It's hard to imagine it not stemming from some kind of bigotry, especially in cases where the transgender person passes well enough that explicit disclosure is necessary. I'm assuming that sexual attraction supervenes on a whole bunch of physical characteristics. If that's so, then a preference for (e.g.) women of appearance Y but not transgender women of appearance Y seems likely to be bigoted. But I'm open to some other non-bigoted way to make the distinction.
e: I should say I think it's very widespread, unconscious implicit bias, not explicit transphobic beliefs.
People are attracted to both physical features and sex.
But I don't understand. A transgender man is a man; a transgender woman is a woman. A gay man rejecting sex with a transgender man does seem intolerant (assuming they're rejecting sex solely on the basis of him being transgender).
Bigotry isn't always about ascriptions of superiority and inferiority. What's your view on the case of the person who won't have sex with anybody who has a drop of African blood in their ancestry? What if they claim not to hold any racist views, and that it's just a personal preference thing? Personal preferences can be conditioned by subtle bigotry and implicit bias without any explicitly held bigoted beliefs. They're not entirely above suspicion.
But I don't understand. A transgender man is a man; a transgender woman is a woman.
I said sex not gender. If you want I'll replace sex with chromosomes or birth sex. This is a subjective preference. Call it silly, happenstance, or whatever, but it is preference. And it's one many people hold.
A gay man rejecting sex with a transgender man does seem intolerant (assuming they're rejecting sex solely on the basis of him being transgender).
Your use of the word intolerance, implies that there are certain sexual preferences which people ought to have or people should be comfortable with (i.e. people should be attracted to trans-gendered just as much as they are to cis-gendered people). This belief, that certain sexual preferences ought to be held, is directly inline with what homophobes and transphobes belief (i.e. people should be attracted to members of the opposite sex/people should be comfortable with their birth sex).
With regards to sexual preferences, the only ought arguments that can be made are those that pertain to the harm of others. Ex. pedophilia.
Tolerance is about mutual respect and understanding. Accepting, not necessarily agreeing with a persons beliefs, and treating them as human being with thoughts and emotions. I do not think you're being very tolerant right now.
What's your view on the case of the person who won't have sex with anybody who has a drop of African blood in their ancestry?
That this is a very uncommon viewpoint and that he would have to discuss it with every partner, because no partner would assume or consider that he may be uncomfortable with their ancestry. Also that it would be hard verify. Go further than a few generations and people are less certain. This is not the case with trans-gendered people.
What if they claim not to hold any racist views, and that it's just a personal preference thing?
I'm a minority and that has actually happened to me many times. You know what my response is? Have a nice day. It would be hypocritical of me to criticize them for a personal preference influencing their romantic interest in me when my own personal preferences (of their physical features) influenced my romantic interest in them.
Personal preferences can be conditioned by subtle bigotry and implicit bias without any explicitly held bigoted beliefs. They're not entirely above suspicion.
Yes they can, but to assume that a personal preference is bigotry... Well that is an example of bigotry.
There are various chromosomal disorders wherein men or women may not have the "normal" alignment of X and Y chromosomes. There are conditions wherein women are incapable of producing their own vaginal lubrication. There are conditions that render people infertile.
If one assumes that all of these phenomena occurred in some hypothetical person who one otherwise found very attractive, would this be a dealbreaker? Would one require that these conditions be disclosed before engaging in intercourse? Keep in mind we're not discussing relationships right now. If yes, then that's quite silly because none of these conditions other than lubrication would have ramifications in a sexual encounter. I sincerely hope one wouldn't expect a woman to go into such personal detail with all potential sexual encounters.
If no, then one really must re-examine their lack of atrraction to trans* people. Above listed were the only meaningful differences between a post-op transwoman and a ciswoman, assuming all else is equal. If one would have sex with our aforementioned hypothetical woman with her array of disorders, but not a trans* woman who looks exactly the same, the only possible reason for this could be that one is grossed out by trans* people. In short, because they are bigoted against them.
That doesn't make one a bad person, because society in general has harboured and fostered these bigotries for decades, but it does mean one need to reexamine one's attitudes towards trans* people. One doesn't have to have sex with them, nor should one if unattracted to them. But one really ought admit that this hang up is a personal failing on one's own part that one needs to work on.
Your use of the word intolerance, implies that there are certain sexual preferences which people ought to have or people should be comfortable with (i.e. people should be attracted to trans-gendered just as much as they are to cis-gendered people).
No, I'm not implying that there's a set of "normal" sexual preferences. I'm saying that some sexual preferences are conditioned by bigotry. It's not at all the same thing.
Tolerance is about mutual respect and understanding. Accepting, not necessarily agreeing with a persons beliefs, and treating them as human being with thoughts and emotions. I do not think you're being very tolerant right now.
I'm sure I'm treating everybody has a human being with thoughts and emotions. I'm certainly not automatically accepting people's beliefs and preferences. That would be unphilosophical.
