Support NeoGAF

[bjb]

What is wrong with not wanting to date trans-women? Despite what the GAF morality police have to say on the matter, there are males on this very forum who believe all trans-women are still men.Is this belief wrong?

I don't think so, no. Not at all. I have absolutely nothing against any person regardless of their race, sexual preference or what they identify themselves to be. In fact, I fully support any transgender individual in their own personal pursuit of happiness.

However, I don't think any man should be made to feel bad - simply because they're not attracted or interested in women who used to be men.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

You aren't feeling uncomfortable "as a straight man" - straight men can and do love trans women. You're feeling uncomfortable as someone with a distaste for trans women.

Your opinions aren't based on facts, because the facts you cite are irrelevant to attraction and relationships - which are almost completely functions of initial impressions and social compatibility. Your sexuality certainly doesn't play a part, as your orientation includes women of all types from which you then pick and choose.

I disagree.

I think that what PhoenixDark really means when he says that he "has no sexual attraction to someone who was born a man" isn't that his body automatically rejects transgendered women who fit the societal parameters of "beautiful", but rather that the knowledge of them being transgendered would remove any sexual attraction he might have for them.

This isn't bigoted, but has more to do with the thought processes the concept "born as a man" might give rise to, such as the transgendered woman being a man to a degree and it really being a man you're kissing. There's nothing you can do to change his mind I reckon, as this is a response that society has instilled in him - even if he could be reasoned with he'd still have that gut response.

Please correct me if I'm wrong PD.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I disagree.

I think that what PhoenixDark really means when he says that he "has no sexual attraction to someone who was born a man" isn't that his body automatically rejects transgendered women who fit the societal parameters of "beautiful", but rather that the knowledge of them being transgendered would remove any sexual attraction he might have for them.

This isn't bigoted, but has more to do with the thought processes the concept "born as a man" might give rise to, such as the transgendered woman being a man to a degree and it really being a man you're kissing. There's nothing you can do to change his mind I reckon, as this is a response that society has instilled in him - even if he could be reasoned with he'd still have that gut response.

Please correct me if I'm wrong PD.

I would say that is largely correct, although I don't believe it has anything to do with society instilling anything in me. The more crass way to put it, and the way I have avoided in these threads because it is crass, is simply that I couldn't date someone who used to have a dick, or still has one. That's a mental hurdle I can't (as a straight man) jump over regardless of how much surgery and makeup is involved. That revelation would indeed impact my reaction, the way I saw the person, etc. Would I react angrily, violently, call names, etc? No, that would be wrong and disrespectful. But I would certainly remove myself from the situation.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I would say that is largely correct, although I don't believe it has anything to do with society instilling anything in me. The more crass way to put it, and the way I have avoided in these threads because it is crass, is simply that I couldn't date someone who used to have a dick, or still has one. That's a mental hurdle I can't (as a straight man) jump over regardless of how much surgery and makeup is involved. That revelation would indeed impact my reaction, the way I saw the person, etc. Would I react angrily, violently, call names, etc? No, that would be wrong and disrespectful. But I would certainly remove myself from the situation.

Yeah, that's fine, I'm just a strong believer in individuals being primarily shaped by their environment, whether they're aware of it or not. That's, I think, the best way to deal with people you simply disagree with - they can't help the way they're thinking, the society they grew up in has given rise to those thoughts.

An additional factor to not wanting to date a transgendered person (if you know they are transgendered) is that it can be a minor to a major social stigma depending on where you're located and what types you hang out with.

 

[Wafflecakes]

I nearly spit out my drink when I saw who posted this thread.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41814637&postcount=259
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41825403&postcount=360
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41825667&postcount=365
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=41826487&postcount=377

Here's a new Primer: You're not one to talk about how to act in these threads.

If Thatbox really is the official arbitrator on this subject then you might as well shut down the discussion completely.

Yeah when he compared withholding sex change surgery to withholding dialysis I lulzed a bit. Good stuff.

Don't get me wrong. I believe its a real problem and people who go through it should be respected and treated fairly. However, lets not pretend its on the same tier as necessary life saving procedures.



