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

[Liquor Box]

My point is that it's good manners to let a would-be sexual partner know if the genitals they will be interacting with are not in the configuration that would be suggested by your outwards presentation, before the fact.

I wonder if this is the best answer so far. To put something as high as a "moral obligation" is quit a threshold to overcome. Certainly though, it is at the very least polite and reasonable to let a person know if you are int he circumstances Heliomance describes. Also, I think a person who reaches between their partners legs and is surprised by what they find might be entitled to be quite upset.

The rule of law does not however govern your moral duty. Also to my knowledge there is no law anywhere which specifically requires trans people to disclose their trans status.

It doesn't govern your moral duty, but in most countries it does seek to reflect societies' collective view of what the moral duties are (while also having regard to practical realities), so it is not irrelevant to the conversation.

I don't think it is clear whether it is illegal for a person to keep it secret that their genitals did not match their gender presentation in common law countries such as USA, Canada, England etc. Those countries provide that it is rape to have sex with someone who has not given informed consent, and the line is not particularly bright as to what might fall short of the informed part of informed consent.

In another thread on this topic, someone brought up a somewhat analogous case from USA. A woman was not prepared to have sex with any men who were not Jewish. A man who was not Jewish had sex with her. The man did not claim that he was Jewish, but did not clarify that he was not Jewish (presumably despite knowing the woman did not want to have sex with non-Jewish men). The man was found to have raped the woman because the woman's consent was not sufficiently informed.

That appears to me to be analogous to circumstances where a cis person only wants to sleep with other cis people, and a trans-person who knows this chooses not to reveal their trans status. Whether the court would also find it rape in that case remains to be seen.

Not wanting to sleep with that woman after you find out she used to have a penis is definitely transphobic.

I don't agree.

No person should be required to justify their reasons for not being attracted to a person or for choosing not to have sex with a person.

If is not racist for a black woman to say she is only sexually attracted to black men (or white or asian men for that matter). Nor is it trasnphobic for a cis person to say they are only attracted to other cis people. Or indeed, per the example above, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to have sex with people whose religion differs from your own.

People should have complete freedom to decline sex with a person, without being accused of bigotry.

[noparlpf]

What I mean is, whenever somebody brings up "biological sex" to justify their subconscious bias around gender transition they usually don't know enough biology to try to define it. Male and female are two general categories that don't fit every case, and there's a lot of grey areas in between. (A number of other cultures have recognised this before too, not just a few weirdos on the internet.) The superficial differences that we perceive between male and female animals aren't actually all that significant and it's pretty easy to change some of the most significant parts. And there's not much point worrying about what something used to be vs what it is currently or you might as well worry about the parts of your body that used to be dinosaur poop or whether adults are still babies or even whether people are made of part of their mothers, which frankly is kind of gross. We're all just talking mud that's hallucinating slightly different versions of reality, why put so much stock in such an oversimplified concept as binary sex?

I can't comment on politics on this forum but I'm definitely somebody's worst nightmare. A stoned millennial biologist in the midst of an existential crisis and questioning the assumptions of the system.

[Amazon]

For years I have been suportive to the trans cause.

I went to events, I gave lectures and I even did voluntear work with kids who were kicked out their homes after they came out as trans.

I understand their pain and psicological struggle.

But I'll not stand for this, biological sex is real, I was born a woman and I'll die a woman and noting you guys can say will change that.

To say that gender is just a mental construct invalidates all the femnist struggle and it's quit entitled of your part, your movemnt can only exist becuase of all the blood and tears of femnist figths.

I'll not stand for this, it's an absurd, MY BODY MY RULES.

If I say I won't date males I won't date members of the male sex, post operation or not.

Just becuase the definition of sex is not of your liking doesn't give you the rigth to ignore it.

MY BODY MY RULES, otherwise you are committing rape by deception.

[Lissou]

However, while a transwoman may physically be female, they are still biologically male.

How so?

See, the problem is that when people use this argument, they usually can't back it up with anything other than "it just is!"
If you took the woman's blood to determine her gender, you'd see based on her hormones that she's a woman.
If you look at her and she passed enough that her partner had no idea until after being told (even if they've had sex), then visual inspection will also lead to the conclusion that she is a woman.
And if you want to go by chromosomes... Do you actually know what your chromosomes say? Because cis women can have XY chromosomes and cis men can have XX chromosomes. It's not as clear cut as people would have you think (even before you add intersex people to the mix) and even if it were, we don't know people's chromosomes so how can we possibly be basing our preferences on that?

