Dating Preferences: Bigotry or a Right?

[MysticSang'ha]

Vagina has been mentioned numerous times.

Hey, there. Yes it has been. But different contexts in terms of what is legitimate complaints or telling trans people they have no room to object over.

Why the defensiveness over the words "bigotry" or "phobia"? We can joke about these things, but let's be real here: you and I can walk away from this thread and debates like this easily. Society grants us the advantage to easily determine what is a real form of bigotry while telling trans people they don't know what real bigotry is.

It's a popular and back-slapping endeavor for the dominant group of people. But at the end of the day, we get to feel like we belong in our bodies while they have to struggle without much societal support or compassion.

 

[Buttercup]

Hey, there. Yes it has been. But different contexts in terms of what is legitimate complaints or telling trans people they have no room to object over.

Why the defensiveness over the words "bigotry" or "phobia"?

Why the defensiveness? Because I've basically been called a bigot because of my sexual preferences. That term is wholly untrue when it's applied to me. I can't say the same for all other posters in the thread.

We can joke about these things, but let's be real here: you and I can walk away from this thread and debates like this easily. Society grants us the advantage to easily determine what is a real form of bigotry while telling trans people they don't know what real bigotry is.

I don't disagree. However, the term needs to be applied where truly applicable. I stand firm in the instances where the term has not been applied correctly

It's a popular and back-slapping endeavor for the dominant group of people. But at the end of the day, we get to feel like we belong in our bodies while they have to struggle without much societal support or compassion.

I understand and you have my compassion and support. However, I refuse to allow someone to imply, infer or suggest that I'm a bigot because of my sexual preferences.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ah so according to you Cispeople have no right to refuse intimate relationships with Transpeople. Because that is what you are writing.
Anyone has the right to refuse intimate relationships with anyone based on his or her preference, state of mind, mood or whether it rained that day. Be it before or during the intimate relationship.

That is a fact. And if you are against that you are still calling for something that I won't name.


You can just write "I am in favour of people refusing intimate relationships with other people based on their own preference at any given time before or during the intimate relationship" and I will let it drop.

If you think that's what I've been saying through this thread, you haven't been paying attention. Probably best that we end the conversation since you obviously haven't been reading my posts.

 

[Acim]

I think we're missing each other here. I was speaking to what I understood to be the intended meaning of the person that originally wrote those words. In following the conversation backwards, the statement below (I included a bit more of it for context) was a response to a statement that seemed to support it as being ok to withhold the information of being trans from someone one is having sex with, because it was not the same as STD's, which was also brought up as information that should be given upfront. My point is, there are some things that are considered a lie if they are important enough to the other person, and withheld so as to not affect that person's decision.

I had quoted that same exact portion when I had previously responded. I spoke to it in a few ways and not just the "sleep with" phrasing. I actually called that out as a rather significant thing within context of the discussion we are having. The OP assertion is:
"some posts stated that a heterosexual man's refusal to date a transgendered person because the latter has a penis is transphobic."

"Refusal to date" is the language I'm primarily operating under. If OP had presented the situation as both partners are now entering into the bedroom after consenting to a sexual encounter, and upon learning that partner is a trans woman, the person refused to have sex with them, I would NOT see that as bigotry.

Which is what much of this thread seems to be getting at, and either dismissing or ignoring what was the exact wording used in OP, regarding 'a date, or dating.'

So, if we are going to follow the conversation backwards, I'd be pleased as punch to go back to what OP stated rather than this notion of "we are only discussing sexual intercourse." From the post you are addressing and that I previously addressed, it said 'date/sleep with' as if those two can't be distinguished between.

I would add to that another point, that of being married. I think if a person is married they ought to be aware that it might really matter, and be devastating to a single person, to find out after the fact they slept with a married person. The point there is that I think it is just reasonable for a person to know there are some things about themselves that might be material to whether or not a person would decide to have sex with you. I know you are making the distinction about dates not necessarily involving sex, but the post you are quoting is definitely talking about sex, not dates with no sex.

I don't think it's moving the goal posts to represent the post as being related to sex, when it is.

I had already spoken to this in my previous post, when I first addressed this post you are addressing.

