LGBT Activist Thinks Straight Men Need To Get Used To The Idea Of Dating Trans-Women

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

First, mad love to all you guys for being educated about the terms trans and cis. 

I didn't really see the author's interpretation of the tweets as being completely accurate. To me it seemed that the Trans tweeter was merely suggesting that some straight men are attracted to trans women. Seems to me she is trying to dispel the stereotype that these men are gay rather than straight. 

I am a woman and I'm very happy being a female. I love wearing heels and dresses and I also love male companionship. I cannot imagine the pain that trans people feel in being uncomfortable with their gender, it must be heart wrenching. Then they have to deal with close minded people who call them freaks or worse. Can you even imagine the hurt and pain they have to deal with? 

Everyone has preferences when it comes to physical attractions. Some straight men may be turned off by a trans woman but some might not. To each his own. That said I don't think we should criticize another's sexual preferences. 

[homersapien 11,354]

11 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The difference is, I'm not telling them they can't do their thing.  They can change their name, start dressing and doing their hair like a woman.  Wearing makeup.  They can convince all their friends and family to refer to them by their new female name.  I don't give a crap.  But when you start telling society that when they don't join in your thoughtlife with you that they are bigots, and they need to get over their hangups in not dating transwomen, then it becomes an issue. 

 

There is nothing "simply" about my view on the matter.  Having feelings is neither right nor wrong.  The rub is always where we go from there.  And thus far, the only thing I've concerned myself with are the legal and social ramifications.  It's not even a moral/religious discussion.  I'm willing to live and let live.  I don't really care if Jim wants to be called Jenny and start wearing panties instead of boxers.  What he does in his own home...hell, what he does amongst his friends and family even - don't care.  Everyone is weird in some way or another.  But when you want to compel everyone else to bend to your whims and alter their lives, enforce legal and/or social sanctions based on that, I have a problem with it.

Well, that's stating the obvious.

What I am talking about, is why you interpret the subject piece in such a literal and direct way.

But for us to proceed, it's going to cost you $85.00/hour. 

[homersapien 11,354]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Do not mistake annoyance and frustration for fear or antipathy.

 

The headline was not mine.  But the fact is, it's not just one trans activist and though some may not go so far as to expect/demand that straight men "get over it" and see trans women as women in the same sense they see biological women, the mentality is widespread.  It is not enough to merely be left alone, all of society must bend it's laws and its social mores to conform to their way of thinking.

 

How could one who objects be anything other than a bigot under this view of reality?  The only reason you wouldn't date a trans woman is that you do not consider her an actual woman, merely a man who has some mental health problems and has altered their appearance and perhaps surgically altered their bodies to look like one.  The only possible exception to it would be that the straight man in question wishes to be with a woman who can bear children, and obviously a trans woman cannot.  Otherwise?  Bigot.

Well, like I said, to the transgender person you probably are.  So what?

Their opinion doesn't require a reaction or defense.  

Sexuality is not a clear cut area of science.  For that matter, we are still in a fairly early age of understanding how the brain works.  So you can always just plead 'ignorance' to the charge of transexual bigotry. 

[ArgoEagle 1,767]

I thank God that I am married to a natural woman. I would hate to be single and have to ask every woman I thought I might want to go out with if they were trans or not. I also think that might be insulting to the woman. How do you even approach that? Excuse me, do you pee standing up or squatting?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

On 7/7/2017 at 10:36 PM, homersapien said:

Well, like I said, to the transgender person you probably are.  So what?

Their opinion doesn't require a reaction or defense.  

The problem is, their 'opinion' doesn't just remain in the realm of us agreeing to disagree and everyone goes about their business otherwise unaffected.  Ideas have consequences.  This idea gender identity idea infiltrates laws and workplace policies.  It isn't just a matter of "you do your thing and I'll do mine and we'll leave each other be."

