LGBTAI+ Question and Discussion Thread IV: [Citation Needed]

[Eldest]

Well there's a big difference between me choosing not to date somebody and me hating or fearing them. For example, I might choose not to date somebody because of their political affiliation. But I'm certainly not bigoted against people of other political affiliations. I would not be able to date somebody of certain religions, unless they were willing to consider converting. Does that make me a religious bigot? I don't think it does.

See the thing here is that you're demanding that people be interested in you in a romantic sense or that you'll consider them bigoted, because of a preference that they might not even have any choice regarding or control over. That's a pretty bigoted position even avoiding many real world reasons why a person might be attracted to somebody or not.

The specific question given was "if you like somebody till you find out they're bi, is it homophobic?" Further, the idea that homophobia is specifically "fear of the gays" is both arguing in bad faith and not the definition we have been using for at least 10 years.

Edit: I don't think these are devil's advocate positions. Or homophobic ones. I think this is a legitimate difference of opinion, and screaming that it's somehow transphobic isn't going to at all further your cause.

As stated, that's not what I'm doing, but frankly I think you are arguing in bad faith here.

But being redheaded is not a fundamental part of your character. Being trans is. That makes the analogy break down here.

Being trans is not a fundemantal part of my character. Being a woman is.

So, we're back to the problem with apparent sex and biological sex not matching up.

As stated above, biological sex is basically a made up thing.

In most countries, the rule of law is modeled after the the average collective view of what morals and moral duties are and reforms will always be a continual process to keep the laws up to date.

For example, Germany is a mostly secular state, so both, marriage and divorce fall under "contract laws" and purely religious practices are inconsequential to these. But: We put a premium on up-front honesty and full disclosure when entering into a binding contract, everything else is considered to be at least deception, if not out right fraud. So our "contract laws" are modeled in such a way to reflect this sensibility, so any binding contract must include the "deception clause", outright allowing a one-sided termination of the contract when you can prove positive that you have been deceived into entering the contract. Yes, that can also mean terminating a marriage without divorce by annulling the entire marriage "contract".

So to be clear. You are arguing that the primary function of a marriage is to spit out kids. Legally speaking. There is no other reason to marry. Because that's what you're arguing here. You're saying that a transwoman who does not disclose that she is not able to bear children would be committing marriage fraud.

[Heliomance]

Can a transwoman get pregnant?

So are you saying that a woman who's had a hysterectomy isn't a cis woman? How about a post menopausal woman? A woman who's infertile due to illness? Due to malnutrition? A woman who's naturally infertile? The fact that Lissou was wrong about it being a majority doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of women in the world that can't get pregnant. Using fertility as a criteria for being a cis woman really doesn't work.

Trans people are also exceedingly rare.

We're really not, actually. I seem to recall that being trans is roughly as common as being a natural redhead. Uncommon, yes, but not super rare, and you've almost certainly met multiple trans people without ever realising.

[AMFV]

The specific question given was "if you like somebody till you find out they're bi, is it homophobic?" Further, the idea that homophobia is specifically "fear of the gays" is both arguing in bad faith and not the definition we have been using for at least 10 years.

Which is why I included a more broad definition in my discussion. If I like somebody until I find out that they have some characteristic that is a dealbreaker for me in a relationship, that doesn't inherently make me a bigot. Because this is a much more complicated issue. My point is that "liking somebody" cannot be used as a standard for bigotry. That's not a reasonable standard.

Let's say there's a woman I'm really attracted to, I've talked to her online, and then I meet her in person, and her voice grates on me. It is the most annoying thing I've heard. I know that it would not be fair of me to try to suppress this to date her, because there's another person who will not mind out there. And the same holds true of the transpeople in this scenario.

As stated, that's not what I'm doing, but frankly I think you are arguing in bad faith here.

Stating something doesn't make it so. And in this case you're stating that other opinions which are not exactly minority opinions are inherently bigoted and awful. In a practical sense, that isn't a position that's going to gain you much traction except for with the extreme edges of society.

Also you're the one who declared that it was transphobia, and further attempted to argue that people who have a differing position are by definition transphobes.

Being trans is not a fundemantal part of my character. Being a woman is.

Being trans is the part of your character that makes you a woman in this case. And that fact is significant here because that is a thing that would bother many romantic partners as has been shown by survey here. Being unrealistic about that isn't going to help or improve matters.

As stated above, biological sex is basically a made up thing.

In 99.95% of all cases... It is not. The frequency of actual intersex births is something like 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000. So no, that is not a good standard to use to simply throw out the 99.95% of all cases where that is indeed a valid measure. That passes every test for statistical certainty you could throw at it. Even if you're including the trans population estimates, that only brings you to around 99.45% of all cases. That's still not enough to throw out biological gender as a model.

Edit:

So are you saying that a woman who's had a hysterectomy isn't a cis woman? How about a post menopausal woman? A woman who's infertile due to illness? Due to malnutrition? A woman who's naturally infertile? The fact that Lissou was wrong about it being a majority doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of women in the world that can't get pregnant. Using fertility as a criteria for being a cis woman really doesn't work.

Using biology (chromosomes) and not being trans would work in roughly 98% of all cases. Therefore that's probably the most accurate method you're going to get.

We're really not, actually. I seem to recall that being trans is roughly as common as being a natural redhead. Uncommon, yes, but not super rare, and you've almost certainly met multiple trans people without ever realising.

It's like 1.2 percent of the population in the most generous estimates, that's far less common than natural redheads. At least where I live. If you include Asian and African populations you may drop the number of redheads, but that seems to be not really that relevant here.

[Heliomance]

Using biology (chromosomes) and not being trans would work in roughly 98% of all cases. Therefore that's probably the most accurate method you're going to get.

If your most accurate method is wrong for roughly 6.4 million people in the USA alone (143 million people in the world)* then I suggest that your method is not terribly useful. On the other hand, using self identification works in 100% of cases.

*source: taking your statistic of 98%, I asked Wolfram Alpha what 2% of the population of the USA and of the world was

[AMFV]

If your most accurate method is wrong for roughly 6.4 million people in the USA alone (143 million people in the world)* then I suggest that your method is not terribly useful. On the other hand, using self identification works in 100% of cases.

