Topic: On dating trans women and "transphobia".
+Autphag — 13.1 years ago #24,877
The subject of trans women as romantic partners (or not) comes up often on this reddit, and every time, it quickly descends into a "heated conversation" with frustration and (usually unintentionally) hurt feelings. It's our own private Godwin's Law. I totally realize that by posting this I may very well be precipitating yet another such discussion and for that I apologize, but I can't help but feel that this is a conversation about real things and not just opinions. I'd like to try to elevate those conversations by establishing a baseline of facts.
Let's start with some basics:
Things which are not transphobic:
Not being interested in, or not dating, a specific woman who happens to be trans.
Not being interested in, or not dating, a specific woman who does not currently have the genitalia you prefer.
Not being interested in, or not dating, a specific woman who just doesn't catch your eye.
Things which are transphobic:
Not being interested in, or not dating, a specific woman because she is trans.
Trans women are women. They are often indistinguishable from cis women. They can't get pregnant, but neither can almost 10% of cis women, and fortunately in a lesbian couple there's usually a womb to spare. (With enough forethought you might not need a sperm donor!) Saying you're "not attracted to trans women" as a blanket statement cannot have a basis in empirical reality, but purely in prejudice. It's not like not being attracted to redheads or blondes or butches, it's like not being attracted to immigrants, children of blue-collar workers or survivors of cancer. "Trans" is, for the numerical majority of trans women, a history which says nothing about the person.
Other common fallacies:
I've never been attracted to a trans woman, therefore trans women aren't attractive to me.
Besides the obvious selection bias, the idea that "Trans women look like X" is where this statement goes horribly awry. Trans women look like this, and this and thousands of other beautiful women who just don't advertise their history.
If you are attracted to women, you are attracted to (some) trans women.
Ewwww, penis!
You aren't into penii. I get it, and for what it's worth neither am I. To be fair, many trans women who carry that particular anatomical burden are not big fans of it either, so you have that in common at least. But many trans women don't, and many of those who do won't for long. Be careful about using this biased sample to rule out all trans women.
Also, would you rule someone out because she had six toes? Whenever I hear a straight man ask how sex works in the absence of a penis, I feel sorry for his girlfriends/wife, because he clearly doesn't understand how sexytimes work; when I hear a lesbian rule out trans women because of the presence of a hidden penis I feel sorry for her partner, because how superficial is that?
It's valid to be not into penii. this is, possibly, the only context in which anyone is allowed to care about a trans woman's genitalia. But say as much and don't assert that all trans women == penis. Those who aren't packing a strapless get a little annoyed by the assertion.
Transphobia == evil/mean/bad/poopy.
Transphobia is, in the strictest sense, an "irrational fear or dislike of transgender people". "Fear" and "dislike" are subjective terms and not something you have active control over. There's no ill-intent implied here. It is not an insult to be called transphobic, any more than it is an insult to be called trans.
I'm a bit androphobic. I accept and own that, and am trying to get over it by making male friends, challenging my own emotional responses and working through trauma. It's not something I can control, but it doesn't give me the right to say "all men are evil/rapists".
In the context of attraction: if you realize you dislike or are not attracted to trans women as a rule, trumping the holistic person, it should inspire you to do a little soul searching to understand why this is so. If you can't get over it, you should recognize that it is your problem and not anyone else's. If you are fortunate enough to have a trans person in your social circle, perhaps you could even try to overcome it.
Trans women are all X.
Trans women are all trans. Lesbians are all women who are attracted to women. This is a tautological definition, but there is no other universal quality. The moment you say (or imply) any other commonality, you're doing it wrong.
Finally, please remember:
The trans women who come in here and start these conversations are often on the most angsty leg of a very tumultuous journey. Try not to add to their fears with pedantic or broad statements about their future courtships. If you're 100% sure that you would never date a trans/black/Jewish/butch/immigrant woman, this may be a time to keep that to yourself.
When you speak up to specifically exclude trans women from your romantic prospects in a context defined by courtship (ie: LGBT spaces), you are implicitly othering them in that community. It's hard to explain why that is so, but it's impossible to ignore.
I now live in the Boston area, after four years in NYC, and there are only a few contexts in which I'm proactively stealth (as opposed to incidentally stealth, which has become the norm). The lesbian community is one, and these conversations are why. I get a little sad about that sometimes.
Let's start with some basics:
Things which are not transphobic:
Not being interested in, or not dating, a specific woman who happens to be trans.
