Dating Preferences: Bigotry or a Right?

[Wherenextcolumbus]

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.

You're reaching.
Dating is the potential for a romantic and often sexual relationship. Attraction causes physiological reactions and attraction can be absent. Most people don't aspire to an asexual relationship unless you're arguing that they should?

 

[Thana]

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.

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.

Honestly, I've had enough.
If you can't see how wrong it is, than nothing I say is going to change that. Just remember that dismissing the feelings of other people is the same thing as other people dismissing your feelings. You being a minority or persecuted doesn't make you any more special and doesn't mean the world owes you anything.

Good luck, I guess, although I fear you'll become disillusioned very quickly.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you can't see how wrong it is, than nothing I say is going to change that. Just remember that dismissing the feelings of other people is the same thing as other people dismissing your feelings. You being a minority or persecuted doesn't make you any more special and doesn't mean the world owes you anything.

And you cannot see how my being expected to yield and submit to the repressive whims and demands of the majority will never change anything, but it will reinforce and reaffirm the otherness of transsexuals, and it will never allow us to live as equals or full acceptance.

 

[Acim]

You're reaching.
Dating is the potential for a romantic and often sexual relationship. Attraction causes physiological reactions and attraction can be absent. Most people don't aspire to an asexual relationship unless you're arguing that they should?

I disagree that I'm reaching by stating that dating routinely, or more often than not, involves activities that are not sexual in nature. I acknowledge the potential, but that is one aspect of dating, and as you noted is potential / may not be reached.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I disagree that I'm reaching by stating that dating routinely, or more often than not, involves activities that are not sexual in nature. I acknowledge the potential, but that is one aspect of dating, and as you noted is potential / may not be reached.

That's isn't all I said. Attraction causes physiological reactions. To be even more direct and explicit, it happens with and without dating. Do you see where I'm with this?
Maybe not.

If attraction happens without the social construct of "dating," someone can then accurately judge whether or not a date will have the potential to provoke attraction on their part, which is what people look for when dating.

OK I will reiterate this even further. So therefore it's perfectly sensible to not date someone knowing that there isnt a chance for that potential to be fulfilled at that time.

Yes people change, people grow, people develop and their sexuality may be revealed more later on in life. But in that moment when it's not possible, it's sensible to not date them and give them false hope.

 

[4consideration]

Fair enough.


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.

I just meant there that in order to have a conversation beyond yes or no answers, one has to make some assumptions in addition to the wording of the OP -- in order to move forward with a conversation. In this case the assumptions were what about what dating implied, among other possible things.

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 best case scenario is for both people to be as up front as possible. It's possible the same guy has something he ought to be up front about, like if all he's interested in is sex, and the other person wants a relationship. Or, vice versa.

If both people are ok with the pace, and they decide to explore some avenues they might not have explored before, or considered, that's fine.

What was starting to bother me about what seemed the tone on this thread, was that I think most people here at RF that stay around for any length of time, seem to actually be pretty nice people. I don't think most of them would look down on, or would tolerate someone mistreating a trans person. I really don't. It seemed like the tone of the thread was calling people who seem really tolerant of other people's right to be who they are to be bigots or transphobic because they wouldn't agree to a label being put to someone for expressing their own personal sexual preference. That's why I got into the thread, to put in my opinion about that.

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.



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.

I think if a person doesn't want to date a transgendered person, it is their right to not date a transgendered person, without being called names -- and it's probably better for the transgendered person not to waste their time on someone that wouldn't be interested in a sexual relationship with them. I think calling a person names (like bigot or transphobe) for not wanting sex with particular type of person is, or is very close to, coercion. (I'm not saying you are trying to force or coerce people into sex, I'm just adding a bit of my opinion on the overall subject here.)

People should not be coerced into proving they are not bigots or transphobes because the idea is presented to them that's what they are if they don't want to have sex with someone that is trans. I don't think people should be coerced, or shamed, into having sex with someone they don't want to have sex with, and it doesn't matter to me what their reason is.

