Dating Preferences: Bigotry or a Right?

[Flankerl]

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.

Oh yes I think there are some of them out there, but I have never read it by one of them. So either I read the wrong sites or they are just all offline.
But yeah they are probably out there.

And I put it in quotation marks because it pretty much makes the entire idea of "hey we are just like you guys" absurd.
Just some years ago the whole term did effectively not exist. People were just people.
Ever since then it also has become quite the slur.

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

One can of course keep it a secret and wait for the fallout once in bed.
Though that is quite the stupid idea.

And also whether you like it or not, most people expect normal people when they go out and search men or women. They expect them to have the specific chromosomes.
That's just what it is. It has been like that for.... ever. It was like that 10.000 years ago and it was like that 100.000 years ago.

I know really bigoted that people search what they want. But that's just how people are.
For many people Transsexuals are basically frauds, they look like X or Y but aren't really. Is that nice? No, people are generally not nice, especially when it comes to searching their mates.
We fought wars over screwing other people, nice is not even on the horizon.

Being expected to disclose your medical information and history is not a part of a normal life.

Uhm yeah it kinda is. Its why we invented condoms for the first sexual encounters so we won't catch this or that from that other person.
The general rule is that we have to take into account that the person on the other side has been around and that it might be a giid idea to be on the safe side.

Even many couples do tests before they scrap the condom in favour of other methods. Because you know, that's just how it is.

In that case I can understand it, because a pre-op transsexual may not even have what the person is sexually interested in.
And, as I said, I'm more concerned with the post-op acceptance (more like rejection), as that is when people really have to grasp at straws and no matter what excuse they try to give there is something to counter it.

No they don't. I know how fascinating medical science concerning the whole building a Vagina/Penis stuff has become and that those Thais really are doing some surgical magic but it will never be a real Vagina/Penis as it is re-modelled tissue.
Why is it grasping at straws? Perhaps some(read: most) people just want a natural Penis or Vagina? Is that actually hard to understand?

Stating a medical fact is not bigotry.

That fact that you mention backlash indicates the problem is not within transsexuals, but those give this "backlash" over something that really isn't a serious issue.

For you.

It might be a good idea to kinda think about how others feel about a subject. Like basically what you apparently expect others to do, just the other way around.
This does in no way imply that you should change your opinion mind you. It's about something else, its basically the magic key to interact with other human lifeforms.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To be perfectly frank, neither is being trans...

To me it is. Autism isn't normal in that is statistically happens in most of the population, but it normally happens, and for those with high-functioning Autism, they may not even be diagnosed or detected because they are able to socially function well enough, despite a few things that seem like odd behaviors and personality quirks. And for those with it, to them it is normal. It's like left-handedness. It's not statistically normal at all, but hardly anyone puts any emphasis on it anymore. It's simply a non-issue. It's when it becomes an issue, like with just about anything and everything else society has a problem with, be it homosexuals, transsexuals, autism, and even left-handedness, it's because of societies predatory and exclusivist behaviors towards those who are different, and the majority's insistence that a minority act accordingly, behave themselves, and not upset the majority.

Why the hell would you want to be with that type of person in the first place?

It's not that I would want to be with that type of person, it's that I should not be expected to bear my soul, directly and upfront, whenever a potential sexual encounter arises. I'm not doing them any harm, they are not privileged to know my medical information, so, frankly, they have no right to expect me to be upfront about it. I don't want to be with someone like that, but I would like a chance at a fairly normal life where I get to express and be myself, like anyone else, and not be burdened with sensibilities of those who have been culturally conditioned to view me as different. I don't want to be with someone who thinks lesser of me just because I am who I am, but nor should I be expected to adhere to an additional ritual that no one else is expected to do, a ritual that only serves to continually display my otherness, constantly remind myself of my otherness, and constantly affirm to the majority that they do have the right to expect me to accept their non-acceptance and perpetuating my otherness?

Rather hypocritical, is it not, to expect you accepted on your terms to hell with theirs?