(I appreciate everyone goes overboard sometimes when posting though)

 

[Platy]

However, I don't think any man should be made to feel bad - simply because they're not attracted or interested in women who used to be men.

I really hope that in a few years/decades saying that transwoman are "women who used to be men" makes as much sense as saying that some person was a "gay who used to be hetero"

 

[PBalfredo]

Shouldn't the discussion about dating transgender people be left to the topic that is explicitly and specifically about that subject? I don't mean to backseat mod, but when mods themselves are getting involved with the derail, what else can I do?

ON TOPIC:

On a certain basic level, "bisexuality" is being attracted to men and also to women, while "pansexuality" is being attracted to all people regardless of the specifics of their gender expression. The specific concrete reason for the use of the latter term was to express an attraction to and interest in all manner of atypically-gendered people (the huge, broad umbrella called "genderqueer") but depending on who you ask, it's a distinction without a difference.

(Unfortunately I think that the Genderbread Person image can hurt more than it helps, especially with some of the specific labels, just because it presumes a looooot of knowledge about the ins and outs of advanced gender and sexuality theory.)

So what exactly do people mean by genderqueer? I thought queer just meant gay. Has that meaning changed? The way I've seen it used here and there makes it sounds like it's the catch-all Misc/Other/I Don't Know category for gender/sexual identity. Am I anywhere close?

 

[Platy]

So what exactly do people mean by genderqueer? I thought queer just meant gay. Has that meaning changed? The way I've seen it used here and there makes it sounds like it's the catch-all Misc/Other/I Don't Know category for gender/sexual identity. Am I anywhere close?

genderqueer is to transgender what pansexuality is to bisexuality

A genderqueer person can feel confortable in both genders, no gender at all, a little bit in one ad a lot in other ...

From my experience, those people are VERY rare, but they exist

 

[jaxword]

genderqueer is to transgender what pansexuality is to bisexuality

A genderqueer person can feel confortable in both genders, no gender at all, a little bit in one ad a lot in other ...

From my experience, those people are VERY rare, but they exist

Do their sexualities also have the same variety, going for both genders while IN both genders?

 

[Brian Griffin]

What is wrong with not wanting to date black people? Despite what the morality police have to say on the matter, there are people who believe all black people are still 2/3 of a person. Is this belief wrong? I wouldn't think so (which is not to say I agree with this).

It's rude and disrespectful to tell these people that they are only 2/3 of a person and I don't think ANYONE has the right to call them that except for themselves. But, you see, that's not what anyone's doing when they express that they don't want to date a black person. Not everyone can change the fact that they perceive these people as only 2/3 of a person. They just can't. They find it just as revolting as the idea of making out with a chimp.

In reality, if sexual preference should be someone's own choice (and it should be), then why can't someone say they only wants to date non-blacks? That's a sexual preference, just like bondage and being gay.

What all of you who are hyped up on morals are failing to realize is that there are other, valid opinions besides your own. The pitfall of your tolerance toward blacks is that you have an intolerance for anyone who does not share your beliefs wholeheartedly. You might have a point when it comes to general acceptance of black people, but you do not have a point when it comes to uncontrollable sexual attraction.

Again, I don't think the haters should be haters, but certainly no one should hate them for having a feeling you don't agree with. If that's allowed, then we should allow people who think being gay is disgusting and crude. We should allow people who think that any kind of premarital sex is wrong. Why? Because instead of promoting acceptance by allowing everyone, you're putting down people just for having a sexual preference.

It's really equally disgusting.

Food for thought, I substituted black people in for trans people in this post and used an extremely outdated belief about them. I agree we can't force people to change how they feel but I don't think there is any denying that people having these views is harmful to society and hinders progress.

I believe that thinking trans women are still men is a wrong belief, just like thinking blacks aren't full people is wrong. People can hold onto that belief if they want but I will always question it and encourage them to question it themselves and think about what it says about them as a person.

