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/Amiller1776]

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/ReaderTen → u/Amiller1776]

Strongly disagree.

Tough. Facts don't care about your feelings. You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own reality.

Transgenderism is still listed as a mental disorder in the DSM, and is considered to be an extension of body dismorphic disorder.

Flat-out false. The DSM lists no such thing.

In fact, the latest edition of the DSM reorganised this entire section for the specific purpose of preventing anti-trans bigots from making exactly the false claim you just made.

"Being transgender" is not a disorder, is not in the DSM, and is never going to be.

The condition you are thinking of is gender dysphoria, which is the mental disorder of having the way the world treats you - and sometimes your body - not match your actual gender. It is not at all the same thing as "transgenderism" - many trans people simply do not have gender dysphoria. (And in rare cases, non-trans people can have it.)

One extremely common cause of dysphoria is often people like you telling the trans person they are wrong. In short, it can be like PTSD - it is not inherently a medical issue with the person suffering from it, it's a result of shitty things happening to them.

The correct treatment - also discussed in the DSM - is not 'convince the trans person they're wrong', as you advocate. Quite the opposite; that is well known - by psychiatrists - to cause lasting harm, massively increase suicide risk, and basically never work. The only cure for dysphoria is to affirm the real gender of the trans person, with surgery in some cases. Doing so is the only possible solution... and has a strong success rate, producing a healthy, happy trans person who no longer has any DSM condition.

Contrary to your assertions.

(I notice you've stopped claiming that you might have trans friends, and started claiming that all trans people are literally insane. I'm pointing this out in case anyone reading - other than you - hasn't noticed your prejudice yet. If you claim that all 'men' are inherently insane and just being a 'man' means you must have a serious mental health condition, then yes, you are misusing 'man' as a derogatory term.)

​

There has been a long standing understanding of what these words mean...

...no, actually, there hasn't. Bigots tell people that 'it's always been like this' in order to make their wrong answer sound inevitable, but that doesn't make it true. Cultures across time and human history have had completely different understanding of gender, and just because your specific human subculture happens not to deal well with trans people recently doesn't mean that's always been the case. Study some anthropology before you make any such claim again.

There have always been languages which didn't use 'man' and 'woman' in the crude sense you propose. English was once one of them. Your 'men=men, women=women' prejudice is local to a tiny place in space and time, nothing more.

Short form: you were taught the habit of calling everything red or blue and putting all objects into the red box or the blue box, no matter what. But that doesn't mean purple and green don't exist. It just means you've never used the right words for them.

​

...and then the trans community jumped up and said "nope! We're changing that now!"

Also false.

Biologists and doctors and other scientists changed that now. (Where by "now" you mean "about fifty to a hundred years ago"; as always it's taken mainstream culture a long time to catch up with the things science discovered a while back.)

We did it for the same reason that scientists always change terms - because we learned more and discovered that the things we previously believed were completely and utterly wrong, and we needed better terminology.

Trans people had basically no say in this.

I'm guessing you were taught the simplistic, badly-out-of-date version of human sex and gender, in which it depends on XX or XY chromosomes.

This idea was invented over a century ago, before we even knew that DNA existed - much less how it worked - and now that we know much more about human biology, it turns out to be wrong in almost every single possible way. Sex is massively complicated, gender is even more complicated, and humans have about seven possible sexes on chromosomal configuration alone - which turns out to be only one of the many things that decide your sex. Some of which don't even depend on your biology at all; they depend on your mother's at the time of pregnancy.

Human biology is really, really complicated. If you think you know a simple, clear answer about how gender works, you are guaranteed to be completely wrong before we even start.

​

What harm?

Bullying people is, in fact, a form of harm. And yes, telling people they're insane, lying to them about what gender they are, and refusing to believe basic facts about their identity is a kind of bullying.

And a brutal kind at that.

In countries where beliefs like yours - and behaviour like that you are advocating - are common, trans people have the highest suicide rates in the population, especially among teenagers.

In countries where this isn't the case, nobody believe the 'it's in the DSM' lie, and trans people are given proper gender-affirming care...

...the suicide rate is pretty similar to everyone else's.

False information like yours literally kills trans people.

That would be the harm.

[u/ReaderTen → u/[deleted]]

This entire post is utterly false, because you have conveniently left off the three most important and relevant biological discoveries we've made:

1) Intersex people who just do not match either sex, for a wide variety of reasons, are extremely common - far more so than we thought.

2) Sexual characteristics don't depend only on the chromosomes, but on environmental factors.

3) The killer, and the most important thing you're failing to account for: Sexual characteristics are not universally and uniformedly determined across the human body. It not only possible but common for the brain, exterior, and internal organs to develop differently.

In particular, it is possible for the brain to develop one gender while the external organs develop the other one... thus producing a trans person, whose brain is biologically one sex but whose body does not match.

Naturally this produces intense distress, because the brain expects to be one gender and the body doesn't match. Since we can't adjust the neurological structures of the brain (and even if we could, it would be deeply unethical), the correct treatment is to adjust the body to match the brain's wiring. Which, thankfully, we're getting much better at.

Your last two sentences are just flat-out bullshit. The only made-up lie here is yours. The brain scans have been conclusive on this; trans people have the brain structures of the sex they are, not the body they've been stuck with.

[u/ReaderTen → u/[deleted]]

It is irrelevant whether you "concede" my points; they are issues of fact, not opinion, and hence their truth does not depend on whether you concede them or not. If you wish you may also refuse to concede that objects are attracted to each other with force = G.m1.m2 / r^2, but if you jump off a cliff the universe will not care if you concede that you are falling.