When I am not causing any harm, then, yes, to hell with their standards. It's not like that I'm keeping a STI hidden. I am being myself. Why should I be expected to say "oh, yeah, by the way, I have this medical condition..." especially when this medical condition is no longer pertinent in regards to genitals? I get the lack of desire and want when the "plumbing" doesn't match (it's often even an unpleasant ordeal for transsexuals), but when the plumbing does match up, yes, it is another issue, and it's not just "to hell with their standards," it more of that their "standards" aren't even worthy of becoming dog crap, because the continued rejection is one bothersome and worrisome issue, because it more than any other reason tends to lead to failed transitions and suicides. So, yeah, insert your strongest known derogatory remark and apply the disliking and disrespect for their "standards." I seek to change them, not perpetuate them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No they don't. I know how fascinating medical science concerning the whole building a Vagina/Penis stuff has become and that those Thais really are doing some surgical magic but it will never be a real Vagina/Penis as it is re-modelled tissue.
Why is it grasping at straws? Perhaps some(read: most) people just want a natural Penis or Vagina? Is that actually hard to understand?

Because it's only an issue with transsexuals. With the other conditions that may lead to surgical sex assignments shortly after birth, odd chromosome pairings, women with XY chromosomes, none of that ever matters except when discussing transsexuals.
Medical facts aren't bigotry, but they are damning to those who only look at a few of them once all of them are brought in.

Uhm yeah it kinda is. Its why we invented condoms for the first sexual encounters so we won't catch this or that from that other person.

Condoms are a normal part of sexual activity, even for those without diseases, and not only for diseases.
Disclosing medical information to potential partners, especially if there is no risk of harm, is not normal.

And also whether you like it or not, most people expect normal people when they go out and search men or women. They expect them to have the specific chromosomes.
That's just what it is. It has been like that for.... ever. It was like that 10.000 years ago and it was like that 100.000 years ago.

In numerous cultures it has been considered a very positive thing to be married to a transsexual or third-sexed person.

Just some years ago the whole term did effectively not exist. People were just people.

Lots of ideas and concepts that we have today didn't exist at all just some years ago.

It might be a good idea to kinda think about how others feel about a subject. Like basically what you apparently expect others to do, just the other way around.
This does in no way imply that you should change your opinion mind you. It's about something else, its basically the magic key to interact with other human lifeforms.

Or I could be insistent that those like me be treated equally and not expected to cater to the majority in a way that no one else is expected to adhere to.

One can of course keep it a secret and wait for the fallout once in bed.
Though that is quite the stupid idea.

Then instead of cowering and yielding to those who have a problem, rather than standing up for what they impose on me, why should I not stand up for myself?

For many people Transsexuals are basically frauds, they look like X or Y but aren't really. Is that nice? No, people are generally not nice, especially when it comes to searching their mates.

It's actually very easily demonstrated that the way a society treats transsexuals is entirely cultural. To me, this means that I should just accept that people see me as a "fraud," I should just instead totally and utterly ignore their demands and normalize myself since they aren't going to do it on their own.

 

[Acim]

Hey baby, it's not like that at all. It's just that I prefer right handed people who are Christian. Ya know, normal people. I made a pact with myself that I wouldn't date lesser people, who are left handed and non-Christian. It's really just a preference thing. Not sure why you see that is bigotry. I just know what I prefer. Sure I'm the one that initially pursued you and at one point found you undeniably attractive, but that's changed now. I can't believe you went 3 whole dates without telling me upfront that you are left handed. You obviously have very serious trust issues and I would suggest you work on that. Your abnormalities and lack of being honest are all on you. Clearly I am not the one with any problems here.

 

[SomeRandom]

Cause it's not a presumption?

This entire thread is based upon the predication of a heterosexual man being a bigot for not wanting to date a person with a penis. How is that not a presumption of guilt? Now I apologize if I made it sound like this was directed specifically at you. That was not my intent.

It's the intolerance aspect, being expressed. Sexual orientation is not bigotry. Expressing sexual orientation by stating what doesn't fit in with that and going above and beyond that to express refusal/intolerance would equal mild bigotry.