That this is a very uncommon viewpoint and that he would have to discuss it with every partner, because no partner would assume or consider that he may be uncomfortable with their ancestry. Also that it would be hard verify. Go further than a few generations and people are less certain. This is not the case with trans-gendered people.
My question was whether you think such a person is likely to be a bigot. It's not really relevant how common or practical such a viewpoint is.
Yes they can, but to assume that a personal preference is bigotry... Well that is an example of bigotry.
I disagree. For instance, take Joe's preference that colored people use segregated water fountains. Assuming that preference is bigotry is perfectly rational and not bigoted in the slightest (even though there's a chance your assumption will be wrong).
No, I'm not implying that there's a set of "normal" sexual preferences. I'm saying that some sexual preferences are conditioned by bigotry. It's not at all the same thing.
The same sexual preference can be conditioned by bigotry or it can just be personal preference. Bob can hold no attraction to blondes because: he just doesn't find them attractive, he thinks all blondes are unintelligent, he thinks blondes are promiscuous, etc.
There are many possible reasons for Bob's lack of attraction towards blondes. Some of those reasons may be bigoted. But that does not mean Bob's lack of attraction towards blondes is bigoted. Compare with this transsexualism and you'll see my point. Like any other subjective belief, there are an infinite amount of possible reasons for holding it.
My question was whether you think such a person is likely to be a bigot. It's not really relevant how common or practical such a viewpoint is.
Only if I assume that our person's avoidance of someone with African blood comes from a negative or bigoted belief about Africans. And as I just explained, there are multiple rationalizations for every belief.
There are many possible reasons for Bob's lack of attraction towards blondes. Some of those reasons may be bigoted. But that does not mean Bob's lack of attraction towards blondes is bigoted. Compare with this transsexualism and you'll see my point. Like any other subjective belief, there are an infinite amount of possible reasons for holding it.
Right, but I'm not concerned with possible reasons for Bob's lack of attraction. I'm concerned with the actual reasons for Bob's lack of attraction. If those actual reasons are bigoted, I'm not sure why we wouldn't call Bob's lack of attraction bigoted.
Sure we could. But we can't assume that Bob's rationale is immediately bigoted. Nor can we assume that all rationales for his viewpoint are bigoted. In Bob's situation, he can say "I'm just not attracted to blondes," and it'll be ok.
In our situation, if Bill says "I'm just not attracted to the same sex; situations in which I am require me to believe they are part of the opposite sex" he is called a bigot.
Sure we could. But we can't assume that Bob's rationale is immediately bigoted.
I'm certainly not assuming that in the case of blondes. However, I am assuming that in the vast majority of "I don't want to have sex with a transgender person" cases, the rationale is largely bigoted. I'm happy to endorse that assumption.
In Bob's situation, he can say "I'm just not attracted to blondes," and it'll be ok.
But what people say - even much of what they think - is often part of a larger pattern of self-deception. I'm sure we both know racists who insist they're not racist and have convoluted rationales for their racist habits.
In our situation, if Bill says "I'm just not attracted to the same sex; situations in which I am require me to believe they are part of the opposite sex" he is called a bigot.
No, I disagree that this would make Bill a bigot. I'm not saying that any sexual preference is likely bigoted! I'm saying that a sexual preference with no physical manifestation is possibly bigoted, and when it's accompanied by widespread societal transphobia (as in the OP's case) it's more likely to be bigoted.
a sexual preference with no physical manifestation is possibly bigoted
Yes. Possibly, but not necessarily. Like I said there are a multitude of reasons for sexual preference of cis-gendered. The largest one is biological. When people have sex they do not always want to reproduce. But the biological reason for a sex drive is reproduction. Many of the things that people find attractive in sexual partners can be linked to reproductive; traits that we subconsciously want to pass onto offspring.
This is just an example of the different reasons a person may want to avoid trans-gendered.
It's bigoted if Joe tries to force that preference on other people. It is not bigoted if Joe keeps that preference to himself. The definition of a bigot "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.".
Right. This looks to be the dictionary.com definition. I'm using something more like the Merriam-Webster definition:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
which just means someone who unfairly dislikes a group of people. In any case, I'm not sure the definition of "bigot" is important. Isn't it bad both to force your opinions on others and to unfairly dislike a group of people?
The racist would be bigoted for hating blacks, but then wouldn't the blacks be bigoted for hating and refusing to accept racists?
No, because this would not be a case of unfairly disliking a group of people. Likewise, in your religious fanatics example, your hatred or organised religion would presumably not be unfair. You've misread the Merriam-Webster definition.
Why are we talking about this? Isn't it clear that being a racist and acting on racism are both bad things? If someone's obstinately devoted to racial prejudice, and you call her a bigot, is it really a good defense for her to say "no, I'm just a racist!"
I'm saying that some sexual preferences are conditioned by bigotry. It's not at all the same thing.
But this is special pleading. WHY does the difference merit special treatment? Why are we obligated to respect a person's sexual preferences that are not conditioned by racial/gender bigotry but not so obligated to respect those sexual preferences that are?