Regarding dating or spending time with someone that is trans, it may that the person is passing up the opportunity to get to know a really great guy or gal. It's their loss. Some years ago I had a casual friend/acquaintance (customer through work) that was a really nice guy. Nothing romantic between us, but I really found that I particularly liked this guy, and very much enjoyed talking to him. It was about a year of seeing him through work rather frequently before someone mentioned he was transgendered. I had no idea. It didn't get in the way of our casual friendship, but it did surprise me. If I had known and had let that get in the way of talking to him, and being friendly, that would have been my loss.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You can't control what people think or believe, but you can ask that they curtain offensive behavior. I grew up with a lot of people whose parents, and often they themselves, were racist, anti-semitic, sexist, homophobic, etc., etc., perhaps because that the was the time and place where we were raised. I don't really know what their beliefs and thoughts are now, for the most part, but I certainly don't hear as much of the rhetoric as I used to, and it's clear to me at least that some of the people I grew up with have changed: came out as gay, have friends and neighbors they socialize with of other races, have married people of other races/religions, have accepted that women can do most anything a man can do, and better than many men, and so on. Some were shocked to find out their parents or siblings changed their own behavior...

I don't find a lot of the isms I grew up with very prevalent among my students--yes, they are still there...I am in central Indiana, after all--but they just don't relate to it as much, its not as deeply ingrained in speech and behavior as it was when I was growing up. They acknowledge it in their own families, sometimes even in their own behavior, but most of them are aware of it and trying to do better. I hope things will continue to get better, but it will only do so if people insist on treating everyone with respect and dignity. And sometimes, that means people who aren't getting respect and dignity have to be vocal about it until others DO.

 

[4consideration]

You can't control what people think or believe, but you can ask that they curtain offensive behavior. I grew up with a lot of people whose parents, and often they themselves, were racist, anti-semitic, sexist, homophobic, etc., etc., perhaps because that the was the time and place where we were raised. I don't really know what their beliefs and thoughts are now, for the most part, but I certainly don't hear as much of the rhetoric as I used to, and it's clear to me at least that some of the people I grew up with have changed: came out as gay, have friends and neighbors they socialize with of other races, have married people of other races/religions, have accepted that women can do most anything a man can do, and better than many men, and so on. Some were shocked to find out their parents or siblings changed their own behavior...

I don't find a lot of the isms I grew up with very prevalent among my students--yes, they are still there...I am in central Indiana, after all--but they just don't relate to it as much, its not as deeply ingrained in speech and behavior as it was when I was growing up. They acknowledge it in their own families, sometimes even in their own behavior, but most of them are aware of it and trying to do better. I hope things will continue to get better, but it will only do so if people insist on treating everyone with respect and dignity. And sometimes, that means people who aren't getting respect and dignity have to be vocal about it until others DO.

I think it's good to be vocal and to challenge actual bigotry and hatefulness -- and certainly to disallow any sort of violence or mistreatment.

That other people do those sorts of things does not justify jumping to conclusions of bigotry for one's personal sexual preferences. When people that would not mistreat members of a marginalized group, and would actually be the ones speaking out on behalf of them get accused of being bigoted for having, not hatred, but preferences of their own, I think it's potentially harmful to the general opinion about the group.

There are some people that think there is some sort of conspiracy for LGBT people to recruit people and to make everyone like them. I don't think that's the case, but it supports that narrative when someone presents an argument that if a heterosexual guy doesn't want to date a guy with a dick they're a bigot. In a real life scenario, if a guy dates, or has sex with, a trans person due to the pressure of being seen as a bigot, I think that plays into the suspicions and the narrative some have of nefarious intentions for "recruiting" in the LGBT community.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I say it is a mild form of bigotry because the lack of acceptance that would be included under all possible dating activities would be fairly substantial.

Then everyone I've ever known who ever dated is a bigot (because they have sexual & romantic preferences).
If every human is bigoted, varying only in degree, then the word has no meaning.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.