So, liking crime as a genre is not in itself bigotry. But refusing to watch comedy ever in favor of watching/reading crime would be mild bigotry?
This line of thinking is not a large jump from the stated scenario, so.

Now what if we say that a heterosexual man refusing to have sex with a person with a penis? That's basically the concept of consent. How is it intolerant to do so? They want to have sex with a vagina.
Consent is very important in relationships. As is tastes, values and other things associated with dating someone.
Is a woman being intolerant when she rejects a man for not meeting her preferences in a mate? Maybe he's a *********. Maybe he's an unemployed lazy *******. Maybe he's abusive. Or maybe he's just not done enough to attract a mate. He's fat, meek, hasn't showered in a week etc.
This is an expression of sexual selection. I suppose sexual selection pressures are bigots as well?

IMO, you and others seem to have a connotation associated with bigotry that prevents that label being applied (accurately). It would seem that word is so loaded that it can only apply in certain situations. In OP, the wording was "a form of bigotry" vs. "right" and then subsequent posts suggesting right and bigotry are contrasts from which to choose from. If that label doesn't work for you and you think it is right to refuse a whole group of people, many of which self identify as female, then that's okay. Really doesn't seem like a big deal to me, given the generality of the inquiry.

Maybe because the connotation I have associated with bigots are generally people who are the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church or those Ex Gay Therapy asshats or people who commit hate crimes.
The mildest form I know of are people who argue against you but are generally very mean to you when doing so and refuse to listen to even the debate.
Now I'd be willing to accept that this is a mild form of bias or even a mild form prejudice.
But calling this a mild form of bigotry is kind of like saying that calling a woman a sexually charged name is a mild form of rape. It's a slap in the face to actual rape victims. Cheapens the word and is suspiciously a lot like Newsspeak. Breaking down words until there's nothing left. Or at least the process of which. Which is probably why I react in such a fervent manner.

 

[Acim]

This entire thread is based upon the predication of a heterosexual man being a bigot for not wanting to date a person with a penis. How is that not a presumption of guilt?

The idea of them being presumed guilty of engaging in (some form of) bigotry, yes? I see your spin, and think of it (instead) as a heterosexual man refusing to date all females who have a penis.

So, liking crime as a genre is not in itself bigotry. But refusing to watch comedy in favor of crime would be mild bigotry?
This line of thinking is not a large jump from the stated scenario, so.

Yes, I would say that is mild bigotry. Though I might slightly stipulate your proposition as refusing to ever watch comedy. This would strike me as extremely mild in its bigotry. It would arguably affect no person other than the one that holds this view. Refusing to date a whole group of people would affect that group of people, especially if it was deemed a popular / legitimate idea to hold.

Maybe because the connotation I have associated with bigots are generally people who are the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church or those Ex Gay Therapy asshats or people who commit hate crimes.

I'm thinking this is a popular connotation of bigotry and perhaps (or likely) not a mild form of bigotry.

The mildest form I know of are people who argue against you but are generally very mean to you when doing so and refuse to listen to even the debate.
Now I'd be willing to accept that this is a mild form of bias or even a mild form prejudice.
But calling this a mild form of bigotry is kind of like saying that calling a woman a sexually charged name is a mild form of rape. It's a slap in the face to actual rape victims. Cheapens the word and is suspiciously a lot like Newsspeak. Breaking down words until there's nothing left. Or at least the process of which. Which is probably why I react in such a fervent manner.

I would say it's a strong case of bias, a moderate case of prejudice, and mild form of bigotry. Given the whole sexual additions to this topic of DATING, it does strike me as an irrational aversion, but is rather new and so under studied that I'm willing to call that my personal opinion that may be shared by no one else.

 

[SomeRandom]

Being expected to disclose your medical information and history is not a part of a normal life.