Regarding the other post about having a questionnaire, of course there is no way to cover everything that may be important to a person on, or before, a date. Again, I'm talking about situations in which sex is expected as an eventuality, and I think it's important to be honest, and reveal what one might expect to be important to another person. I don't think a questionnaire is necessary, especially when there are a few key things about a person they are likely to know someone might want to know -- STDs, if one is a female with a penis, if one is married, etc. To intentionally withhold that information, implies for me, one believes the information may make the other person change their mind -- which does expose one to the possibility of rejection. I understand, and do not take the pain of rejection lightly. It does not make a person guilty of lying if they haven't thought of something that ends up being bothersome to the person, and failed to address it, but STDs, unexpected penises, and married status -- those are things I don't think a person needs a questionnaire to figure out should be revealed upfront.

And IMO, it gets dicey here. Dealing with the goalposts as I see you bringing up, I would say it probably is in best interests of all to bring up the information regarding transsexual information if sex is truly inevitable (moments away, rather than days away). But putting myself in shoes of transsexual (or anyone really), I would think the attraction would be maintained. I would think if getting along famously during a date or over course of several dates, that it wouldn't automatically be a deal breaker. I would like to think a person would accept me for who I am and thus far has given every indication that they do. So, I could understand reluctance to share the information. That doesn't mean I would justify withholding it, but helps explain why someone may not wish to be upfront with certain information. Me, personally, I have enough 'baggage items' that I've been told (many times) by friends, family is best to NEVER bring up. Me, I'd rather bring it up on first dates or no later than say date 5. I feel like I'm slowly getting the notion that it is perhaps better to not bring these things up. Plus, part of it is how it is brought up. Arguably, it could be entirely how it is brought up. Example from what we are talking about is person (male) could be very open to the idea of being physical with trans woman, but has no experience with it. Thinks they are in relationship with female (that is not transsexual) and then that woman expresses with underwhelming sense of confidence and lots of emotions their 'information' about being a transsexual woman. Just from how it was presented, might be what lead the male in this case to run away. And as this is a hypothetical, I'm saying it is the only reason. So, that could be another factor in why not share the information. Person may have not figured out a way to share it when it is not being asked about in a caring manner. But if the attraction is there, mutually felt and mutually expressed as shared, plus the two share a bond that all onlookers say "you two were made for each other" then to me, there are so so so many things that could be 'deal breakers' if people were completely honest with each other about all possible things that could come up later in the relationship. Especially if marriage, long term commitment is on the table. Instead, it seems like healthy relationships are those that are willing to be honest and are able to grow together, continue to find acceptance in or with each other, and make it conducive to notion that there isn't really any deal breakers, just opportunities for the two to overcome as one strong partnership.

But perhaps that's just fanciful imagining on my part.

I am assuming we are not simply talking about friendships and socializing. I am assuming we are talking about dating with the expectation that it lead to sex, or a long-term relationship -- because of how it is presented in the OP. We could go off on a tangent about whether or not dating necessarily implies sex. For me it does not, but I am aware for many people it does. For the purpose of this conversation, there's been so much reference to sex, I'm speaking as though we are talking about dating that includes sex.

I see nothing in OP about 'dating that will lead to sex.' The word sex or sexual intercourse or words synonymous with that are nowhere found in OP. Well other than the word "heterosexual" is that not found. It provides an example of refusing to date a whole group of people, and then asks:

"Is having dating preferences such as the above a form of bigotry or a right?"

Had OP said, "are all dating preferences bigotry?" I would've said no. But it didn't ask that. It asked if the one noted in OP, where refusal of a whole group of people is A FORM OF bigotry.

Had OP said, "going on a date that involves sexual intercourse by the end of that date," would've led me to respond differently than I have. But it wasn't worded that way.

So, if I were to list the thousands of activities that one might do on a date, then it would be arguably and within context of this thread to suggest that if you refuse to date transgendered persons, you would be unaccepting of doing all thousands of those activities with transgendered persons. All based on "preference" and seemingly having nothing to do with the bigotry it takes to rule out an entire group of people from sharing in things you say you enjoy doing.

