personal and a sexual level, and it's just something I'm not comfortable with.

No, it's not logical, but it seldom is when it comes to sexual orientation and preference. We can't choose the factors that gets our primitive instincts going, or what makes them distance ourselves. We know ourselves the best, and disregarding that fact would be hypocritical.

I agree.

OP asked an interesting question. Nothing wrong in examining how or why we discriminate. I wouldn't date a transwoman, I think it might be offensive. I don't think it's harmful but I'm not for sure.

 

[Simplet]

Well the topic of cis women's rights and transgender women's rights comes up every year in some form. You haven't committed to answer but just take into account quite a few guys make the following arguments.

You should accept transgender women as women because they are women.
I can't date transgender women because they have man parts.
Many of these cis women in the first case are making the same exact argument as the reasons these guys won't date a transgender.

In one case that doesn't personally affect cis men they make a point that transgender women are women. In another case that does affect themselves directly they deny the other person's gender.

I was following you until this last sentence, but you're still making the same leap of faith. Your point in the whole thread seems to be that people who don't want to date transwomen are denying that they are "true" women. And then when you try to explain your reasoning you can't help but beg the question by simply stating that we don't see them as women.

You still haven't shown me how me recognizing transwomen as women is contradictory with the fact that I don't want to date them.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

The question is how you internally view transwomen. If you prefer to not date them what is the criteria that goes into forming that preference.

Why should people be forced to justify who they want to be in an intimate relationship with?

I don't think many people will be able to provide peer reviewed scientific studies and rational thought in most dating situations as some people are seemingly asking for.