Dating Preferences: Bigotry or a Right?

[crossfire]

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.

No, you are missing the point. In my case and preference, dishonesty is pretty much grounds for not wanting to partner up with someone, no matter what kind of partnership it might be--be it business, social, or sexual. Being trans has nothing to do with it. Dishonesty does.

 

[Sunstone]

No, I haven't been missing the point of this thread. You have been dismissing our points.

Missing...dismissing: What's the difference?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, I haven't been missing the point of this thread. You have been dismissing our points.

I've pointed out that some of the points being brought up are irrelevant. I'm getting at the deeper issues here.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, you are missing the point. In my case and preference, dishonesty is pretty much grounds for not wanting to partner up with someone, no matter what kind of partnership it might be--be it business, social, or sexual. Being trans has nothing to do with it. Dishonesty does.

What are they being "dishonest" about? Being a woman? Trans women are women, so that's not it. It's not our fault that you assume that all women have vaginas.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not really. Even when they know, they still may kill you. See Gwen Araujo, as an example.

I said it helps, not prevents. It sucks, and it's ****ty, but disclosure can mean the difference between an unpleasant rejection and an unpleasant trip to the ER, if you live through the ordeal.

(There's no way in hell they didn't know.)

Some people are really bad at it, and I've noticed it's usually those who have the most confidence in their abilities to just know are often the most wrong - and they tend to be the insecure types who may potentially turn violent should they feel their insecurities are violated.

 

[crossfire]

What are they being "dishonest" about? Being a woman? Trans women are women, so that's not it. It's not our fault that you assume that all women have vaginas.

If it is going to be a sexual partnership, yes the state of the person's genitals does matter, since they will be a factor of the relationship. (Any genitals with open running sores get automatically disqualified.)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If it is going to be a sexual partnership, yes the state of the person's genitals does matter, since they will be a factor of the relationship. (Any genitals with open running sores get automatically disqualified.)

Then make sure you ask every single person you fancy if they're cis or trans (or intersex, etc.), just like you should ask if they have an STD or not.

 

[Sunstone]

Although this issue may seem to divide us, I think we can all agree on at least just this one thing: I'm right, and all the rest of you are wrong.

 

[Buttercup]

I've pointed out that some of the points being brought up are irrelevant. I'm getting at the deeper issues here.

I do understand your point even if you claim I don't. However, this is how I see a scenario playing out where bigotry is no where in the picture.

Let's say my ex husband, who is very much straight, runs across a very feminine looking trans woman while he's out for lunch. They strike up a conversation and he's interested because he is visually and sexually attracted to this woman. Men tend to be visually attracted to women first and foremost before any words are uttered to either boost the attraction or deter it. Let's say her personality boosts the attraction and there's a connection on both sides. According to your reasoning, he's a bigot if he later refuses sex because she doesn't have a vagina. I don't understand that word usage in this case. Knowing my ex, he'd be profoundly disappointed because he loves vagina. He doesn't want another penis, he already has one.

Why is he a bigot and not just a confused, straight dude with a legit reason for declining sex?

 

[crossfire]

Then make sure you ask every single person you fancy if they're cis or trans, just like you should ask if they have an STD or not.

Since I'm a voluntary celibate, that will not be difficult to do.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I do understand your point even if you claim I don't. However, this is how I see a scenario playing out where bigotry is no where in the picture.

Let's say my ex husband, who is very much straight, runs across a very feminine looking trans woman while he's out for lunch. They strike up a conversation and he's interested because he is visually and sexually attracted to this woman. Men tend to be visually attracted to women first and foremost before any words are uttered to either boost the attraction or deter it. Let's say her personality boosts the attraction and there's a connection on both sides. According to your reasoning, he's a bigot if he later refuses sex because she doesn't have a vagina. I don't understand that word usage in this case. Knowing my ex, he'd be profoundly disappointed because he loves vagina. He doesn't want another penis, he already has one.

Why is he a bigot and not just a confused, straight dude with a legit reason for declining sex?

There's already a lot of assumptions wrapped up into that. Not all trans women are interested in even using their penis (if they still have one) in a sexual manner. Many hate for them to be touched.

Truthfully, as a queer (no, not "gay"), I don't quite understand strict monosexuality and the idea that someone must only have one set of genitals to be attracted to someone. (Honestly, I'm not quite sure how truly common that stance is, anyway, regardless of what the person identifies as since humans tend to be sexual opportunists as seen in a ton of different socio-cultural situations, as sexual orientation is just a social construct itself.) It's all the same to me, really.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Since I'm a voluntary celibate, that will not be difficult to do.

Fair enough, I suppose.

 

[Acim]

Missing...dismissing: What's the difference?