 

[Platy]

Do their sexualities also have the same variety, going for both genders while IN both genders?

sexuality and gender and gender expression are 3 separete things.

you can have a transwoman who likes woman and acts girly

you can have a genderqueer bigender who likes man and acts manly

you can have a male who likes woman and acts manly

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Nice informative OP, good job.

 

[Christine]

I would say that is largely correct, although I don't believe it has anything to do with society instilling anything in me. The more crass way to put it, and the way I have avoided in these threads because it is crass, is simply that I couldn't date someone who used to have a dick, or still has one. That's a mental hurdle I can't (as a straight man) jump over regardless of how much surgery and makeup is involved. That revelation would indeed impact my reaction, the way I saw the person, etc. Would I react angrily, violently, call names, etc? No, that would be wrong and disrespectful. But I would certainly remove myself from the situation.

It's the "as a straight man" bit that I think rubs the wrong way.

I mean, yeah, if your orientation is straight you're not going to be attracted to anybody your head identifies as male. That's what straight is.

Where we start running into unhappiness is if you attribute your perception of 'maleness' in trans women to your orientation. This is the part that I and others believe to be derived from social exposure and upbringing. I can personally attest, at least for myself, that social exposure and upbringing were the exclusive source of my own perception of trans women as being "really male". It's a learned perspective and it can be unlearned.

For what it's worth, I think the 'crass way', as you put it, is probably the least offensive way I've seen you express this statement. Gender, sex, and even biology are all social constructs at some level--penises are far less ambiguous. If you say "I wouldn't have sex with a trans woman because the fact that she has a penis/used to have a penis makes me uncomfortable" you're not the one bringing sex or gender into the discussion.

 

[Dark Octave]

Food for thought, I substituted black people in for trans people in this post and used an extremely outdated belief about them. I agree we can't force people to change how they feel but I don't think there is any denying that people having these views is harmful to society and hinders progress.

I believe that thinking trans women are still men is a wrong belief, just like thinking blacks aren't full people is wrong. People can hold onto that belief if they want but I will always question it and encourage them to question it themselves and think about what it says about them as a person.

It's not the same at all. It would be the same if black people were once animals that were transformed into humans through surgery and drugs.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

When a topic needs a massive primer you know the discourse has become tortured. There's something tedious and overbearing about the way transgender threads on GAF are approached, at least recently. Something tells me this well meaning OP will act primarily as further fodder for brow beating people who haven't dedicated their life to the study of gender dysphoria, or who come from a cultural context that doesn't view the issue in the officially stamped uber-PC manner as deemed appropriate by trans-GAF. I'm all for keeping the discourse civil and ensuring that no one is mindlessly slandering another person's lifestyle, but this need to dictate precisely what people can or can't believe/mention is kinda shitty.

 

[Femmeworth]

When a topic needs a massive primer you know the discourse has become tortured. There's something tedious and overbearing about the way transgender threads on GAF are approached, at least recently. Something tells me this well meaning OP will act primarily as further fodder for brow beating people who haven't dedicated their life to the study of gender dysphoria, or who come from a cultural context that doesn't view the issue in the officially stamped uber-PC manner as deemed appropriate by trans-GAF. I'm all for keeping the discourse civil and ensuring that no one is mindlessly slandering another person's lifestyle, but this need to dictate precisely what people can or can't believe/mention is kinda shitty.

Easiest way to get a member of a minority to not take you seriously: mention the term "politically correct."

 

[patrickthehedgehog]

Thanks for posting this. That clears a lot of things up for me and the world will be that much better for each person who reads the OP.

 

[Brian Griffin]

When a topic needs a massive primer you know the discourse has become tortured. There's something tedious and overbearing about the way transgender threads on GAF are approached, at least recently. Something tells me this well meaning OP will act primarily as further fodder for brow beating people who haven't dedicated their life to the study of gender dysphoria, or who come from a cultural context that doesn't view the issue in the officially stamped uber-PC manner as deemed appropriate by trans-GAF. I'm all for keeping the discourse civil and ensuring that no one is mindlessly slandering another person's lifestyle, but this need to dictate precisely what people can or can't believe/mention is kinda shitty.