Actually in today's world of cheap one night stands, it actually is. It's especially important to impart on today's youth.
In fact it's outright encouraged in today's Sex Ed classes in schools. Well at least where I live it is. As is regular testing and being sure you use prevention methods (condoms or whatever contraception you want.)
It's thought that because a lot of Gay Youth is rather promiscuous (not a slight against gay youth) that it's important to stress discussing medical history with sexual partners among.......well Gay Youth.
Hell there's even a UK TV show dedicated to the education of today's youthful sexcapades. It follows a handful of youths (which changes episode to episode) as they wander into an STI testing clinic, either because they think they have something or even occasionally just doing the right thing. Hell sometimes they're porn stars and fulfilling state requirements to test before doing a shoot not involving contraception to ensure workplace health and safety standards.
The show always stresses that because today's youth culture is very much into the one night stand territory that regular testing and discussing medical history with potential partners should be high on the agenda. If not at least regular check ups at STI clinics.

In adult situations too, it's important to lose pretense. If you just wait until the bedroom to be (for lack of a better term) discovered, then obviously the reaction will be less than polite. If you're upfront, sure you risk getting rejected, but your partner will then have the option of seeing it though or not. It's only fair to give a person that choice.
I mean if I suddenly got a cold just before my date, I would tell my date as to indicate that physical contact should be kept to a minimum.

So yes, actually it is totally normal to disclose medical history when dating someone.

 

[fantome profane]

We'll just start wearing badges declaring that we're trans and what genitals we have so we don't ick out the people whose penises and vaginas get all in a tizzy over us. Don't want to make them uncomfortable, now.

But since we cannot always tell who is a transsexual and who is a cis we will all need to wear badges. What I propose is that we all just take a picture of our junk and make it into a t-shirt*. That way there would be no room for confusion and no one would feel uncomfortable.

(*actually I have already done this)

 

[Mister Emu]

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?

Wait, you wouldn't tell a partner that you wanted bondage or yiffing? What would expect if you just walked out with whips and chains or in a fursuit without informing the other party?

Being expected to disclose your medical information and history is not a part of a normal life.

It is where it is pertinent to another's private life and choices involving their interactions with you. If you have the flu I expect you to let me know before we share a soda, if you have a fatal illness I expect you to let me know before we start a relationship, if you have a penis I expect the same, or if you know you are infertile. Because I am going to be honest about wanting the possibility of a long term relationship with the ability to have a family.

And, as I said, I'm more concerned with the post-op acceptance (more like rejection), as that is when people really have to grasp at straws and no matter what excuse they try to give there is something to counter it.

What about people that want a natural family? Is that bigoted too?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But since we cannot always tell who is a transsexual and who is a cis we will all need to wear badges. What I propose is that we all just take a picture of our junk and make it into a t-shirt*. That way there would be no room for confusion and no one would feel uncomfortable.

(*actually I have already done this)

Lol. The world would suddenly become a lot more humble too, just watch.

You actually made a shirt with a picture of your dick on it? Lol.

 

[SomeRandom]

The idea of them being presumed guilty of engaging in (some form of) bigotry, yes? I see your spin, and think of it (instead) as a heterosexual man refusing to date all females who have a penis.

And? It's called standards. Those standards differ person to person. It's just part of the dating game. I refuse to date racists. Cei la vie

Yes, I would say that is mild bigotry. Though I might slightly stipulate your proposition as refusing to ever watch comedy. This would strike me as extremely mild in its bigotry. It would arguably affect no person other than the one that holds this view. Refusing to date a whole group of people would affect that group of people, especially if it was deemed a popular / legitimate idea to hold.

It does affect people who make comedy though. As they lose a potential customer and therefore money.

So if bigotry can be stretched to such a place, why the hell would anyone care about being called a bigot? Seems like a pretty pointless word at this stage. So call me a bigot then. Congrats, you just made a word so devoid of actual power that I'm going to just shrug whenever a gay person calls anti gay legislation bigoted. Because who the **** cares? It's only a form of bigotry.

I'm thinking this is a popular connotation of bigotry and perhaps (or likely) not a mild form of bigotry.