 

Quote

Sexuality is not a clear cut area of science.  For that matter, we are still in a fairly early age of understanding how the brain works.  So you can always just plead 'ignorance' to the charge of transexual bigotry. 

Again, the subject is not sexuality.  We are not debating the whys and hows of who a person is sexually attracted to.  We are discussing sex and gender.

[homersapien 11,354]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

The problem is, their 'opinion' doesn't just remain in the realm of us agreeing to disagree and everyone goes about their business otherwise unaffected.  Ideas have consequences.  This idea gender identity idea infiltrates laws and workplace policies.  It isn't just a matter of "you do your thing and I'll do mine and we'll leave each other be."

Irony

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/its-now-undeniable-that-lgbtq-rights-are-in-danger-of-being-rolled-back_us_5960f3ffe4b0d5b458eac126?jms&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

It’s Now Undeniable That LGBTQ Rights Are In Danger Of Being Rolled Back

A powerful minority is trying to get the fix in.

"....Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch  wrote a dissenting opinion two weeks ago regarding Arkansas and birth certificates for children of same-sex couples, defining himself as the new hardline leader on the court for religious conservatives and inviting lower courts to view the Obergefell marriage equality decision not as settled law, but as open to interpretation, possibly allowing for religious or other exemptions for those opposed to marriage equality.

Days later the Texas Supreme Court refused to see Obergefell as settled, sending a case back to a trial court. Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern, in a piece headlined, “Marriage Equality Could be in Peril,” laid out the case last week for the how marriage equality, with Gorsuch in the lead and Justice Kennedy perhaps retiring at any time and replaced by another anti-LGBTQ conservative, could be overturned.

Mississippi last year passed the most far-reaching anti-LGBTQ law we have seen and just a few weeks ago a federal appeals court ruled that the law should be allowed to take effect. The law allows for businesses and government employees to decline service to LGBTQ people, and that includes bakers, florists, county clerks and and other government employees, based on religious beliefs. It allows for discrimination in housing and employment against same-sex couples or any individual within a same-sex couple. Businesses and government, under the law, can regulate where transgender people go to the bathroom. The law allows mental health professionals and doctors, nurses and clinics to turn away LGBTQ individuals. It also allows state-funded adoption agencies to turn away LGBTQ couples. With several of the Supreme Court’s conservatives seeming to welcome these exemptions, expect other states to move in the same direction and, again, with Gorsuch on the court and Kennedy perhaps retiring at any time soon, it’s frightening to think what the court might decide about such exemptions.

Texas joined Michigan, South Dakota and Mississippi in allowing bans on adoption to same-sex couples by state-funded adoption agencies. In the cases of both Texas and South Dakota, the laws were passed this year and seemed to fly under the radar of all the attention on Donald Trump. But they, too, get at that same issue of allowing exemptions to same sex-marriage, turning same-sex marriage into second-class marriage. Again, look for more states to follow this lead.

Opposition to North Carolina’s odious HB2, which banned local anti-discrimination ordinances statewide that protected LGBT people and regulated what rest rooms transgender people use, helped to narrowly defeat GOP governor Pat McCrory in 2016. But the new Democratic governor Roy Cooper, rather than holding out for stopping this kind of law entirely, worked with GOP lawmakers on a “compromise” that does nothing of the kind: The new law still bans local LGBT rights ordinances statewide and regulates transgender people until some time in the future ― when it will surely be extended. But it was enough to get important collegiate sports programs and companies to come back to the state after previously boycotting.

The Trump administration has thrown transgender students overboard, withdrawing guidelines on protecting trans students that were put in place by the Obama administration for schools nationwide. And the Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, sees no problem with giving federal dollars to schools that discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender students. 

Trump’s cabinet and undersecretaries include some of the most ardent foes of LGBT rights, from Housing Secretary Ben Carson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price and his director of the Office of Civil Rights at HHS, Roger Severino, an anti-LGBTQ advocate who last year accused the Obama administration of attempting to “coerce everyone, including children, into pledging allegiance to a radical new gender ideology.” Already, we’re seeing important programs that affect LGBT people in jeopardy. Six members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS resigned in recent weeks, calling Trump a “president who simply does not care.”