I getcha. Call-out culture, while wholly necessary to carve out space for the marginalized to have a space and a voice to object to cultural norms, is jarring. There's been plenty of opportunities for me to experience both sides. When I voice my objections as a woman in male-dominated spaces. When I voice my objections as a bisexual in monosexist spaces. But also when I attend minority race spaces and non-binary spaces and am confronted with my own social advantages and blind spots. These are very uncomfortable conversations, but IMO very necessary.

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

However, who is listening to trans people here who are saying "in _____ situation, I have felt dehumanized"? Being phobic or bigoted in ones perspective is not anywhere near someone feeling dehumanized. It's similar to a man telling us as women where real sexism occurs. They don't want to think of themselves as harboring sexism in any way, shape or form...intentional or unintentional. When we cis people tell a trans person that we know better than they, we continue to refuse them their own voice for objections.

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.

Well there is so much grey area in regards to societal rights and where transphobia occurs that it isn't either/or but in various degrees. We live in a cis normative world. Our gender has us set up to where we don't have to THINK about situations that trans people do. It's very easy to dismiss the objections of trans people because we simply don't experience the world in the way they do.

Here's the thing...I'm betting that trans people in this thread are feeling unheard and marginalized repeatedly. I'm betting that people who see themselves as allies for trans people are feeling offended if they are suggested to harbor bigoted perspectives. So, if that isn't working in terms of understanding and/or support, is there an alternative? Softening the Tone results in voices being ignored. Being Real results in voices being judged as hyperbolic and insulting. Women, minorities, LGBTs...all have jumped through an unreal number of hoops in history to try not to step on too many toes for different reasons.

I mean, I once was told in a rape thread that my experience literally did not matter because I was too emotional, too close, too enmeshed to the event and is unable to think rationally in a debate thread. That **** is devastating, and yet *I* was the hyperbolic one? *I* was the insulting and problematic one? When I say I see a lot of rape apologetics, I frequently get the jist that me saying that aloud is just as much of an attack as someone telling me I deserved to be raped. Never do I ever see that much BS and people projecting their hypersensitivity onto me as much as those threads.

Once again - you and I and the cis people in this debate get to choose our involvment. We can be highly invested. Or we can simply ignore it. We have that luxury. They don't. I think the trans people in this thread are getting the **** end of the stick, to be honest.

 

[Buttercup]

This is the most confusing thread ever. Because, what I'm hearing is that a trans person has no compulsion to reveal anything personal about their bodies to a potential romantic interest.

Using that logic, a gay man shouldn't feel any compulsion to tell a woman who's hitting on him that he's gay and is only attracted to men. He should just accept that this woman wants a romantic encounter of some kind. Otherwise, he's a bigot and prejudiced.

 

[Acim]

That's isn't all I said. Attraction causes physiological reactions. To be even more direct and explicit, it happens with and without dating. Do you see where I'm with this?
Maybe not.

If attraction happens without the social construct of "dating," someone can then accurately judge whether or not a date will have the potential to provoke attraction on their part, which is what people look for when dating.

OK I will reiterate this even further. So therefore it's perfectly sensible to not date someone knowing that there isnt a chance for that potential to be fulfilled at that time.

Yes people change, people grow, people develop and their sexuality may be revealed more later on in life. But in that moment when it's not possible, it's sensible to not date them and give them false hope.

I'm not understanding how this follows from what has been already been discussed. But I'm interested in understanding that.

What I feel like you're saying is that attraction can't be controlled, and may not have anything to do with the choice to date or not date someone (or a members of a group of people).

What occurs after this, with regards to dating, is where I'm having trouble following what you're bringing up. I have some ideas, but prefer for you to elaborate. I will just note that I do understand your point of, "it's sensible to not date them and give them false hope." And if I am understanding that correctly, I would just go back to the idea that dating is more than just the physical attraction aspect. Thus if the hope is for say companionship, or sharing common interests, etc. then those items could potentially be filled, but would not if person maintains an intolerance based on characteristic(s) they they identify with all members of a particular group.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is the most confusing thread ever. Because, what I'm hearing is that a trans person has no compulsion to reveal anything personal about their bodies to a potential romantic interest.

