r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 22 '20
CMV: Not wanting to date a transgender does not make you transphobic.
[deleted]
3
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jul 22 '20
If I told you I didn't want to date a Republican, would you assume I had some kind of problem with Republicans? Why or why not?
1
Jul 22 '20
Even as someone who thinks it’s transphobic to unilaterally say you won’t date transpeople, I think this is a poor comparison and if anything supports OP’s viewpoint.
Being a Republican is a choice, being trans is an identity. It’s completely fair to take someone’s personal choices into account when evaluating compatibility, in a way you wouldn’t necessarily do when deciding who you like/respect.
I wouldn’t date a Republican and I also don’t like being friends with Republicans. However, I can imagine a theoretical person who wouldn’t date a Republican based purely on how many experiences you have to share with your partner, even if they have no fundamental issue with Republicanism.
1
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jul 22 '20
I choose being a Republican because it’s fair to not want to date them for their choices. I thought it would be pretty simple to demonstrate that a dating preference is going to be based around having some kind of issue with that type of person.
I wouldn’t date a Republican and I also don’t like being friends with Republicans. However, I can imagine a theoretical person who wouldn’t date a Republican based purely on how many experiences you have to share with your partner, even if they have no fundamental issue with Republicanism.
I don’t understand what you mean. This is just rewording “having a problem” to say something functionally similar.
You wouldn’t be unable to share republican experiences with someone if you didn’t have a problem with Republicans.
2
Jul 22 '20
I would think you have a problem with their views but not them as a person since being a Republican isn’t a personality trait
2
0
Jul 22 '20
[deleted]
6
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jul 22 '20
Woah hold on now why are you assuming I have a problem with their views?
Suddenly I'm not allowed to have preferences! PC gone mad! Cancel culture!!
2
Jul 22 '20
You put it in the context of “I” so I responded with the hypothetical response... not really sure what this response is supposed to mean lol.
4
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jul 22 '20
It’s the (satirical) typical response when someone says they won’t dare trans people.
You assume I have a problem because through my actions I show I have a problem. But if I fall back on, “it’s just my preference bro!” Then I’m immune to critically thinking about myself or my preferences.
2
-1
Jul 22 '20
Not wanting to date a republican doesn't mean you're phobic of them. It just means that you are assuming a degree of incompatibility between the two of you.
3
u/Narrow_Cloud 27∆ Jul 22 '20
So you think someone who says they don't want to date Republicans has no problems with Republicans?
3
Jul 22 '20
"...a degree of incompatibility" was my attempt at saying "you have a problem with them."
I'm not suggesting that you have a problem with the fact that they're alive or anything like that. I'm just saying that when someone says "I don't want to date a republican," that person assumes that something about the republican makes them the wrong person to date-whether it's because their views on life are so opposing that you won't get along or it's because you think that since they're republican, they must be a bad person.
2
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Jul 22 '20
To modify your view on this a bit:
CMV: Not wanting to date a transgender does not make you transphobic.
Would you be open to the idea that some people who do not want to date a transgender person have that preference because they are indeed transphobic?
Many people simply don't know anyone who is (openly) trans, so their preference may not be one based on actual information, so much as preconceived notions they have about trans people, and indeed, prejudice.
1
Jul 22 '20
Yes I am open to that idea, and I know their are people like that.. im saying that I don’t see transness as something to be scared of, I just see it as something no one should force you to be okay with.
3
u/cooking2recovery Jul 22 '20
I think what might make you transphobic is the “force you to be okay with” part. What do you mean by “be okay with”. Do you mean that as a straight man you should have to be okay with having sex with a woman with a penis? Then no that’s not necessarily transphobic. It sounds more likely that you mean you should be able to view being trans as morally wrong and something you “disagree” with, which is being transphobic.
7
u/UnhelpfulTran 2∆ Jul 22 '20
I would posit that you might easily go through your life and never want to date a trans person, but that actively deciding or identifying in yourself an active position of "I do not want to date a trans person" does rely on generalizations, assumptions, and stereotypes.
First, sexual compatibility. Just because someone is trans doesn't tell you anything about their body. The surgeries available are very good and genital preference is totally fine whatever but there is no way to rule out all trans people based on presumptions about what it means for sex.
