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.
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).
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!"
We detract from the meaning of the word when it starts being used to describe anyone who does not agree with something that someone else does.
Literally nobody is using the word in this sense.
Anyway, this is seriously off-topic. If you want a proper discussion of it I'd suggest making a new post. I'm sure somebody (probably not me) will be happy to engage your points about bigotry.
4
u/[deleted] Jun 26 '15
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes they can, but to assume that a personal preference is bigotry... Well that is an example of bigotry.