 

[Buttercup]

It would seem to indicate a prejudice against (all) women.

You realize I'm a woman, I assume? So, if I refuse to date women, I have a prejudice against all women?
How can you say that with a straight face? (no pun intended)

 

[Acim]

You realize I'm a woman, I assume? So, if I refuse to date women, I have a prejudice against all women?
How can you say that with a straight face? (no pun intended)

Wow, you're back talking to me. On a topic you've seemingly already set up as ridiculous regardless of how I respond. Me wonders how you could possibly accept anything I might say?

What does you being a woman have to do with the inquiry?

If you refuse to date women, for no apparent reason, then I would go that being a possible prejudice. If you instead have a reason, I may update whether I consider that a prejudice.

 

[Buttercup]

If you refuse to date women, for no apparent reason, then I would go that a prejudice. If you instead have a reason, I may update whether I consider that a prejudice.

Let's say I'm not sexually attracted to women. Is that a good enough reason?

 

[Acim]

Let's say I'm not sexually attracted to women. Is that a good enough reason?

Could you go on a date with someone that doesn't involve sex?

 

[Buttercup]

Could you go on a date with someone that doesn't involve sex?

Not with a woman. I don't date women. Please answer my previous question directly.

 

[Acim]

Not with a woman. I don't date women. Please answer my previous question directly.

I'm trying to. You are saying you couldn't go out with a woman without it involving sex? So, if a female asked you to dinner, maybe a movie, you'd think it would result in you having sex possibly? Not sure how that would transpire as you are saying you are not sexually attracted to females, but I feel the information is pertinent.

Cause, at least a little bit of your inquiry and what is stated in OP is about "could you spend time with this person?" Might not mean that for everyone, but is something I'm still willing to explore given what OP wrote. So based on your lack of desire for dialogue, I'll just assume you are saying "you refuse to spend time with women."

Yes, it is prejudicial.

 

[Buttercup]

I'm trying to. You are saying you couldn't go out with a woman without it involving sex? So, if a female asked you to dinner, maybe a movie, you'd think it would result in you having sex possibly? Not sure how that would transpire as you are saying you are not sexually attracted to females, but I feel the information is pertinent.

Cause, at least a little bit of your inquiry and what is stated in OP is about "could you spend time with this person?" Might not mean that for everyone, but is something I'm still willing to explore given what OP wrote. So based on your lack of desire for dialogue, I'll just assume you are saying "you refuse to spend time with women."

Yes, it is prejudicial.

I have many female friends. When we go out together, it's not a date. Most people use the term 'date' in a romantic context.

Again, I'm going to ask you directly and please answer without giving me the run around. If I refuse to date (with romantic intentions with or without sex involved) a woman, am I showing prejudice or bigotry?

 

[Acim]

I have many female friends. When we go out together, it's not a date. Most people use the term 'date' in a romantic context.

Again, I'm going to ask you directly and please answer without giving me the run around. If I refuse to date (with romantic intentions with or without sex involved) a woman, am I showing prejudice or bigotry?

I see you giving the run around as well.

I've answered the questioned 2 times already. Here is my third rendition: yes it is prejudice.

 

[Buttercup]

I see you giving the run around as well.

I've answered the questioned 2 times already. Here is my third rendition: yes it is prejudice.

Recap of your answer/s: If I refuse to romantically date a woman, I show prejudice and a form of mild bigotry.

Thank you for allowing me once again to show how ridiculous your reasoning is.

 

[Acim]

Recap of your answer/s: If I refuse to romantically date a woman, I show prejudice and a form of mild bigotry.

Thank you for allowing me once again to show how ridiculous your reasoning is.

Call it ridiculous. I don't care. It is still prejudice. Glad to have definitions brought back in if there is questions on the rationality being employed.

 

[Melinda Rose]

Why the defensiveness over the words "bigotry" or "phobia"? We can joke about these things, but let's be real here: you and I can walk away from this thread and debates like this easily. Society grants us the advantage to easily determine what is a real form of bigotry while telling trans people they don't know what real bigotry is.

