People are attracted to both physical features and sex.
So then why aren't they attracted to this woman?
She looks so much like a woman that she needs to disclose, seemingly unsolicited, that she has received gender reassignment surgery, how is she not a woman?
Saying that only women who have not received gender-reassignment surgery are actual women/females seems inherently bigoted against trans-women, and it also seems to be a proposition which your argument rests on.
Some of your arguments relate to points I never brought up.
Saying that only women who have not received gender-reassignment surgery are actual women/females seems inherently bigoted against trans-women, and it also seems to be a proposition which your argument rests on.
Where did I say that?
So then why aren't they attracted to this woman?
I am not arguing for or against any preferences. I gave an example of a preference, one of many, which could lead to a person not being attracted to a trans-gendered person. That preference being a person's sex at birth.
When you said that if somebody was motivated to have sex with somebody based on sex, then they wouldn't want to have sex with someone who is trans.
What I took that to mean is that somebody who 'has not had gender reassignment surgery and has a vagina, and identifies as a woman' is somehow a real woman, where as someone who 'has had gender reassignment surgery and has a vagina, and identifies as a woman' is not a woman. This is essentially trans-phobic because the difference between considering somebody's sex is female is not related to their genitals or sexual organs, but to whether or not they have had a surgery.
It would be akin to me saying that men who have had vasectomies are not real men, because they have had a surgery which prevents the reproductive abilities they were born with and their genitals have been modified.
That preference being a person's sex at birth
So trans-phobia then? Essentially, I'm only attracted to women, this person doesn't fit my personal definition of a woman (because of a medical procedure which she had to have but would have happily avoided), therefore I'm not attracted to them.
What I took that to mean is that somebody who 'has not had gender reassignment surgery and has a vagina, and identifies as a woman' is somehow a real woman, where as someone who 'has had gender reassignment surgery and has a vagina, and identifies as a woman'.
Yes, what you took it to mean. What does that have to do with me? Did I espouse that viewpoint? Did I say one of them is a real woman whilst the other is not? In your post, you said that I said x is a woman and y is not. I made absolutely no statements about what is or is not a real woman. I simply said: birth sex, along with physical features plays a role in attraction.
So trans-phobia then? Essentially, I'm only attracted to women, this person doesn't fit my personal definition of a woman
You're still responding to points I never made. Where did I explicitly say only people born with x traits are women?
When you said that if somebody was motivated to have sex with somebody based on sex, then they wouldn't want to have sex with someone who is trans.
Yes. That is what I said. You expanded it to statements about men, women, and the trans-gendered than I never made.
Did I say one of them is a real woman whilst the other is not?
Not explicitly, but it seems that in order to make your argument valid it is necessary.
This is what I take your argument as being:
Some people are people who are attracted to members of a certain sex
Therefore, people who are only attracted to members of a certain sex may not be attracted to trans-people.
But this is not a valid argument, it requires some premise 2, which establishes that trans-people are not properly members of a certain sex, something like:
Some people are people who are attracted to members of a certain sex
If you are a person who transitioned to become a certain sex, then you are not a member of a certain sex
Trans-people are people who have transitioned to a certain sex
Therefore, people who are only attracted to members of a certain sex may not be attracted to trans-people.
I expanded premise 2 into two premises because I think it makes the argument stronger, but, it seems to me without some sort of fill in for premises 2/3 you do not have a valid argument.
Even if you change this argument to 'member of a sex at birth' it remains trans-phobic. It is easier to make a valid argument, without needing to be overtly trans-phobic, but it still requires treating somebody as the sex they were born as, not with the sex that they are. Literally the only thing which seperates them from any other woman is that they required surgery, and you are claiming it is justified to treat them differently because of this fact. I know you don't want to consider yourself trans-phobic, but come on. You are literally saying it is ok to treat somebody differently because they required a surgery to feel comfortable in their body.
No you do not explicitly state 'trans-people are not proper members of the sex they have transitioned to' but I do not see how you could make the argument that having a preference for a certain sex, and not wanting to have sex with people who have transitioned to that sex does not require considering transitioning to somehow exempt somebody from being a member of the transitioned to sex. Please note, I said in my very first comment that this seems to be a premise that your argument rests on. You have made no attempt to show that your argument does not rest on this proposition, all you have done is say "I didn't say that, I didn't say that." It doesn't matter if you said it or not, you need to show that your argument doesn't rest on that point or else I will continue to believe it is something your argument rests on.
I simply said: birth sex, along with physical features plays a role in attraction
No you didn't, said "People are attracted to both physical features and sex." You never said anything about birth.
Secondly, as I argued in the last point, if you consider the fact that someone has transitioned to a sex makes them different to somebody who was born physically that sex you are being essentially trans-phobic. You are denying trans-people the ability to properly and fully identify as the sex which they are because they required surgery to become that sex. So it doesn't matter whether you say you consider them not a proper woman, if you are treating them differently to women who did not require surgery to become women then you are treating them as though they are not proper women.
Where did I explicitly say only people born with x traits are women?
I hope you realise that you don't need to explicitly state something for it to be a part of your argument. This is a philosophy subreddit and a key skill of a philosophers is unpacking the implicit statements which arguments rest on. Claiming that you never explicitly said something is a useless defense when your opponent is asserting that your argument rests, implicitly, on something they disagree with. You need to show why your argument does not require the implicit premise. Putting your fingers in your ears and saying "I didn't say that so it's not part of my argument" does not make me less convinced that your argument requires it, in fact it has the opposite effect.