Legally, we don't have to disclose anything. It's medical information, and it is private and confidential information that everyone gets to decide whom they disclose such information to. Of course it must be disclosed when a court subpoenas it, and it should be if something involves a high risk situation, such as if there is profuse bleeding. But being transsexual does not put anyone at an inherent risk. If people are in it for sex, and not much else, why should it be disclosed? Should everyone who's had plastic surgery be expected to say "oh, by the way..." before sex?
It's also an issue because by expecting us to disclose this information, it continues to perpetuate the otherness of transsexuals and the rejection faced by society. We will never achieve an equal status in society and be accepted by society if we give into these demands. Rather, we must be confident and stand firm in our being female or male, and expect fair treatment, and work to make changes when we are treated unfairly. This expectation to disclose is one of those times of unfair treatment, when yielding to this expectation can only perpetuate the idea that we are different, not real, or even deceptive. It used to be utterly reprehensible for a black person to be in a "whites only" area, or even to drink from the same water fountain. Things didn't change with black people just accepting that and dealing with it. They used white facilities and they demanded justice. It used to be unthinkable for a woman to vote and be politically involved, until women had enough, said enough is enough, and voted anyways. Sure people who shocked and appalled, and feelings were hurt, but in the long run we consider ourselves better, more modern, more civilized, and more liberal because it happened. And really what is the hurt feelings of a raging majority over the feelings of entire generations of a repressed minority who is being unfairly and wrongly treated?

 

[Buttercup]

Basically, @Shadow Wolf, what I've been asking in this thread is what's wrong with good, old fashioned communication?

Why wouldn't someone want to be upfront if there's any chance of ambiguity or misinformation extended on either side? A trans person is much more likely to be rejected IF they aren't up front about who they are. I understand the desire to be accepted for who you are. However, it's not necessarily fair to the potential romantic interest person if they don't know.This confusion could be resolved through communication one way or the other. Why is that not a fair question to ask?

 

[Acim]

What was starting to bother me about what seemed the tone on this thread, was that I think most people here at RF that stay around for any length of time, seem to actually be pretty nice people. I don't think most of them would look down on, or would tolerate someone mistreating a trans person. I really don't. It seemed like the tone of the thread was calling people who seem really tolerant of other people's right to be who they are to be bigots or transphobic because they wouldn't agree to a label being put to someone for expressing their own personal sexual preference. That's why I got into the thread, to put in my opinion about that.

I think that's a fair point to make note of. Though, I do dispute what is being stated. I specifically dispute the part of labeling someone a bigot (or transphobic) for expressing their sexual preference. As I've stated several times in this thread, what does one's sexual preference/orientation have to do with expressions of "refusal to date" other people / members of a group of people? It is that specific wording, noted in OP and asked about in OP that I honestly feel like sticking to. If all people in this thread (or most of them) are otherwise very accepting, tolerant, wonderful towards transgender persons, very cool. I'd like to think we all are on that same page. Yet, when an expression comes along that is this personal, and we can't apply accurate terms to it, and/or discuss it without feeling offended, then ... I dunno... let's just stick to the superficial stuff that has to do with the way (we think) the rest of society handles these things? Pat ourselves on the back for being highly tolerant/more accepting than most and call it day.

When the broad topic of 'discrimination' pops up, I tune in perhaps with more acute awareness for what is being stated. I find that many people, or even vast majority of people, engage in the degrees we associate with the related terms and then seem to want to argue that is not (at all) what they are doing with their expressions. I do think of the terms as degrees along a scale that would look something like (from mild to most strong):
- discrimination
- prejudice
- stereotyping
- bigotry
- racism (or similar word, depending on the specific subject)

I would say a good decade or so ago, I thought of this scale as having very distinct differences and degrees of 'possible offense.' I like to still think they do. But more and more it seems like the terms are blended together and that discrimination and racism are at times seen as on equal footing. Regardless of what more I have to say, I'm not sure if others agree with this this, and pretty sure detractors from what I've said in this thread might prefer to parse each and every word and call into question my ability to reason or rationalize. I'm actually okay with that, but would prefer it come back to OP.