Society is slowly becoming more and more accepting and understanding of trans people. You can believe what you want but I'm fairly certain in the future it will not be acceptable to think that trans women are still men and trans men are still women so it's best to get on board with the idea now. You can call it brow beating if you want but I see it more as preparing people for the inevitable changes in society so they can be on the right side of history.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

http://i.minus.com/iQXkyWB3Y0Doh.gif

Easiest way to get a member of a minority to not take you seriously: mention the term "politically correct."

I believe in mutual respect, not neutered vocabulary. When context and intent are thrown out the window and the terms of discourse are narrowly prescribed the end result is bland conversation, regardless of the topic.

Society is slowly becoming more and more accepting and understanding of trans people. You can believe what you want but I'm fairly certain in the future it will not be acceptable to think that trans women are still men and trans men are still women so it's best to get on board with the idea now. You can call it brow beating if you want but I see it more as preparing people for the inevitable changes in society so they can be on the right side of history.

I personally believe that as well. But I don't believe in foisting that view on anyone who wants to broach the subject, and I don't think creating an insular atmosphere is conducive to communicating effectively with those who don't agree.

 

[charlequin]

On the other hand, it suggests that a lot of actions taken in the name of tolerance seem to reinforce historical gender roles (even if people may move freely between those roles).

This is a big source of tension between parts of the feminist and trans communities, sadly.

So what exactly do people mean by genderqueer? I thought queer just meant gay.

Queer started out as a straightforward attempt to reclaim an anti-gay slur as a positive name for homosexuality but, through the development of queer theory, evolved into an umbrella term for all gender and sexuality expressions outside the culturally-approved normative frame. Genderqueer specifically refers to expressions of gender that violate society's typical roles, and includes androgyny, drag, transgenderism, intersex, and a range of other things.

Something tells me this well meaning OP will act primarily as further fodder for brow beating people who haven't dedicated their life to the study of gender dysphoria

People don't need a "dedicated lifetime of study" here; what they need is an attitude that's open to the idea that there might be subjects other people know more about. It's actually very easy to stay out of trouble in trans threads if you're not actively dedicated to rejecting the fundamental premise of transgenderism. Unfortunately, in most threads we get a lot of people who are dedicated to just such a rejection.

I believe in mutual respect, not neutered vocabulary.

First step in mutual respect is the side in a position of societal power willingly accepting the nomenclature of the disadvantaged side.

 

[Brian Griffin]

First step in mutual respect is the side in a position of societal power willingly accepting the nomenclature of the disadvantaged side.

Wisdom

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

First step in mutual respect is the side in a position of societal power willingly accepting the nomenclature of the disadvantaged side.

The idea that it follows that anyone who disagrees with a particular nomenclature is in a "position of societal power" is absurd. And again, I think the danger of this way of thinking is insularity.

 

[Jenov]

When a topic needs a massive primer you know the discourse has become tortured. There's something tedious and overbearing about the way transgender threads on GAF are approached, at least recently. Something tells me this well meaning OP will act primarily as further fodder for brow beating people who haven't dedicated their life to the study of gender dysphoria, or who come from a cultural context that doesn't view the issue in the officially stamped uber-PC manner as deemed appropriate by trans-GAF. I'm all for keeping the discourse civil and ensuring that no one is mindlessly slandering another person's lifestyle, but this need to dictate precisely what people can or can't believe/mention is kinda shitty.

agreed

 

[Devolution]

The idea that it follows that anyone who disagrees with a particular nomenclature is in a "position of societal power" is absurd. And again, I think the danger of this way of thinking is insularity.

People who are cis are not of the majority?

 

[mjc]

When a topic needs a massive primer you know the discourse has become tortured. There's something tedious and overbearing about the way transgender threads on GAF are approached, at least recently. Something tells me this well meaning OP will act primarily as further fodder for brow beating people who haven't dedicated their life to the study of gender dysphoria, or who come from a cultural context that doesn't view the issue in the officially stamped uber-PC manner as deemed appropriate by trans-GAF. I'm all for keeping the discourse civil and ensuring that no one is mindlessly slandering another person's lifestyle, but this need to dictate precisely what people can or can't believe/mention is kinda shitty.