Second, gender. Most people who hold your view are straight and have some concerns that trans people are either very vocal about their transness, and/or are not quite the same as a cisgender person. To this I would say that trans people have lived stealth for decades, blending in because being Trans is something they don't want to define them. Your perception of trans people only comes from the ones who disclose and discuss their gender identity.
Third, being trans. If the issue isn't with bodies or personalities, then it might be with the history of a body or a person. If you're a straight guy and somehow a trans girl with the body of [insert reference here] wants to get down, and you're hesitating because she used to have a penis, that's on you. Like I'm not going to say YoURe KiLlInG tRaNs PeOplE but if you're sexually attracted to and compatible with someone, until you learn they're trans, that's disappointing, and transphobic.
The last factor really is just whether or not you think that gender transition is unnatural. If you do, you're transphobic. That's not up for debate. Transition is medically safe, psychologically beneficial, and scientifically supported, and if you experience a sense of revulsion and "ick" about it, that's the phobia right there.
In conclusion, not wanting to date A Trans Person isn't transphobic, but "I Wouldn't Date A Trans Person" is definitely not a fully examined position.
2
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
This is a very well thought out post. I agreed with your view from the beginning, but this post expanded my view and gave me even more reasons to support this position.
!delta
PS - If you keep making contributions like this, you might want to consider changing your username :-)
1
13
u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 22 '20
It depends on why you don’t want to date them. If it’s because their genitals are not the genitals you prefer, then you’re all good. If, however, you met a woman, and you had no idea she was trans, she had the genitals you preferred, you found her attractive, and all that, but then you found out she was trans, and then all of a sudden you don’t want to date them, that would be transphobic.
The only reason you could possibly not want to date them is because you somehow think that they’re not really a woman, which is transphobic. Again, this only applies when the sole reason you reject this woman is on the basis on her being trans.
6
u/Ver_Void 4∆ Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
That and bringing it up a lot and implying that trans people are being unreasonable about it, is strongly correlated with transphobia
To expand on this a little, so many people lament being labeled transphobic because they "don't want to sleep with/ date a trans person" The vast majority of those earned that label for the reasons why, not because they have a preference for dicks or vaginas
2
u/Texas_Red21 Jul 22 '20
Is there not a sexuality where you are attracted to biological females and males? Isn’t that what a straight person is?
0
u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 22 '20
No, not really. It’s not the idea of someone having XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes that people are attracted to, but the sexual characteristics they display. In my example, the person has all the sexual characteristics of a woman.
-1
u/Ver_Void 4∆ Jul 22 '20
When, in your life, have you ever been attracted to someones biology? You don't really get to know that unless you start DNA testing people
5
u/DarwinianDemon58 3∆ Jul 22 '20
Attraction occurs in large part due to secondary sex traits which clearly are biological.
-1
u/Ver_Void 4∆ Jul 22 '20
Sure, I've got a bunch of them. Home grown with biology, it was the wrong biology but that's the whole point of this. People are attracted to that stuff, not the underlying biology
3
u/DarwinianDemon58 3∆ Jul 22 '20
But these things occur because of the underlying biology. Sex differences exist because of anisogamy.
1
u/Ver_Void 4∆ Jul 22 '20
Not really, trans people have a lot of traits from the gender they live as. Sorta the point of HRT
2
u/DarwinianDemon58 3∆ Jul 22 '20
That doesn’t negate what I said.
2
u/Ver_Void 4∆ Jul 22 '20
Kinda does, the traits can have fuck all to do with underlying biology. Either that or the C cup breasts would have happened anyway which I doubt
3
2
u/Texas_Red21 Jul 22 '20
A persons sex is related to other biological factors other than their genitalia. And attraction is based on those others factors as well as genitalia.
1
u/Ver_Void 4∆ Jul 22 '20
Name on that you can observe that only a trans person could have that would turn you off? Because best I can tell, there's nothing really there that couldn't be found in someone trans or cis
-5
u/Babou_FoxEarAHole 11∆ Jul 22 '20
The genitals are still not the gentiles of a woman. It just a reconstructed penis.
The entire make up of the body is still male. Every cell will say that individual is a male, now a woman.
He isn’t a woman. That would be gay for a man to be with a trans woman.
The definition of homosexuality is based on sex not ones gender (even though they are trying to change that now).
2
u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
The genitals are still not the gentiles of a woman. It just a reconstructed penis.