For me, OP's use of the word refusal (to date) and then asking for a contrast between 'form of bigotry' or 'right' lead me to suggest 'mild form of bigotry' rather than right.

I think if a person doesn't want to date a transgendered person, it is their right to not date a transgendered person, without being called names -- and it's probably better for the transgendered person not to waste their time on someone that wouldn't be interested in a sexual relationship with them. I think calling a person names (like bigot or transphobe) for not wanting sex with particular type of person is, or is very close to, coercion. (I'm not saying you are trying to force or coerce people into sex, I'm just adding a bit of my opinion on the overall subject here.)

Fair point. I'd rather stick to addressing the ideas being expressed and apply terms to that than the people. So, I can see the idea of "refusing to date transgender people who have penises" as a mild form of bigotry while hopefully not judging the entirety of that person as 'a bigot.' I feel people are way too diverse in their collective views to make that assertion about anyone. I truly think that. At same time, I'm prone to make the mistake I'd rather not and resort to calling someone that term. If I do, I have no issue with someone calling me out on that in light of what I honestly believe is appropriate and/or what I've written in this paragraph.

Regarding dating or spending time with someone that is trans, it may that the person is passing up the opportunity to get to know a really great guy or gal. It's their loss. Some years ago I had a casual friend/acquaintance (customer through work) that was a really nice guy. Nothing romantic between us, but I really found that I particularly liked this guy, and very much enjoyed talking to him. It was about a year of seeing him through work rather frequently before someone mentioned he was transgendered. I had no idea. It didn't get in the way of our casual friendship, but it did surprise me. If I had known and had let that get in the way of talking to him, and being friendly, that would have been my loss.

It's good to be open minded and tolerant.

 

[Acim]

Then everyone I've ever known who ever dated is a bigot (because they have sexual & romantic preferences).

Everyone you've ever known who has dated has stated to you that they refused to date groups of people that may or may not have anything to do with their sexual/romantic preferences?

If every human is bigoted, varying only in degree, then the word has no meaning.

I don't follow how that can possibly be true. This implies to me that certain words can only have meaning if there exists cases of where it is completely absent in people (or things). Seems very black and white. I personally believe and/or observe that all people I've known or heard about (including fictional stories) engages in discrimination. In various degrees. Also in varying levels of frequency. It is rare that I encounter someone that would raise that to level of (mild) bigotry or even racism/hatred. But as I have engaged in those types of thinking myself, it is not impossible to recognize. I find it helps to be called out on it. To contemplate on it and see how much I actually consider the expressed belief to be true to who I am. I find I can reset the belief and either eliminate it (ideally) or temper it down to level of mild discrimination, and still be true with who I am as a person.

 

[Revoltingest]

Everyone you've ever known who has dated has stated to you that they refused to date groups of people that may or may not have anything to do with their sexual/romantic preferences?

Everyone discriminated on the basis of something,....appearance, weight, religion.
And they clearly stated or otherwise indicated so.

I don't follow how that can possibly be true. This implies to me that certain words can only have meaning if there exists cases of where it is completely absent in people (or things). Seems very black and white. I personally believe and/or observe that all people I've known or heard about (including fictional stories) engages in discrimination. In various degrees. Also in varying levels of frequency. It is rare that I encounter someone that would raise that to level of (mild) bigotry or even racism/hatred. But as I have engaged in those types of thinking myself, it is not impossible to recognize. I find it helps to be called out on it. To contemplate on it and see how much I actually consider the expressed belief to be true to who I am. I find I can reset the belief and either eliminate it (ideally) or temper it down to level of mild discrimination, and still be true with who I am as a person.

