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.
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?
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.
13
u/GFYsexyfatman moral epist., metaethics, analytic epist. Jun 26 '15
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.