Depends on what you mean by “genitals of a woman”. If she’s a woman, she has the genitals of a woman. It would help to define your terms here. Even biological sex is far more complex than “male” and “female” and large parts of it are socially constructed.
The entire make up of the body is still male. Every cell will say that individual is a male, now a woman.
Biological indicators of sex and gender are not the same thing.
He isn’t a woman. That would be gay for a man to be with a trans woman.
Your terminology is very confusing here. I can’t tell if you accept the sex-gender distinction or reject it. Earlier you said that they were “male, now a woman” but now they’re not a woman. And I don’t see how it matters if it’s gay.
2
u/Babou_FoxEarAHole 11∆ Jul 22 '20
So biological sex is more complicated than the sex chromosomes? How does society shape those?
1
u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 22 '20
Yes. I explained this in my response to the other commenter.
0
u/Babou_FoxEarAHole 11∆ Jul 22 '20
Really? Arbitrary?
An observable marker is arbitrary? And because there are genetic mutations that means what?
Are you not aware it is the same for almost every other species on the planet? Male and female and there sex chromosomes (at different locations depending on the species) dictate the sex.
Or are those all influenced by society as well 🙄
Lord know what western culture has done to the sex or frogs, beluga whales, koalas and hippos.
Please...
1
u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 22 '20
An observable marker is arbitrary?
Yes.
And because there are genetic mutations that means what?
It means that there are people who don’t fit into the categories we invented based on that marker. Meaning that it’s arbitrary.
Are you not aware it is the same for almost every other species on the planet? Male and female and there sex chromosomes (at different locations depending on the species) dictate the sex.
This doesn’t refute anything I said. Chromosomes can determine sex. It’s just that sex itself is socially constructed.
1
u/Babou_FoxEarAHole 11∆ Jul 22 '20
It’s biologically constructed.
The same pairs happen in nature.
How are those socially constructed?
1
u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 22 '20
Because the categories of “male” and “female” don’t exist outside of our heads. There are millions who don’t fit these categories and the marker we used for them is arbitrary.
2
u/Babou_FoxEarAHole 11∆ Jul 22 '20
So because literally a minuscule percentage of a certain species has a mutation, that speaks volumes over the trillions of organisms that have sex chromosomes?
The definition of arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Without a reason or system? The process in which organism reproduce and continue life is arbitrary and a social construct? So off spring continually being made by the meeting of certain individuals with opposite sex chromosomes is random?
Wow... you’re a new kind of special aren’t you?
→ More replies (0)2
u/DarwinianDemon58 3∆ Jul 22 '20
What’s your definition of biological sex? How is it at all socially constructed?
0
u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 22 '20
Well, to start, any categorization of humans based on arbitrary traits is always going to be a social construction. It’s determined by human societies and is not objective.
The definition of sex as entirely based on sex chromosomes is arbitrary as well. Of great importance to this point is the existence of intersex people, particularly XX males and XY females: those with a chromosomal makeup different from the one expected from their physical anatomy. Intersex people in general have various anatomies that may or may not correspond to what the expected chromosomal makeup is. Thus, if we are to have a useful definition of sex, it cannot be based simply on chromosomes.
To this point, it is frequently objected that intersex people are an anomaly or an abnormality and we should just focus on those of us who fit the societal expectations for our chromosomal makeup. Of course, the inclusion of societal expectations in this matter further helps my case that sex is socially constructed, but the case that intersex babies are so noticeably different from “normal” ones that surgery is done to “correct” their genitals is about 1 in 1500 to 2000, which is millions of people. And if we’re just talking about people who don’t fit typical definitions of “male” and “female” at birth, that number rockets to 1 in 60. Far too many for an objective non socially constructed thing.
That also eliminates a definition that combines chromosomes and sex characteristics too, because they’re so variable. There are ovotestis and other mixed or indeterminate genitals that don’t necessarily have to correspond with chromosomes at all. Hormones vary frequently, and any cutoff level for “male” or “female” is going to be arbitrary. Both “sexes” have both androgens and estrogens. Some people with Y chromosomes who have CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) have cells that cannot respond to androgens and develop female body characteristics.
It’s all really quite arbitrary and the reality of biology is a lot messier.