*source: taking your statistic of 98%, I asked Wolfram Alpha what 2% of the population of the USA and of the world was

A method that works in 98 percent of cases is incredibly useful, dude. I mean you need to caveats for the 2 percent it doesn't work for. But we have those. And arguing that a method that is significantly more than it would be required to have it passed in terms of statistical certainty as being 100% accurate.

[Heliomance]

For comparison, there are only nine countries in the entire world that have a population greater that 143 million. Your method excludes, comparatively, very nearly the entire population of Russia, or more than the entire population of Mexico. There are, by your own admission, more people in the world for whom chromosomes aren't an accurate indicator of gender than there are Mexicans. Would you say it's okay to discriminate against someone because you find out they're Mexican?

[AMFV]

For comparison, there are only nine countries in the entire world that have a population greater that 143 million. Your method excludes, comparatively, very nearly the entire population of Russia, or more than the entire population of Mexico. There are, by your own admission, more people in the world for whom chromosomes aren't an accurate indicator of gender than there are Mexicans. Would you say it's okay to discriminate against someone because you find out they're Mexican?

If you're asking me to sleep with them, and I'm electing not to sleep with people who are of that ethnicity for whatever reason. Yeah, that's fine. Dating preferences are what they are. They don't have to make sense or be justified. And two percent is still two percent. There's not a country of trans people. And the numbers for people who are intersex are even tinier.

I would say that using this method of determination is just fine. And it's fine to have that as a preference.

[Heliomance]

If you're asking me to sleep with them, and I'm electing not to sleep with people who are of that ethnicity for whatever reason. Yeah, that's fine. Dating preferences are what they are. They don't have to make sense or be justified. And two percent is still two percent. There's not a country of trans people. And the numbers for people who are intersex are even tinier.

I would say that using this method of determination is just fine. And it's fine to have that as a preference.

No, not that ethnicity, that nationality. Again, we're talking the case where you're already attracted to them, you're already down with the idea of sleeping with them, then they go "by the way I come from Mexico" and you're suddenly not interested anymore.

Also, it's impossible to tell what chromosomes someone has without a genetic test, so honestly they're not particularly useful or relevant for day to day sex determination. I don't know what my chromosomes are. You don't know what your chromosomes are. No one that hasn't had it tested in a lab knows what their chromosomes are. How can that possibly be relevant to what you find attractive?

And 2% is one in 50. Do you know more than 50 people? I do. That's really not all that rare.

[AMFV]

No, not that ethnicity, that nationality. Again, we're talking the case where you're already attracted to them, you're already down with the idea of sleeping with them, then they go "by the way I come from Mexico" and you're suddenly not interested anymore.

Again, that's fine. You can set whatever standards you want for somebody you're going to have sex with. Nobody is owed sex. That's just how that works. Let's take a much more common scenario, nearly ten times more common in fact. I'm interested in a person, then they say "by the way, I have herpes." That's estimated to be a quarter of the population. What if a person tells me they're <gasp> a Presbyterian? I can have whatever standards I want for whom I sleep with. And you don't get to call me a bigot based on that.

Also, it's impossible to tell what chromosomes someone has without a genetic test, so honestly they're not particularly useful or relevant for day to day sex determination.

Yes, but again in roughly 98 percent of all cases the chromosomes of a person will match to their presented identity. So it is useful and relevant in almost every single case to assume that somebody who is presenting with a particular identity is biologically that identity.

Edit:

And 2% is one in 50. Do you know more than 50 people? I do. That's really not all that rare.

1 in 50 is really rare. Just because I might have met one a transperson, doesn't make them not rare. I personally know at least one person I know to be trans. But most people don't date 50 people, and most people are pretty discriminating in who they date.

[Florian]

So are you saying that a woman who's had a hysterectomy isn't a cis woman? How about a post menopausal woman? A woman who's infertile due to illness?

As stated above, biological sex is basically a made up thing.

Ah, no. At that point, we're talking about the basics here, you know, you need sperm and an uterus to procreate. Artificial methods or third party assistance aside, that's the only way we can make it work.

So to be clear. You are arguing that the primary function of a marriage is to spit out kids. Legally speaking. There is no other reason to marry. Because that's what you're arguing here. You're saying that a transwoman who does not disclose that she is not able to bear children would be committing marriage fraud.

We have three methods here: Secular marriage, secular registered partnership and church/spiritual marriage. Secular marriage is actually all about forming a core family unit and having kids and handling inheritance. Very unromantic, but true. If you don't want them, a registered partnership is all you need and also handles inheritance. Both forms allow to handle adoptions. Church/Spiritual marriage is, again, not accepted by the law unless you couple it with a secular marriage, which has to happen first.

There's a rough 50-50 split in why people still marry. For some, it´s of symbolic or religion significance, the others want children and the protection of the law. Most other couples will never marry and don't need to.

[Heliomance]

Yes, but again in roughly 98 percent of all cases the chromosomes of a person will match to their presented identity. So it is useful and relevant in almost every single case to assume that somebody who is presenting with a particular identity is biologically that identity.

That wasn't actually my point, sorry. I think we've both drifted slightly from what I was originally trying to say.

My position is that "biologically that identity" is a meaningless phrase. You could sleep with a woman who happens to have a chromosomal arrangement other than XX, and it's entirely possible that neither you nor she will ever know that. Even if we accept that 98% of women are XX, so what? A woman who isn't XX isn't any less a woman. How could she possibly be less a woman, if she has no idea that she isn't XX? And how, if you find her attractive, and you have no way of knowing her chromosomes, are they of any relevance at all?

I really can't be bothered to do the statistical analysis to work out the probability of having slept with someone with an unusual chromosomal arrangement for a given number of sexual partners, but I fully expect that it will ramp up surprisingly fast. Probabilities tend to do that. So, given that it's hidden information that can easily have no visible effect, why is it that you're so set on the idea of chromosomes being important in a sexual relationship?

[AMFV]

That wasn't actually my point, sorry. I think we've both drifted slightly from what I was originally trying to say.

