Dating Preferences: Bigotry or a Right?

[Saint Frankenstein]

How is it "fascinating"?

I was being a cheeky queer.

 

[Flankerl]

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.

Ah so its grasping straws because its about Transsexuals. That's terribly convenient.

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.

So because you don't see something as a Problem aka harm its not a Problem for other people.
If people want to have Sex with a woman or man and expect a woman or man and not an FtM or MtF than that is their right. And if that right is going to be declared null we have quite the problem on our hands.

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

I am a Jew. I don't expect other cultures to adapt to mine. So this entire point makes no sense to me.
There is of course an answer to this problem, but I am not sure you are going to like it.

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.

What? Minorities have to cater to the majority all the time. Its why people don't really like being a minority.
As a Jew that had to regularly visit Church 20 years ago and still has to adapt to a different majority I can say: Welcome to the club.

If you want to engage in sexual relationships with Cisgendered people you will have to cater to them. It's just the way it is.
There is of course another way. But I am not sure you are going to like it.

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?

Yielding to those who have a Problem?
In which context? When they don't want to engage in sexual relations with you? Please don't say yes.

You can stand up for yourself. But there is a problem. They can also stand up for themselves.

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.

Why should you normalise? Its what you are.
But in reality you are expecting them to change to cater to your needs. And that is entirely hypocritical and makes no sense whatsoever.

Heterosexual men are attracted to women, and trans women are women.

Again: That's just your opinion. You can ignore this simple basic fact forever, but reality is not going to change because of that.

It also makes no sense to ignore the obvious and stick the head in the sand. But I know "more drivel and bigotry", how easy.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I was being a cheeky queer.

Okay.

So you agree that not being attracted to penises doesn't make a heterosexual man or a lesbian a bigot?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Again: That's just your opinion. You can ignore this simple basic fact forever, but reality is not going to change because of that.

It also makes no sense to ignore the obvious and stick the head in the sand. But I know "more drivel and bigotry", how easy.

No, it's not an opinion. You've demonstrated quite clearly your feelings about trans people as it is.

 

[Mister Emu]

Didn't even bother to try to use English to it's fullest potential.

An argument after mine own heart.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay.

So you agree that not being attracted to penises doesn't make a heterosexual man or a lesbian a bigot?

In of itself? No. My whole point was to encourage people to delve into their underlying assumptions and examine why exactly they feel they why. Some expressed that it was just a simple preference of theirs and others pretty much made it clear that they feel that way because they're really just transphobes. So it depends.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

If you want to see. Don't say I didn't warn you!

Spoiler

 

[Mister Emu]

Heterosexual men are attracted to women, and trans women are women.

Heterosexual men are attracted to women who meet their standard of attraction, and for some a penis is a non-starter because another penis isn't part of their sexuality. Full stop. Sexualities are not dumb or smart and none is "better" than another, they just are.

 

[Debater Slayer]

In of itself? No. My whole point was to encourage people to delve into their underlying assumptions and examine why exactly they feel they why. Some expressed that it was just a simple preference of theirs and others pretty much made it clear that they feel that way because they're really just transphobes. So it depends.

Okay. No disagreement there. Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Acim]

Congrats, you just made a word so devoid of actual power

You thought the word had actual power?

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.

I don't even know where to start with this one.

 

[Acim]

Okay.

So you agree that not being attracted to penises doesn't make a heterosexual man or a lesbian a bigot?

I agree with this. Not having the attraction doesn't make one a bigot. Expressing a refusal of some sort (for a whole group of people) plausibly does for a mild form of bigotry.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Having sex with someone who turns out to be trans is not, in any way, comparable to a STI. Preventing catching and spreading infections is something that directly effects the health and well being of others. Having a sex-change does not.

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?

The point was people are not expected to disclose those things upfront or directly, especially not in regards to things such as casual sex and one night stands. If you're a Dom looking for a sub, yeah, that needs to be disclosed, but that is a specific circumstance.

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,

Again, none of those things are comparable to having sex with someone who is transsexual. Your examples pass diseases to others and makes them ill. They simply are not comparable.

Because I am going to be honest about wanting the possibility of a long term relationship with the ability to have a family.

And that isn't a personal history and or a statement of medical treatments you've had.

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

Yes, because it defines someone's value and worth as their ability to produce offspring, which is something that many people for many different reasons just cannot do. It is selfish. Overall, we need to cut back on the expectation to reproduce. We need to promote getting homeless children into homes, and cease with insisting that people who don't want kids are messed up in the head, just haven't got the urge yet, or any other negative positions regarding such people. This "natural family" that is so important to people is really nothing more than a desire to spread their genes, which is a goal for a species survival, but we've reached a point where it will be our downfall from over population. People under medical quarantine may want to leave quarantine, but it really is better for everyone else that they don't. Sometimes, what we want must be put on hold for the better of all.
Relationships are built on compromise, and the issue of having, not having, or inability to have biological children is one that should easily be side-stepped as no issue, because family is more than blood and plenty of kids need a home anyways.