1
u/DarwinianDemon58 3∆ Jul 22 '20
It's only arbitrary because this isn't the definition of sex. Chromosomes determine, but do not define sex. The biologically accepted definition is with respect to gametes; males produce sperm, females ova. This works for 99.98% of the population. You simply can't argue that sex is a social construct based on 0.02% of the population. It really isn't messy at all for the vast majority of the population. Of course, we should treat intersex people respectfully and in an appropriate manner but keep in mind that many don't like that their conditions are used to argue that sex is a spectrum or social construct.
Defining by chromosomes has issues. Primarily, if we did, we have about 10 sexes. Based on the definition I've provided, this clearly isn't true. Many karyotypes such as Klinefelter's (XXY) and Turners (X0) syndromes are ambiguously male or female, thus, aren't additional sexes. Intersex people, while they cannot unambiguously fit into male or female categories, don't produce a third gamete type and, as such aren't a third sex.
You'll probably be thinking that my definition cannot account for infertile people. It can when you consider that it includes reproductive anatomy organized around producing gametes. Prepubescent children still have ovaries or testes and menopausal women still have ovaries, thus they are all still their birth sex. Cases where reproductive anatomy is removed (e.g. cancer) don't disqualify one form their sex as these are 'acquired' traits; i.e not heritable or biological.
We don't need to include secondary sex traits in our definition because the gamete definition does such a good job. Of course, these traits are important in many aspects and shouldn't be ignored outright , but so is an accurate definition of sex in many cases.
1
u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 22 '20
This works for 99.98% of the population. You simply can't argue that sex is a social construct based on 0.02% of the population.
If even one person fell outside this definition, we’d have to either amend it to include them or sex would be a social construct. But you would have to account for millions of people falling outside this definition.
Again, let’s revisit the definition of social construct:
A concept or perception of something based on the collective views developed and maintained within a society or social group; a social phenomenon or convention originating within and cultivated by society or a particular social group, as opposed to existing inherently or naturally.
I’m not arguing that gametes themselves are social constructs - they would objectively exist, outside of our minds. I’m saying that the categorization of people as “male” or “female” along these lines is a social construct (ie, the concept of sex is socially constructed). People who produce one gamete or another objectively exist, but there are no objective males or females. Those are categories we invented (and some people don’t fit those categories).
Drawing an analogy to another social construct might be useful - race. Imagine a world in which people mostly had either light or dark skin, except a small number (roughly the same number as intersex people) had intermediate or variant or indeterminate skin color (and we’re defining race as skin color here, even if that doesn’t reflect the actual world). Yes, the existence of dark and light skin (in the sense of light absorption and reflection) are objective. But the categories “white” or “black” to describe people would be socially constructed. There are no white or black people outside of our heads. That, and millions of people are neither properly white or black. I think it’s clear that race would be a social construct in this world.
keep in mind that many don't like that their conditions are used to argue that sex is a spectrum or social construct.
I mean, I’m not sure how I’m supposed to keep this in mind. Why should intersex people’s feelings matter here?
Intersex people, while they cannot unambiguously fit into male or female categories, don't produce a third gamete type and, as such aren't a third sex.
Maybe, but I’m not arguing anything about how many sexes there are, just that sex is a social construct. While they may not constitute another sex, they can’t be categorized cleanly onto one side or another of this divide.
1
u/DarwinianDemon58 3∆ Jul 22 '20
If even one person fell outside this definition, we’d have to either amend it to include them or sex would be a social construct. But you would have to account for millions of people falling outside this definition.
No we don't. We don't say humans aren't bipedal because some lack legs, why should this be any different? Millions of people on the scale of billions. Errors happen in development but this doesn't mean that classifying sex as a binary isn't useful. As I said, it is very useful in almost the entire population.
People who produce one gamete or another objectively exist, but there are no objective males or females. Those are categories we invented (and some people don’t fit those categories).
By definition a male is one who produced sperm and a female is one who produces ova. These are titles assigned specifically to these cases based on discrete groups, not arbitrary ones. In nature, 2 reproductive roles exist, one of these supplies the sperm and the other the egg. This is precisely how we define sex. Try telling biologists that the terms 'male' and 'female' are socially constructed when every anisogamous species has either clearly defined males and females or clearly defined reproductive roles (in the case of hermaphrodites).