My position is that "biologically that identity" is a meaningless phrase. You could sleep with a woman who happens to have a chromosomal arrangement other than XX, and it's entirely possible that neither you nor she will ever know that. Even if we accept that 98% of women are XX, so what? A woman who isn't XX isn't any less a woman. How could she possibly be less a woman, if she has no idea that she isn't XX? And how, if you find her attractive, and you have no way of knowing her chromosomes, are they of any relevance at all?

Well, in my own case, given that children are an important part of any long term relationship I'm going to be entering into. It's pretty likely that I would find this out. And that's okay. Because again, I get to set whatever standards I want about whom I sleep with. Also note that 98% number INCLUDES transwomen, who would be aware of their status, and thus if they were discussing it would be choosing to do so. Rather than a woman who might not know about hers. That number was 99.95%.

I really can't be bothered to do the statistical analysis to work out the probability of having slept with someone with an unusual chromosomal arrangement for a given number of sexual partners, but I fully expect that it will ramp up surprisingly fast. Probabilities tend to do that. So, given that it's hidden information that can easily have no visible effect, why is it that you're so set on the idea of chromosomes being important in a sexual relationship?

Again, the number of women who are intersex and with chromosome issues was .05% not 2%. The two percent number was for "women that are not effectively represented by chromosomes" a number that includes the trans population. And since transwomen are aware of their status that fundamentally alters the dynamic here.

The first reason why I'm set on it, is that in the case of transwomen, not revealing their identity because they are concerned about rejection is that this is a deliberate deception. That's not a good thing to be doing if you actually care about the person you're sleeping with. If I knew that something about myself was something that would make 97 percent of a specific group not want to sleep with me, you can bet that I would talk to them about that before taking my pants off. Because I'm not willing to trick somebody into sleeping with me. I have too much respect to be willing to do that, and I feel that so should everybody.

Edit:

Also I did the math, if you're counting transpeople who might not be admitting it and saying that's all transpeople (meaning that no transpeople would admit to being trans and that all of them could pass). You would need at least thirty four sexual partners before you have more than a 50 percent chance of having slept with a woman for whom chromosomes are not an effective representation. That's more than double the average number of sexual partners. So very likely very few people have ever slept with somebody matching that description.

If we assume that transpeople would mention this and thus would be excluded. So only including the .05% of people who would not be aware of their chromosome status... you would start running into numbers more than 500 partners before you'd have even better than a one in four chance of having slept with a woman that was chromosomally not a woman. (The calculator I was using for probabilities refused to go higher than 500 trials.)

[Heliomance]

Well, in my own case, given that children are an important part of any long term relationship I'm going to be entering into. It's pretty likely that I would find this out.

Not all of those women are infertile, either. But what that means is that fertility is important to you, not that being cis is. I wouldn't consider a trans woman dishonest if she went "sorry I'm infertile" without going in to more details, and yes, the infertility might be a deal breaker. That's fine, I'm not saying it's not. But fertility cannot be a determinant of "biological sex" unless you're prepared to say that every infertile woman, no matter the reason for her infertility, is not biologically a woman.

Biological sex is not a useful descriptor. This is my point, this is the only point in actually trying to make. There is no characteristic that provides a consistent definition of sex. Genital configuration can be surgically altered, or can be ambiguous. Hormones can be changed with medication, or by things like PCOS. Chromosomes, as discussed, are not reliable. There is no test that you can possibly do that will not result in some people that are obviously men being categorised as women, and some people that are obviously women being categorised as men.

Biology is messy. Sex is made up of so many different parts that dividing it into neat "male" and "female" boxes is impossible. There are statistical trends, but that's all they are. A "biological woman" is just a collection of probabilities. She probably has a uterus. She probably has high levels of oestrogen and low levels of testosterone. She probably has the ability to bear children. She probably has XX chromosomes.

She is probably an outlier on at least one of those categories.

There are many, many reasons why you might choose not to sleep with someone. "Biological sex" is not a useful criteria, because it doesn't unambiguously identify a clearly defined set.

[Anymage]

If you were attracted to someone, dated them, had sex with them, enjoyed the relationship, then learned they dye their head and aren't a natural red-head, and suddenly were disgusted by them and kicked them out of your life... I would find it as gross as people doing it to a transwoman.

Out of curiosity, what are acceptable reasons to not date somebody/dump somebody, vs. what reasons make a person a nasty bigot?

I know it sucks when lots of people automatically disqualify you for a trait that you can't really control. Trying to police people's choices does not end well, though.

I feel like if something is a dealbreaker for a person, especially something that's not observable, it's that person's responsibility to bring it up.

I totally agree. If someone's partners don't want to date a poly person, it's on them to ask whether my using words like "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" carry an implied promise of monogamy. Similarly, if they don't want to catch HIV, it's on them to ask about that specifically.

Again, I get how it sucks when you're excluded for one certain trait, and it can be easier in the short term to insist that it's on the other person to ask if that one particular trait is so important. There are a crapton of traits that other people might consider important, though, and no reasonable way to touch on all of them. Deciding to play legal gotcha instead of engaging in good-faith communication, even about potential drawbacks/dealbreakers you might have, strikes me as a horrible basis for a functional, long-term relationship.

[Jormengand]

Just because the mods are asleep doesn't stop this being a thing, guys:

- If you came here just to tell LGBTAI+ people that they're doing everything wrong, or to otherwise act like a bigot, please go away.

[Liquor Box]

Would you folks consider it homophobic if person A lost interest in person B when they found out that person B once had relations with someone of their own gender?

Why or why not?

To me, whether you label it homophobic or not doesn't matter (and probably depends on what definition of homophobic you use, so is somewhat semantic). If a person feels less attracted to someone, for any reason whatsoever, then they are entitled to feel that way, and they are entitled to make a choice not to have sex with that person. It's not the choice i would make, but they are entitled to make it.

A similar real world situation that I read about just yesterday - a woman dumped her fiance shortly before their wedding because she found out that he watched porn. Again, dumping him would not have been the choice i would have made, but what I (or anyone else) thinks is irrelevant. I can;t believe I have to keep repeating this, but should always be able to make a choice to not have sex with a person.

