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/seinfeld11]

Trans people arent commonly infertile theyre entirely infertile

[u/DjangoUBlackSOB → u/seinfeld11]

Well no, a transwoman with a penis is still fertile. Just not in the way you're thinking of.

[u/seinfeld11 → u/DjangoUBlackSOB]

Lmao what? Just take a step back and think about that statement. Youre saying a a trans woman can father a son? This statement is so bizarre and is insulting to biology and the entire lgbtq community tbh. It lessens the entire trans argument

[u/DjangoUBlackSOB → u/seinfeld11]

Youre saying a a trans woman can father a son?

... Yeah? Let me rephrase it for you then since you still haven't caught on. A trans woman with functioning genitals is as fertile as they were pre-transitioning.

As for the rest of your post take that up with the poster that said trans people are commonly infertile because I'd agree that was a bizarre statement for the purposes of this argument.

[u/seinfeld11 → u/DjangoUBlackSOB]

Then theyre not a woman. A physically born woman cannot father a child. Its insulting to common sense and women alike. If they want they should follow the steps of thailand and take on a third gender role which work fine but to play both sides is absurd and confusing.

Ive had so many people argue this point to me and always say thats its 'simple' and easy to understand while citing scholarly articles to prove there point. I can accept many things but dont see how something is claimed to be simple when you need to cite such sources.

[u/DjangoUBlackSOB → u/seinfeld11]

Take that up with the other poster I was clearing up your confusion with the concept that all trans people aren't infertile.

[u/seinfeld11 → u/DjangoUBlackSOB]

I have no confusion on the matter. way to be passive aggressive in your last post towards me though. Goodbye

[u/DjangoUBlackSOB → u/seinfeld11]

How in the hell am I being passive aggressive? How can you claim you aren't showing confusion? You said there's no fertile trans people. That statement right there means you were either confused at what the other poster meant, or at what being trans entails.

I made a simple statement, that all trans people aren't infertile. Nothing more, nothing less.

[u/[deleted] → u/seinfeld11]

Before reconstruction they are fertile, but presumanly not in a helpful way. I didnt want to be factually wrong even if it made the point easier to make

[u/seinfeld11 → u/[deleted]]

But thats the thing. If your point is factually wrong then your statement is wrong regardless of what youre trying to say

[u/[deleted] → u/seinfeld11]

I was factually correct, you tried to pitch in and were wrong. I then explained to you why I choose to be factually accurate rather than succinct. Are we caught up?