And I’ve never said otherwise. What a transgender woman is not, however, is cisgender.
A transgender woman is not a cisgender woman. And letting someone believe they ARE a cisgender woman is the dishonest part.
You must have a strange definition of “immediately”
Well, I might be too old to find online dating to be as harmless as other people do.
The thing is women are not afraid to tell people that they are women in order to avoid those risks. The argument seems to be that disclosing their status increases their risks. Do transphobic people troll the dating sites looking for transgender women to beat up? AFAICT, much of the lethal violence comes from people who didn’t know about the transgender status before dating and it frequently happens after they reveal their transgender status.
Of course there are other problems associated with coming out generally, to career, family relationships, friends, etc. But, these are the same problems that gay men and women encountered when they put gay on their dating profile (to a lesser degree these days but it was not always so).
However, the notion that the burden is on the rest of the world to disclose their aversion to dating a transwoman is ludicrous.
There was obviously supposed to be a “not” before that “immediately.”
Yes, dating is entirely, utterly and profoundly different than hiring a carpenter.
If it would be wrong to fire you because you were a man (or a woman), it is equally wrong to fire you because some people have a hard time fitting you into one of those cubbyholes.
Um…I’m not being snarky, but you kinda lost me there. But it sounds to me like you’re saying that the transgender person would also not be “dishonest” by not disclosing their status unless they knew full well that the person they were dating was anti-trans. Sure, if a transgender person deliberately dates a person they know to be anti-trans, and does not make it clear up-front, they’re actually playing Russian roulette with their health and life. And not being very smart about it.
Which begs the question of how the trans person knows that the other party is anti-trans…since the anti-trans side is campaigning for the absolute moral right to hide their dislike, contempt, bigotry, or whatever it is to any such degree.
Yeah, I was confusing myself too trying to make it more understandable, sorry.
Close to what I am saying. I picture the scenario like this (And this only applies to transgender women who haven’t had surgery):
Man: I’m on a date with a cisgender woman.
Woman: He thinks I’m cisgender. I’m NOT cisgender. But I’m not going to tell him right away.
That’s is the dishonest part. The woman knows almost certainly, unless the man said anything, that the man thinks he is on a date with a cisgender woman. And people here seem to be saying that the woman should just let the man keep on thinking that, until some time later when she tells him.
And that’s problem number 2, what happens in the future?
Now, speaking for myself, I wouldn’t be angry or grossed out or anything like that. Disappointed at the most. But it seems like some guys would be extremely angry, whether at the dishonesty or the fact that the woman is transgender. And it seems like the more dates or whatever that happen before she tells him, the worse his reaction would be. Therefore, it seems to me that the sooner she tells him, the better off it will be.
In number three, I would think that a transgender woman would make it clear that she is transgender before being anywhere alone. And if it is going to happen on the first date, it seems better to say right up front to avoid any dangerous situations. Avoiding disappointment should not be a concern, of course.
The vast majority of people disagree with you. In fact the vast majority of people disagree with you so much that they would never date a transwoman because they think there is THAT much of a difference between a woman and a transwoman.
What is true it that a transwoman is a human being and is entitled to all the respect and dignity a human being deserves but we do not have to reorder society in the slightest to accommodate her dating life.
Sure, to the extent that no one is under any obligation to be honest and disclose material information.
Not even remotely? There is nothing dishonest about presenting yourself as a woman on a date when you KNOW that the vast majority of people are assuming you are a natural born woman and would not want to date you if they knew you were a transwoman? Not even remotely dishonest?
There was nothing about those 49 women that they could have told me before we started dating that would have made me not go on that first date with them. If they had said “BTW, I was born a man but I’m a woman now” I probably would never have gone on a date with them.
I just don’t have a lot of respect for people who are dishonest. I am hopeful that this is a minority but sadly I fear that this may not be the case. I understand the instinct to fall back on accusations of bigotry when your arguments are such obvious failures but it really only helps you with the extreme liberal wing of this board where mere accusations of bigotry carry weight.
