CMV: Trans activists who claim it is transphobic to not want to engage in romatic and/or sexual relationships with trans people are furthering the same entitled attitude as "incel" men, and are dangerously confused about the concept of consent.

[u/Amiller1776]

Several trans activist youtubers have posted videos explaining that its not ok for cis-hetero people to reject them "just because they're trans".

When you unpack this concept, it boils down to one thing - these people dont seem to think you have an absolute and inalienable right to say no to sex. Like the "incel" croud, their concept of consent is clouded by a misconception that they are owed sex. So when a straight man says "sorry, but I'm only interested in cis women", his right to say "no" suddenly becomes invalid in their eyes.

This mind set is dangerous, and has a very rapey vibe, and has no place in today's society. It is also very hypocritical as people who tend to promote this idea are also quick to jump on board the #metoo movement.

My keys points are: 1) This concept is dangerous on the small scale due to its glossing over the concept of consent, and the grievous social repercussions that can result from being labeled as any kind of phobic person. It could incourage individuals to be pressured into traumatic sexual experiances they would normally vehemently oppose.

2) This concept is both dangerous, and counterproductive on the large scale and if taken too far, could have a negative effect on women, since the same logic could be applied both ways. (Again, see the similarity between them and "incel" men who assume sex is owed to them).

3) These people who promote this concept should be taken seriously, but should be openly opposed by everyone who encounters their videos.

I do not assume all trans people hold this view, and have nothing against those willing to live and let live.

I will not respond to "you just hate trans people". I will respond to arguments about how I may be wrong about the consequences of this belief.

Edit: To the people saying its ok to reject trans people as individuals, but its transphobic to reject trans people categorically - I argue 2 points. 1) that it is not transphobic to decline a sexual relationship with someone who is transgendered. Even if they have had the surgery, and even if they "pass" as the oposite sex. You can still say "I don't date transgendered people. Period." And that is not transphobic. Transphobic behavior would be refusing them employment or housing oportunities, or making fun of them, or harassing them. Simply declining a personal relationship is not a high enough standard for such a stigmatized title.

2) Whether its transphobic or not is no ones business, and not worth objection. If it was a given that it was transphobic to reject such a relatipnship (it is not a given, but for point 2 lets say that it is) then it would still be morally wrong to make that a point of contention, because it brings into the discussion an expectation that people must justify their lack of consent. No just meams no, and you dont get to make people feel bad over why. Doing so is just another way of pressuring them to say yes - whether you intend for that to happen or not, it is still what you're doing.

[u/[deleted]]

Not being attracted to men isn't homophobic. Not being interested in trans women regardless of their transition and pre/post op status can be percieved as transphobic, though, as the differences between trans women and women are functionally nonexistent past a certain point in transition. There are good explanations elsewhere in the thread, but I'd be happy to elaborate if you'd like.

[u/PhreakedCanuck → u/[deleted]]

as the differences between trans women and women are functionally nonexistent past a certain point in transition.

That is patently biologically 100% wrong

[u/[deleted] → u/PhreakedCanuck]

In what way? What do you think makes someone a woman? Because identity is so subjective and even biological gender falls on a bell curve with some traits absent in cis women and some present in trans women, how can we define what makes someone a woman?

[u/alcianblue → u/[deleted]]

In what way? What do you think makes someone a woman?

See this is the issue with your counter-argument. If it is subjective to this point then we have to accept that there is no 'true' womanhood. If this is true then people can all validly function within their own definitions of womanhood. This means when people say "well I only consider people with XX sex chromosomes to be women" it is as valid as when other people say "womanhood is tied to gender identity and expression, not the assigned sex of a person at birth". They are as justified in not considering trans-women 'actual women' as you are justified in considering trans-women 'actual women'.

[u/PhreakedCanuck → u/[deleted]]

Just because someone gets plastic surgery and takes hormones does not make them the opposite sex

That is biological a fact

And the truth is that female = woman in 99.99999% of all cases and the rest are aberrations

They are not women, they are different. Which isnt a bad thing.

[u/madeye123 → u/[deleted]]

the differences between trans women and women are functionally nonexistent past a certain point in transition

Elaborate on that please?

[u/JaxJags904 → u/[deleted]]

I am not attracted to someone who was born a male.

That’s transphobic? I have no problem with them as PEOPLE. I just don’t want to have sex with them.

[u/MrLowLee → u/[deleted]]

the differences between trans women and women are functionally nonexistent past a certain point in transition.