People in this thread have said that if it's a preference for a set of genitals, it's one thing. What is being called transphobic is the idea that someone you couldn't have known was trans if they hadn't told you suddenly isn't datable anymore once you know. Because nothing has really changed for you, aside from the way you see them.

As for the original question, no it's definitely not a moral obligation, although I think it's probably a good idea in most cases.

[ArlEammon]

How so?

See, the problem is that when people use this argument, they usually can't back it up with anything other than "it just is!"
If you took the woman's blood to determine her gender, you'd see based on her hormones that she's a woman.
If you look at her and she passed enough that her partner had no idea until after being told (even if they've had sex), then visual inspection will also lead to the conclusion that she is a woman.
And if you want to go by chromosomes... Do you actually know what your chromosomes say? Because cis women can have XY chromosomes and cis men can have XX chromosomes. It's not as clear cut as people would have you think (even before you add intersex people to the mix) and even if it were, we don't know people's chromosomes so how can we possibly be basing our preferences on that?

People in this thread have said that if it's a preference for a set of genitals, it's one thing. What is being called transphobic is the idea that someone you couldn't have known was trans if they hadn't told you suddenly isn't datable anymore once you know. Because nothing has really changed for you, aside from the way you see them.

As for the original question, no it's definitely not a moral obligation, although I think it's probably a good idea in most cases.

Can a transwoman get pregnant?

[Amazon]

So if a trans woman looks like a man, dress like a man and acts like a man but "identifies" as a woman and I refuse to date her am I beign transphobic?

[Liquor Box]

What I mean is, whenever somebody brings up "biological sex" to justify their subconscious bias around gender transition they usually don't know enough biology to try to define it. Male and female are two general categories that don't fit every case, and there's a lot of grey areas in between. (A number of other cultures have recognised this before too, not just a few weirdos on the internet.) The superficial differences that we perceive between male and female animals aren't actually all that significant and it's pretty easy to change some of the most significant parts. And there's not much point worrying about what something used to be vs what it is currently or you might as well worry about the parts of your body that used to be dinosaur poop or whether adults are still babies or even whether people are made of part of their mothers, which frankly is kind of gross. We're all just talking mud that's hallucinating slightly different versions of reality, why put so much stock in such an oversimplified concept as binary sex?

I can't comment on politics on this forum but I'm definitely somebody's worst nightmare. A stoned millennial biologist in the midst of an existential crisis and questioning the assumptions of the system.

Whether all that is true, none of it is true, or somewhere in between doesn't really matter. People are still entitled to choose not to sleep with someone without having to justify it.

Their underlying reasons may not (will usually not be) logical, may be seated in personal biases etc etc, but that's ok. That is as true for a preference not sleep with trans people as it is for a preference for a more muscular or less muscular partner or almost anything else.

[Lissou]

Can a transwoman get pregnant?

I think only a minority of ciswomen can get pregnant. I'd have to calculate it. Now, you do bring up an interesting point: if the person in question wanted genetic children, this could be a reason to end a relationship: not because the woman is trans, but because she can't conceive. It does happen with ciswomen too so that can't be a transphobic thing.

EDIT:

So if a trans woman looks like a man, dress like a man and acts like a man but "identifies" as a woman and I refuse to date her am I beign transphobic?

No? People have been saying that is you couldn't tell that she was trans until she told you, and once you know you go "ew!" then you should take a look at yourself.
If you perceive someone as a man and you're interested in women, it makes sense not to be interested in them regardless of how they identify.

[Amazon]

"Nobody's responsible for validating the identity of somebody else, even if they do want validation."

No? People have been saying that is you couldn't tell that she was trans until she told you, and once you know you go "ew!" then you should take a look at yourself.
If you perceive someone as a man and you're interested in women, it makes sense not to be interested in them regardless of how they identify.

But don't you guys say that being a woman is a gender identy thing? That ebing a woman is just somethign you are?

I don't "look like a woman", I don't "dress like a woman" and I don't "act like a woman".

That's the ****ed up thing of you trans people, there is no "Dress like women" that's just a disgusting gender stereotype that needs to be overcomed.

I'm a woman not because I dress like one or act like one I'm a woman because I was born that way and the patheical society systematic oppress me.

[lio45]

And again I say: there are many positives to disclosure, but that doesn't make it compulsory. They can, perhaps they should, but they don't *have to*.