You know, English has this amazing array of all types of words to convey very specific nuance? And you settle for one word, slap a "mild" sticker on it and call it a day. Perhaps growing up around crazy English teachers has done this to me, but that strikes me as very lazy. Didn't even bother to try to use English to it's fullest potential.


Oh god, now I'm talking like the stupid boffins. Ughh!

I would say it's a strong case of bias, a moderate case of prejudice, and mild form of bigotry. Given the whole sexual additions to this topic of DATING, it does strike me as an irrational aversion, but is rather new and so under studied that I'm willing to call that my personal opinion that may be shared by no one else.

Why would a heterosexual man, a man who is attracted specifically to femininity (and like it or not, a penis is not part of femininity) be irrational in saying, "I don't want dick?" He's not gay, he's heterosexual! If a gay man did that, then maybe the argument against him would be stronger.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why would a heterosexual man, a man who is attracted specifically to femininity (and like it or not, a penis is not part of femininity) be irrational in saying, "I don't want dick?" He's not gay, he's heterosexual! If a gay man did that, then maybe the argument against him would be stronger.

Heterosexual men are attracted to women, and trans women are women. Femininity is not something that is exclusive to females. For example, I love feminine and androgynous males. There's lots of straight men who are into masculine/butch women. You'd be surprised. And a penis is just an organ. It's neither masculine or feminine, in of itself. Humans are the ones who give body parts subjective attributes. Are clitorises masculine because they're basically the same as a penis (the only real difference is the lack of a urethra)? (Funny thing about the clitoris is that some people in various cultures, such as Freud, deemed the clitoris and its enjoyment by women to be a masculine trait and discouraged clitoral orgasms because that's "unfeminine". Many cultures also cut off the clitoris of girls and women because the clitoris is similarly associated with masculinity to them. So cutting it off is seen as making the woman "feminine".)

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's not so much not being attracted to a penis itself, it more the assumptions that seem to be wrapped up into it, especially how language is used. There seems to be an implicit assumption that heterosexuality really boils down to being attracted to genitals. So a heterosexual man is a male who is attracted to a person with an XX body or a woman with a vagina. This goes back to what @Laika and I were talking about in terms of society. Not only Western, but also Islamic Middle Eastern societies (it's because of the worldview of the Abrahamic religions as a whole) tend to view gender/sex as a binary. Trans people as well as intersex people are excluded from that view of gender. When we appear, people who hold that view simply don't know where to put us. Since we don't make sense to them, they tend to think we're just an extreme version of gay men or lesbians, that we're cross dressers, that our bodies after hormone therapy and/or surgery are essentially still the same as the cisgender members of our chromosomal sex (for example, that a trans woman is essentially a really feminine man who views and uses their body essentially the same as a cis man), etc.

Anyway, this group of assumptions basically ignores who we are, how we identify, how we live, how we experience our bodies and the vast diversity of sexual attractions, forms of sex, etc. For example, one comment I saw said that they (as a straight woman) wouldn't be into a trans guy with a vagina because that would be having "lesbian" sex. So we see that that person is erasing the identity and perspective of the trans man and also holding a harsh binary view of sex. What is "lesbian sex", anyway? What is "gay sex"? It's sex that involves at least two women or two men, respectively. It really doesn't have anything to do with specific sexual acts because, let's face it, there are no sexual acts that are exclusive to any sexual orientation or gender pairing. Heterosexuals have anal sex, oral sex, a lot of straight men enjoy receiving anal play, etc, etc. Straight couples use sex toys and so on.

So, when people say things like that, the only conclusion is that they really don't see trans people as who we say we are. As a trans man, when I have sex with a woman, it's not lesbian sex. Why? Because I'm not a woman.

Truthfully, male and female bodies aren't all that different. They're basically variations of the same general things. A penis is really an overgrown clitoris, testicles are external ovaries, etc. and vice versa. The vagina almost seems like an evolutionary afterthought when it comes to sex because it's not even the center of female sexual pleasure (the clitoris is; although vaginal penetration can be great if you do it correctly, same with anal).