This post, I like it. There's a feeling in the pit of my stomach like this thread is just going to put fuel on the fire. Regardless this thread has been very interesting.

 

[Perspicacity]

The idea that it follows that anyone who disagrees with a particular nomenclature is in a "position of societal power" is absurd. And again, I think the danger of this way of thinking is insularity.

I don't think you understand what societal power means...

 

[charlequin]

The idea that it follows that anyone who disagrees with a particular nomenclature is in a "position of societal power" is absurd.

Given how much evidence one can turn up with, like, literally five seconds of Google searching to support the idea that transgender people are innately disadvantaged in society, I think you are the one bordering on absurdity here.

 

[teacupcopter]

Not sure if this is the topic for it, but back in Uni I studied a course on Queer Cinema Theory in my media studies minor. Recently I have been thinking of that, and with in my country gay marriage becoming a bigger issue and of course in the USA also, and with the recent more high profile with the other letters in LGBT - I've always known language is important to acceptance.

Thing is, Queer cinema theory always seemed quite off to me, but was the general accepted term like only 10 years ago to describe films about/can be read as/directed or written by/etc LGBT communities. Is 'queer' ok to use in this context? Is it OK to use at all? Is it OK to use in context but not in any other?

I'm just sort of ignorant re: terms and would like to correct this. The OP is great for trans stuff (although I'm sure I'll fuck it up somehow) but just wanted to go further on it.

Is there anything on language of acceptance out there? As in studies, essays, etc on how language can lead to acceptance in society? I just think it's something that no one really focuses on, and it's something that has become quite big in the Trans movement because it's so integral to accepting the person to begin with. Thing is, a lot of people still use hateful language (Faggot, Dyke, Nigger, He/She, Trannie) on purpose, and what is more of a problem is not that vocal minority but rather the 80% of others who know/don't know but don't want to learn who will drop... "all the gays", "Trannies", "it", "butch", etc. I feel that the African American community has been the most successful in dismantling that section considering there are no real socially acceptable slurs around anymore, only the acceptable terms and unacceptable terms with very little crossover (I guess some ignorant people would go "Oh blacks do this" but I think it's one of the few problems that has been more or less successful)

A bit rambling and full of holes there (I just realised dog whistling is the next step after you dismantle language) but I think it's a fascinating subject and hopefully in 5/10/20/whatever years time when we have true equality one that will be written about in depth!

 

[Brian Griffin]

This post, I like it. There's a feeling in the pit of my stomach like this thread is just going to put fuel on the fire. Regardless this thread has been very interesting.

What fire? I'm confused what people mean when they talk about brow beating and forcing PC terms and such. Is there something wrong with TransGAF and their supporters asking for them to be treated a certain way? What reasons are there for not obliging them?

 

[Devolution]

What fire? I'm confused what people mean when they talk about brow beating and forcing PC terms and such. Is there something wrong with TransGAF and it's supporters asking for them to be treated a certain way? What reasons are there for not obliging them?

We should just go back to using all sorts of insulting terms for minorities. I mean since we're so "PC and all" today.

 

[mavs]

When a topic needs a massive primer you know the discourse has become tortured. There's something tedious and overbearing about the way transgender threads on GAF are approached, at least recently. Something tells me this well meaning OP will act primarily as further fodder for brow beating people who haven't dedicated their life to the study of gender dysphoria, or who come from a cultural context that doesn't view the issue in the officially stamped uber-PC manner as deemed appropriate by trans-GAF. I'm all for keeping the discourse civil and ensuring that no one is mindlessly slandering another person's lifestyle, but this need to dictate precisely what people can or can't believe/mention is kinda shitty.

The corollary to this post is that rejecting some or all of the OP will improve discourse, and I can't see how that is the case.