You two are talking past each other a bit here... he said it should be disclosed out of respect for the other person, which is basically your position (quoted above).

Person A: "As a general rule, one shouldn't lie to one's significant other, out of respect for them."
Person B: "There are many positives to not lying, but no one should *have to* tell the whole truth 100% of the time."

[AMFV]

I think only a minority of ciswomen can get pregnant. I'd have to calculate it. Now, you do bring up an interesting point: if the person in question wanted genetic children, this could be a reason to end a relationship: not because the woman is trans, but because she can't conceive. It does happen with ciswomen too so that can't be a transphobic thing.

Not even close to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility

According to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence over 80 out of every 100 women aged under 40 who have regular unprotected sexual intercourse will get pregnant within 1 year of trying. In the second year the percentage rises to over 90%.[14]

According to a 2004 study by Henri Leridon, PhD, an epidemiologist with the French Institute of Health and Medical Research of women trying to get pregnant, without using fertility drugs or in vitro fertilization.

At age 30
75% will have a conception ending in a live birth within one year
91% will have a conception ending in a live birth within four years

[Amazon]

By the goddess I have lived to see the day I would be agreeing and siding with AMFV and Liquor Box. Did not expect this day to come, such a huge plot twist.

[Lissou]

Not even close to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility

I'm not entirely sure if you were agreeing with me or not, but for the record, the stats you linked to specify "under 40", and age is the main reason why I believe only a minority of ciswomen are able to conceive, as fertile ciswomen have such a short window of fertility.

[AMFV]

By the goddess I have lived to see the day I would be agreeing and siding with AMFV and Liquor Box. Did not expect this day to come, such a huge plot twist.

I don't know. I'm not really arguing here, just basically presenting evidence when somebody says something that I know is ludicrously untrue. Like saying that it's not a majority of Cis men who would be at the very least not likely to choose to sleep with a transwoman, or saying that only a minority of cis women can naturally conceive. Cause you can't have a reasonable discussion starting from those absurdist starting points.

[2D8HP]

By the goddess I have lived to see the day I would be agreeing and siding with AMFV and Liquor Box. Did not expect this day to come, such a huge plot twist.

Not even on favored games and webcomics?

[AMFV]

I'm not entirely sure if you were agreeing with me or not, but for the record, the stats you linked to specify "under 40", and age is the main reason why I believe only a minority of ciswomen are able to conceive, as fertile ciswomen have such a short window of fertility.

There were about 125.9 million adult women in the United States in 2014. The number of men was 119.4 million. At age 85 and older, there were almost twice as many women as men (4 million vs. 2.1 million). People under 21 years of age made up over a quarter of the U.S. population (27.1%), and people age 65 and over made up one-seventh (14.5%).[11] The national median age was 37.8 years in 2015.[12]

The median age is under 40. 90% of people under forty can conceive without any trouble.

At age 40
44% will have a conception ending in a live birth within one year
64% will have a conception ending in a live birth within four years[15]

At age forty it's still a majority of women who can conceive, although a smaller majority.

According to the most recent estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, the average age of first marriage for women in 2017 was 27.4 years. For men, it’s slightly older at 29.5 years. That’s the longest Americans have ever waited to get married.

To put it in perspective, in 1990, the average age of marriage for women was 24; in 1980 it was 22; and back in the 50s, it was only 20.

So the dating pool for women is largely fertile women under age 30. Since around fifty percent of them will be married by age 28. I mean there are divorces that will complicate this. But statistically speaking most women who are dating, will be able to having children. At least in the US, and very likely elsewhere as well.

[noparlpf]

Guess you'd be horrified to know the LGBT rights movement was started by trans women, huh?

[Lissou]

So the dating pool for women is largely fertile women under age 30. Since around fifty percent of them will be married by age 28. I mean there are divorces that will complicate this. But statistically speaking most women who are dating, will be able to having children. At least in the US, and very likely elsewhere as well.

Hm, I thought the median age would be higher. How does the fact that this seems to be a genderless median age and there are twice as many women over 85 as men affect that? The median for women would presumably be higher, but probably not by a huge amount.
I was also including women too young to conceive, but I admite it's a bit disingenuous since the conversation was about sexual relationships, not the gender as a whole. And adding the ciswomen who can't conceive within the (usually) fertile window may not make a huge difference.

You'll still have the ciswomen who don't want genetic children, but yeah, it looks like I was wrong, a majority of women who are dating are able and willing to get pregnant.

Still, I think breaking up for that reason still isn't transphobic.