Not being interested in, or not dating, a specific woman who does not currently have the genitalia you prefer.
Not being interested in, or not dating, a specific woman who just doesn't catch your eye.
Things which are transphobic:
Not being interested in, or not dating, a specific woman because she is trans.
Trans women are women. They are often indistinguishable from cis women. They can't get pregnant, but neither can almost 10% of cis women, and fortunately in a lesbian couple there's usually a womb to spare. (With enough forethought you might not need a sperm donor!) Saying you're "not attracted to trans women" as a blanket statement cannot have a basis in empirical reality, but purely in prejudice. It's not like not being attracted to redheads or blondes or butches, it's like not being attracted to immigrants, children of blue-collar workers or survivors of cancer. "Trans" is, for the numerical majority of trans women, a history which says nothing about the person.
Other common fallacies:
I've never been attracted to a trans woman, therefore trans women aren't attractive to me.
Besides the obvious selection bias, the idea that "Trans women look like X" is where this statement goes horribly awry. Trans women look like this, and this and thousands of other beautiful women who just don't advertise their history.
If you are attracted to women, you are attracted to (some) trans women.
Ewwww, penis!
You aren't into penii. I get it, and for what it's worth neither am I. To be fair, many trans women who carry that particular anatomical burden are not big fans of it either, so you have that in common at least. But many trans women don't, and many of those who do won't for long. Be careful about using this biased sample to rule out all trans women.
Also, would you rule someone out because she had six toes? Whenever I hear a straight man ask how sex works in the absence of a penis, I feel sorry for his girlfriends/wife, because he clearly doesn't understand how sexytimes work; when I hear a lesbian rule out trans women because of the presence of a hidden penis I feel sorry for her partner, because how superficial is that?
It's valid to be not into penii. this is, possibly, the only context in which anyone is allowed to care about a trans woman's genitalia. But say as much and don't assert that all trans women == penis. Those who aren't packing a strapless get a little annoyed by the assertion.
Transphobia == evil/mean/bad/poopy.
Transphobia is, in the strictest sense, an "irrational fear or dislike of transgender people". "Fear" and "dislike" are subjective terms and not something you have active control over. There's no ill-intent implied here. It is not an insult to be called transphobic, any more than it is an insult to be called trans.
I'm a bit androphobic. I accept and own that, and am trying to get over it by making male friends, challenging my own emotional responses and working through trauma. It's not something I can control, but it doesn't give me the right to say "all men are evil/rapists".
In the context of attraction: if you realize you dislike or are not attracted to trans women as a rule, trumping the holistic person, it should inspire you to do a little soul searching to understand why this is so. If you can't get over it, you should recognize that it is your problem and not anyone else's. If you are fortunate enough to have a trans person in your social circle, perhaps you could even try to overcome it.
Trans women are all X.
Trans women are all trans. Lesbians are all women who are attracted to women. This is a tautological definition, but there is no other universal quality. The moment you say (or imply) any other commonality, you're doing it wrong.
Finally, please remember:
The trans women who come in here and start these conversations are often on the most angsty leg of a very tumultuous journey. Try not to add to their fears with pedantic or broad statements about their future courtships. If you're 100% sure that you would never date a trans/black/Jewish/butch/immigrant woman, this may be a time to keep that to yourself.
When you speak up to specifically exclude trans women from your romantic prospects in a context defined by courtship (ie: LGBT spaces), you are implicitly othering them in that community. It's hard to explain why that is so, but it's impossible to ignore.
I now live in the Boston area, after four years in NYC, and there are only a few contexts in which I'm proactively stealth (as opposed to incidentally stealth, which has become the norm). The lesbian community is one, and these conversations are why. I get a little sad about that sometimes.
+Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 2 minutes later[T] [B] #296,490
FUCK OFF. I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS JEWISH NONSENSE.
+Anonymous C — 13.1 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #296,555
@previous (Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g)
you'll come round eventually, and you'll see how much happier you are with yourself and the world when you do, trust us.
you'll come round eventually, and you'll see how much happier you are with yourself and the world when you do, trust us.
+Anonymous D — 13.1 years ago, 7 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #296,795
Autphag wants to hate fuck a tranny. Reach-arounds will be heavily involved.
+Chowmein Wonton Chinaman !Uvm54ORbmo — 13.1 years ago, 18 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[T] [B] #296,803
> On dating trans women and "transphobia"
Ehh wha?
Ehh wha?