But they don’t. AFAICT on some dating sites, you are asked for your preferences and you can say no to transwomen. If you are given an opportunity to filter out transwomen but do not do so, then you can’t really complain if you get matched with a transwoman.
If you don’t disclose you are transgender on those sites and you get matched with a guy that filtered out transwomen, then you were clearly being dishonest, right?
Now in the absence of any prompt to filter out transwomen, do you think it is natural for people to filter out transgender people on their profile narrative?
How do you respond to Ambivalid’s statements about where the burden of disclosure lays?
It’s only not deceptive in your opinion. You have no factual merit to back up the exact numbers you chose. I asked you several times for how you chose the breakpoints and you keep throwing your spin on “utilitarianism” in my face.
Why don’t you answer yourself?
You’ve applied a standard of disclosure impacting one side and not the other.
You have heard the arguments of the relative danger and privacy invasion of disclosing personal medical information to a global population of people on a dating site, and decided that does not have enough importance for you. You feel this is somehow not a burden for a transgender person such that it sways your mind.
You feel that somehow an unreasonable burden exists for a cis person to spend 2 seconds typing “no trans” in a profile. How about if they make it a radio button or checkbox? It takes like 0.25 seconds to click it. Just how far do we have to go so all the poor, oppressed people out there who are “victimized” by transgender persons on dating sites don’t have an unreasonable burden?
MANY dating sites (most? All?) have an option for “is seeking other M/F.” Why don’t you start a thread railing against those? After all, gay men make up about 3.5% of the population, and lesbian women about 1.2% IIRC. By that same metric, one could guess that if only 3.5% of the population is gay, then there is a 96.5% chance someone is not seeking a gay man (let’s leave aside the question of bisexual persons, since the stats are much more hazy on those). So your argument of “utilitarianism” would say “since 96.5% of men aren’t going to be interested in other men, they shouldn’t have to click a “seeking other” button, since it’s an unreasonable burden to that 96.5%.” Unless your argument is that 3.5% of the population being gay men somehow passes your bar for significance - I wouldn’t know, really, as you refused to provide me with any hard breakpoints, even after having been asked several times.
Or if we consider the lesbian option, you can say 98.8% of women are “unreasonably burdened” having to click the “seeking other” button, since it only impacts 1.2%. Does that meet your breakpoint? It must, I guess - again, we don’t know how you picked your breakpoints.
I assume you’ll go and dig up all sorts of cites and numbers showing different percentages, etc., but it really doesn’t matter. Even if gay men were 10% of the population and bi men were 10% of the population (something I don’t think anyone believes), you’re still choosing to inconvenience 80% of the population with the “unreasonable” burden of clicking a button.
In other words, you’ve chosen some breakpoint of 80% versus 1%, but have no factual basis for why you chose those values to be your breakpoints. You have refused to say why those values are demonstrably better than, say, 70%/0.5%, or 49.5%/50.5%.
You’ve been told repeatedly of the dangers for transgender persons in dating. You’ve been told of the murders, beatings, etc. Your advice was essentially “meet people at the sock hop.”
You are arguing your opinion and trying to call it a fact under the $5 word of “utilitarianism,” a word which is as vague and nebulous as any, and which has no clear metrics nor breakpoints in your specific application of it. In the context of what you’ve written in this thread, it means “the majority rules, at whatever breakpoints my gut tells me, which vary depending upon the situation and the phases of the moon, and no I won’t tell you how I came to any decision I came to regarding an exact number.” Your judgment of merit for both the risk that transgender persons face and to the minuscule inconvenience for the rest of the population is entirely your opinion. You have no more factual basis for your gut than I do.
Whereas I’m stating my opinion as an opinion. That’s it. An opinion based upon an experience which I think is somewhat unique on this message board in terms of depth and breadth on the issue, but something which is also not “hard fact.”