I see all the non-bigotry persons in this thread dismissing the dating aspect, and jumping instead to the sexual preference aspect. I'm still looking for a post from the non-bigotry side that is able to manage to speak to the dating issue without having to resort to the notion (or implication) that the date will necessarily result in sex, where a penis might be touched by a heterosexual male. Again, it's not like heterosexual females are encountering penises on every date they go on. So, seems like really huge leap to assume the genitalia would even come up on a date. Could date someone for a week, month or year and it may never come up. But in this thread, it's all that is coming up. A date where only kissing is involved seems like it is either foreign to the discussion or seen as viably off limits to the male attracted to females, but is intolerant of penises (except for their own, of course).

Will be nice to read that other type of post when it finally comes up on this thread.

 

[Buttercup]

There's already a lot of assumptions wrapped up into that. Not all trans women are interested in even using their penis (if they still have one) in a sexual manner. Many hate for them to be touched.

That might be true, but that's not taking into account what the other person wants or needs sexually.

Truthfully, as a queer (no, not "gay"), I don't quite understand strict monosexuality and the idea that someone must only have one set of genitals to be attracted to someone. (Honestly, I'm not quite sure how truly common that stance is, anyway, regardless of what the person identifies as since humans tend to be sexual opportunists as seen in a ton of different socio-cultural situations, as sexual orientation is just a social construct itself.) It's all the same to me, really.

I can't say I totally 'understand' your attractions because I'm a straight female with bi-curiosities. However, sexual attraction is very personal and genitals DO factor in that attraction for most people. You have to allow them that without name calling.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That might be true, but that's not taking into account what the other person wants or needs sexually.

I can't say I totally 'understand' your attractions because I'm a straight female with bi-curiosities. However, sexual attraction is very personal and genitals DO factor in that attraction for most people. You have to allow them that without name calling.

Truthfully, I only call someone a "bigot" when what they say is coming off as bigoted or, at the very least, very tone deaf. For example, I wouldn't say @ADigitalArtist is bigoted merely because she prefers partners who have a penis because of her romantic notions of penile-vaginal sex. That's valid. However, I am seeing a number of posts that are implying that trans men and trans women are not truly men or women and that for a straight person to be intimate with us is essentially having gay sex. Those are problematic, to say the least. (Now, if a straight men is having sex with me, a trans man, then that would be gay sex. )

I am also pointing out the heteronormative, cissexist social assumptions that we are all raised with and bombarded with from an early age in this culture, which do have an impact on our perspectives throughout life. So I am encouraging people to question their perceptions and where they may stem from. That is my major goal in this discussion.

 

[Buttercup]

Truthfully, I only call someone a "bigot" when what they say is coming off as bigoted or, at the very least, very tone deaf. For example, I wouldn't say @ADigitalArtist is bigoted merely because she prefers partners who have a penis because of her romantic notions of penile-vaginal sex. That's valid. However, I am seeing a number of posts that are implying that trans men and trans women are not truly men or women and that for a straight person to be intimate with us is essentially having gay sex. Those are problematic, to say the least. (Now, if a straight men is having sex with me, a trans man, then that would be gay sex. )

I am also pointing out the heteronormative, cissexual social assumptions that we are all raised with and bombarded with from an early age in this culture, which do have an impact on our perspectives throughout life. So I am encouraging people to question their perceptions and where they may stem from. That is my major goal in this discussion.

I get it. It's important for people to understand these nuances.

If you want to use your voice to educate, I'd suggest starting another thread. The word 'bigot' and 'bigotry' are not serving your purpose well in this thread and it's already too prejudiced by those terms.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

I think this is an unwarranted assumption. Not all transgendered people misunderstand what you're describing. I don't even know exactly what percentage of them do so either.

I'm also not sure why you're putting "cisgendered" and "cis" in quotation marks.

 

[YmirGF]

Personally, I think the onus is on the transgender person. Simply say you are trans and let the chips fall where they may. If one is dealing with gender issues that the vast majority are not going though they should make it clear so the prospective partner can make an informed decision on taking the relationship further.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Personally, I think the onus is on the transgender person. Simply say you are trans and let the chips fall where they may. If one is dealing with gender issues that the vast majority are not going though they should make it clear so the prospective partner can make an informed decision on taking the relationship further.

Or, on the other hand, what is wrong with transsexuals expecting to live as close to a normal life as possible?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And, really, what other things are expected to be disclosed? Diseases, sometimes, which makes sense as those can spread and it can effect public health. But bondage? Furrydom? Kinks? Fetishes? Histories? Where else do expect anything remotely comparable to bear this burden of the expectation of "full disclosure?"