-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dating Preferences: Bigotry or a Right?
- Thread starter Debater Slayer
- Start date
Odd, maybe but extremely common and that's where your views about this often lead.
The thread (and comment you replied to) is about dating. Many dates that I've been on (and most people I've met, and many stories in fictional narratives about dates) show that dates may have nothing sexual about them unless flirting / foreplay is rigidly defined as sexual activity. None of which, where genitals would be exposed.
Without the stipulation in OP about it being a date where sexual connection (of the genitals variety) is a given, it really does seem like a form of bigotry to say there is a refusal to date women with penises. It's as if the fact that one person has a penis, means that sex is likely result on any given date. How very mature of an argument to be making.
The trans woman in this article was not a pre-op. It doesn't address my statement.
Hmm...if I have no right to back out of a sexual encounter with a trans woman because I don't want to suck on her penis, then, logically, you have no right to back out of a sexual encounter with me because you don't want to suck on my three fulsome inches of pleasure-packed, woman-pleasing man-rocket.
I'm beginning to like this notion.
If the purpose of the date was to find a partner, then it is very much relevant. I would put not-disclosing something like that right up there with not disclosing that you are in a committed marriage.
Buttercup
Veteran Member
J
The unspeakable connotations are obvious.
I'd probably back out because of the usage of "rocket" as an adjective for your penis.
The unspeakable connotations are obvious.
Many dates (but not all of them) are dinner and a movie. Go ask someone what they mean by a date with a person. Report here what they say.
People are stating it is not bigotry to refuse a date with all people that have penises because of their sexual preferences.
That seems like huge disconnect between what normally occurs on many dates. Two heterosexual people who are both very much sexually active, and neither are transgender may decide at the end of the date to not have sex. Imagine that. Or it might be one really desires it, the other doesn't. Refusal in this case to not have sex, would not be bigotry. Likewise, if it were one person (male) with trans woman (female) and say the female refused to have sex with the man after dating one night, this would not be bigotry.
Stating that one would always refuse a date, regardless of what that date entails, with a whole group of people based on one trait, which doesn't necessarily relate to their sexual preference is the stuff that bigotry is made of. If it were homosexual male with homosexual male, and one was black and the other white, and the black male said, I refuse to date any male with a penis who is white, then it seems some are saying that is just a preference type thing and has nothing to do with being intolerant of ALL white people, when it comes to DATING.
People are stating it is not bigotry to refuse a date with all people that have penises because of their sexual preferences.
That seems like huge disconnect between what normally occurs on many dates. Two heterosexual people who are both very much sexually active, and neither are transgender may decide at the end of the date to not have sex. Imagine that. Or it might be one really desires it, the other doesn't. Refusal in this case to not have sex, would not be bigotry. Likewise, if it were one person (male) with trans woman (female) and say the female refused to have sex with the man after dating one night, this would not be bigotry.
Stating that one would always refuse a date, regardless of what that date entails, with a whole group of people based on one trait, which doesn't necessarily relate to their sexual preference is the stuff that bigotry is made of. If it were homosexual male with homosexual male, and one was black and the other white, and the black male said, I refuse to date any male with a penis who is white, then it seems some are saying that is just a preference type thing and has nothing to do with being intolerant of ALL white people, when it comes to DATING.
What? The article is talking about trans women who are trying to date in general and the entire issue that cis people have created about how "disclosure" is somehow some imperative on the part of the trans person. Why don't you ask every single person you date if they're cis or trans? You don't? So you assume that everyone you're trying to date is cis? That's a form of privilege.
The real question here is why the mere realisation that someone is trans all of a sudden cause so many people's opinions on the desirability of that person to do a 180. It's not like the person has suddenly changed. They are still the same person you were attracted to mere moments beforehand. The only thing that changes in that scenario is you (the cis person in question).
What this really comes down to is "othering" of trans people. We're not viewed as "real" men and women. At best, to those people, we're viewed as imitations or some freakish inbetween. Trans women trying to date straight men are viewed as "liars" and "traps". They are not recognized as women. They are the exoticized "other". They're "freaks". It doesn't stop straight men from being attracted to them, but it tends to lead to the idea that it's cool to a **** a trans woman, but it has to be kept on the "downlow". They'll **** trans women, but not date her, form a long-term relationship with her, be open about their involvement with her with friends and family, etc. It's extremely common for this to end in the trans woman meeting with violence and/or death because the straight cis male in the equation is an insecure moron who wants to save face by destroying that which might call into question his "straight cred" in a transphobic, cissexist and homophobic society. It is ritual violence to uphold an archaic set of socio-sexual boundaries.