Trump has essentially made LGBTQ people invisible. There was no presidential Pride proclamation in June, let alone a White House reception. Two surveys by HHS about older Americans and disabled people have removed questions about sexual orientation, refusing to collect vital data. And the Census Bureau dumped plans to finally include information about sexual orientation and gender identity in the 2020 census. ".....

[alexava 6,973]

4 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

I thank God that I am married to a natural woman. I would hate to be single and have to ask every woman I thought I might want to go out with if they were trans or not. I also think that might be insulting to the woman. How do you even approach that? Excuse me, do you pee standing up or squatting?

If you ask a woman if she is trans or not you need not worry about going out with her. 

[ArgoEagle 1,767]

32 minutes ago, alexava said:

If you ask a woman if she is trans or not you need not worry about going out with her. 

Yep. We agree.

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

12 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

 Excuse me, do you pee standing up or squatting?

Will admit I squat and pee in the wives quarters. Helps with accurate aim, she gets mad as hell if I miss and.......you know Argo you asked the question anyway.

[alexava 6,973]

Too much info 

[ArgoEagle 1,767]

9 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Will admit I squat and pee in the wives quarters. Helps with accurate aim, she gets mad as hell if I miss and.......you know Argo you asked the question anyway.

Well, it was rhetorical, but thanks anyway Salty. Maybe we won't all have nightmares thinking about that tonight.

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

8 hours ago, alexava said:

Too much info 

Just answering Argo Alex. You did not have to read it.

[alexava 6,973]

4 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Just answering Argo Alex. You did not have to read it.

Argo, quit asking him questions please. 

[ArgoEagle 1,767]

4 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Just answering Argo Alex. You did not have to read it.

Salty, why do we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway; why do we take a dump instead of leaving one?

[AUDub 11,131]

57 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

Salty, why do we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway; why do we take a dump instead of leaving one?

Why do we call buildings "buildings" instead of builts? 

[ArgoEagle 1,767]

48 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Why do we call buildings "buildings" instead of builts? 

These types of questions defer to Salty.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

 

Quote

 

...As a trans person, I run into this attitude all the time. I constantly hear cis people raging about how a trans person is "lying" if they don't come out to a potential partner before dating them. Pemberton himself claimed that he felt like he was "raped" because Laude did not come out to him. Even cis people that fashion themselves as "allies" tend to feel similar.

Their argument is that they aren't not attracted to trans people, so they should have a right to know if a potential partner is trans before dating them. These people view transness as a mere physical quality that they just aren't attracted to.

The issue with this logic is that the person in question is obviously attracted to trans people, or else they wouldn't be worried about accidentally going out with one. So these people aren't attracted to trans people because of some physical quality, they aren't attracted to trans people because they are disgusted by the very idea of transness.

Disgust towards trans people is ingrained in all of us from a very early age. The gender binary forms the basis of European societies. It establishes that there are men and there are women, and each has a specific role. For the gender binary to have power, it has to be rigid and inflexible. Thus, from the day we are born, we are taught to believe in a very static and strict form of gender. We learn that if you have a penis, you are a man, and if you have a vagina, you are a woman. Trans people are walking refutations of this concept of gender. Our very existence threatens to undermine the gender binary itself. And for that, we are constantly demonized. For example, trans people, mainly women of color, continue to be slaughtered in droves for being trans.

The justification of transphobic oppression is often that transness is inherently disgusting. For example, the "trans panic" defense still exists to this day. This defense involves the defendant asking for a lesser sentence after killing a trans person because they contend that when they found out the victim was trans, they freaked out and couldn't control themselves. This defense is still legal in every state but California.

And our culture constantly reinforces the notion that transness is undesirable. For example, there is the common trope in fictional media in which a male protagonist is "tricked" into sleeping with a trans woman. The character's disgust after finding out is often used as a punchline.

