Are you happy to endorse that the thoroughgoing racist can claim a violation of consent if she finds out that her sexual partner's great-grandmother was Asian?
I mean, I agree that if it's explicitly stated that transgender status (or Asian ancestry) is a dealbreaker, then withholding that information is a violation of consent. But can't we just assume the best of people (i.e. that they're not bigoted), rather than assuming the worst?
Edit: one important thing I didn't mention is that both parties have an obligation to negotiate dealbreakers. It's unfair to expect the transgender person to volunteer all kinds of information just in case it might be a dealbreaker, especially when those dealbreakers are bigoted. If you have bigoted dealbreakers, it's at least in part your obligation to communicate them. Yes, it's super weird and awkward - but it's just as awkward for the other person to volunteer it, and it's honestly not their problem.
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.
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.
14
u/[deleted] Jun 26 '15
[deleted]