Edit: To be clear. This thread is not to debate our ****ing existence.

Has anyone sought to debate your existence? I haven't seen anyone say anything that even vaguely hints that trans people or gay people should not exist. Just that trans people or gay people or any other people at all don't have the right to regulate whether other people can choose not to have sex with them. People are allowed to choose not to have sex with gays/trans people (or anyone else) for any reason they like.

If you were attracted to someone, dated them, had sex with them, enjoyed the relationship, then learned they dye their head and aren't a natural red-head, and suddenly were disgusted by them and kicked them out of your life... I would find it as gross as people doing it to a transwoman.

I think this analogy is slightly false because the premise is "enjoyed a relationship", then "kicked them out of your life". The reason this conduct is slightly off-putting is because the long-standing emotional connection was put aside for a superficial reason.

Would you find it equally 'gross' if a person had only one date with a red head, during that date found out that the supposed red head actually died their grey hair red, so chose not have a second date. It may still be superficial, but seems to me to be no more morally blameworthy than selecting on the basis of any other thing that inspires sexual attraction.

As stated above, biological sex is basically a made up thing.

Just because it has been stated above does not make it true, and I suspect you are overstated your case here.

Biological sex is not a 'made up thing' just because it is not easily scientifically defined. It just means that the word is less useful than if it was more precisely defined. If it is defined in a way that means some people are neither biologically women or biologically men, that also does not mean it is a made up thing, it just means that it is not a word that encompasses all people (perhaps it does if intersex is another biological sex).

To put it another way, it doesn't mean that 'gender' is a made up thing just because there is not consensus on one key characteristic that absolutely defines a person's gender. The word is still useful and still means something because (at least in this thread) people usually have a fair idea of the concept that is being communicated, even if on odd occasions may arise which might fall outside what some people understand the word to mean.

I think your point is that biological sex is not as clear cut as some people think, but that does not make it not a thing at all.

[Jormengand]

Would you find it equally 'gross' if a person had only one date with a red head, during that date found out that the supposed red head actually died their grey hair red, so chose not have a second date.

Of course, this means that you have a moral duty to disclose if you dye your hair, because the other person might find you less attractive for entirely irrational reasons if they found out. After all, they used to have grey hair, so no-one who likes grey-haired people could find them attractive, just the same way that I'm the only person in this thread who could find anyone attractive because everyone used to be a kid.

[Razade]

Of course, this means that you have a moral duty to disclose if you dye your hair, because the other person might find you less attractive for entirely irrational reasons if they found out. After all, they used to have grey hair, so no-one who likes grey-haired people could find them attractive, just the same way that I'm the only person in this thread who could find anyone attractive because everyone used to be a kid.

The only person who even brought "moral obligation" into this discussion has been gone for almost two whole pages now. Liquor Box is not, has not, arguing for a moral duty. People would be way less hostile if you'd stop straw manning them.

As to the topic on hand, I made my stance firm the last time it came up only for Jorm and a few others to accuse me of being a transphobe simply because I disagreed with them. I forsee a similar thing going down honestly.

Also ya know. Called it. I'd ask what my prize was but I think I'm looking at it.

[Liquor Box]

Of course, this means that you have a moral duty to disclose if you dye your hair, because the other person might find you less attractive for entirely irrational reasons if they found out. After all, they used to have grey hair, so no-one who likes grey-haired people could find them attractive, just the same way that I'm the only person in this thread who could find anyone attractive because everyone used to be a kid.

As Razade said, I haven't said anything at all about whether trans people have a moral duty to disclose their trans-ness to a potential sexual partner. My only comment on the issue was to agree with Hekiomance that it was polite to do so where a person's genitals don't match their gender presentation.

If the person who died their hair knew that their potential partner had a particular thing against having sex with people whose hair was not naturally red, then I do think it would be a tad deceitful to not say anything (and therefore polite to say something). But if they had no way of knowing that the other person would refuse sex if they knew about the grey hair, then I don't think that needed to volunteer the information.

[Sahe]

Genetics and Chromosomes are pretty useless when talking about who we're attracted to. Nobody is attracted to genes, if anything we're attracted to how these genes express theselves ie phenotype.

And even that is a reductive statement, because we're not just attracted to a persons looks. Voice, mannerism, personality and a lot more things play into this.

Regarding the statistics about how many people would date a trans person a thing to keep in mind here is that there is quite a bit of negative bias against trans people and when cis people think about trans people they most certainly have a specific mental image, considering her fame probably Catelyn Jenner and not for example a trans woman who transitioned in her teens and never even went through male puberty. So how much of this statistic is informed by personal and societal bias against trans people?

[Heliomance]

Out of curiosity, what are acceptable reasons to not date somebody/dump somebody, vs. what reasons make a person a nasty bigot?

Honestly, I think it comes down to "does it affect you?"

Does your partner being infertile affect you? Yes, if you want children.

Does your partner being bisexual affect you? No.

Does your partner not meeting your aesthetic criteria affect you? Yes, it affects whether you find them attractive.

Does your partner being trans affect you? Well, that's more complicated. But if:
A) They meet your aesthetic criteria
B) Their genital configuration is indistinguishable from your preferences
C) You're okay with them being infertile
Then no, I can't really think of any way it does.

Your partner's chromosomes certainly don't affect you apart from possible fertility issues.

[Castaras]

Mod of the Apocalypse: Locked for review.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Thread re-opened after review.

As a reminder to everyone, please be sure to review the Forum Rules, especially in regards to what topics are appropriate to discuss on this site.

Furthermore, please do not attempt to carry over previous discussions from other threads, as noted under External Baggage.

[Raistlin1040]

Earlier in the thread, someone said that ethnic preferences are normal and that it's okay to say "I don't date / I'm not attracted to [insert ethnicity]", and that idea wasn't really challenged, because the subject of this conversation is specifically trans people rather than anything about race, but I want to go back to that initial, heretofore unchallenged, assertion.