 

[charlequin]

Thing is, Queer cinema theory always seemed quite off to me, but was the general accepted term like only 10 years ago to describe films about/can be read as/directed or written by/etc LGBT communities. Is 'queer' ok to use in this context? Is it OK to use at all? Is it OK to use in context but not in any other?

"Queer" has been pretty rapidly (and largely effectively) reclaimed. It's certainly okay in any context where it's a non-judgmental descriptor and honestly I think most people who used it as a slur have given it up.

 

[TheFightingFish]

When a topic needs a massive primer you know the discourse has become tortured. There's something tedious and overbearing about the way transgender threads on GAF are approached, at least recently. Something tells me this well meaning OP will act primarily as further fodder for brow beating people who haven't dedicated their life to the study of gender dysphoria, or who come from a cultural context that doesn't view the issue in the officially stamped uber-PC manner as deemed appropriate by trans-GAF. I'm all for keeping the discourse civil and ensuring that no one is mindlessly slandering another person's lifestyle, but this need to dictate precisely what people can or can't believe/mention is kinda shitty.

I'd say that most of the OP is just informative. I'm far, far from any type of expert on transsexual issues but I get the following summary out of it (which I've already been practicing).

1. Don't use slurs of any type
2. Politely refer to anyone as being part of the gender they wish to be referred to as
3. Have a bit of understanding of the issues that transsexuals face

's not like you have to read all the studies, research all the terms, or say all the correct things to do that.

 

[mjc]

What fire? I'm confused what people mean when they talk about brow beating and forcing PC terms and such. Is there something wrong with TransGAF and their supporters asking for them to be treated a certain way? What reasons are there for not obliging them?

Any poster with a decent head on their shoulders will support TransGAF without threads like these. I already do, and still will. My point is that threads like these won't do much (in all likely hood) to change the views of those who still openly use offensive terminology here.

 

[Devolution]

Any poster with a decent head on their shoulders will support TransGAF without threads like these. I already do, and still will. My point is that threads like these won't do much (in all likely hood) to change the views of those who still openly use offensive terminology here.

Did you bother any of the replies in which people thanked the OP?

 

[Brian Griffin]

Any poster with a decent head on their shoulders will support TransGAF without threads like these. I already do, and still will. My point is that threads like these won't do much (in all likely hood) to change the views of those who still openly use offensive terminology here.

True, but I don't think that is the point of this thread. Those people will use bad terms and will get banned for it so they aren't really an issue. This thread is for people who already are supportive or at least neutral to learn more. Judging by the number of people saying they've learned something I'd say it's a success already.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Given how much evidence one can turn up with, like, literally five seconds of Google searching to support the idea that transgender people are innately disadvantaged in society, I think you are the one bordering on absurdity here.

I didn't say there are no disadvantages, I just reject reductionist for or against dichotomies. You make it sound as though anyone who doesn't participate in the conversation following the minority's edict is somehow a privileged aggressor. And again, I believe this approach to discussion is ultimately as insular and unproductive as brow beating people with the majority view. Sure, it behooves anyone participating in a conversation to at least has some idea of what terms apply. That's all well and good. That doesn't mean that those terms should be the sole terms of expression. Personally I think it's healthier to have guiding tenets such as empathy and compassion rather that a narrowly prescribed vocabulary, and I resent the notion that not by default adopting those terms lumps one in with the vague menace of a dominant majority.

I'd say that most of the OP is just informative. I'm far, far from any type of expert on transsexual issues but I get the following summary out of it (which I've already been practicing).

1. Don't use slurs of any type
2. Politely refer to anyone as being part of the gender they wish to be referred to as
3. Have a bit of understanding of the issues that transsexuals face

's not like you have to read all the studies, research all the terms, or say all the correct things to do that.

I agree the raw information is helpful. The finger wagging is not. That stuff is just preaching to the converted, and if you delineate specific lines of thought that are off limits you will never have an honest dialogue in which people can work gradually through their limited views toward new ones. How can you properly engage someone if there's no room for back and forth?

 

[Perspicacity]

Any poster with a decent head on their shoulders will support TransGAF without threads like these. I already do, and still will. My point is that threads like these won't do much (in all likely hood) to change the views of those who still openly use offensive terminology here.