[AMFV]

Guess you'd be horrified to know the LGBT rights movement was started by trans women, huh?

A quick search shows that not to be entirely the case. There's at least one trans individual who funded the first movement in the US. But to claim that it was "started" by transwomen is not entirely accurate.

Edit:

Hm, I thought the median age would be higher. How does the fact that this seems to be a genderless median age and there are twice as many women over 85 as men affect that? The median for women would presumably be higher, but probably not by a huge amount.
I was also including women too young to conceive, but I admite it's a bit disingenuous since the conversation was about sexual relationships, not the gender as a whole. And adding the ciswomen who can't conceive within the (usually) fertile window may not make a huge difference.

You'll still have the ciswomen who don't want genetic children, but yeah, it looks like I was wrong, a majority of women who are dating are able and willing to get pregnant.

Still, I think breaking up for that reason still isn't transphobic.

I agree that it isn't transphobic. Actually, when I was still dating, both having the ability and the desire to conceive children were pretty much critical to me. Because I knew that was something I wanted in life. I don't know if I'd have continued to have that as a dealbreaker if I'd fallen for somebody that couldn't, but I did go out of my way to avoid dating people who were't going in that direction.

[Amazon]

Guess you'd be horrified to know the LGBT rights movement was started by trans women, huh?

Funny I had no idea the Daughters of Bilitis were trans.

Oh wait they weren't.

[Eldest]

So, some basic terms here, as I understand it.

Gender: One of the numerous varieties of labels you can apply to yourself.

Gender Identity: which of said genders you identify as. Man, Woman, Nonbinary, Agender, Genderfluid, Genderqueer, etc.

Gender Expression: how you express your gender. You could be a woman who enjoys wearing suits, sundresses, or being a nudist, and that could all be related (or unrelated!) to your expression of how you relate to your gender identity.

("Biological") Sex: This is going to be the longest one, because it seems to be primarily what's being fought over now. Which box you're put into, based on a variety of primary and secondary sexual characteristics that you express.

The reason it's considered to be a aspect that's applied by society, instead of something inherent, is because of the wide variety of mixing and matching of those sexual characteristics each individual might have. You could have somebody with XXY chromosomes, a flat chest, an adam's apple, and a vagina. You could have somebody with small breasts, XY chromosomes, and a penis. You cannot declare any one aspect as "this is what determines your sex", since they're all so interwoven. The latest scientific opinion on it, that I recall, is that "everyone has a sex of their own, specific to them".

If anybody has any questions about this, and wishes to politely ask them, I'd be happy to answer them. Since, after all this thread is for asking queer people questions and then listening to them when they give you the answers, yes?

[Sahe]

Thanks Eldest for pointing all that out, I was about to say something. The last couple of pages are pretty much a ****show, if very enlightening about the opinions some people hold.

[lio45]

Not wanting to sleep with that woman after you find out she used to have a penis is definitely transphobic.

I think I agree with Liquor Box that nothing can ever be "-phobic" in terms of preference in the bedroom.

If I'm only attracted to redheads, I wouldn't find it fair to be labeled "nonredhead-phobic"; it wouldn't anywhere near automatically translate into me tending to not hire non-redheads as an employer, or not accepting to let in any non-redhead tenants as a landlord.

Someone offered another good example last page: it's fair enough to not be attracted to black people. Which is entirely different from having racist behaviors as an employer or landlord or even just in your daily interactions with other people.

You're entitled to being treated with respect, but you're not entitled to a guarantee that you can make me horny nor to a guarantee that I'd want you in my bedroom. (Which of course goes both ways.) There's no other possible place to draw this line.

[EternalMelon]

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?

[Eldest]

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?

It is homophobic. I'm confused why you could even argue that "you're bi, ergo I am not interested in you" could not be homophobic.

Edit: To be clear. This thread is not to debate our ****ing existence. Devil's advocate positions, promoting homophobia, and such should not be on this thread. To quote the initial post:

- 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.

[Mystic Muse]

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.

Here's an example of my own. A dealbreaker for me in a relationship is whether or not the person wants a big, extravagant wedding. I would not be comfortable in a long term relationship with somebody who was hell-bent on having a big extravagant wedding, because that's a lot of money, and money issues are one of the primary causes for trouble in a relationship.

But it's my responsibility to bring that up, and why, because it's my issue.

So, if you don't want to date a trans person? I'm sorry, but that's your issue, and therefore your responsibility to bring up.