That they’re his opinion? That I would never make a parallel between being disabled and being transgender, so I don’t know why he feels he can do so? I’m not going to play the “let’s you and him fight” game.
Not really. It’s prima facie dishonest if you hold feelings which could be very much relevant to a situation, and refuse to disclose them out of deceptiveness. Or out of fear that if you’re exposed as a bigot, people might call you bad names and make you cry. (When in reality, there are many reasons one might not want to date a transperson which have nothing to do with bigotry, such as wanting children, or fear of discrimination by right-wing conservatives).
Oh, and FTR, the only “flailing” I’ve done is on a sub or three. But of course, they deserved it…
My, my…both your stance and argument certainly evolved over time, didn’t they?
Nice strawman. I love the hat. The vintage Spider-Man Underoos add a touch of nostalgic class as well.
The argument from myself has always been “IF one side is honest from the start about being transgender, then the OTHER side should be EQUALLY honest about not wanting us.” No double-standard, unlike your proposal, digging in your heels, kicking and screaming about the burden placed upon poor, oppressed cisgender brotato chips - the most victimized minority in history, apparently.
I also support a situation where BOTH sides do not disclose to the public in a dating site, but prior to meeting for the first time, BOTH sides should disclose their situation/feelings to each other privately. You however still place all the burden on the transgender person. At what point do cisgender broflakes have any duty or obligation on themselves to disclose? By all indications, your answer is “never.”
I thought I linked this before: Sorites paradox - Wikipedia
But I don’t see it. I wonder where I posted that.
Yes. The side where the overall burden is lightest.
And you have not presented a single case where transphobic people were identified by their dating profile, tracked down and beaten. I on the other hand can present several cases where a failure to disclose led to violence when the disclosure was eventually made. ISTM that if you want to avoid violence, honesty is the best policy.
Yes its an unreasonable burden because the universe of things that fall into the category of “shit that no one ever thinks of because it almost never fucking happens” is more than “no trans” As Ambivalid points out, it is a little silly to insist that the rest of the world disclose something like this.
I’m not sure what your argument is here. Is the argument that homosexuals should have to identify themselves as homosexuals? Or that heterosexuals shouldn’t have to identify themselves (under my logic) because so many people are heterosexuals?
I suspect that the seeking m/f is there to help homosexuals identify themselves as homosexuals. Not to help heterosexuals identify themselves as heterosexuals. If a dating site makes you click through a page where they ask if you are interested in dating a transwoman and you fail to signal your aversion there, then you cannot complain if the site matches you with a transwoman.
But you are saying that the rest of the world should bear the burden of putting “no trans” on their dating profile without being prompted, because its not fair that transwomen have to disclose their transgender status to the people they date… is silly.
If you’re just clicking a button where you are prompted, that’s no big deal, but you are have a fairly self centered view of the world if you think people are going to be thinking about their aversion to some rare event while filling out their profile. And frankly, on those site, you would have to disclose your transgender status as well.
The entire discipline of philosophy and economics disagrees with your formulation of how arguments are weighed. Your argument is self centered, self indulgent and somewhat spoiled while mine is based on long established economic principles.
And your opinion is backed by your arguments that transwomen get beaten so we should just agree with you. Show me a few cases where someone tracked a transwoman from her dating profile and beat her. For each such case, I suspect I can show you several cases where transwomen DIDN’T disclose and ended up the victim of violence by a guy that thought he was going out with a non-transwoman. ISTM that not disclosing is the greater risk and while you are entitled to take whatever risks you like, it undermines your argument that listing it in your profile puts you at greater risk of getting beaten.
What it also does is put you at greater risk of dating bucket list guys and fetishists and makes it really hard for you to date the vast majority of guys that don’t want to date a transwoman. I’m sorry that a transgender person’s dating prospects are so limited and that the guys that want to date you often don’t want to date you for the reasons you want them to date you. But it will likely be at least a generation before society will have changed enough that the majority of people will be indifferent between dating transwomen and non-transwomen.