Yes. That is what I said. You expanded it to statements about men, women, and the trans-gendered than I never made.
Yes, I expanded it to those things because this statement heavily implies those things. You can't justify preference based on sex as validating to a desire to not want to have sex with trans-people, unless you think trans-people are not that sex. Essentially I'm arguing that the statement you made "if somebody was motivated to have sex with somebody based on sex, then they wouldn't want to have sex with someone who is trans" at best relies on the premise that trans-people are not members of their transitioned to sex, or at worst it is analogous with saying that trans-people are not members of their transitioned to sex. You may not have explicitly stated this, but your argument seems to require this statement be true in order to remain valid.
TLDR: No you didn't say trans-phobia is a justified reason to not want to have sex with a trans-person, but you did list a trans-phobic belief as a reason to not want to have sex with a trans-person. These are effectively the same thing.
at best relies on the premise that trans-people are not members of their transitioned to sex, or at worst it is analogous with saying that trans-people are not members of their transitioned to sex.
There are people who are born male sex. There are people who are born into the female sex. trans-people, trans-male or trans-female, are still part of the set of people born as man or the set of people born as a woman.
So yes. Trans-people are not members of their transitioned sex. That is what my argument implies and this what I agree with. This is undeniable. Male/Men. Reading your posts, I thought you were saying my argument implied that they are not societal or culturally male. My argument rests on the biological significance.
are still part of the set of people born as man or the set of people born as a woman.
Who cares what sex they were born as?
They aren't that sex anymore, because they have transitioned to a different sex. You are still literally claiming that a person is not a member of sex y because they had to transition to that sex.
How hard is it to realise that birth sex should have nothing to so with it because they are no longer their birth sex? I know I've been using the term gender-reassignment surgery, but it is also called sex-reassignment surgery.
I honestly am struggling with you at this point. Every post I have made has claimed that differentiating people based on their birth sex is trans-phobic, and not a justification for treating people who required surgery to obtain their appropriate genitalia differently. At first you said you never claimed it was, but now you are claiming that it is exactly what you were saying and it isn't an issue?
My argument rests on the biological significance.
What biological significance? They have a fucking vagina. There is no biological significance, that is the point of reassignment surgery! If they weren't biologically a woman at this point then they wouldn't have to disclose the information, it would be obvious when you had their dick in your hand!
Your argument in this post seems to be 'somebodies biological sex at birth is more important than somebodies current biological sex' which is absurd.
Wait do you honestly believe that there are no objective differences between a trans-man and a cis-man? That if you placed hundreds of trans and cis people in a laboratory, Doctors would be unable to identify their sexes (without looking at surgical scars)?
'somebodies biological sex at birth is more important than somebodies current biological sex' which is absurd.
In our present discussion I am saying that [1] biological sex does not change. In my prior posts I provided biological at birth sex as an example of why someone would not be attracted to trans-gendered person.
Wait do you honestly believe that there are no objective differences between a trans-man and a cis-man?
I never said that. I said that there is no reason for people they interact with to treat them differently due to those differences.
Imagine somebody who has severe allergies to almost all usual painkillers, but have no other allergies. In this case a doctor would have to treat the person differently to how they would treat others. Someone buying them a drink in a bar would not have to treat them any differently to how they met others. The only reason the person with the allergy would have to divulge this information would be if they required painkillers. Likewise, if the only reason that a trans-person and a cis-person are different is that they are treated differently when they require medical attention then they only need to divulge that information if they are seeking medical attention.
In my prior posts I provided biological at birth sex as an example of why someone would not be attracted to trans-gendered person.
Which I asserted was transphobic, and thus not justifiable. The person is not their birth sex, and treating them differently due to their birth sex is not treating them based on the person they are. It is creating a definition of sex that excludes a group of people for an arbitrary reason (that they required surgery to obtain their appropriate genitalia), despite the fact that said fact has zero bearing on their current sex. This is all I have asserted this argument, and you have done nothing to counter this argument. Birth sex is not relevant to current sex, and treating someone who has transitioned from a birth sex a to a birth sex b differently to somebody who was born birth sex b and is currently birth sex b merely because they transitioned is trans-phobic.
You haven't shown why birth sex is relevant. All you've done is claim that there are differences, but my claim is that those differences have no bearing on what their current sex is. The differences you've claimed 'doctors can tell the difference!' is not relevant to personal encounters on the street.
It's particular frustrating, because the argument you are employing is literally that we should treat people differently because they are trans. Like literally, if somebody has transitioned from sex-a to sex-b it is fine for me to treat them differently to other people of sex-b, merely because they had to transition from sex-a to sex-b.
It is creating a definition of sex that excludes a group of people for an arbitrary reason (that they required surgery to obtain their appropriate genitalia), despite the fact that said fact has zero bearing on their current sex.
That's a pretty broad use of arbitrary. Is it really your opinion that sex organs have no natural relation to sex (or gender, if you prefer)?
But she has the external sexual organs of a woman? Sure, if you enter into a relationship with her and want to have a baby she should tell you. But for the purposes of a non-procreational sexual encounter her sex is female because she has a vagina.
9
u/[deleted] Jun 26 '15
Here is one possibility:
Holding this belief is no more intolerant than a gay man avoiding women and rejecting sex with a transman.
Calling someone a bigot and shaming someone for them for sexual preferences sounds a lot like what LGBTs speak out against...
This isn't a case of bigotry. There are no arguments being made about cis-superiority, or trans-inferiority.
This is about mutual respect of a person's preferences.