Dating Preferences: Bigotry or a Right?

[Parsimony]

If it were a particular person, not bigotry. A whole group of people based on a particular trait, along with words reflecting intolerance, equals mild bigotry, as previously explained.

You can find an entire group of people unattractive without being intolerant towards them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's a lack of belief.

A baseless lack.

The OP set up the goal posts. Would you like me to re-quote that? Sexual preference, in and of itself, doesn't imply intolerance. The OP assertion did.

In another thread, the issue of dating preferences came up, and some posts stated that a heterosexual man's refusal to date a transgendered person because the latter has a penis is transphobic. Since I'm open to reconsidering my positions in light of reasoned arguments, I would like to hear others' thoughts on this.

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

Please discuss.

This is the OP. Which assertion here implies tolerance?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A heterosexual person is a person with a sexual orientation to people of the opposite sex. A transexual female would be of the opposite sex. Therefore refusal to date people of the opposite sex who may have penises conflicts with the definition of heterosexuality.

This is your argument? My four year old niece often puts forth such intellectually dishonest equivocations. Then again, she's four.

 

[crossfire]

Not wanting to date someone does not in any way imply hatred or intolerance of that person. Not wanting to date a person doesn't even imply dislike.

Bigotry is intolerance to other people's opinions. (One example might be refusing to accept "no" for an answer to a solicitation for sex.) {Let's see how that stirs the pot up around here. I'm getting close to my 6666th post, and am feeling ornery. }

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is your argument? My four year old niece often puts forth such intellectually dishonest equivocations. Then again, she's four.

How is that "intellectually dishonest"?

 

[Sunstone]

How is that "intellectually dishonest"?

It would seem the argument rests on assuming that a woman with a penis is exactly identical to a woman without a penis, but with a vagina. Whether that's intellectually dishonest, or merely an error in reasoning (i.e. false equivalency), would depend on the intention of the argument's author.

 

[Acim]

This is the OP. Which assertion here implies tolerance?

We are talking about intolerance.

 

[Acim]

This is your argument? My four year old niece often puts forth such intellectually dishonest equivocations. Then again, she's four.

Wow, ad hom is all you have? Man, this is gonna be easy peasy.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Wow, ad hom is all you have? Man, this is gonna be easy peasy.

It's all your sad argument is worth. Attempt an actual argument with some kind of merit, and I'll give it an appropriate response as well.

 

[Acim]

Not wanting to date someone does not in any way imply hatred or intolerance of that person. Not wanting to date a person doesn't even imply dislike.

Refusing to date a whole group of people, all of whom share a common trait, implies intolerance.

Will you tolerate dating people that are like this?
No, I am intolerant of those type of people when it comes to dating. I refuse to date them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

We are talking about intolerance.

Not a fan of logical or semantical consistency, eh?

 

[Acim]

It's all your sad argument is worth. Attempt an actual argument with some kind of merit, and I'll give it an appropriate response as well.

Doubt it. I have yet to see a reasonable response from you in this thread. Zilch. None.

 

[Acim]

Not a fan of logical or semantical consistency, eh?

I am. You have not demonstrated that as of yet.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How is that "intellectually dishonest"?

Because the sexual attraction defined within the scope of heterosexual attraction is based on the opposite sex having the opposite sex parts, not on simply the label. This isn't bigotry, it's biology.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Doubt it. I have yet to see a reasonable response from you in this thread. Zilch. None.

I know you are but what am I?

Yeah, my niece uses that one too.

 

[Acim]

Because the sexual attraction defined within the scope of heterosexual attraction is based on the opposite sex having the opposite sex parts, not on simply the label. This isn't bigotry, it's biology.

So a trans female is for you not female? Please speak into the microphone.

 

[Acim]

I know you are but what am I?

Yeah, my niece uses that one too.

You spend a lot of time with your niece it seems. Explains a lot of your rhetoric in this thread.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So a trans female is for you not female? Please speak into the microphone.

A trans female is not a biological female, no.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You spend a lot of time with your niece it seems. Explains a lot of your rhetoric in this thread.

I find her conversation to generally be more stimulating than most of the conversation here. This thread bares this out quite convincingly.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Because the sexual attraction defined within the scope of heterosexual attraction is based on the opposite sex having the opposite sex parts, not on simply the label. This isn't bigotry, it's biology.

I assumed that's what you were trying to say, but you're wrong. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not reducible down to mere body parts. A cis man in a relationship with or having sex with a trans woman is heterosexual. When I, as a trans man, am in a relationship with or having sex with a cis woman, it's not lesbian. Me having sex with a cis man is not straight.