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
+squeegee — 13.1 years ago, 11 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[T] [B] #296,864
Actually not liking trannies is equivalent to not being gay.
Trannies aren't women. They are men with a body identity disorder. They have, for lack of a better descriptor, a mental disorder that affects their life on a daily basis.
It would be like dating a schizophrenic, and you wouldn't call someone who doesn't want a mentally ill partner schizophobic.
You would call them smart.
Or not gay in the event of a tranny.
Trannies aren't women. They are men with a body identity disorder. They have, for lack of a better descriptor, a mental disorder that affects their life on a daily basis.
It would be like dating a schizophrenic, and you wouldn't call someone who doesn't want a mentally ill partner schizophobic.
You would call them smart.
Or not gay in the event of a tranny.
+FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 13.1 years ago, 37 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #296,868
·Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #296,873
@296,864 (squeegee )
> restating what I've been saying in every post of mine
You're a pathetic plagiarist Judeophile. Kindly, jump.
> restating what I've been saying in every post of mine
You're a pathetic plagiarist Judeophile. Kindly, jump.
+Anonymous H — 13.1 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #296,876
+Anonymous I — 13.1 years ago, 16 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[T] [B] #296,880
@296,873 (Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g)
Say it more clear next time, faggot. No one reads your word salad posts.
Say it more clear next time, faggot. No one reads your word salad posts.
·Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 8 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #296,882
@previous (I)
How is that remotely a word salad? Not my fault the only phrases you learn osmotically are on CNN you immigrant New World Order floatraft NGO-funded agitator cunt.
How is that remotely a word salad? Not my fault the only phrases you learn osmotically are on CNN you immigrant New World Order floatraft NGO-funded agitator cunt.
·Anonymous H — 13.1 years ago, 8 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #296,883
·Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 12 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #296,884
·Anonymous H — 13.1 years ago, 6 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[T] [B] #296,887
·FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI — 13.1 years ago, 48 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #296,891
@296,882 (Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g)
Let's dissect this post shall we?
> How is that remotely a word salad?
Grammatically vague, but when taken in the context of this thread (or threaded discussions in general) most people should be able to figure out what is being referred to.
> Not my fault the only phrases you learn [...]
Grammatically, this should begin with "It is" but that's not strictly necessary outside of an English classroom.
> [...] osmotically [...]
This is where you begin to step outside the realm of readability. I would presume this word is intended to mean osmosis; as referring to the learning of language/vocabulary through natural submersion rather than structured vocabulary-building.
> [...] are on CNN you immigrant [...]
Here you return to basic English, but you omitted punctuation to indicate a coupling in the train of thought.
> [...] New World Order [...]
This phrase falls more into the category of political lingo, but its use is widespread enough that most people have at least a basic idea of what you're referring to.
> [...] floatraft [...]
Here you completely abandon any general understanding of language, with what can only be assessed as a mash-up of the words "float" and "raft". While these two words are commonly understood, and can be appropriately used in a manner which describes a relation between them, (ie: the nature of a raft is to float) your usage here is nonsensical and markov-like in how it relates to the rest of the sentence.
> [...] NGO-funded [...]
The appended suffix here alludes to some meaning of the word, but without knowing what the abbreviation stands for, our understanding is incomplete, which leads us to chalk this up to markov behavior as well.
> [...] agitator [...]
Just outside the bounds of general English. The word itself is not so uncommon, but it has mostly been replaced by other words in the spoken English of younger generations. This particular usage carries a political charge which is not often seen.
> [...] cunt.
Four-letter word.
Let's dissect this post shall we?
> How is that remotely a word salad?
Grammatically vague, but when taken in the context of this thread (or threaded discussions in general) most people should be able to figure out what is being referred to.
> Not my fault the only phrases you learn [...]
Grammatically, this should begin with "It is" but that's not strictly necessary outside of an English classroom.
> [...] osmotically [...]
This is where you begin to step outside the realm of readability. I would presume this word is intended to mean osmosis; as referring to the learning of language/vocabulary through natural submersion rather than structured vocabulary-building.
> [...] are on CNN you immigrant [...]
Here you return to basic English, but you omitted punctuation to indicate a coupling in the train of thought.
> [...] New World Order [...]
This phrase falls more into the category of political lingo, but its use is widespread enough that most people have at least a basic idea of what you're referring to.
> [...] floatraft [...]