Who fucking cares? For most of my life, the “vast majority” of people thought I shouldn’t be allowed to be married. If I’d been born a little earlier, I’d have had the delightful experience of having the “vast majority” of people think I was inherently dangerous to children. There have been times when the “vast majority” of people thought that black people were inferior to white people, that women couldn’t be trusted to vote, or that Jews were directly and personally responsible for killing Jesus.
All of those assholes were wrong. Being in the majority didn’t make them right.
Who the fuck is arguing for a “re-order of society?” I’m arguing that they be treated exactly the same as any other woman, and that includes not being shamed because they don’t want to reveal intimate medical details of their lives to strangers.
Transwomen are not being dishonest by presenting themselves as women. Because they *are *women.
No. There is nothing - absolutely nothing at all - dishonest about that.
There’s nothing that those women could have told you that would have made you not date them - except if they were transgender, which would have been an instant deal-breaker, regardless of any other circumstance.
But your position is not in any way animated by prejudice against trans people. Sure.
I don’t have a lot of respect for people who insist on differing social standards for a minority, and then insist that their position is somehow respectful towards the people they’re shitting on.
If asked directly, “Are you a ciswoman” and the answer given is “yes” when the truth is “no,” then that would be dishonest.
(Another perfectly honest answer would be, “That’s none of your business,” but it would give the bigot useful data.)
Setting aside the inherent idiocy of using economic theories to dictate romantic behavior, your position is still shitty for the simple fact that the burden is not hire for the cisgender people in this situation. Cisgender people don’t get murder because someone doesn’t like cisgender people. They don’t get fired from their jobs if their boss finds out they’re cisgender. They don’t get kicked out of their homes for being cisgender. The absolute worst outcome here is that a cisgender person might have a date that doesn’t lead any where. That is not the heavier burden.
Not telling people you’re trans is not dishonest.
We. Are. Not. Talking. About. Economics.
And the “entire” discipline of philosophy? Because there’s just one of those, right?
Man, this paragraph is such a mess.
First, violence isn’t the only issue, here. There’s a lot of other forms of discrimination trans people face. What if they’re interviewing for a job, their employer does a Google search on their name, and up comes a dating profile that lists them as transgender? What if a co-worker is cruising OKCupid, and happens on their profile? What if it’s a family member they’re not out to yet?
Second, a lot of violence against trans people is committed by their intimate partner - not because the trans person “tricked” them into sex without disclosing their status, but because someone in the attacker’s social circle found out they were dating a trans person, and the attacker felt compelled to violence in order to save face.
Third, your confusing your arguments. Whether or not it’s safer to be upfront about being trans has nothing to do with the ethics of being upfront about it. It’s your habit of conflating the two arguments that makes people rightly call you out for victim blaming.
Lastly, Jesus! What is it with you and the laser-like focus on online dating? There’s a lot of other venues where people can hook up romantically.
You know who’s not helping bring that change around?
You.
So, spare us your crocodile tears about how unfortunate it is that trans people have to deal with folks like you in navigating dating spaces. You want things to be better for trans people? Stop making the arguments you’ve been making in this thread.
This seems like you advocate that transgender people do not select “I am transgender” on dating sites that offer that option. Are you advocating that?
Wrong thread!
I’m neither advocating for or against that. Whether or not a trans person feels comfortable disclosing that they’re trans is solely at their decision. It’s not my place to tell them when it’s appropriate to do so. It’s not yours, either. Nor is it Damuri’s.
Of course it isn’t. But if a dating site offers two choices “Transgender” and “Cisgender” what is a transgender person supposed to do?
Why does it have to be either/or transgender or cisgender? What if I’m both? Or neither? What if it depends on how I feel at a particular time? What if I’m both yin and yang?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk