nemu posted...gunplagirl posted...
K181 posted...
COVxy posted...
K181 posted...
COVxy posted...
The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic.
Again... we're at the point where people are rightfully arguing for respect for sexual preferences and gender identies, and yet the notion that there could be a sexual preference for cisgendered men or women is a no go?
I mean, that doesn't make much sense. It's like saying I'm sapiosexual or whatever those made up orientations are. If you're in the realm of making up biologically implausible sexual orientations to justify your own lack of acceptance, you've made a wrong turn. At least simply admit that you don't see them as truly their identified gender and the thought of them as their pretransition state freaks you out.
Yeah, you're just looking for things to be upset at this point if your rational is that it's "biologically implausible" to have a sexual orientation more exclusionary than your own or inventing states of mind for people that have them. You're attracted to trans and cis people? Good for you. You think that there's zero possible reason that someone could be only attracted to cis people? Quit being so close minded.
I can safely say that there isn't a cisgendered guy that attacts me. Does that make me a homophobe? If yes, that's a dumb take. If no, how's that different if you changed "cis" with "trans?"
If you're straight then you aren't into men. If you are straight you're into women. Trans women are women. If you exclude all trans women from your dating pool it's because you don't consider them women. That's the difference.
It's like you're trying to change reality. Transwomen are biological males living as women, either with or without cosmetic surgery. I will gladly say they they are female and call them women, as that is polite, but that does not change the fact that they are not "real women." There is nothing offensive at all about that.
1) "biological males" is still based entirely upon using general rules regarding chromosomes and applying it as a universal truth
2) it ignores intersex people
3) gender confirmation surgery is reconstructive, not cosmetic and especially if you know anything about functionality post surgery
4) "real women" is another term that's been coined solely to diminish the validity of trans identities
5) it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy
All "real women" have xx chromosomes and have menses and can have kids
While ignoring prepubescent people, post menopausal people, etc.
6) and you can't even prove most trans people's chromosomes unless you phenotype them. Making the assumption might be right most of the time but I could tell you that there's nobody breaking into cars in a downtown parking lot and more often than not it's true, doesn't mean there's actually scientific backing to that assumption
---
Pew pew!
... Copied to Clipboard!