Here you completely abandon any general understanding of language, with what can only be assessed as a mash-up of the words "float" and "raft". While these two words are commonly understood, and can be appropriately used in a manner which describes a relation between them, (ie: the nature of a raft is to float) your usage here is nonsensical and markov-like in how it relates to the rest of the sentence.
> [...] NGO-funded [...]
The appended suffix here alludes to some meaning of the word, but without knowing what the abbreviation stands for, our understanding is incomplete, which leads us to chalk this up to markov behavior as well.
> [...] agitator [...]
Just outside the bounds of general English. The word itself is not so uncommon, but it has mostly been replaced by other words in the spoken English of younger generations. This particular usage carries a political charge which is not often seen.
> [...] cunt.
Four-letter word.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
·Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #296,894
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
You got the point on my use of the word "osmotically" the wrong way round; I mean to say that most people learn by the osmotic absorption of vocabulary in a pre-digested, pre-structured way for easy processing, without actually thinking of the semantic context or implications of their application in phrases and sentence structures. Natural immersion would be the proper way of getting to grasps with the language; one is using innate intelligence, which would presumably be a closer guide to enlightenment to naturally occurring logistic truths than socially mandated convention.
Floatraft and immigration is semantically connected; this is how a lot of illegals, if not most, get in, and is the least prone to detection by customs. I did omit the word 'illegal', but that implication should be clear from my specification of their method of entry, as opposed to a naturalized immigrant who came through all the appropriate bureaucratic checks. Most of this trend is instigated by the New World Order (but more specifically its varying substrates, the armies of NGOs, i.e. Non-Governmental Organizations, under the UN's auspices), hence the usage of this phrasal pronoun as a connector between these other two concepts.
You got the point on my use of the word "osmotically" the wrong way round; I mean to say that most people learn by the osmotic absorption of vocabulary in a pre-digested, pre-structured way for easy processing, without actually thinking of the semantic context or implications of their application in phrases and sentence structures. Natural immersion would be the proper way of getting to grasps with the language; one is using innate intelligence, which would presumably be a closer guide to enlightenment to naturally occurring logistic truths than socially mandated convention.
Floatraft and immigration is semantically connected; this is how a lot of illegals, if not most, get in, and is the least prone to detection by customs. I did omit the word 'illegal', but that implication should be clear from my specification of their method of entry, as opposed to a naturalized immigrant who came through all the appropriate bureaucratic checks. Most of this trend is instigated by the New World Order (but more specifically its varying substrates, the armies of NGOs, i.e. Non-Governmental Organizations, under the UN's auspices), hence the usage of this phrasal pronoun as a connector between these other two concepts.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
+Anonymous J — 13.1 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #296,896
·Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #296,897
@previous (J)The grammar of proto-Mongolid languages is pretty much a word salad, pic related. They get by.
+kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 13.1 years ago, 47 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #296,904
·Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #296,908
·kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 13.1 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #296,912
·squeegee — 13.1 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #296,943
+Anonymous L — 13.1 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #296,949
·squeegee — 13.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #296,951
·Anonymous L — 13.1 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #296,953
·kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 13.1 years ago, 18 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #297,106
·Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #297,107
@previous (kook !!u4KQvs2JM)
You are a radfemme, but that's hardly inconsistent with being trans, plenty of sick autist dumpy lesbian trans like you walking about.
You are a radfemme, but that's hardly inconsistent with being trans, plenty of sick autist dumpy lesbian trans like you walking about.
·kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 13.1 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #297,108
@previous (Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g)
That literally made no sense. If I'm a man, I cannot be a lesbian
That literally made no sense. If I'm a man, I cannot be a lesbian
·Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #297,110
@previous (kook !!u4KQvs2JM)
We're using the term 'lesbian' as deluded transfreaks refer to themselves. Logic is thrown out the window with social justice feminists like you.
We're using the term 'lesbian' as deluded transfreaks refer to themselves. Logic is thrown out the window with social justice feminists like you.
·kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 13.1 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #297,111
@previous (Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g)
you're using that term. So you believe that I'm a female or that men can be lesbians. You're a freak
you're using that term. So you believe that I'm a female or that men can be lesbians. You're a freak
·Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g — 13.1 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #297,113
·Anonymous H — 13.1 years ago, 33 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #297,114
@297,107 (Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g)@297,108 (kook !!u4KQvs2JM)
@297,110 (Dr. Autphag !FaiGWhdD4g)
@297,111 (kook !!u4KQvs2JM)
·kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 13.1 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #297,120
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.