I'm not going to get into the discussion of whether that does or doesn't make you a trans-phobe, the point is that if it's a dealbreaker for you, how are they supposed to know?

And of course, as other people have brought up, this ignores the point that me telling somebody that I don't want to have a big wedding isn't potentially going to literally get me attacked or killed. Somebody telling you they're trans might.

[Lissou]

If I'm only attracted to redheads, I wouldn't find it fair to be labeled "nonredhead-phobic"; it wouldn't anywhere near automatically translate into me tending to not hire non-redheads as an employer, or not accepting to let in any non-redhead tenants as a landlord.

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.

[Heliomance]

You're entitled to being treated with respect, but you're not entitled to a guarantee that you can make me horny nor to a guarantee that I'd want you in my bedroom. (Which of course goes both ways.) There's no other possible place to draw this line.

... It has been clearly explained, multiple times, that we only consider it transphobic if you couldn't tell before being told. The situation here is not "if you're not attracted to trans people, you're transphobic" the situation is "if you're attracted to a person, you see them naked and you like what you see, maybe you even interact with them naked and enjoy it, and then, having been unable to tell they are trans, you find out by being told and stop being attracted to them even though nothing has changed, THEN you are transphobic".

[AMFV]

It is homophobic. I'm confused why you could even argue that "you're bi, ergo I am not interested in you" could not be homophobic.

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.

Edit: To be clear. This thread is not to debate our ****ing existence. Devil's advocate positions, promoting homophobia, and such should not be on this thread. To quote the initial post:

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.

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.

Here's an example of my own. A dealbreaker for me in a relationship is whether or not the person wants a big, extravagant wedding. I would not be comfortable in a long term relationship with somebody who was hell-bent on having a big extravagant wedding, because that's a lot of money, and money issues are one of the primary causes for trouble in a relationship.

But it's my responsibility to bring that up, and why, because it's my issue.

So, if you don't want to date a trans person? I'm sorry, but that's your issue, and therefore your responsibility to bring up.

I'm not going to get into the discussion of whether that does or doesn't make you a trans-phobe, the point is that if it's a dealbreaker for you, how are they supposed to know?

And of course, as other people have brought up, this ignores the point that me telling somebody that I don't want to have a big wedding isn't potentially going to literally get me attacked or killed. Somebody telling you they're trans might.

The issue here is that probably halfish of the population are with you in terms of big weddings and half are opposed. As has been shown 97 percent of cis straight people would not want to date a trans person. So while that might be an ideal thing in a perfect world it's not at all a practical thing here. Trans people are also exceedingly rare. So this is the kind of thing that a person probably wouldn't even think about. It's like me thinking about the possibility that my significant other might be an orthodox Jewish person, it's really unlikely that would happen.

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.

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

Edit:

... It has been clearly explained, multiple times, that we only consider it transphobic if you couldn't tell before being told. The situation here is not "if you're not attracted to trans people, you're transphobic" the situation is "if you're attracted to a person, you see them naked and you like what you see, maybe you even interact with them naked and enjoy it, and then, having been unable to tell they are trans, you find out by being told and stop being attracted to them even though nothing has changed, THEN you are transphobic".

But again, that is a part of somebody's fundamental character. And it's definitely something that you should be working to accept here. Because again, it's a significant majority of people who are against this. If I found out that my significant other had committed atrocities in their past, am I required to ignore that if I "enjoyed them naked"? And it doesn't even matter because it's to do with respect, and you shouldn't be screwing somebody you don't respect.

[Florian]

How so?

The whole biological reason for sex is procreation, same as with most animals. Notice how one of the earliest questions that comes up when (trying to) engage in a relationship is about children, past, present and future? Sterility is still one of the higher ranking divorce reasons and, heck, look around the global south where fecundity is still something that people are generally rated by. The basic "core family unit" is still something that is seen as most desirable and in many ways, our societies are build around that. L/G/B fighting for same sex marriage, same sex adoption rights and other legal ways to conceive children and also form up that "core family unit" is ample proof to it.

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

Alternatively, if I'm actually wrong someone can tell me so.

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".

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.

Ok. I go to a club tonight to pick up someone for a one-night stand. I'm pretty open about my fetish and would only take someone home with a matching interest. So, now consider my picking someone up, off to the hotel it is, then she tells me: "Sorry, I'm not really into your fetish. But you're CIS male, I'm CIS female, so let's romp around a bit...." ..... cue into the sound of a door being slammed shut angrily.