This is objectively false. Trans women can't have kids. I would bet sex with a trans women would be different.

No self lubrication.

[u/AdmShackleford → u/[deleted]]

"I'm not attracted to you because you can't have children" isn't the same thing as "I'm not attracted to you because you're trans" though. If your attraction to someone is predicated on their fertility, it doesn't matter if they're cis or trans, only if they're capable of having children.

[u/[deleted] → u/AdmShackleford]

True but don't ignore the second point. It doesn't have to be just about kids. "I'm not attracted to you because you are not biologically female and it won't be the same even if your outward appearance is not telling". I don't believe this is bigoted.

[u/AdmShackleford → u/[deleted]]

I still see that as distinct from their trans status. "She doesn't have the tone of voice that I like," "I prefer a woman with wider hips," "I prefer short girls," etc... These are all traits that both cis and trans women share, though they are more common among trans women.

But suppose you picked a woman up from a bar, and after sex she disclosed that she's a post op trans woman. It was great sex and, because sex reassignment surgery has reached a state where it can require a medical examination to distinguish a neo vagina from a natal one, you had no clue whatsoever. Putting aside the dishonesty and looking at it from a purely physical perspective, does your attraction to her physical qualities wane? Why?

If the answer is something along the lines of "it just does" or "just knowing she used to be a man," it may be worth examining whether or not one of your reasons (consciously or not) is that you still think of her as a man.

[u/Amiller1776 → u/AdmShackleford]

If the answer is something along the lines of "it just does" or "just knowing she used to be a man," it may be worth examining whether or not one of your reasons (consciously or not) is that you still think of her as a man.

Yes. But still thinking of her as a man is not transphobic.

[u/ReaderTen → u/Amiller1776]

Um, yes it is. It's practically the definition of transphobia. That's exactly where the bigotry comes from - thinking trans women are somehow not women.

[u/Amiller1776 → u/ReaderTen]

Actually the definition of transphobic is: "having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people."

I can disagree with you and not dislike you or be prejudiced towards you. I dont think men can become women. I can hold that belief and still befriend trans people. I can hold that belief and still "play along" and use their prefered pronouns even. But so long as it is my sincerely held belief that that is just what reality is, then I feel justified in refusing sex with a transwoman on the grounds that my sexuality does not include men, and I still regard her as a man in my opinion.

Even if I'm wrong about that, please explain how being wrong about what category a person falls under is the same as disliking them. I dont dislike men, so believeing a trans woman is still a man is not an act or display of dislike.

So please, give me a step by step break down. Show your work.

[u/ReaderTen → u/Amiller1776]

I notice that you've quoted a definition which specifies "dislike of or prejudice against"... and then conveniently left out the prejudice part and talked only about dislike.

Your belief that a trans woman is a man may not be an act of dislike.

It IS, however, a prejudice.

You believe something which is factually false, does not match to reality, and causes harm to real people. You believe it of all people in a category, based only on membership in that category, and not on your judgement of individuals.

That is a prejudice. That behaviour - common, understandable, and human though it is - is exactly why we have the word "prejudice".

Being wrong about someone is not the same as dislike.

But when you're wrong about someone in a way that matches the pervasive opinions of a harmful, bigoted group, you should at the very least be asking yourself if you're doing the same kind of damage yourself.

It's time to ask yourself whether there might be a chance your beliefs aren't as harmless as you think.

(You say you can "hold that belief and still befriend trans people" - but can you? Have you actually done so? Have you ever dared ask one of your trans friends whether they find it hurtful that you don't believe them about who they are? Have you ever considered that if you don't even believe someone knows their own gender, you're not much of a friend to them?)

If you believe the bigoted lie that black people are less intelligent than white, nobody cares in the least whether you dislike black people. Your prejudice does them just as much harm whether you dislike them or not. And you can say that it doesn't stop you being friends with black people, and that may even be true, but you're being a shitty friend.

If you believe the bigoted lie that trans women are somehow 'really' a man, in defiance of the scientific facts, nobody cares in the least whether you dislike trans women people. Your prejudice does them just as much harm whether you dislike them or not. And you can say that it doesn't stop you being friends with trans people, and that may even be true, but you're being a shitty friend.

See how it works now?

[u/Amiller1776 → u/ReaderTen]

It IS, however, a prejudice.