 

[Buttercup]

I agree with this. Not having the attraction doesn't make one a bigot. Expressing a refusal of some sort (for a whole group of people) plausibly does for a mild form of bigotry.

Where were you earlier today with that statement?

 

[Mister Emu]

The point was people are not expected to disclose those things upfront or directly, especially not in regards to things such as casual sex and one night stands. If you're a Dom looking for a sub, yeah, that needs to be disclosed, but that is a specific circumstance.

If you expect the casual one-night stand to involve your sadism, masochism, or fursuit you better disclose those things upfront, they are not part of the normal sexual experience. You don't think it is similarly pertinent for a transgender female presenting romantic interest to disclose their penis to their ostensible partner before a sexual encounter?

Rephrased, if you expect sex to involve a whip or fursuit your partner cannot be expected to know that beforehand and should be informed. If you expect sex to involve more than one penis that is not something you can expect your male heterosexual partner to know beforehand and they should be informed.

Again, none of those things are comparable to having sex with someone who is transsexual. Your examples pass diseases to others and makes them ill. They simply are not comparable.

Only the first was about passing illness. If I want a long term relationship and I am open and honest about that and you have fatal cancer and will die in two months, should I be informed? If I am open and honest about wanting children and you are infertile, should I be informed? These two are comparable, because it is about having open and honest expectations and relationship goals.

And that isn't a personal history and or a statement of medical treatments you've had.

No, it is an open and honest communication. Something vital to all relationships. If I were infertile and my ostensible partner wanted children, I would have the moral obligation to inform them.

Yes, because it defines someone's value and worth as their ability to produce offspring

I think I'm done, everything is bigotry, even the natural desire to procreate. Oh, and no, an expectation of mutual relationship goals doesn't have anything to do with value or worth, it has to do with two(or more) people looking for the same things in life.

 

[SomeRandom]

Having sex with someone who turns out to be trans is not, in any way, comparable to a STI. Preventing catching and spreading infections is something that directly effects the health and well being of others. Having a sex-change does not.

The point was people are not expected to disclose those things upfront or directly, especially not in regards to things such as casual sex and one night stands. If you're a Dom looking for a sub, yeah, that needs to be disclosed, but that is a specific circumstance.

Again, none of those things are comparable to having sex with someone who is transsexual. Your examples pass diseases to others and makes them ill. They simply are not comparable.

And that isn't a personal history and or a statement of medical treatments you've had.

Yes, because it defines someone's value and worth as their ability to produce offspring, which is something that many people for many different reasons just cannot do. It is selfish. Overall, we need to cut back on the expectation to reproduce. We need to promote getting homeless children into homes, and cease with insisting that people who don't want kids are messed up in the head, just haven't got the urge yet, or any other negative positions regarding such people. This "natural family" that is so important to people is really nothing more than a desire to spread their genes, which is a goal for a species survival, but we've reached a point where it will be our downfall from over population. People under medical quarantine may want to leave quarantine, but it really is better for everyone else that they don't. Sometimes, what we want must be put on hold for the better of all.
Relationships are built on compromise, and the issue of having, not having, or inability to have biological children is one that should easily be side-stepped as no issue, because family is more than blood and plenty of kids need a home anyways.

No but it is comparable to having to share medical history. Honesty will make the person have to face the choice of overlooking the "issue" and giving it a go. Or not. Having sex under false pretences is a betrayal. It doesn't matter if it's a trans thing or lying about ones age.

 

[SomeRandom]

You thought the word had actual power?



I don't even know where to start with this one.

All words have power. Which is determined by the usage.

How about by explaining to me what part of having a specific sexual attraction determining whether or not you like to sleep with a person with a dick is mild bigotry?

 

[SomeRandom]

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****.

Which are apparently not wanting to date someone is akin to being a bigot?

I can agree that cultural expectation will influence such tastes in people. But why do you have to have the capability to date literally every single human (which is pansexuality not Heterosexuality or Homosexuality) in order not to be a bigot? That's the implications that I see. Are there others?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No but it is comparable to having to share medical history.

No, it isn't. Diseases make people sick, and a number of them are not curable. Having sex with a transsexual, even unknowingly, puts no one in any such danger. One of these issues does directly pertain to the health of a potential sex partner, the other does not place any risk on their health.

 

[Thana]

No, it isn't. Diseases make people sick, and a number of them are not curable. Having sex with a transsexual, even unknowingly, puts no one in any such danger. One of these issues does directly pertain to the health of a potential sex partner, the other does not place any risk on their health.

Bloody hell.
You do realize that some people find it morally reprehensible, or an offence to God? Do you not care that your lie could inflict great psychological torment on them if they found out? That's just messed up, and cruel, and unnecessary. It's a lie, and even little kids know lying is wrong and hurts people.

It shows you have no respect for them or their sexuality, and you don't give a crap out about their feelings.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Which are apparently not wanting to date someone is akin to being a bigot?

I can agree that cultural expectation will influence such tastes in people. But why do you have to have the capability to date literally every single human (which is pansexuality not Heterosexuality or Homosexuality) in order not to be a bigot? That's the implications that I see. Are there others?

I'm not arguing those things