For me, I think the bigotry exists at a level beyond the average person and we need to keep that in mind in these debates. The bigots really are the government and religious forces that work against people and promote negativity. I think people miss the target when they come to forums and start warring with people who don't sympathize -- those individuals do not represent the forces keeping people down, nor do they have the power to change anything. Talking here and not doing something actively to support your ideas does not result in anything either. You are not a champion of rights because you came here to bleed on people.

Those words you are mentioning are largely used by drama queens and it is hard to take them seriously for the same reason as any other time when someone cries wolf. When someone is overly emotional it is hard to accept their logic even if their problems are real. It is also impossible to take someone seriously when they are constantly hostile and aggressive. Promoting the message with education and peace is the way to get folks of all types to see your way.

 

[4consideration]

I had quoted that same exact portion when I had previously responded. I spoke to it in a few ways and not just the "sleep with" phrasing. I actually called that out as a rather significant thing within context of the discussion we are having. The OP assertion is:
"some posts stated that a heterosexual man's refusal to date a transgendered person because the latter has a penis is transphobic."

"Refusal to date" is the language I'm primarily operating under. If OP had presented the situation as both partners are now entering into the bedroom after consenting to a sexual encounter, and upon learning that partner is a trans woman, the person refused to have sex with them, I would NOT see that as bigotry.

Fair enough. I would not see it as bigotry, either.

Which is what much of this thread seems to be getting at, and either dismissing or ignoring what was the exact wording used in OP, regarding 'a date, or dating.'

So, if we are going to follow the conversation backwards, I'd be pleased as punch to go back to what OP stated rather than this notion of "we are only discussing sexual intercourse." From the post you are addressing and that I previously addressed, it said 'date/sleep with' as if those two can't be distinguished between.

OK. I don't think we need to get all tripped up over whether dating implies sex at that time, or not. To make it easier for us to continue the discussion along the lines of what I think the OP intended, I can agree that a date does not imply sex at that very time.

However, if I am being asked to judge a heterosexual man, and apply a label to his motives, I'm going to give the person I'm judging the benefit of the doubt. If he is "refusing" to date a transwoman because she has a penis, I can assume:

1. He is already aware she has a penis, since it is his reason for refusing to date.

2. The penis factors somewhere into his decision, or is an obstacle to, his reason for dating.

You or I might date for companionship. We may be just fine with dating a person without ever intending to have sex with the person. I did date some people I was pretty sure I didn't want that type of relationship with, but thought I'd give it shot to see if I felt differently after getting to know them better. I can't assume that to be the case with everyone.

We have to make some assumptions to move forward from the OP. I think it is more reasonable to assume the man who is refusing to have sex with the transwoman because she has a penis is likely to intend to have sex be an eventual part of dating, rather than not intending to ever have sex with the person he is dating -- unless we have reason to believe otherwise.

If he is interested in sexual gratification only (and is turned off, or not turned on, by the thought of a penis) does not imply bigotry, or phobia for me. Or, he may be interested in marriage with children, and be dating for the traditional reason of finding a marriage partner. These things are unknown from the OP, so it is up to us to fill in the blanks. I'm not going to assume that person to be transphobic. It is possible, though, that he could be transphobic, but I don't think refusal to date someone with a penis is enough information to justify slapping such a label on him.

I had already spoken to this in my previous post, when I first addressed this post you are addressing.



And IMO, it gets dicey here. Dealing with the goalposts as I see you bringing up, I would say it probably is in best interests of all to bring up the information regarding transsexual information if sex is truly inevitable (moments away, rather than days away). But putting myself in shoes of transsexual (or anyone really), I would think the attraction would be maintained. I would think if getting along famously during a date or over course of several dates, that it wouldn't automatically be a deal breaker. I would like to think a person would accept me for who I am and thus far has given every indication that they do. So, I could understand reluctance to share the information. That doesn't mean I would justify withholding it, but helps explain why someone may not wish to be upfront with certain information. Me, personally, I have enough 'baggage items' that I've been told (many times) by friends, family is best to NEVER bring up. Me, I'd rather bring it up on first dates or no later than say date 5. I feel like I'm slowly getting the notion that it is perhaps better to not bring these things up. Plus, part of it is how it is brought up. Arguably, it could be entirely how it is brought up. Example from what we are talking about is person (male) could be very open to the idea of being physical with trans woman, but has no experience with it. Thinks they are in relationship with female (that is not transsexual) and then that woman expresses with underwhelming sense of confidence and lots of emotions their 'information' about being a transsexual woman. Just from how it was presented, might be what lead the male in this case to run away. And as this is a hypothetical, I'm saying it is the only reason. So, that could be another factor in why not share the information. Person may have not figured out a way to share it when it is not being asked about in a caring manner. But if the attraction is there, mutually felt and mutually expressed as shared, plus the two share a bond that all onlookers say "you two were made for each other" then to me, there are so so so many things that could be 'deal breakers' if people were completely honest with each other about all possible things that could come up later in the relationship. Especially if marriage, long term commitment is on the table. Instead, it seems like healthy relationships are those that are willing to be honest and are able to grow together, continue to find acceptance in or with each other, and make it conducive to notion that there isn't really any deal breakers, just opportunities for the two to overcome as one strong partnership.

But perhaps that's just fanciful imagining on my part.

I think I agree with a good bit of what you're saying here. I don't think a trans person has the duty to blurt out that they are trans, when just getting to know someone, and still in the "friend" stage, or if it is in a situation that might be dangerous, considering the reaction some people might have. I think it could be dangerous to let a relationship get very far without bringing it up, because the other party may feel they've been lied to, or misled.

I don't think a trans person owes that level of information to anyone, except when the relationship is going to involve the other person -- their heart and/or their body. Relationships can get past lies and withheld information, but such things are wounds that need to be healed in the relationship, and IMO it is better not to create the injury in the first place.

I see nothing in OP about 'dating that will lead to sex.' The word sex or sexual intercourse or words synonymous with that are nowhere found in OP. Well other than the word "heterosexual" is that not found. It provides an example of refusing to date a whole group of people, and then asks:

"Is having dating preferences such as the above a form of bigotry or a right?"

Had OP said, "are all dating preferences bigotry?" I would've said no. But it didn't ask that. It asked if the one noted in OP, where refusal of a whole group of people is A FORM OF bigotry.

Had OP said, "going on a date that involves sexual intercourse by the end of that date," would've led me to respond differently than I have. But it wasn't worded that way.

So, if I were to list the thousands of activities that one might do on a date, then it would be arguably and within context of this thread to suggest that if you refuse to date transgendered persons, you would be unaccepting of doing all thousands of those activities with transgendered persons. All based on "preference" and seemingly having nothing to do with the bigotry it takes to rule out an entire group of people from sharing in things you say you enjoy doing.

We're probably closer to agreement on this point than to disagreement.

I would say it this way, if we are going to assume sex is not at all involved when talking about dates, and the OP had asked if refusal of a heterosexual male to be friends with, or to socialize with, a transwoman because she has a penis, I would probably have agreed that seems transphobic to me, since it would remove the assumption of sex being an eventual part of the relationship -- from the way I see it. But, to me the use of the word "date" implies the possibility of sex/long term relationship/marriage that I'm likely to bring those ideas into discussions about dating -- unless that discussion excludes those to the point of really just meaning "socialize" or "be friends" with.

 

[Thana]

Except that transsexuals are heavily discriminated against. According to society, it's shameful to be transsexual. We are "sexual deviants," we are "predators," and when I say "beat down," I mean it literally. Many states and many politicians (overwhelmingly Republican and Conservative Christians) do want to criminalize us being able to live as our identified sex through measures such as making it a crime to use the restroom of the sex we identify with/are living as/presenting to the world as. Many places make it very difficult, even impossible, to change any gender markers on any identifications until genital surgery is done (which presents a major obstacle for FtM), if they'll allow it all.
And, of course you think I'm victimizing others. You've probably never seen people viciously mocked over, you probably haven't realized we are a punch-line in mainstream media, you're probably unaware that anti-trans violence is increasing, you've never heard anyone recount how someone told them they should be beaten, someone should put a gun to their head, someone needs to kill them, and they shouldn't have to share the same air.
Very literally, "trans-panic" is a court defense that is legal in all states except California. That means is someone beats us or even kills us, they are legally allowed to launch a defense on how their discovering the person they beat and/or killed is trans caused them such a shock that they lost control. People can do that, and it sometimes works.
And if insisting society become more equitable and treat transsexuals better and accept us as we are, and to end discriminations, harassments, beatings, and killings, if that is my ideology being "shoved down people's throats," then so be it. We should just have to accept things as they are, because there are far too many of us that are unemployed and homeless.