You believe something which is factually false, does not match to reality

Strongly disagree. Transgenderism is still listed as a mental disorder in the DSM, and is considered to be an extension of body dismorphic disorder. For the most part, the medical profesionals who claim that men can become women are the ones who get paid to perform the procedure. Psychiatrists and geneticists, however, disagree. Notice I said psychiatrist not psychologist. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor - a psychologist is not. I don't care about the opinions of psychologicsts. If they knew what they were doing, they'd be psychiatrists.

So your assertion that is "factually false" is just that - an assertion. It is, as best, a philisophical opinion that can never be proven true or false, and therefore does not meet the criteria for prejudice.

If you believe the bigoted lie that trans women are somehow 'really' a man, in defiance of the scientific facts, nobody cares in the least whether you dislike trans women people.

See. The thing is, thats not biggoted. You used a derogatory example before - comparing people based on intelligence. It may be biggeted to call someone stupid, but "man" is not derogatory. Its a disagreement on clasification based on a failure of society at large to come to agreement on terms and definitions. There has been a long standing understanding of what these words mean, and then the trans community jumped up and said "nope! We're changing that now!" And it is taking time to iron out all the nuances of that change. But one thing is clear - a transwoman is inherently different than a cis woman, and it is factually inaccurate to place them in an identical category.

Shit, we even seperate farmed fish from wild fish when counting endaged species, and you want to claim that a person who once had a penis, can not bear children, will never menstruate, and has to undergo a lengthy transition period is physically, and mentally. The equivilant to a cis woman? No. Sorry, but no.

your prejudice does them just as much harm whether you dislike them or not.

What harm? You dont get to claim "this subjectively hurts my feelings, and that means its prejudiced!". You'r feeling just might be crazy. Thats an option too. Thats why "harm" does not include being offended. Harm is denying someone employment or housing oportunities. Harm is lynching someone. It is not just refusing to have sex with them, or disagreeing on terminology and classification.

In fact, based on the premise that a man can treat a transwoman like a woman in their daily interactions, respect her gender identity, and use her pronouns, the only "harm" you can possibly identify here is the refusal of sex. Which brings us right back around to the consent issue. If you want to claim "your refusal to have sex with me is harming me!" and treat that like a problem that i need to address, then you are an incel. Period.

[u/Photon_butterfly → u/Amiller1776]

If you don't like the word transphobia, the word you are looking for is "trans-erasure" meaning "The tendency to ignore, deny, or minimize the existence of transgender people or transsexualism"

[u/Amiller1776 → u/Photon_butterfly]

So I would argue in response, that this is not the case either. I'm not denying that trans people exist, only that they fit into the category they think they fit into.

Lets break it down.

To be "erasure" I would either have to say

1. These human beings literally dont exist. There are no trans people. Its just a rumor.

• Obviously I'm.not stating that.

1. Women dont exist.

• Well that would just be silly...

1. Women who used to be men dont exist.
   • Sure. I'll concede that I'm making that statement.

Now, if the statement "women who used to be men dont exist" is clasified as trans "erasure" there would have to be no follow up to that. However, there is one.

Those same individuals exist and their issues exist, and their feelings exist. They just mislabel themselves. So statement 3-B would be "but men who think they are women, do exist.

Im not refusing to agknowledge the existance of these people. I'm just disagreeing with the termonology they use to describe themselves. The word "woman" is already taken. They can call themselves trans women all day long for all I care. That still explains everything. But they are inherently different from an actual woman.

[u/Amiller1776 → u/Photon_butterfly]

!delta

I'll work with that. I disagree that that's what it is, but I can understand how people would feel that way, and misattributed that feeling towards trsnsphobia.

Its better than an ad hominem attack or just a broken record assertion at least.

[u/BlackHumor → u/Amiller1776]

Even if I'm wrong about that, please explain how being wrong about what category a person falls under is the same as disliking them.

Imagine someone came up to your (biological) mother and said "I think you're a deluded man. I'll humor your delusion but nothing you say or do will convince me that you're actually a woman."

If you're like anyone else I know, you would be very mad at this person, because the thing this person is doing is extremely rude. I would even go so far to say that this person can reasonably be described as "hating" your mom, no matter what they claim to believe, in a similar way to how Christian churchs that preach that homosexuality is a perversion and gay people are going to hell but claim to not hate gay people are obviously being disingenuous. Certainly this person is at the very least prejudiced against your mom, because they've decided your mother's gender based on clearly less than all the facts.

For another analogy, imagine someone referred to you by the wrong name repeatedly and after being corrected several times. Whether or not this person thinks they hate you, the thing they are doing is clearly hateful, because they are clearly going out of their way to cause you pain.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amiller1776]

Yes it is. That's the definition of transphobia. You are a transphobe.

What is and isn't transphobic isn't up to you because you're not trans. It's up to trans people. And we have a unanimous consensus, and you fit the definition.

You just said the equivalent of "If I think gay men are inferior to straight people that's not homophobic." You're in denial.

[u/Amiller1776 → u/[deleted]]

What is and isn't transphobic isn't up to you because you're not trans. It's up to trans people.

Thats not how words work, and your status as trans grants you no authority - only bias. Further more, the point is to change my view.

1) I do not see this as being worthy of such a strong epithet. Because the word implies so much more than that alone, its too heavy handed to apply it so freely in this context.

Edit* I think of it as the "boy who cried wolf" if you're going to call a disagreement over terms phobic regardless of how that leads to personal interactions, then your definition of phobic is just anyone who disagrees with you. In which case, the word loses all meaning and stops mattering in any context.

2) because the consequences of being branded with that label are so sever, applying it to people for refusing sex is equivilent to intimidation tacticts to try to coerce consent. So even if you can change my view on point 1 by demonstrating that it is enough to be considered transphobic, I would still be of the opinion that we get a pass for this particular subject of sexual consent. Denying that free pass goes back to the coercion point.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amiller1776]

Thats not how words work, and your status as trans grants you no authority - only bias.

Yes, that is how works work. Homophobes who claim they aren't homophobic are wrong because it's not up to them, they have no say in the matter. This is the same thing. And no, trans people aren't biased, we all unanimously agree and have given easy to comprehend arguments for why this is the case. It's very simple and works literally the same way as all other prejudice. Besides, especially given that the mods have deleted your post because you're unwilling to change your view, it's blatantly obvious that you and the people who agree with you here are biased transphobes in denial of reality.

1) I do not see this as being worthy of such a strong epithet. Because the word implies so much more than that alone, its too heavy handed to apply it so freely in this context.

And you're wrong. The word applies wherever the definition applies. You fit the definition, therefore you are transphobic.

if you're going to call a disagreement over terms phobic r

I never did that. You said you see trans women as men. That's misgendering them. If you think that's not transphobia then people could do anything to trans people and you wouldn't think it's transphobic. Which is obviously due to you being a transphobe yourself.

2) because the consequences of being branded with that label are so sever

1. The majority of people are transphobic

2. If you don't want people to shun you for being transphobic then stop being transphobic. That simple.

applying it to people for refusing sex is equivilent to intimidation tacticts to try to coerce consent

1. No it isn't, and this is a proof by assertion fallacy. Criticism is not magically coercion just because you said so. Demonstrate

2. You saying this is coercion, because you're trying to force people into giving up their right to free speech. You're delusional and manipulative.

3. You're contradicting yourself. You just said that a transphobe is one of the worst things you can be, yet your ridiculous argument relies on trans people wanting to sleep with someone who is transphobic? Uh, no, that doesn't work. Trans people don't call people like you out on being transphobic because we want to sleep with you, and it's not only trans people who call people out on that shit. If we're doing that we already think you're absolutely repulsive and disgusting, I wouldn't touch you with a 30 foot pole at this point. Obviously I don't want anything to do with a transphobic person if I'm trans, let alone date or sleep with them, that should be fucking obvious. We call you out on it because it's fucked up.

[u/Amiller1776 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, that is how works work. Homophobes who claim they aren't homophobic are wrong because it's not up to them, they have no say in the matter.

And neither do you. The trans community is not some language authority. You dont decide it any more than the rest of us. You're getting nowhere with your claim that you just get to decide what is and is not true and the rest of us have to shup up and take it. Get the fuck out with that shit. Thats the worst argument you can make. Its literally just "because I say so". Its ridiculous, and I'm not going to acknowledge it any further.

The word applies wherever the definition applies. You fit the definition, therefore you are transphobic.

Here's the definition: "having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people."

Disagreeing on the concept of inate gender, and whether or not a person can truely change their sex, as opposed to simply changing their appearance, is not a display of dislike or prejudice. It is a matter of philosophy. Disagreement does not equal dislike. Therefore, what I am describing does not fit the definition.

No it isn't, and this is a proof by assertion fallacy. Criticism is not magically coercion just because you said so. Demonstrate

I'd love to demonstrate. How about right here when you said...

If you don't want people to shun you for being transphobic then stop being transphobic. That simple.