Now, since we are deeply social animals and society sends us many messages and sets our assumptions to a large part from a very early age, we all do tend to internalize all these things, especially subconsciously. So a person may not be consciously bigoted towards trans people (or people of other races/ethnicities, etc.) but subconsciously those assumptions may still be embedded and influence our attractions and how we behave. After all, sexual orientation itself is a social construct. "Gay", "straight", "lesbian", "bisexual", "pansexual", "queer", etc. are all social identities, not objective realities.

People feel a need to maintain some sort of loyalty to their designated sexual social identity and so they will repress and go out of their way to hide their actual behavior when it goes outside of some arbitrary boundary of said identity. That's why you have the very common phenomenon of "down low" where self-identified straight men partake in sexual acts with other men. Tons of straight men also have a deep attraction and even obsession with trans women. Pornography featuring trans women is probably primarily consumed by straight men (most of it is made for them). Many of these men will have sex with a trans woman but not date or form a long-term relationship with them because of the social stigma. Again, they don't want to be seen as "gay". (Gay people even do the same with their own percieved need to uphold loyalty to an identity and stay within arbitrary socio-sexual boundaries, which causes them to have similar issues with trans people).

Basically, people really need to examine these things, learn about the social contexts of them and look at where they're getting their messages about sex, attractiveness, bodies, etc. from. It's good to keep in mind how arbitrary all this stuff is. Genitals are mostly the same, just in different shapes. It's very important to realize that everyone is in individual and no two people have the same sexual tastes. One cis woman who is straight may love one thing and another may hate it. There's straight cis women who do not like being vaginally penetrated at all, for example.

I think we need to make a distinction between denying someone's gender identity and having preferences that have to do with their body. In my case, both the gender and body of my dates or potential partners matter to me. I'm not attracted to penises at all, but that doesn't mean I'm denying their gender identity. It has to do with a physical preference. It's not an either-or; for me to date someone, I would have to be attracted both to their gender and their body. It's the same way I feel attraction or lack thereof toward cisgendered women: if their body doesn't attract me, I can't be partners with them. It doesn't mean I'm denying that they're women; it just means that we're not good matches for each other as far as physical features go.

In my opinion, saying that because men's and women's genitals are basically the same it is denial of a person's gender identity to not be attracted to them because they have genitals we're not attracted to basically amounts to saying that we either have to be attracted to everyone or we're bigots. I wouldn't date a conservative person, for example. Am I denying who they are as a person and their self-identity because I refuse to date them? I don't think so. I just have preferences, and they have to do with physical sex on top of other things (no pun intended).

 

[SomeRandom]

Heterosexual men are attracted to women, and trans women are women. Femininity is not something that is exclusive to females. There's lots of straight men who are into masculine/butch women. You'd be surprised. And a penis is just an organ. It's neither masculine or feminine, in of itself. Humans are the ones who give body parts subjective attributes. Are clitorises masculine because they're basically the same as a penis (the only real difference is the lack of a urethra)? (Funny thing about the clitoris is that some people in various cultures, such as Freud, deemed the clitoris and its enjoyment by women to be a masculine trait and discouraged clitoral orgasms because that's "unfeminine". Many cultures also cut off the clitoris of girls and women because the clitoris is similarly associated with masculinity to them. So cutting it off is seen as making the woman "feminine".)

Look, like it or not a penis is generally a turn off to heterosexual men who will usually associate such an organ as belonging to a man. Just like a vagina is usually a turn off for heterosexual females because of it's association with females. A penis is a MALE sex organ. A vagina is a FEMALE sex organ.
I'm not saying there's no room for various nuances. I'm not saying it's literally black and white. But that's the way society and doctors have deemed it for god only knows how long. Now a sex organ is not an indication of someone's gender. Sure. But it's generally attached to what sex they are. I'm sorry that's just the way society has deemed it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Look, like it or not a penis is generally a turn off to heterosexual men who will usually associate such an organ as belonging to a man. Just like a vagina is usually a turn off for heterosexual females because of it's association with females. A penis is a MALE sex organ. A vagina is a FEMALE sex organ.
I'm not saying there's no room for various nuances. I'm not saying it's literally black and white. But that's the way society and doctors have deemed it for god only knows how long. Now a sex organ is not an indication of someone's gender. Sure. But it's generally attached to what sex they are. I'm sorry that's just the way society has deemed it.