It doesn't require hatred to have preferences for romance & sex.
To call someone out on having such preferences won't solve any problems.
It just makes the accuser look like an out of touch stark raving social justice warrior.
I prefer to oppose real social injustice...not people's personal desires for a mate.

 

[Acim]

Basically, @Shadow Wolf, what I've been asking in this thread is what's wrong with good, old fashioned communication?

Why wouldn't someone want to be upfront if there's any chance of ambiguity or misinformation extended on either side? A trans person is much more likely to be rejected IF they aren't up front about who they are. I understand the desire to be accepted for who you are. However, it's not necessarily fair to the potential romantic interest person if they don't know.This confusion could be resolved through communication one way or the other. Why is that not a fair question to ask?

I don't get here what the fair question to ask is? Is it the question of, "what's wrong with good, old fashioned communication?"

I do think a transgendered person is more likely to be rejected in today's society if they are upfront with the fact that they are transgendered. It also would seem odd to reveal that at certain points of what I would think are usual ways of connecting with people. It would make sense if that person was say at second base, wanting themselves to go further, and truly thinking the person they are with wishes to go further in that moment, that evening. That to me, might be an appropriate time to reveal it. I could see it being revealed before first base is even reached. But not before anyone has stepped to the plate and is more or less just relating on the level of cordial human looking for a basic human connection, that may or may not resemble flirting.

On hindsight, I wish some of the females I had dated had told me on the first date, "oh btw, I'm very neurotic and if we ever are in a disagreement later on, expect that side of me to come out full force." That would've been helpful information before taking the relationship beyond anything that is remotely sharing of physical intimacy. Perhaps, I would've countered with, "oh btw, I tend to have piggish tendencies. But I felt it necessary to put up a front right now so I could have a chance to get to know you better, and not make this all about being sexual with you."

Instead, it seems like all dating advice is geared around not being too honest, too upfront with information about yourself, even if it is honest about who you are (at that time). That there ought to be plenty of time if the relationship is going to have any lasting power to share things, reveal information as you go along.

I can certainly see how some bits of information about other people (i.e. potential dates) would be very important information to know about. So important that if not conforming to what I say I am seeking, it might be a deal breaker. Or if not revealed in what I deem a timely manner (and presumably not conforming to what I seek), it is also a deal breaker. But the other side of this is that people are doing the best they can to be who they are, and that revealing of all things that go into 'who I am' would never possibly be covered in 1 date. And if it is anticipated by either party that this first date will inevitably result in sexual intercourse, then there would likely be an appropriate time to reveal that information. But if things are really moving that fast on date #1, it might be information that didn't have time to be revealed either at all or until genitals are exposed.

To me, good old fashioned communication with regards to dating implies we are possibly waiting until we are engaged or even married before we engage in sexual relations. I actually now find that appealing. When I was younger, I don't think I could've waited for the check to arrive during our dinner date for the potential of sex to be fulfilled.

 

[Acim]

Everyone discriminated on the basis of something,....appearance, weight, religion.
And they clearly stated or otherwise indicated so.

Did they say or indicate to you, "I refuse to be with _____ type of people?" Or refuse to work with them, date them, etc?

It doesn't require hatred to have preferences for romance & sex.

I don't observe anyone that has stated this. Or implied it.

To call someone out on having such preferences won't solve any problems.
It just makes the accuser look like an out of touch stark raving social justice warrior.
I prefer to oppose real social injustice...not people's personal desires for a mate.

To each his own.

 

[Revoltingest]

Did they say or indicate to you, "I refuse to be with _____ type of people?" Or refuse to work with them, date them, etc?

Example:
A Jewish co-worker said he'd never marry a Jewish girl.
So there's both religious & gender discrimination.
Example:
A friend stated he only dates attractive women.
There's both lookism & gender discrimination.

I don't observe anyone that has stated this. Or implied it.

You'll notice that I talk to a wide variety of people a great deal about sensitive things.