All I've expected and said to you is that you should be honest with your potential sex partner. In what way does that violate your rights or single you out or anything? You have the obligation to tell your partner about your body that you're going to share with them, if for nothing else than common bloody decency. I don't need a lecture on the hardships of transsexuality, I get it. But it's not an excuse, no matter what you say and how much you whine, it's not an excuse.

Just be honest. Because you do understand why 'trans-panic' is a defence right? Because people have been lied too, and they react very negatively too that. I'm not justifying their behaviour, but it shows you how people feel about being tricked into sex and relationships.

 

[Acim]

OK. I don't think we need to get all tripped up over whether dating implies sex at that time, or not. To make it easier for us to continue the discussion along the lines of what I think the OP intended, I can agree that a date does not imply sex at that very time.

However, if I am being asked to judge a heterosexual man, and apply a label to his motives, I'm going to give the person I'm judging the benefit of the doubt. If he is "refusing" to date a transwoman because she has a penis, I can assume:

1. He is already aware she has a penis, since it is his reason for refusing to date.

2. The penis factors somewhere into his decision, or is an obstacle to, his reason for dating.

Fair enough.

You or I might date for companionship. We may be just fine with dating a person without ever intending to have sex with the person. I did date some people I was pretty sure I didn't want that type of relationship with, but thought I'd give it shot to see if I felt differently after getting to know them better. I can't assume that to be the case with everyone.

We have to make some assumptions to move forward from the OP. I think it is more reasonable to assume the man who is refusing to have sex with the transwoman because she has a penis is likely to intend to have sex be an eventual part of dating, rather than not intending to ever have sex with the person he is dating -- unless we have reason to believe otherwise.

If he is interested in sexual gratification only (and is turned off, or not turned on, by the thought of a penis) does not imply bigotry, or phobia for me. Or, he may be interested in marriage with children, and be dating for the traditional reason of finding a marriage partner. These things are unknown from the OP, so it is up to us to fill in the blanks. I'm not going to assume that person to be transphobic. It is possible, though, that he could be transphobic, but I don't think refusal to date someone with a penis is enough information to justify slapping such a label on him.

Not sure I'm understanding the 2nd paragraph. Perhaps some things were not worded as intended? Not saying that is for sure the case, just saying I'm not sure how that is moving forward from OP when it deals with refusing to date. IMO, part of dating at all is whether or not sex will ever be on the table. So, you can go on dates, not have that on the table (say with first date) and then at some point, it is on the table for you. Hopefully it is for the partner as well. Hopefully the two line up when it is on the table. But it could be that from date 1, it is on the table for me, and for the partner who I'm on the date with, it is not on the table for the first 10 dates. So, let's say that is the case and I'm the heterosexual male. Then, it would be in my (or our) best interest for me to say, as soon as sex is on the table (for me), that I am uncomfortable around females who have penises. That would make sense to me within context of the debate we are having. Other person doesn't even have to respond to this. They could, I might hope they would, but they don't need to. If I understand sex is not on the table, but we will be going on more dates, then that information about me is known to both of us. So, then it comes back to am I only dating the person so I will have an opportunity to touch their genitals or is it that plus the umpteen other things that go along with dating? And when it gets to point of she is now willing to have sex on the table, and 'oh btw, I do have a penis,' I can decide then what that means for me. Perhaps it means sex is now off the table, but I do wish to continue dating. Why? Because I thoroughly enjoy their company, being intimate with this woman, but it is no longer a physical attraction (to the genitals). How the woman responds to that updated position is anyone's guess, but would also fascinate me in this ongoing hypothetical we've set up.