If you make the statement, "I'm not attracted to black people," let's say, you have in your mind the 'idea' of what a black person looks like, and that idea is informed by culture and media as much (if not more so) as real experience. You don't like wide noses, maybe, or thick lips. You don't like kinky hair. You don't find those features attractive, you claim. Okay, that's fine... Except those features aren't uniform across all black people. They just aren't, and also, when people feel the need to blurt out their dating preferences, those are never the things they mention. It's simply the vague, nebulous "I'm not attracted to black people". If it's a question of wanting to date them... Alright. I can understand that dating is hard and it's important to find a compatible partner, but do you really think there aren't black people who meet your education level? Your socio-economic status? That you just could never meet a black person who shared your interests, or your political and religious views?

Across all black people in the world, there is no physical commonality that one could point to, nor is there a single shared set of social experiences, so when people use racial shorthand to express their dating preferences, it isn't the 'people' aspect of 'black people' that's the issue; it's the blackness. The actual qualities, physical or otherwise, of any individual person aren't actually being spoken about. It's not the same as saying "I like beards" or "I like short women" or "I like muscular men"... Because whatever physical or social preferences you prefer, you could find people across all races that fit those preferences. The only defining feature of black people is their skin color (and honestly, not even that, since there's such a wide spectrum of ethnicities and color, too), and if you find the very feature of "dark skin" unattractive... 1) That's sort of racist, yeah and 2) Do you really think that just "happens" to be one's preference, completely divorced from centuries, if not millennia, of cultural conditioning? I know we all like to pretend we're rugged intellectual individuals, unmolested by society's influences, but isn't it kind of convenient how we just happen to live in a historical series of societies that more often than not were steeped in racism, sexism, classism and transphobia, and the "preferences" that people always want to bring up are at least adjacent to racism, sexism, classism, and transphobia?

And while we're on that note, to bring it back around to the subject of trans people.

It's more acceptable to be transphobic than racist, so people don't need to hide behind the veil of vague words as much, but the same dynamic is at play here. The strawman that people have constructed is that some six foot six, hairy, bearded, roided-out man in a thrift-store dress and fishnets is going to walk around demanding people have sex with them and their penis, and if you're not down with that, you're a transphobe. I don't THINK that's how it works. Again, there is an idea in people's heads that they know what a trans person looks like, and they aren't attracted to that, but in reality, whether it's height, facial hair, specific facial features, body proportions, or even genitalia, there are trans people who would tick every box on your list. Critically, there are also cis people who WOULDN'T, who you would still be attracted to or romantically interested in despite "failing" to meet your standards.

It's not the physique of trans people that is being judged as unsuitable, nor is it the chromosomes, the fertility, or anything but their status as trans. Whereas it was impossible to categorize an ethnic group by a single feature, the argued unifying trait for trans people is their genitals not matching their identity, and that being used as disqualifying. Tabling the validity of a genital-based attraction argument for another day, it's also untrue to say that all transmen, or all transwomen have the same genitalia. It's just goalpost moving. "I like feminine-looking women" doesn't hold up to scrutiny when presented with passing transwomen, so it becomes "I only like vaginas," which fails to hold up when presented with post-op transwomen, so it becomes "I only like real vaginas." It's not a good-faith expression of personal preference; it's an after-the-fact justification and excuse for stereotypes and mild discrimination.

Eventually it even moves to the "children" argument, but even that is pretty flimsy. For people who want children, adopting is always a thing, and even people who only want biological children of their own (which is an entirely separate weird construction), there are options. If your single point of opposition to trans people in your romantic circle is that your highest concern is having biological children that are also the biological children of your significant other, then I guess that's your let-off, but I also would hope that standard is being applied to cis-gender people with fertility issues as well, but knowing how these discussions go, it usually isn't. Things that are "deal-breakers" when applied to members of minority groups are often negotiable when applies to members of majority groups.

Ultimately, you can't usually logic someone into sleeping with you. If someone rejects you, you don't get to argue with them that they shouldn't have, and you're not going to change their minds just by pointing out that their closely-held "personal preferences" are actually the logical result of centuries of social conditioning. On the other hand, if you are the kind of person who will comfortably make a blanket statement of "I'm not attracted to black people" or "I wouldn't date a trans person", then you honestly aren't a good partner for those people ANYWAY. It's not so much that you should have to deal with them, as they really shouldn't have to deal with you. No one deserves a partner who is going to treat them poorly, or make judgments about them based on their race, gender identity, or any other intrinsic facet of who they are.

Sidenote: I know this is the question thread rather than the discussion thread, so I guess I would expect more cishet people here than in the other one. Even so, there's something off about using an ad populum argument in the LGBTQ thread to justify a majority group's (in this case, cis people) possibly-discriminatory opinion about a minority group (trans people), when all LGBTQ people have been a minority group subject to the whims and opinions of the cishet majority for like, most of history.

[Liquor Box]

Given that this thread was locked, and then re-opened, I considered forum rules before answering the below post. But it doesn't appear political or an otherwise banned topic. The earlier posts on the topic of whether it is OK to say you don;t want to sleep with people because their ethnicity, nationality, age, trans status, gender, religion etc have not been scrubbed, so I have concluded that it is ok to continue this limb of the discussion.

Spoiler: Talking about ethnic preferences is sex partners

Show

Earlier in the thread, someone said that ethnic preferences are normal and that it's okay to say "I don't date / I'm not attracted to [insert ethnicity]", and that idea wasn't really challenged, because the subject of this conversation is specifically trans people rather than anything about race, but I want to go back to that initial, heretofore unchallenged, assertion.

If you make the statement, "I'm not attracted to black people," let's say, you have in your mind the 'idea' of what a black person looks like, and that idea is informed by culture and media as much (if not more so) as real experience. You don't like wide noses, maybe, or thick lips. You don't like kinky hair. You don't find those features attractive, you claim. Okay, that's fine... Except those features aren't uniform across all black people. They just aren't, and also, when people feel the need to blurt out their dating preferences, those are never the things they mention. It's simply the vague, nebulous "I'm not attracted to black people". If it's a question of wanting to date them... Alright. I can understand that dating is hard and it's important to find a compatible partner, but do you really think there aren't black people who meet your education level? Your socio-economic status? That you just could never meet a black person who shared your interests, or your political and religious views?

