A writer to a Slate advice column asks if there is a polite way to determine if a person has genitals compatible to es sexual orientation and gender before asking for/going on a date. Slate’s columnists answer no.
From the question:
From the answer:
I’m confused. Isn’t the whole point about freedom of identity and gender and sexual orientation about being able to make your own choices? These columnists seem to be suggesting that you should date anyone regardless of gender, sex, sexual preference, etc., and just be willing to find out down the line whether you’re fundamentally compatible.
I know I have A LOT to learn, and I’m trying - ever so slowly - through different discussions we have here. But this makes me feel like I have no idea about anything.
Especially this:
“ich: Many good points made there, particularly the last one. The writer says that he doesn’t want to play with a penis. But he doesn’t have to, even if one is present.”
“Stoya: Exactly. Sex can be so very many activities. Nobody’s penis has to be involved for everyone to have a great time.”
Sorry, this just seems to be saying “Hey, even if someone doesn’t have the anatomy you are looking for when it comes to sex, you should just forget about that”
I like the shape of classical female anatomy; it’s a specifically sexual liking, and constitutes my earliest sexual feelings (or the earliest I have any awareness of at any rate), a disconcertingly naughty fascination for what I thought of, at that age, as the place girls pee from.
I am never going to complain that I have been “set up” or “misled” if it should turn out that a person I’ve been ostensibly flirting with, dating, or even making out with in some sense of the word turns out to have classical male anatomy instead. But I reserve the right to discontinue the sexual experimentations and I’m entitled to my disappointments and my aesthetic sexual tastes. I’m not saying that would be the outcome – I’ve never been in such a situation where there was any kind of rapport or emotional intimacy or other connection that would give me reason to consider otherwise. But it seems likely that such would be my reaction, in all honesty.
Apparently, prefering oysters over snails is now a matter of morality, not taste. We are not only not permitted to prefer one over the other, we may not even differentiate between them.
For me, it feels like it would be similar to the scenario where you get to know someone, things move on, and it turns out that their genitals, although of your preferred general type, are aesthetically unappealing to you, for some reason. That is, they are your preferred gender and there are no trans issues confounding your choice - you just find their uglies, ugly (or indeed any other aspect of their body) - What do you do in that situation?
I think this is the fallout of two different axioms. If you accept the premise that transwomen are women and you accept the premise that a straight man is attracted to women, then a straight man should be attracted to transwomen. And, as far as I know, this is more or less borne out by the experiences of straight transwomen who report that their partners are usually straight men, not gay men.
As much as I’d like to put this on straight people having hangups about sex, I know it’s not a gay/straight divide because I know lots of gay men who refuse to date transmen. I think the whole thing is silly and reductive. I am attracted to men, not penises. And if you think that finding out someone you find attractive and sweet and caring has a penis instead of a vulva is a dealbreaker, I don’t think you should call yourself straight, you should say you’re a vulvaphile or whatever so that your potential partners know exactly why you’re into them.
Sure, I’ll bite. For a while now I’ve thought of myself as a “straight man attracted to women.” You’re saying I should rephrase that as “a straight cis-man born with a penis attracted to cis-women born with a vulva.” I guess I can live with that, except that I have this sneaking feeling that your post seems slightly pejorative about this point of view.
But once we have changed to the more verbose formulation, what have we actually changed?
Aren’t we just playing around with terminology here?
You can, for example, say (A) that there are women and trans-women, and that they are both of the feminine gender, or you can say that (B) there are cis-women and trans-women, and they’re both women.
Say it however you want, it might change our vocabulary, but it’s not going to change my sexual preferences. I’m not going to start being attracted to trans-women just because rubric (B) classifies them as women.
Or is that what you think should happen? Do you think that straight men should start being attracted to both cis-women and trans-women, because, according to this particular classification they’re both “women”?
How about this, you be attracted to what you like, and I’ll be attracted to what I like, and you can kindly shut the fuck up about what I should or shouldn’t call myself.
Because, just like what the trans community wants, I can choose my sexual identity for myself without your personal (and pejorative) direction as to what label I should be required to use.
I would prefer to leave it as “straight man attracted to women” but with the understanding that there is a small chance that said woman may have a penis, and not freak out or get weird about that. I admit, this may be a pipe dream. Not all people are as laidback as I am.
But I do think that this discussion is revealing a tension between cis allies and trans people. For me, the circle is easily squared. I accept that transmen are men and I am attracted to men in general therefore I am attracted to transmen in general. What’s for dinner?
How would you resolve the tension? I don’t remember what Ahunter3’s specific beliefs are but based on his post I don’t really know how else to classify him as ‘attracted to ciswomen’ and if we are going to start breaking down orientation into trans-exclusionary and trans-inclusionary hetero/homosexuality, then I think in this dating app world we live in, it’s only fair to label yourself accurately so people know whether or not its even worth sending you a message on OKCupid and you don’t get your heart broken because the woman you thought was going to be the love of your life is missing something integral to a fulfilling sex life for you.
But if you’re not going to start being attracted to trans-women, then it’s not a problem; you won’t find yourself in a situation where it matters.
If you begin to be attracted to someone who, shortly later in the exploration of the relationship, turns out, to your surprise, to be a trans-woman, I don’t see how it’s any different to being att4racted to a cis-woman and then discovering they have a weird bellybutton, or a mole shaped like snoopy, or eleven toes, or indeed, that whilst they were born genetically female, they have ambiguous, male-looking genitalia (it happens) and being put off by that, or any number of bodily discoveries
If genitalia is a dealbreaker for someone, it’s a dealbreaker for that someone. So it is perfectly reasonable to want to know in advance, to spare both parties any needless waste of time or energy.
Yeah, that OP article is the worst sort of shit and is actually damaging to efforts to destigmatize nonbinaries. The fuck you mean messing with my junk doesn’t have to be involved for everyone to have a good time? I mean, if we’re at Six Flags or a concert I suppose that’s true enough. But if it’s time to bump uglies…does the author even know what sexual intercourse is? I think we’re seeing some big time projection in the author.
If a cis woman has prostetic breasts, is she obligated to inform potential suitors of this on the first date?
If a cis guy has a micro penis, is he obligated to inform potential suitors of this on the first day.
If someone has a lot of extra skin or horrific burn scars all over their body (but not their face), do they need to say something right away? Or can they let things progress until such a conversation becomes non-weird?
I don’t know if opposite-sex genitalia fits in the same box as these other things. But I can see the logic in the notion that if other imperfections don’t have to be disclosed right away, then it is fair game to delay talking about the kind of genitals a person has.
That said, I think if I were trans and I still possessed the genitalia I had been born with, I would find dates through a dating service so that I could target an audience who I know are OK with transgenderism and discordant sex-gender presentation. I wouldn’t be putting myself out there on the wide open market because the risk of heartbreak would be too much for me to take.