I've always been pretty open and supportive of trans people, but I really didn't understand that much of the terms like "tranny", "shemale", "ladyboy", etc. were pejoratives until it was pointed out to me a few years back, even further back I would make the "she's a dude" type comments/jokes while still thinking I was a generally supportive person. I also didn't understand much of the science behind gender dysphoria until the past 6-8 months, nor did I fully appreciate all of the issues that community faced.

These threads are good because sometimes people can't recognize their own prejudices until they're laid out in front of them in plain English.

 

[mjc]

Did you bother any of the replies in which people thanked the OP?

Why should I bother them?

 

[Devolution]

Why should I bother them?

Did you bother to read them? Or are you just going to strut in and claim this thread is unnecessary?

 

[Osietra]

Is the trans thing a big current movement in the US atm? Or is just it currently on the Internet. I live in Wales, and I don't really see that much of that sort of thing. I'm pretty sure Wales has some though.

 

[KevinCow]

I have a cousin who recently came out to me as a female to male transgender, but also gay, so he's still attracted to males. I don't think he's come out publicly yet, though.

I told him I support him, and we talked about it. He helped me understand some of the things that the OP talks about, but this thread has helped with some clarification on stuff. Also, apparently I'm the only one in the family who has told him I support him instead of insisting it's just a phase or something.

Still, while I support him, I can't say I totally understand the whole thing. Why does it matter what genitals you have? Like, for me, I consider myself a man because I have a penis. I consider myself a straight male because I'm attracted to women. I don't really understand what the difference is for my cousin between being a straight female and a gay transgendered male.

To clarify, I'm not judging, just trying to wrap my head around it. But I imagine it's just one of those annoying brain things that I probably won't ever understand because I've never experienced it. Like trying to explain depression to somebody who's never experienced it, or the concept of colors to a blind person.


Also I feel bad because I'm having a lot of trouble using "him" and "he" for someone I've thought of as a girl for his entire life.

 

[mjc]

Did you bother to read them? Or are you just going to strut in and claim this thread is unnecessary?

Nope...I read them and I'm glad that they got some education on the topic. Truly, I am. In that aspect I can't argue that this thread isn't beneficial. On the other side of the token one has to accept that there are posters here who still won't care after reading all this. It's just the way it is. The potential for positive/negative returns from this thread is about equal.

 

[PhoenixDark]

It's the "as a straight man" bit that I think rubs the wrong way.

I mean, yeah, if your orientation is straight you're not going to be attracted to anybody your head identifies as male. That's what straight is.

Where we start running into unhappiness is if you attribute your perception of 'maleness' in trans women to your orientation. This is the part that I and others believe to be derived from social exposure and upbringing. I can personally attest, at least for myself, that social exposure and upbringing were the exclusive source of my own perception of trans women as being "really male". It's a learned perspective and it can be unlearned.

For what it's worth, I think the 'crass way', as you put it, is probably the least offensive way I've seen you express this statement. Gender, sex, and even biology are all social constructs at some level--penises are far less ambiguous. If you say "I wouldn't have sex with a trans woman because the fact that she has a penis/used to have a penis makes me uncomfortable" you're not the one bringing sex or gender into the discussion.

There we go again with the diluting of science and sex though. Sex is far less of a social construct than gender, which is completely a social construct. When someone uses the "you have or had a penis" argument they are indeed using a sex argument. It's a valid, logical argument to make, and it's not surprising why it would trip up most straight men when it comes to our thoughts on trans women. As I said earlier it's a mental barrier to (and many others), and no amount of surgery, hormone pills, or makeup changes that.

I can see why the argument could be seen as offensive; I'm not oblivious to that. There are trans people here who are mtf, they see someone calling them male and rejecting them; of course that would rub people the wrong way, I know. I realize I'm not going to come to any agreement with them on most issues. All I can do is sincerely say I don't mean to offend, I have always used the correct pronouns, and my support of gay/trans rights is consistent.