Across all black people in the world, there is no physical commonality that one could point to, nor is there a single shared set of social experiences, so when people use racial shorthand to express their dating preferences, it isn't the 'people' aspect of 'black people' that's the issue; it's the blackness. The actual qualities, physical or otherwise, of any individual person aren't actually being spoken about. It's not the same as saying "I like beards" or "I like short women" or "I like muscular men"... Because whatever physical or social preferences you prefer, you could find people across all races that fit those preferences. The only defining feature of black people is their skin color (and honestly, not even that, since there's such a wide spectrum of ethnicities and color, too), and if you find the very feature of "dark skin" unattractive... 1) That's sort of racist, yeah and 2) Do you really think that just "happens" to be one's preference, completely divorced from centuries, if not millennia, of cultural conditioning? I know we all like to pretend we're rugged intellectual individuals, unmolested by society's influences, but isn't it kind of convenient how we just happen to live in a historical series of societies that more often than not were steeped in racism, sexism, classism and transphobia, and the "preferences" that people always want to bring up are at least adjacent to racism, sexism, classism, and transphobia?

I think it was me who brought this up and I am more than happy to explain further.

Just a couple of minor clarifications
- You are referring to a person who would prefer not to have sex with black people. I referred to the opposite - a black woman is entitled to say she does not want to have sex with men who are not black. Although ultimately the distinction is not important because I think either preference is ok.
- I didn;t say that ethnic preferences are normal, only that they occur and it is ok when they do. My impression is that inter-racial relationships are a lot more common in my own country than in USA, so others would be placed to talk about how common ethnic preferences in USA are.

I stand by what I said. I think a person is entitled to choose not to have sex with a person for any reason they like.

I cannot necessarily explain why people have racial preferences, because I don't have strong racial preferences myself (I am slightly drawn to exotic people of ethnicities other than my own, but I have also been with people of my own ethnicity) and i am married to a person of a different skin colour to myself.

However, I think that racial preferences need not be because of racism any more than a preference for people with red hair would necessarily be due to some discriminatory factors. I don't think it necessarily suggests any assumption that people of a particular ethnicity are less educated or anything else. Sometimes though, it may be due to racial prejudices. And while racism should itself be condemned, I still think a racist person is entitled to choose not to have sex with a person on the basis of that racism.

While it may sometimes be racism that is not the only reason for such preferences, and I don't think it is fair to assume that it is racism, or ask a person to justify themselves for not wanting to have sex with a person of a different ethnicity. Sometimes (actually most of the time I think) attraction isn't logical and I think there are probably many occasions where a person can't quite explain in a logical fashion why they are attracted to one person and not another.

The analogy of being attracted to people of particular hair colour is I think a good one I think. Sometimes you are just attracted to a characteristic (or put off by one).

Spoiler: Talking about people preferring not to sleep wit trans people

Show

And while we're on that note, to bring it back around to the subject of trans people.

It's more acceptable to be transphobic than racist, so people don't need to hide behind the veil of vague words as much, but the same dynamic is at play here. The strawman that people have constructed is that some six foot six, hairy, bearded, roided-out man in a thrift-store dress and fishnets is going to walk around demanding people have sex with them and their penis, and if you're not down with that, you're a transphobe. I don't THINK that's how it works. Again, there is an idea in people's heads that they know what a trans person looks like, and they aren't attracted to that, but in reality, whether it's height, facial hair, specific facial features, body proportions, or even genitalia, there are trans people who would tick every box on your list. Critically, there are also cis people who WOULDN'T, who you would still be attracted to or romantically interested in despite "failing" to meet your standards.

It's not the physique of trans people that is being judged as unsuitable, nor is it the chromosomes, the fertility, or anything but their status as trans. Whereas it was impossible to categorize an ethnic group by a single feature, the argued unifying trait for trans people is their genitals not matching their identity, and that being used as disqualifying. Tabling the validity of a genital-based attraction argument for another day, it's also untrue to say that all transmen, or all transwomen have the same genitalia. It's just goalpost moving. "I like feminine-looking women" doesn't hold up to scrutiny when presented with passing transwomen, so it becomes "I only like vaginas," which fails to hold up when presented with post-op transwomen, so it becomes "I only like real vaginas." It's not a good-faith expression of personal preference; it's an after-the-fact justification and excuse for stereotypes and mild discrimination.

I don;t think the discussion on previous pages did concern the strawman of a tall hairy, bearded man wearing a dress. I think the discussion was explicitly about a person that you had seen naked and did find attractive before you knew that they were trans, but decided you were no longer attractive after you found out they were trans. I think most people engaged in the discussion in this context, so I don;t think that there was the goalpost moving that you allude to.

Again, my opinion is that that may be because of prejudice against trans people. But it may not.

Some people find any sort of surgical modification of a person's appearance (significant facial cosmetic surgery or breast enhancement) a turn-off (hence some women being proud that "they're real"). That is, even when the person who has had the surgery was born a biological woman, and identifies as a cis woman, so such a preference can have nothing to do with trans people. A person is attracted to a non-trans-woman, until they find out that she has had significant cosmetic surgery, so go off to find someone who is 'naturally beautiful'. Not logical, probably superficial, but not transphobic and a preference people are entitled to have. We might expect this person to also reject a trans-woman once they find out she is trans (because that implied cosmetic surgery), which is again not transphobic.

The hair analogy applies here to. It is ok (superficial sure, but still ok) to reject a person who dies their hair (or wears a wig) to look younger than they are, even if you were attracted to them before you found out. It may not affect you in any way because they always keep their hair dies (or their wig on), but you are still entitled to reject them - and I imagine this happens from time to time.

Spoiler: Concluding remarks

Show

Ultimately, you can't usually logic someone into sleeping with you. If someone rejects you, you don't get to argue with them that they shouldn't have, and you're not going to change their minds just by pointing out that their closely-held "personal preferences" are actually the logical result of centuries of social conditioning. On the other hand, if you are the kind of person who will comfortably make a blanket statement of "I'm not attracted to black people" or "I wouldn't date a trans person", then you honestly aren't a good partner for those people ANYWAY. It's not so much that you should have to deal with them, as they really shouldn't have to deal with you. No one deserves a partner who is going to treat them poorly, or make judgments about them based on their race, gender identity, or any other intrinsic facet of who they are.