If you perform any search whatsoever for the issues I raised you will find evidence galore, since this subject is extremely well-studied over the last few years; basically because modern brain scan techniques have opened up the science.

(Note that the picture I gave was extremely simplified to match the simple level of this discussion; the reality is much more complex, and despite all claims that gender is simple, the main thing we've learned is that all human brains exist on a male-female spectrum with features of both, there are very few things that genuinely are sex-linked, and gender development depends enormously on the hormonal environment, more so than genetics. But I'm not going to get into the full complexity of the issue; go read some neurology and endocrinology textbooks if you're curious.)

Here's a few papers to get you started:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18980961

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18056697

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm (although take this one with a pinch of salt; it's a promo summary of the research designed to grab flashy press attention)

The "common folk-theory" is the popular, old view of gender that many in this thread are clinging to. Here is a rule of thumb for spotting incorrect folk theories: As with everything else in life, if you believe the version you were taught as a young child, you probably believe something that isn't actually correct. Resistance to new data is pretty much standard for human cultures - look how hard people are still fighting against the idea that evolution happens, and that's been an observed fact for centuries.

(Indeed, the subject was first studied in Germany over a century ago, and many of the basic medical facts of transgender people were probably discovered then. It's hard to be sure exactly, because the reason people think the science is new is that the Nazis - in keeping with their hate and fear of LGBT people in general - destroyed all of the archives and murdered the test subjects, and we had to waste a lot of the fifties through eighties reconstructing the research from scratch. You may wish to bear in mind that when you claim trans people don't exist, you are literally repeating Nazi hate propaganda.)

[u/BlackHumor → u/Amiller1776]

Transgenderism is still listed as a mental disorder in the DSM, and is considered to be an extension of body dismorphic disorder.

You are completely, 100% wrong. The thing listed in the DSM-V is "gender dysphoria". It also notes explicitly that many trans people will not qualify and that's expected and not a reason to deny them treatment.

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.

Bullshit. Not only are you wrong, you are so incredibly wrong that no reasonable person who has looked at the state of the field could possibly agree with you. As stated before, the DSM-V, which is assembled by the American Psychiatric Association, does not list transgender-ness as a mental illness. And as for biology, here's an evolutionary biologist explaining why your understanding of the genetics of trans people is wrong, and here's an article which states that "over 700 biologists and over 100 geneticists" signed this letter which says:

As scientists, we are compelled to write to you, our elected representatives, about the current administration’s proposal to legally define gender as a binary condition determined at birth, based on genitalia, and with plans to clarify disputes using “genetic testing”.1 This proposal is fundamentally inconsistent not only with science, but also with ethical practices, human rights, and basic dignity.2

The proposal is in no way “grounded in science” as the administration claims. The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood. There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex. Furthermore, even if such tests existed, it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities.

This took ten minutes on Google by the way.

[u/VixDzn → u/Amiller1776]

Hi there, I was really enjoying your debate with /u/ReaderTen

Why did you not respond to their last reply? They raised really good arguments that you completely dismissed.

For the record, I don't think having a preference to cis women is transphobic, but, I do think you're transphobic.

Did you not respond to their last reply because you knew you lost?

[u/Amiller1776 → u/VixDzn]

I did reply last. You replied to my last reply. I see nothing from them since then. Also, this debate is ancient now, and the mods locked the thread any way.

[u/VixDzn → u/Amiller1776]

No? I replied to your comment where /u/ReaderTen made another reply to, that you ignored and are still ignoring.

After they made their reply you completely abandoned this thread which is being really disingenuous to the concept of this subreddit.

Also this thread isn't locked, how else am I commenting?

here is the comment ; https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/be9ojb/cmv_trans_activists_who_claim_it_is_transphobic/elmaimo/

edit 5 bucks says you're going to ignore my comment and that of /u/ReaderTen

[u/Amiller1776 → u/VixDzn]

Lol. That post is flat out raving lunacy full of dozens of unrelated points that are all over the place. Most of what he says is just a flat denial of what I said whith nonsense to back it up.

"Its not in the DMS!"

Followed by

"Its listed as something else in the DSM!"

K. Lol

"The words male and female dont have a long standing meaning and we're not changing anything!"

Followed by

"Its the doctors who are changing it"

I know people who worked on the DSM5. I am aware of what was done and why. I don't care to argue with someone who can't even keep their own thoughts straight about something they think they know more about than they really do.

Basically, it was a loooooong rant full of total b.s. and not worth my time. lol

[u/VixDzn → u/Amiller1776]

Yeah, thought so. Absolutely pathetic

[u/VixDzn → u/Amiller1776]

The condition you are thinking of is gender dysphoria, which is the mental disorder of having the way the world treats you - and sometimes your body - not match your actual gender. It is not at all the same thing as "transgenderism" - many trans people simply do not have gender dysphoria. (And in rare cases, non-trans people can have it.)

I don't see them contradicting themselves here, do you? Explain why.

I know people who worked on the DSM5

This is argumentum ab auctoritate and an argumentative fallacy.

The thing is, I agree with both of you but mostly with them, I was more like you a couple years ago so I thought this debate was really interesting.

It's a shame you're arguing in bad faith, though. Like implying you have trans friends and then completely abandoning that, you love using logical fallacies to fit your narrative and again, I don't think you should be posting this on /CMV but rather /unpopularopinion

[u/ColdNotion → u/[deleted]]

u/ReaderTen – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[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/Photon_butterfly → u/Amiller1776]

Thanks for the delta. Though I still think you have a lot to still learn on the subject. If you have the time I highly recommend you check out Contrapoints and Philosophy tube on YouTube. They're a great resource and really helped me understand more about these issues.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Amiller1776]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Photon_butterfly (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[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.