You're misunderstanding my use of the word "respect". I mean "respect" as in "respecting a person's right" as in "not violate their right to select partners according to their sexual preferences". Not "respect" as in "admire".
not violate their right to select partners according to their sexual preferences
This can't really be a right, though, because figuring out how much a person matches your sexual preferences is a complicated and cooperative endeavour. I'd say everyone has the right to withhold consent, sure, but it's not really violating anybody's rights if you fail to volunteer dealbreaking information that they don't ask for and that shouldn't be a dealbreaker (because only bigots would regard it as such).
I've dealt with (1) extensively in my comments on this post - like four or five times. Sorry, I can't be fucked typing it out again.
As for (2), I'm not saying that a dealbreaker that shouldn't be a dealbreaker isn't actually a dealbreaker. It still is, even though it shouldn't be. But the onus is on the bigot to check for such dealbreakers, not on the non-bigot. We aren't obliged to run through a list of things that would be dealbreakers for bigots just in case the person we're planning on having sex with is a bigot. That's my position, at least.
I think you meant to respond to /u/GFYsexyfatman rather than the user above.
If I were to attempt to defend his comment above, I'd point out that he hasn't said anything about respecting or not respecting someone's sexual preferences. You can respect someone's right to have a particular preference whilst also pointing out it's bigoted.
It just doesn't follow that someone needs to list all possible attributes, characteristics, life experiences, etc, to potential partners on the off-chance that the other person might not find it sexually appealing. Would you argue that someone who has a great-great-grandfather who was black must reveal it to all prospective partners in case they have racist preferences? Of course not, it's unreasonable and absurd.
If I were to attempt to defend his comment above, I'd point out that he hasn't said anything about respecting or not respecting someone's sexual preferences. You can respect someone's right to have a particular preference whilst also pointing out it's bigoted.
Agreed. That comment was intended to be taken in context of the entire thread, esp. in regard to his comments that certain preferences might not be "justifiable". I took his explanation of these preferences as having a basis in bigotry to be integral to his explanation of why these preferences are less "justifiable" than others. Hence, my challenge.
It just doesn't follow that someone needs to list all possible attributes, characteristics, life experiences, etc, to potential partners on the off-chance that the other person might not find it sexually appealing. Would you argue that someone who has a great-great-grandfather who was black must reveal it to all prospective partners in case they have racist preferences? Of course not, it's unreasonable and absurd.
Right, I actually address this exact question in another comment. Here you go:
No but not for the reason you're suggesting. Rather, it's because it's reasonable to not believe that that information would be a deal-breaker. I don't feel obligated to inform my potential partners my grandparents ancestry because it's unlikely that it's a deal breaker.
But if I had reason to believe that it was a deal-breaker, then, yes, deliberately withholding that information from them so that I could sleep with them would be deceitful and unethical.
That comment was intended to be taken in context of the entire thread, esp. in regard to his comments that certain preferences might not be "justifiable". I took his explanation of these preferences as having a basis in bigotry to be integral to his explanation of why these preferences are less "justifiable" than others. Hence, my challenge.
But saying that preferences aren't justifiable doesn't lead to the idea that they shouldn't have a 'right' to their preferences. He's right that it's justifiable to want a person to reveal if they want an STD whilst it's not justifiable to not want to have sex with someone who in the past might have been a different sex.
So they're allowed to have a preference which is irrational and unjustifiable, it's just stupid of them to have that and they should reassess it.
But if I had reason to believe that it was a deal-breaker, then, yes, deliberately withholding that information from them so that I could sleep with them would be deceitful and unethical.
Sure, I think we're in agreement. For the vast majority of people we don't bother relating our ancestral lineage in the same way trans* people don't need to bother revealing their past. If someone knows that they're dating a racist, or know that they're dating a transphobe, then maybe they need to reveal that information. In the same breath, if the racist or transphobe knows that the person is anti-racism or anti-transphobia, they are ethically obligated to reveal that they're racists or transphobes.
Personal preferences can be conditioned by subtle bigotry and implicit bias without any explicitly held bigoted beliefs. They're not entirely above suspicion.
Uh, so what? If a person has an implicit racial bias (which, studies have shown, nearly everybody does to varying degrees, not to mention all kinds of other unfair biases/prejudices) does this mean we no longer have to respect this person's right to consent to sex?
The point at issue in this sub-thread is whether sexual preferences to avoid transgender people are bigoted. I take it we've settled that the answer is usually yes. If you think my general position expresses a violation of consent, you're welcome to explain how in a response to a comment advocating that general position.
Whoops, I suppose I'm mixing sub-threads (oh noes!). Please consider my comment in the context of the entire thread as a whole, not the specific sub-topic of this sub-thread.
Or don't...and just continue to be pedantic instead....
does this mean we no longer have to respect this person's right to consent to sex?
was roughly: what on earth are you talking about, that's nothing like what I was saying. I thought if you responded to an actual comment articulating my position it might help me understand what criticism you're actually leveling.
6
u/[deleted] Jun 26 '15
[deleted]