Thus, not being attracted to trans people is deeply transphobic. The entire notion that someone isn't attracted to a group of very physically diverse group of people because they are trans is built on fear and disgust of trans people. None of this means it is transphobic to not be attracted to individual trans people. Nor is it transphobic to not be attracted to specific genitals. But it is transphobic to claim to not be attracted to all trans, people. For example, there is a difference between saying you won't go out with someone for having a penis and saying you won't go out with someone because they're trans.

So when a cis person argues that a trans person has an obligation to come out to someone before dating them, they are saying trans people have an obligation to accommodate their transphobia. Plus, claiming that trans people are obligated to come out reinforces the idea that not being attracted to trans people is reasonable. But as I've pointed out, not being attracted to trans people supports the idea that transness is disgusting which is the basis for transphobic oppression.

The one scenario in which I would say a trans person should disclose their trans status is if they are going to have sex with someone and are unsure if their partner is attracted to whatever genitals they may have. In that case, I think it's courteous for a trans person to come out to avoid any awkwardness during sex. But even then, a trans person isn't "lying" if they don't come out and their partner is certainly not being "raped."...

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/no-dont-have-to-tell-you-im-trans-before-dating-you

 

 

[homersapien 11,354]

57 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

 

Not really sure what your point is, but I understand the author's point.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Just that the person activist in the original post isn't alone in the view that straight men need to "get over it" and be down with dating trans women.

[Strychnine 1,802]

53 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Just that the person activist in the original post isn't alone in the view that straight men need to "get over it" and be down with dating trans women.

 

All I read in that was an argument that people that are not attracted to trans people are transphobic, or disgusted by transness.  That said, I only read what you quoted.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I don't know what's so hard for this guy to understand.  I don't want to date a trans woman, even if she's quite convincing in looking like a biological woman any more than I want to eat a veggie burger that looks convincingly like ground beef or monkey brains that look convincingly like a ribeye steak.  That doesn't make a person veggiephobic or mean that they hate monkeys.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

 

All I read in that was an argument that people that are not attracted to trans people are transphobic, or disgusted by transness.  That said, I only read what you quoted.

Same here.  I'm a pretty socially liberal guy, but the author here is completely wrong.  As a straight man, I'm not interested in dating a trans person.  By all means, feel free to live life how one see's fit, but if someone make the decision to be transgender, it is their responsibility to be up front and honest with potential dating partners.

For example, why is this different from a married guy dating another woman?  Most women would be highly upset if that guy dated them without saying "Oh by the way, I'm married".  Now, if that woman, with all of the information, decides to date the guy anyway, whatever.  But it's certainly not fair to her to find out later that the guy was married and then have the guy say "Well, you were attracted to me already.  Why does it matter now?"

 

[Grumps 3,693]

19 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't know what's so hard for this guy to understand.  I don't want to date a trans woman, even if she's quite convincing in looking like a biological woman any more than I want to eat a veggie burger that looks convincingly like ground beef or monkey brains that look convincingly like a ribeye steak.  That doesn't make a person veggiephobic or mean that they hate monkeys.  

This may be the greatest post ever in this forum! Thanks for that Titan!

[augolf1716 21,096]

On 8/2/2017 at 5:30 PM, TitanTiger said:

I don't know what's so hard for this guy to understand.  I don't want to date a trans woman, even if she's quite convincing in looking like a biological woman any more than I want to eat a veggie burger that looks convincingly like ground beef or monkey brains that look convincingly like a ribeye steak.  That doesn't make a person veggiephobic or mean that they hate monkeys.  

That's an interesting comparison I mean are we talking bone-in or boneless Rib Eyes cause that could be a deciding factor considering monkey brains are boneless

[creed 1,629]

I guess one day it may be normal to first ask a person before going on a date what sex they were born. But for now that seems weird. Anyone agree or disagree?