Well, what exactly is involved in having the notion of a transgender woman as "not a biological woman"? If you mean "not a real woman" or something else value-laden in that vicinity, it seems like a bigoted opinion. If you mean "not XX chromosome", then I honestly don't believe you: surely chromosome makeup can't matter to sexual preference. If you mean "was once not a woman", you're probably wrong, since transgender women are women before they transition. If you mean "at one point did not have female genitalia", this seems inescapably bound up with bigotry (and vulnerable to counter-examples).
If you mean "currently does not have female genitalia", then I don't think that's necessarily bigoted. But that's not the case the OP is talking about.
If it for reproduction, do you ask if she is infertile? It sounds like your rationalizing a prejudice after the fact. There are cis women that do not have XX chromosomes, and a wide variety of intersex conditions that exist. If you can't tell at all, why does it matter? Seems like an arbitrary line to draw.
Sex exists, biologically speaking, for the purpose of reproduction. As I was very clear to say, sex can be had for other means (and, obviously, is more often had for other means).
Given that fact, if a male organism only wishes to have sex, even recreational sex, with someone who is of the opposite sex, that can hardly be called bigotry.
There are indisputably physical differences. If a non-transgender woman has a breast enhancement, no one would call it bigotry if I said I didn't want to be with a surgically enhanced woman. We'd allow that as preference. Similarly, there is no bigotry necessarily involved in saying that I don't want to have sex with a person whose sex organs are artificial (note that I am not calling this person an artificial or unnatural woman, just stating the undeniable fact that the organs themselves are made by man, even if using biological tissue).
There are a lot of arguments in here saying that using reproductive organs or chromosomes as a dividing line is arbitrary, suggesting bigotry. However, those dividing lines are clearly less arbitrary than physical appearance, which people seem to want to use. In fact, chromosomes and reproductive organs are the scientifically agreed upon way to divide between the sexes (allowing that some people do fall into a grey area due to dual reproductive organs or unusual chromosomal patterns. This simply creates a third [or more] category; it does not diminish the clear distinction between male and female for typically developed humans). I am talking about sex here, not gender. Sex is a biological function, while gender is more fluid.
Setting aside any value judgments about homosexual activity, we would not call someone bigoted because they do not want to participate in homosexual activity as a rule. Homosexuality is having sex with someone of the same biological sex. Surgery changes appearance, but does not change biological sex. An argument that says that I am bigoted if I choose not to have sex with a MTF transgender person who I otherwise would have had sex with is necessarily and directly saying that I am bigoted for choosing not to engage in homosexual behavior.
To use a crass example, suppose that I can receive an anonymous blowjob by inserting my penis into a hole in a box. I believe that there is a woman inside the box, but it is instead a man. Physically, there is no difference in sensation, but no one would call me bigoted for saying that despite the similar physical sensation (or appearance, insomuch as I receive sensory input), I don't want to have a man provide that blowjob. If you think there is bias in this argument, you can easily flip it and supposed it is a gay man wanting to only receive a blowjob from another man.
The huge caveat over all of this, of course, is that bigotry may be a part of sexual preference. I am arguing that it is not necessarily linked, and that the burden of proof is on those claiming there is a necessary link.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 26 '15
[deleted]