 

[Devolution]

Nope...I read them and I'm glad that they got some education on the topic. Truly, I am. In that aspect I can't argue that this thread isn't beneficial. On the other side of the token one has to accept that there are posters here who still won't care after reading all this. It's just the way it is. The potential for positive/negative returns from this thread is about equal.

Okay and so what? We should just not talk about it because some people refuse to acknowledge the information provided? Sounds like a stupid argument to me.

 

[Brian Griffin]

Is the trans thing a big current movement in the US atm? Or is just it currently on the Internet. I live in Wales, and I don't really see that much of that sort of thing. I'm pretty sure Wales has some though.

Not really. Things are slowly improving but there is nothing like gay pride parades. I think most pride parades include all LGBT people but there isn't anything solely devoted to trans people yet to my knowledge. Some day maybe.

I have a cousin who recently came out to me as a female to male transgender, but also gay, so he's still attracted to males. I don't think he's come out publicly yet, though.

I told him I support him, and we talked about it. He helped me understand some of the things that the OP talks about, but this thread has helped with some clarification on stuff. Also, apparently I'm the only one in the family who has told him I support him instead of insisting it's just a phase or something.

Still, while I support him, I can't say I totally understand the whole thing. Why does it matter what genitals you have? Like, for me, I consider myself a man because I have a penis. I consider myself a straight male because I'm attracted to women. I don't really understand what the difference is for my cousin between being a straight female and a gay transgendered male.

To clarify, I'm not judging, just trying to wrap my head around it. But I imagine it's just one of those annoying brain things that I probably won't ever understand because I've never experienced it. Like trying to explain depression to somebody who's never experienced it, or the concept of colors to a blind person.


Also I feel bad because I'm having a lot of trouble using "him" and "he" for someone I've thought of as a girl for his entire life.

I think the best thing to acknowledge is that you don't get it and never truly will, and that's ok. You will never know what it's like to feel that you should have a penis instead of the vagina you were born with, but just know that it's probably an extremely strong feeling for your cousin. Glad that you are supportive when the rest of the family isn't.

 

[Perspicacity]

Nope...I read them and I'm glad that they got some education on the topic. Truly, I am. In that aspect I can't argue that this thread isn't beneficial. On the other side of the token one has to accept that there are posters here who still won't care after reading all this. It's just the way it is. The potential for positive/negative returns from this thread is about equal.

What are the potential negative returns from this thread?

 

[Christine]

There we go again with the diluting of science and sex though. Sex is far less of a social construct than gender, which is completely a social construct. When someone uses the "you have or had a penis" argument they are indeed using a sex argument. It's a valid, logical argument to make, and it's not surprising why it would trip up most straight men when it comes to our thoughts on trans women. As I said earlier it's a mental barrier to (and many others), and no amount of surgery, hormone pills, or makeup changes that.

I can see why the argument could be seen as offensive; I'm not oblivious to that. There are trans people here who are mtf, they see someone calling them male and rejecting them; of course that would rub people the wrong way, I know. I realize I'm not going to come to any agreement with them on most issues. All I can do is sincerely say I don't mean to offend, I have always used the correct pronouns, and my support of gay/trans rights is consistent.

As soon as you take the discussion of sex outside core reproductive function, you're delving into the social construction aspects of it. Human behaviors and perceptions vis-a-vis penises are definitely part of that domain.

I'm not really sure what if any point you're disagreeing with here. My contention is that it's not necessary to justify your preferences beyond "penis = not for me". If someone starts to press an interrogation of "but why are penises a problem" then they're actively pursuing answers they ought to know they might not like--it changes the dynamic of giving/taking offense.

 

[mjc]

Okay and so what? We should just not talk about it because some people refuse to acknowledge the information provided? Sounds like a stupid argument to me.

I didn't say that we shouldn't talk about it, I was merely giving my opinion. You're sticking words into my mouth. This seems like a rather important topic to you, so I think I'll just leave it be.

 

[Razek]

There is a lot of hate out there not shown on Gaf for the community here. Unless all the stuff I've seen are jokes, it's pretty ridiculous. Just let people live how they want.