I think I agree with a good bit of what you're saying here. I don't think a trans person has the duty to blurt out that they are trans, when just getting to know someone, and still in the "friend" stage, or if it is in a situation that might be dangerous, considering the reaction some people might have. I think it could be dangerous to let a relationship get very far without bringing it up, because the other party may feel they've been lied to, or misled.

I don't think a trans person owes that level of information to anyone, except when the relationship is going to involve the other person -- their heart and/or their body. Relationships can get past lies and withheld information, but such things are wounds that need to be healed in the relationship, and IMO it is better not to create the injury in the first place.

We're probably closer to agreement on this point than to disagreement.

Agreed. OP didn't give much to go on, and the connotations around "dating" are a really significant factor in what we are discussing. It deals with the accepting or not accepting factor that is underlying the ongoing debate. If dating means sex, which sure as heck seems to be the case for majority of this thread, then how responses are positioned in the debate are going to greatly skew the perceived impressions of acceptance and/or bigotry involved.

I find the connotations for what it means to date to be too numerous. Even the related terms, i.e. 'romantic date' have their own ambiguity. If genitals are not being exposed / touched, then I think it can be hard to decipher the difference between a date and 'hanging out' or whatever it is people do when they are not dating. I like to think of a date as an activity of an enjoyment where two or more people will get together and share things, not the least of which is intimacy. But friends do this a lot. There are things that I would share, in terms of intimacy, with a best friend before I'd consider sharing it with a 'serious dating partner.' Some of things that I might share with a friend are possibly related to the dating partner and experience has shown that some of those things being shared can be deal breakers. Thus, it really seems to me a best friend is preferable to 'great dating partner' for many things about a (close) relationship, other than sexual relations. That can, quite obviously, get in the way of a really solid friendship. But I do think that best friends can go on dates together with the full expectation, mutual understanding that it will not result in sexual relations. And yet, then again, it might.

I would say it this way, if we are going to assume sex is not at all involved when talking about dates, and the OP had asked if refusal of a heterosexual male to be friends with, or to socialize with, a transwoman because she has a penis, I would probably have agreed that seems transphobic to me, since it would remove the assumption of sex being an eventual part of the relationship -- from the way I see it. But, to me the use of the word "date" implies the possibility of sex/long term relationship/marriage that I'm likely to bring those ideas into discussions about dating -- unless that discussion excludes those to the point of really just meaning "socialize" or "be friends" with.

For me, I do assume sex is related to dating, but also think it is distinct activity from the actual date. Like if the people date, have sex, and literally sleep together, is the sleeping activity part of the date? Perhaps it is. Chances are if you are dating someone for a long period of time (let's say 10 years, and not engaged/married), that at some point you've literally slept together, besides engaged in sexual activity. But that would be one of those things that I don't think most (best) friends would have any issue doing, together.

So, we are assigning parameters to dating, and IMO overemphasizing the sexual activity, which does lead to the whole aversion of being with a transsexual person, or transphobic aspect of what's being discussed.

And because dating generally involves 'spending time with people' and in many cases involves spending lots of time in a great variety of ways, then it really seems to be a whole lot of intolerance being expressed to suggest one would not date a transgendered person because they have a penis. It actually strikes me as highly immature view on dating and yet, a practical consideration if the aversion is real and is strong enough that you never want to be put in the position where you think it could possibly come up.

 

[columbus]

I've dated my Mom. We even slept together. True story.

Back when she had the house, I would occasionally call her after work and say, "Hey, how about I come up and we'll go eat somewhere?" She always said, "Sure". Then we'd come home, turn on stupid TV, and doze off together on the couch.
The problem with this thread is people using broadly defined words, like dating and bigotry, without being clear about what is meant in the specific context.

Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You have the obligation to tell your partner about your body that you're going to share with them, if for nothing else than common bloody decency.

I am under NO obligation to share my private and confidential medical records with anyone. It's not like I'm putting someone at risk for catching a disease, a secret husband who might find out, or am doing anything that inherently puts them at risk of harm or danger.

but it shows you how people feel about being tricked into sex and relationships.

Except there is no trickery or deception going on. This trans-panic exists only because people wrongly believe there is deception, that their masculinity has been degraded, or some other lame excuse. It's not a reason to cater to people.