Yeah, and that view is wrong. Society is now starting to change. Society wasn't even always like this. This is mostly a product of the Abrahamic worldview which was imposed around the world. As the influence of Christianity wanes in the West, gender variance is slowly becoming more acceptable. We're seeing more and more young people who aren't down with binary views of gender/sex and sexuality. I think that's probably the more organic state of human affairs in that department, anyway.

 

[Debater Slayer]

When I am not causing any harm, then, yes, to hell with their standards. It's not like that I'm keeping a STI hidden. I am being myself. Why should I be expected to say "oh, yeah, by the way, I have this medical condition..." especially when this medical condition is no longer pertinent in regards to genitals? I get the lack of desire and want when the "plumbing" doesn't match (it's often even an unpleasant ordeal for transsexuals), but when the plumbing does match up, yes, it is another issue, and it's not just "to hell with their standards," it more of that their "standards" aren't even worthy of becoming dog crap, because the continued rejection is one bothersome and worrisome issue, because it more than any other reason tends to lead to failed transitions and suicides. So, yeah, insert your strongest known derogatory remark and apply the disliking and disrespect for their "standards." I seek to change them, not perpetuate them.

In an ideal world, I agree that a transgendered person's revealing their transgendered status wouldn't even need to be an issue. However, since we don't live in an ideal world and we do know that a person's being transgendered can break a relationship for some people, wouldn't it be in the best interest of avoiding problems to make them aware of your status as a transgendered person (general "you")?

I'm pretty conflicted about this issue because I agree that people shouldn't have to reveal their medical history in a relationship, but like I said, we don't live in an ideal world. Not revealing it could very well lead to problems with some people.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yeah, and that view is wrong. Society is now starting to change. Society wasn't even always like this. This is mostly a product of the Abrahamic worldview which was imposed around the world. As the influence of Christianity wanes in the West, gender variance is slowly becoming more acceptable. We're seeing more and more young people who aren't down with binary views of gender/sex and sexuality. I think that's probably the more organic state of human affairs in that department, anyway.

Well then great. We will see an influx of people ready to date transgendered people.

But just like I respect your decisions to live life how you want to and like whatever you like, that same should be afforded to me and everyone else. We should be free to decide who we date based on our tastes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well then great. We will see an influx of people ready to date transgendered people.

But just like I respect your decisions to live life how you want to and like whatever you like, that same should be afforded to me and everyone else. We should be free to decide who we date based on our tastes.

Again, I really don't care who you like to date. This is more about underlying assumptions in this discussions, to me. It's not like I go chasing after people who are dumb when it comes to trans issues. I don't have the time or the patience for that bull****.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think we need to make a distinction between denying someone's gender identity and having preferences that have to do with their body. In my case, both the gender and body of my dates or potential partners matter to me. I'm not attracted to penises at all, but that doesn't mean I'm denying their gender identity. It has to do with a physical preference. It's not an either-or; for me to date someone, I would have to be attracted both to their gender and their body. It's the same way I feel attraction or lack thereof toward cisgendered women: if their body doesn't attract me, I can't be partners with them. It doesn't mean I'm denying that they're women; it just means that we're not good matches for each other as far as physical features go.

In my opinion, saying that because men's and women's genitals are basically the same it is denial of a person's gender identity to not be attracted to them because they have genitals we're not attracted to basically amounts to saying that we either have to be attracted to everyone or we're bigots. I wouldn't date a conservative person, for example. Am I denying who they are as a person and their self-identity because I refuse to date them? I don't think so. I just have preferences, and they have to do with physical sex on top of other things (no pun intended).

Well, you not being possibly attracted to penises is a bit of a different, yet fascinating, topic.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well, you not being possibly attracted to penises is a bit of a different, yet fascinating, topic.

How is it "fascinating"?