So this all comes down to not accepting trans women as "real" women. This thread just proves my point. It's a disgusting display and I'm disappointed that so many don't see the prejudice against trans people they are spewing in this thread, even those who spout that they "support" trans people. Sadly, it is not surprising. When you're a trans person who has been "out" for a time and knowledgable of these issues, you soon get used to the blatant hypocrisy. It doesn't make it any less disgusting and hurtful, however.
Last edited:
Buttercup
Veteran Member
Is it not possible to view a trans woman as a 'real' woman but still acceptable to have no desire to have sex with her if she still has a penis?
Why is it all or nothing as far as your viewpoint?
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
That is just ridiculous.
Any study on this? Otherwise your notion is quite unimportant as the vast majority of porn is heterosexual porn.
I am sorry but that is just your opinion. You might find that bigoted or whatever but it changes nothing that this is the opinion of transsexuals and their supporters while the vast majority of people would disagree.
So what's you general answer? "Cisgendered" people should have to engage in sexual relationships with transsexuals when the transsexual wants to?
After all you are against the notion that they should judge people they are going to have sex with based on their sexual preferences.
What you and apparently all other transsexuals don't understand is that for the "cis" person the gender of the opposite person changes in an instant.
You might disagree with it, but that is completely irrelevant.
But you aren't. I can't even write I am sorry because its not my fault, I didn't build the human genome. It's not my fault that we come in two kinds. Sure there are deviations from the norm which keeps the species alive but they are not the norm.
And don't pull the "but there are men/women who are infertile"-card. These people are always like that because of a medical condition. It's just not normal, which is why we try to cure medical conditions and don't introduce them to the masses.
Dear, you've been missing the point all throughout this thread. The issue is the underlying reason why finding out someone you're attracted is tran all of a sudden changes your perception of them. It's the larger undercurrents that are the issue at hand here.
Keep proving my point with your nasty posts.
You are dodging and creating a strawman. The OP was about a pre-op. My statement was about a pre-op. They are called pre-op for a reason: they are in a state of transition.
Really? Expecting honesty from someone is not accepting them as real women? I'm sorry, but I expect honesty from anyone I would want to partner up with, be they cis, non-cis, or any other variation possible.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Oh for crying out loud....
You are also missing the point. I do wonder how many times I'm going to have to repeat myself on this issue. How many long multi-paragraph posts am I going to have to make in order to help people understand? I'm not getting paid for this, you know.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I can see the genital issue, as sexually genitals do play a pretty big role, and many people, when discussing their sexual orientation, often use genitals as a goal post of what defines them as heterosexual or homosexual, based them having a liking or disliking a penis or vagina. Is it bigotry? Not really, because most people like one or the other when defining their orientation. Of course a guy who likes the warmth moisture of a vagina isn't going to be sexually interested in a pre-op transwoman, and it's certainly not bigotry if a gay men had no interest in a post-op trans-woman because she isn't a guy. And there is a reason why we call it a transition. It isn't discrimination to tell a player he can't play just because he just got off the operating table to repair an injury, because it is a transitory time of healing.
The disclosure thing, however, I do not agree with. Unfortunately it is the smart thing to do, but only because it helps to protect us from violence, and that is because trans-panic is a valid legal defense that is only banned in California. But like most things, there is a right-way and a wrong-way to go about things. Something that includes no inherent risk of harm or transmitting disease isn't something that should have to discuss and "disclose." Legally, it is considered medical information, and except for in the case of legal necessities, medical information is privileged information, but cisgender people do typically support the notion that we submit to them and disclose to them information that they are not privileged to know. We are expected to cater to the majorities sensibilities.
To me, the real question is when it comes to post-op, who possess the genitals that people define their orientation by. The transition is complete, and things are as congruent as they are going to get.
The disclosure thing, however, I do not agree with. Unfortunately it is the smart thing to do, but only because it helps to protect us from violence, and that is because trans-panic is a valid legal defense that is only banned in California. But like most things, there is a right-way and a wrong-way to go about things. Something that includes no inherent risk of harm or transmitting disease isn't something that should have to discuss and "disclose." Legally, it is considered medical information, and except for in the case of legal necessities, medical information is privileged information, but cisgender people do typically support the notion that we submit to them and disclose to them information that they are not privileged to know. We are expected to cater to the majorities sensibilities.
To me, the real question is when it comes to post-op, who possess the genitals that people define their orientation by. The transition is complete, and things are as congruent as they are going to get.
Buttercup
Veteran Member
No, I haven't been missing the point of this thread. You have been dismissing our points.
Not really. Even when they know, they still may kill you. See Gwen Araujo, as an example. (There's no way in hell they didn't know.)