I basically agree with this.

I still think people have an absolute right to choose not to sleep with anyone they don't want to sleep with. As important as the right not to be discriminated against is, I think it is trumped by the right to not have sex with a person.

In saying that, I don;t think it is fair for me (or anyone) to assume that preferences people have in sexual partners that leads them to their own race (or another, which is not uncommon) is racist, or that similar preferences with respect to trans people are transphobic.

[Delta]

Eventually it even moves to the "children" argument, but even that is pretty flimsy. For people who want children, adopting is always a thing, and even people who only want biological children of their own (which is an entirely separate weird construction), there are options. If your single point of opposition to trans people in your romantic circle is that your highest concern is having biological children that are also the biological children of your significant other, then I guess that's your let-off, but I also would hope that standard is being applied to cis-gender people with fertility issues as well, but knowing how these discussions go, it usually isn't. Things that are "deal-breakers" when applied to members of minority groups are often negotiable when applies to members of majority groups.

I won't go into the rest in detail for lack of time, but I'm not sure I agree on this one. For many people, having biological children of their own is a huge deal, and I think it's a bit condescending to call this a "weird construction", that's quite literally one of the most basic evolutionary imperatives. And I've seen quite a few people breaking up or being broken up with because of issues regarding this topic, all of them cis.

That's not to say that this couldn't be used as a cheap cop-out to hide more transphobic reasons for a breakup, but the generalization here is contrary to my personal experience on the matter.

[Raistlin1040]

I just don't find the hair analogy all that compelling. I've known people to express a general preference when deliberately prompted to explain their "type", but I honestly don't think I've ever come across it as an expression of a negative preference. So, I've heard "I like blondes" or "I like guys with dark hair and dark eyes," but I've never heard (to my recollection), "I don't like redheads" or "I'd never date a redhead." It's fine to acknowledge a general preference, but not completely close off the possibility of any romantic future with someone who doesn't 100% line up with your that general preference.

As well, I don't really think you addressed the core argument I was making. There is not a culture of systemic phobia or discrimination against people with certain hair or eye colors (South Park being crass and insensitive, so South Park being South Park, notwithstanding), so even if you somehow met someone who was like "I don't date blue-eyed people," I think most people's responses would be something akin to "that is the weirdest thing I have ever heard, but... Okay?" It would inspire confusion more than pain, I think. That's not the case with people of marginalized groups. The cultural constructions of things like race and gender influence thought, so even if someone who says "I won't date a black person" is not attempting to be consciously racist (and even if they are fine befriending a black person, working with one, etc.), I don't feel like it's possible to separate "this is a result of cultural conditioning" from "this is my personal preference." They're linked. One might have an aesthetic preference (like for hair or eye color), but if the cultural construction of race, and the prevalence of racist thought and ideology throughout history, weren't there, then I think it would be more along the lines of "I'm open to dating anyone, but I have a preference" as opposed to the steadfast "I'd NEVER date a black person."

Just as an aside, the cosmetic surgery point, in my experience, is similar to the hair color point. People might have a preference, but I've seldom seen it used as some kind of after-the-fact loss of attraction, such as "I thought he was attractive, but then I found out he had his hairline fixed, so no way."

I did see elements of that goalpost moving, but not in the posts that remain, so I'll just leave it there. No, not everyone was using that strawman, that's correct.

I agree with you that everyone has the right to bodily autonomy, and you never owe anyone sex. My point isn't to force people to sleep with people they're not attracted to. My point is that if you have a bias against a certain group of people, you should think about that critically and try to determine why you might think that, as opposed to merely blindly accepting it. I don't feel like you "decide" that you think someone is attractive, you just decide whether you want to act on it or not. An attractive trans person is still attractive to you after you learn they're trans, because they haven't changed. If there's a decision to be made, it's not the decision not to be attracted, but the decision to re-categorize them as someone you refuse to act upon your attraction to. At least, that's how I see it, and I think that if people as a whole were more reflective about their biases, instead of just saying "that's how I am", then it would sort of head off a lot of discrimination, in all areas.

@Delta

You're probably right, it's probably just that I don't really get it. As a biological imperative, I understand it, but we've tossed away a lot of biological imperatives. It seems to me that if you want to be a parent, what you want is to nurture a life, raise a child, share experiences with someone, etc, and none of that is dependent on the child in question sharing your DNA. I definitely know people who dated for a few months, had the "marriage and children" discussion, and then broke up when it was clear their interests didn't align. What I meant was that in the (rarer) situation of "we've been together for years, and now it turns out I'm infertile, so my partner left me," it's usually agreed upon that the leaving partner is a bit of an *******.

Obviously, with trans people, it's a bit different as the question of fertility shouldn't really be a surprise, but I still can't fully wrap my head around the viewpoint of "I want children, but only if they're biologically mine." To tie back into preference, my experience has been that that's obviously most people's first choice, for a host of reasons, but people that were really passionate about the idea of becoming a parent with their long-term partner would sooner seek out other options than seek out another partner.

[Anymage]

It seems to me that if you want to be a parent, what you want is to nurture a life, raise a child, share experiences with someone, etc, and none of that is dependent on the child in question sharing your DNA. I definitely know people who dated for a few months, had the "marriage and children" discussion, and then broke up when it was clear their interests didn't align. What I meant was that in the (rarer) situation of "we've been together for years, and now it turns out I'm infertile, so my partner left me," it's usually agreed upon that the leaving partner is a bit of an *******.

First, if you've never seen anybody who had a strong preference for bio kids, I don't think your sampling is anywhere near representative. It's a rather common desire.

Second, it's one thing to abandon an established relationship due to circumstances outside anybody's control. Deciding whether or not to start a relationship with someone is another matter entirely.