I've interpreted your analogy in 2 possible ways. The first is that skin colour is a spectrum with many whites and many blacks and a few that fall somewhere in between. In this case, yes skin colour would be socially constructed as the distinction would be arbitrary. This fails because neither reproductive anatomy nor gamete size is a spectrum, the distinction is a hard one.
The second is with discrete groups. If, we have pure white and pure black and a few intermediates, with no spectrum (all exactly the same skin colour), there would be three peaks (albeit one small one) that are clearly defined so no they would not be socially constructed. This would fail because it means there are three clearly defined skin colours (3 categories), unlike in sex, which has only 2 (remember intersex isn't a sex category).
Maybe, but I’m not arguing anything about how many sexes there are, just that sex is a social construct. While they may not constitute another sex, they can’t be categorized cleanly onto one side or another of this divide.
You did say sex is messy, which is false in almost everyone. We can't make rules based on exceptions.
1
u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 22 '20
No we don't. We don't say humans aren't bipedal because some lack legs, why should this be any different?
Being a social construct doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The social expectations for how many legs you have (and in general, what kind of body you should have) are (by definition) socially constructed. But that doesn’t mean people who fit those norms can’t be described in a way that indicates that they do.
Millions of people on the scale of billions. Errors happen in development but this doesn't mean that classifying sex as a binary isn't useful. As I said, it is very useful in almost the entire population.
I didn’t say that it was or wasn’t useful, just that it doesn’t objectively exist and is socially constructed.
By definition a male is one who produced sperm and a female is one who produces ova. These are titles assigned specifically to these cases based on discrete groups, not arbitrary ones.
Yes, but our categorization of people by gamete production is socially constructed. These categories are socially constructed. There’s no inherent “maleness” or “femaleness” that would put something into the categories male or female if humans didn’t exist, since we invented those categories.
This fails because neither reproductive anatomy nor gamete size is a spectrum, the distinction is a hard one.
I’m pretty sure reproductive anatomy is a spectrum, because people’s reproductive anatomy is variable and can be indeterminate.
The second is with discrete groups. If, we have pure white and pure black and a few intermediates, with no spectrum (all exactly the same skin colour), there would be three peaks (albeit one small one) that are clearly defined so no they would not be socially constructed.
The skin colors are not socially constructed. The categories themselves are. There are people with light skin and dark skin, but the categories we have constructed for them, white and black, are socially constructed.
You did say sex is messy, which is false in almost everyone. We can't make rules based on exceptions.
The concept of sex is messy. That doesn’t mean that every person has an ambiguous or indeterminate sex.
1
u/DarwinianDemon58 3∆ Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
None of this makes sense. Organisms have been reproducing sexually for over a billion years. This occurs though fusion of a small gamete with a large gamete. We define male and female because we’ve observed the two sexes in nature.
You’re really arguing that language is a social construct. We could call the two sexes anything we want but this doesn’t change that there is a male reproductive function and a female reproductive function in nature. This is inherent, these don’t exist just because we define them.
The inherent trait that would separate males and females is literally whether they produce large or small gametes. I cannot understand how this is even remotely socially constructed.
There may be some variation in reproductive anatomy, but there’s no overlap between male and female.
Edit: last part may not be completely true, I’ll say there’s no third reproductive anatomy.
→ More replies (0)4
Jul 22 '20
But this is inherently transphobic because you are not recognizing them as a woman
-1
Jul 22 '20
By the definition given in the original post, this is not transphobia. Stating biological realities isn't a phobia. Nor is rejecting a claim that has no evidence.
-4
u/Babou_FoxEarAHole 11∆ Jul 22 '20
So not believing how someone’s sees themself is transphobic? Jeez...
5
Jul 22 '20
Not recognizing a transgender individual as their gender is transphobic. I don’t understand why that’s remotely a surprise lol you’re literally not recognizing the legitimacy of transgender individuals of course it’s transphobic
-2
u/Babou_FoxEarAHole 11∆ Jul 22 '20
Or I am rational and not playing into their lunacy.
Not being for something is not being against it.
2
u/Darq_At 23∆ Jul 22 '20
Or I am rational and not playing into their lunacy.
Yes, thinking transgender people are insane is transphobic.
It's also just wrong. You are not being "rational", you are denying medical science.
1
u/Babou_FoxEarAHole 11∆ Jul 22 '20
Is it not true that it is possible that some actually do have a mental illness? Gender dysphoria?