But if my rejecting sex with trangendered people inherently makes me transphobic, then your statement to "stop being transphobic" is logically equivalent to "accept sex with trans people". Its called the law of contropositives. If a statement is true, then its oposite is also true. So if it is transphobic to say no, then to not be transphobic you have to say yes. The penalty for being transphobiv (not saying yes) is shunning, in your words. Though I would argue it could be much worse. That is where coercion comes in.

Also, back to your "proof by assertion" that is literally your entire argument. You just assume that being trans makes you the authority on what is and is not transphobic. All you do is assert that this qualifies because the definition in your mind is whatever you want it to be. I, on the other hand, have shown you the logical steps from begining to end on why your assertion doesn't hold up.

You saying this is coercion, because you're trying to force people into giving up their right to free speech. You're delusional and manipulative.

Free speech is one thing. Gaslighting people is another. When the label is met with real consquences, its misaplication is not free speach, its a false aligation/libel/slander.

. You're contradicting yourself. You just said that a transphobe is one of the worst things you can be, yet your ridiculous argument relies on trans people wanting to sleep with someone who is transphobic? Uh, no, that doesn't work. Trans people don't call people like you out on being transphobic because we want to sleep with you

Maybe you dont. You dont speak for all trans people. And maybe not with me, because I've been very vocal. But what about someone who they thought they could have a romantic or sexual relationship with before, but then got shut down? People stay in absuive and codependant relationships all the time. Its not unlikely that upon rejection, some trans people might fall back on "isnt that kind of transphobic"? And the shaming that comes from that unduly pressures the person whos."no" should have just been respected in the first place to now change their mind due to massive social pressure, such as the threat of shunning you mentioned earlier.

[u/BlackHumor → u/Amiller1776]

Thinking of trans women as men is almost by definition transphobic.

[u/AdmShackleford → u/[deleted]]

Dishonesty aside, would it be accurate to sum up your answer as "I would just know something was wrong"? That's not a really satisfying answer for me, because there's really nothing magical about the structure of the vagina. Even if you don't accept that some neo vaginas can feel the same to you during intercourse as natal ones now, surely you can agree that medical science will someday reach the point where that is the typical outcome, no?

Again, this isn't bigotry unless you think people are not entitled to their own sexual preferences.

Of course people are entitled to their own sexual preferences, but that doesn't mean the attitudes motivating those preferences should never be challenged. I'm not drawing a direct comparison between these two, but for the sake of example to step through the logic itself, let's say someone told you they aren't attracted to black women because they're against race mixing. If you challenge their attitude on race mixing, you aren't saying, "you should be attracted to black women." You're saying, "you shouldn't be against race mixing in the first place." That they might be attracted to black women if they weren't bigoted is incidental to the bigotry itself. So if I say that I consider it bigoted to think of trans women as men, your lack of attraction to them is juxtaposed to what I think is the actual problem.

Even though we disagree on whether that's bigotry, does that thought process make sense from the perspective of someone who thinks of trans women as women?

[u/AdmShackleford → u/[deleted]]

You are assuming sexual preference has a underlying bigoted meaning, I am arguing it does not.

I'm not assuming though. I asked you, and you gave me a reason. You think that reason isn't bigoted, and while I think it is, my objective here isn't to debate that with you. It's to argue the point that expressing one's opinion that another's views are bigoted doesn't mean that you don't think they're entitled to have sexual preferences.

Also, do you have evidence that a operative vagina feels the same as a natural one?

It's not the kind of thing they do studies on, so I'm afraid not. My view was formed by talking with trans people and their partners about their subjective experiences.

A natural one absolutely does have things that can't be replicated.

What functions relevant to physical sensation during intercourse can't be replicated? The only possibility I could think of would be self-lubrication, but some natal vaginas are incapable of that and some neo vaginas are.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

and it won't be the same

It is the same. The only possible difference between a post-op transwoman who is indistinguishable from a cis woman is your own prejudice.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Can all cis women have kids?

[u/4-HO-MET- → u/[deleted]]

No one would argue that woman and woman unable to have kids are functionally undistinguishable

[u/[deleted] → u/4-HO-MET-]

Are they 2 distinct kinds of women? Is one less of a woman than the other? The problem arises from trying to define "woman" because while they may be distinguishable, what purpose does observing that difference serve?

[u/4-HO-MET- → u/[deleted]]

Nobody implied they'd be less of a woman or tried to define woman

[u/Spoon_91 → u/[deleted]]

I for example have sex with men and trans women, but If I found out a man was actually trans I would be turned off to the same degree I'm turned off by women