I agree with you that everyone has the right to bodily autonomy, and you never owe anyone sex. My point isn't to force people to sleep with people they're not attracted to. My point is that if you have a bias against a certain group of people, you should think about that critically and try to determine why you might think that, as opposed to merely blindly accepting it. I don't feel like you "decide" that you think someone is attractive, you just decide whether you want to act on it or not. An attractive trans person is still attractive to you after you learn they're trans, because they haven't changed. If there's a decision to be made, it's not the decision not to be attracted, but the decision to re-categorize them as someone you refuse to act upon your attraction to. At least, that's how I see it, and I think that if people as a whole were more reflective about their biases, instead of just saying "that's how I am", then it would sort of head off a lot of discrimination, in all areas.

The problem with this is that once you start policing preferences, you don't get to call it off just because people have moved on past the preferences you want policed. Are you really going to hound down heightist girls who say disparaging things about men under 6'? Call people ageist when they find out that an otherwise attractive person is appreciably older than them? Call people politics-ist for refusing to date somebody with different political views from theirs?

This discussion has been had many times before in many other formats. The general reasonable consensus is that it's bad form to actively disparage people who you don't consider attractive (which includes most anti-trans posts, which always seem to have somebody insisting some form of "they're not real women"), but that opening the door to general preference policing is not something that you want to do.

[Liquor Box]

I just don't find the hair analogy all that compelling. I've known people to express a general preference when deliberately prompted to explain their "type", but I honestly don't think I've ever come across it as an expression of a negative preference. So, I've heard "I like blondes" or "I like guys with dark hair and dark eyes," but I've never heard (to my recollection), "I don't like redheads" or "I'd never date a redhead." It's fine to acknowledge a general preference, but not completely close off the possibility of any romantic future with someone who doesn't 100% line up with your that general preference.

Surely when someone says "I like brunettes" they are almost by definition saying that they do not like blondes as much? I mean people probably don't usually express it as a negative when talking about race either - I'm not sure I've ever heard a person say they do not like a particular race, but when a person says "I like black men", or "I like asian girls" they are still stating their non-preference for people not of those ethnicities aren't they?

As well, I don't really think you addressed the core argument I was making. There is not a culture of systemic phobia or discrimination against people with certain hair or eye colors (South Park being crass and insensitive, so South Park being South Park, notwithstanding), so even if you somehow met someone who was like "I don't date blue-eyed people," I think most people's responses would be something akin to "that is the weirdest thing I have ever heard, but... Okay?" It would inspire confusion more than pain, I think. That's not the case with people of marginalized groups. The cultural constructions of things like race and gender influence thought, so even if someone who says "I won't date a black person" is not attempting to be consciously racist (and even if they are fine befriending a black person, working with one, etc.), I don't feel like it's possible to separate "this is a result of cultural conditioning" from "this is my personal preference." They're linked. One might have an aesthetic preference (like for hair or eye color), but if the cultural construction of race, and the prevalence of racist thought and ideology throughout history, weren't there, then I think it would be more along the lines of "I'm open to dating anyone, but I have a preference" as opposed to the steadfast "I'd NEVER date a black person."

I'm still not sure I understand your core argument. Are you saying that it is fine (although odd) to not like particular eye colours, but bad (because they are marginalised) to say that you do not like particular skin colours.

If that's the point then I don't agree. I think that the preference for hair and eye colours demonstrates that people do have aesthetic preferences. Given that people have aesthetic preferences for skin/eye colour then it is likely they will have preferences for certain skin colours. And I don't think a person's right not to be discriminated against overrides a person's right to be able to choose to only sleep with people who match their aesthetic preference.

I do agree that what I am thinking of is more along the lines of "I have a preference for black people" rather than "I would never date a white person". The very strong statement does hint that it may be more than a preference. Even then though, they are still within their rights to feel that way.

Just as an aside, the cosmetic surgery point, in my experience, is similar to the hair color point. People might have a preference, but I've seldom seen it used as some kind of after-the-fact loss of attraction, such as "I thought he was attractive, but then I found out he had his hairline fixed, so no way."

How many times have you known a person to have found out that the man they were dating had their hairline fixed after the fact? Because, unless it's a pretty significant number of times, I'm not sure your experiences are sufficient to assume that it does not happen.

On the subject of hairlines, there is one very prominent american whose surgically enhanced hairline has been the subject of a lot of criticism.

I did see elements of that goalpost moving, but not in the posts that remain, so I'll just leave it there. No, not everyone was using that strawman, that's correct.

Great

I agree with you that everyone has the right to bodily autonomy, and you never owe anyone sex. My point isn't to force people to sleep with people they're not attracted to. My point is that if you have a bias against a certain group of people, you should think about that critically and try to determine why you might think that, as opposed to merely blindly accepting it. I don't feel like you "decide" that you think someone is attractive, you just decide whether you want to act on it or not. An attractive trans person is still attractive to you after you learn they're trans, because they haven't changed. If there's a decision to be made, it's not the decision not to be attracted, but the decision to re-categorize them as someone you refuse to act upon your attraction to. At least, that's how I see it, and I think that if people as a whole were more reflective about their biases, instead of just saying "that's how I am", then it would sort of head off a lot of discrimination, in all areas.

I don;t really disagree with this generally, except that I am not sure I would categorise attraction as a decision like you do. There are times when I would have preferred to have been more or less attracted to people I have known, and if it was simply a matter of consciously altering my attraction levels, I would have done it.

The problem with this is that once you start policing preferences, you don't get to call it off just because people have moved on past the preferences you want policed. Are you really going to hound down heightist girls who say disparaging things about men under 6'? Call people ageist when they find out that an otherwise attractive person is appreciably older than them? Call people politics-ist for refusing to date somebody with different political views from theirs?

This discussion has been had many times before in many other formats. The general reasonable consensus is that it's bad form to actively disparage people who you don't consider attractive (which includes most anti-trans posts, which always seem to have somebody insisting some form of "they're not real women"), but that opening the door to general preference policing is not something that you want to do.

This is really well put. I agree with all of this.

[Heliomance]

I'm going to put my hand up as part of the "strong preference for bio kids" crowd. I very much want my own children someday, and I very much want them to be formed from mine and my partner's genes. An inability to do that wouldn't be a total deal breaker for me, but it would be a hefty negative factor. I would have to be massively into someone to look past it.