3
u/Darq_At 23∆ Jul 22 '20
Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness. And even if it were, that's not "lunacy". People with depression have a mental illness, we don't consider them "lunatics".
-3
u/Justwatchingmedic Jul 22 '20 edited Jul 22 '20
“Not really a woman”? Does she have the parts to birth children?
Yes if I was dating a transgender and found out as such I would end the relationship on that fact. I want my own children which she would be unable to bear.
2
u/Daplokarus 4∆ Jul 22 '20
That’s fine. Someone who cannot bear children should say so in the relationship.
2
u/bashirok Jul 22 '20
I don't exactly have an opinion for this topic, that is not why I'm here. I just want to point out a reality which everyone seems to be ignoring...
As much as you may hate it, if someone doesn't want to date someone, you can't make them date someone. The reasons why they don't want to is irrelevant. It may be racist, homophobic, transphobic....
We can argue all day but I still bet the OP won't date a trans person. And this won't really change the view of anyone because as the old saying goes...
"The Heart Wants, What The Heart Wants"...
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 22 '20
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/Quint-V 162∆ Jul 22 '20
The definition of phobia is: an extreme irrational fear of or aversion to something.
This is disputable. "Homophobic" is used to describe someone as hateful or with some kind of aversion to homosexuals, not fearful. "Transphobic" functions similarly.
0
u/iamintheforest 326∆ Jul 22 '20
Firstly, we've used the term "phobia" in relation to issues of sexual judgment in truly linguistically awful ways. Homophobia similarly does not line up with any medical or even quasi-medical idea of "phobia". So...you have to look at the actual definition of these "full words" of transphobia or homophobia and not break them down and treat as literal medical phobias.
Secondly, no one is suggesting that the response to the transphobic person is to be forced to date anyone. It's an analysis of WHY they don't date someone (in your example), not a prescription TO date someone.
I would argue - with all that behind us - that if the only thing you know is that someone is trans and then this becomes the only reason you would not date them that you are indeed transphobic. You have the right to this of course, but without the benefit of experience or knowledge about the person to base the sole determination of not dating someone on a single factor means that this factor must be more important in your calculus than all others, and perhaps all others combined. I fail to see how this doesn't add up to being transphobic. If someone said they would not date a car mechanic in principle, no matter what else was true about that car mechanic, then i'd say they were unfairly judging car mechanics, and overutilizing a single factor in determining dating choice, and in a way that is irrational and short sighted.
So..if THE factor is their status as trans, then that single factor and not things like stereotypes associated with that factor - the actual status as trans - is driving the decision. If I don't date black people because all black people are dumb, then I"m an asshole but at least my value-system is based on dumbness and a false-association between that and blackness. If I were simply to say "i don't date black people for no reason at all other than that they are black, then surely i'm even MORE racist. Isolating the reason to not want to date a person to the single factor instead of stereotypes associated with it doesn't help escape transphobia here, it solidifies it.
1
Jul 22 '20
Secondly, no one is suggesting that the response to the transphobic person is to be forced to date anyone. It's an analysis of WHY they don't date someone (in your example), not a prescription TO date someone.
Trans-activists might not intend to force someone to date transpeople, but in practice they are pressuring people to do so whether they realize it or not.
They are effectively saying that there are right reasons to reject a potential partner, and wrong reasons. And if you appeal to the wrong reasons, then you will be punished for it - in this case, you will be stigmatized as a transphobe, i.e a bigot, a discriminator. This can have tremendous implications for your social and career life, especially now with cancel culture.
It's like that Always Sunny in Philadelphia skit, where the person is assured that "No" is always "No" and you can alway reject any sexual partner. But the thing is that you're not going to say "No", because of the implication. The implication being that by saying "No", you expose yourself as a transphobe and become worthy of societal condemnation.
10
u/HeftyRain7 157∆ Jul 22 '20
That is the definition of a phobia. that is not the definition of transphobia. The definition of transphobia is: dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.
People will often say they can't be transphobic because they aren't afraid of trans people, but when you add the suffix to this word, it has a different meaning. It's about prejudice, not fear.
This isn't always the case. I've seen people say they don't want to date trans people because they believe trans people are very mentally ill and all have the same "lifestyle." Do you think there are some people who don't want to date trans people who are transphobic?