It’s also why posters itt who are treating the column like it’s some sort of prescriptive, neonormative diktat by a newly empowered consensual RadSex police have their heads up their arses, pardon my British.
And just as evidently, because they’re not your grandma’s Agony Aunts, the people who write to them and ask for their advice are already doing so from a premise of getting sex advice from a pair of people more sexually free than average. Which is to say, they’re either already fairly open-minded themselves ; or they’re striving to become more than they are.
And I mean, even then the “but I want my liking clam exclusively to be recognized as valid !!” crowd must have missed the part of the column where Rich said that he was exclusively into dick and that’s OK and doesn’t make him a bad person in and of itself ; just as Stoya opines that everyone is entitled to their desires no matter how rigid. Literally nobody is telling anybody they have to fuck someone they’re not attracted to, or whose undercarriage doesn’t fit the rail gauge.
They’re right however in pointing out that questioning why you (putative you) have those strong feelings (or, aversely, revulsion to the other set of plumbing, or the idea of going out with a transwoman etc) is a pretty worthwhile endeavour and self-exploration on its own. And that to someone like the guy writing the letter who, like I’d say most people on this forum, has evidently never really interacted with a trans person in the wild, actually opening oneself to the possibility of actually having a drink with them, and talking with them etc… is an opportunity to grow and learn and share that (to me anyway) seems a *lot *more interesting in and of itself than “but do I *have *to suck ladydick, then ?”.
Well, no. But that’s kind of the point. People seeking dating or sexual advice within the strict confines of cishet norms have a million outlets to do so.
Fair enough. Although I would put it as “are refusing because they’re afraid of looking like chickenshit transphobes in the eyes of some cisgender women who mistakenly believe that putting “cisgender only” means someone is a chickenshit transphobe” as a way to make clear that I believe a person is being wrong and insulting to consider a person who only wants to date a cisgender woman is a chickenshit transphobe.
Fair enough back atcha. Although I in turn would point out that a lot of women in the dating world have discovered by experience that a lot of men who are strongly averse to even the possibility of even having a first date with a woman who turns out to be transgender actually are chickenshit transphobes.
So while it might be wrong for them to jump to that conclusion about every guy who states an exclusive preference for dating cisgender women, you can sort of see where they’d be coming from.
Surely there could be a tactful way to bring this up beforehand right? Something like, “Hey I know this is personal, but when it comes to physical relationship stuff, I prefer the other team’s equipment, know what I mean?”
I realize the above was not directed towards me, but what the hell.
You can distinguish chickenshit asshole transphobe (ChAT) from someone who just has other preferences than the particular transgender person before them in the following manner:
ChAT: “Whuuuuh…? OMG! ICK ICK EW AWFUL HOW DARE YOU?!?”
Person who isn’t a ChAT: “Oh… well, to be honest that’s not my preference. I hope you’re not disappointed. What do you say we finish the movie/meal/other non-sexual activity and call it a night?”
Is it really that difficult for people to be polite to each other?
The display of chickenshithood under discussion is putting your aversion to transgenders in your profile. You know, like,
“Hi! I’m a smart, suave, definitely taller than I look man who likes long walks on the beach and vaginas. Natural, factory vaginas. Vaginas that have always been vaginas, and have never been things other than vaginas. Those kinds of vaginas are good. Also pastry, I’m real fond to pastry. Not necessarily at the same time, mind you, but I wouldn’t necessarily say no.”
I don’t know, the apparent redundancy might have been confusing. But in any case, the theory is that people who are averse to transsexuals would tend not to mention it in their profiles like that because women would read the open bigotry and look elsewhere for less hate-filled men. And so they don’t, and then they find out over dinner, and then OMG ICK ICK EW AWFUL HOW DARE YOU?!?
Actually, no I can’t see where they’d be coming from. Because I don’t let a few experiences with a subset of a group of people alter my judgement about the rest of that subset of people. I’m pretty sure there is a term for that.
Of course. And anyone who does that is a moron. I’m talking about the idea that putting “cisgender only” in a dating profile might cause some people to consider you a ChAT.
To be honest, I probably would find that (or any other) example of blatant bigotry a turn-off, even though I myself doubt I would have a sexual relationship with a transgender person - though I am at least open to the notion the future might surprise me. And if I was in a situation where I was turning down an overture I’d be as polite and compassionate about it as possible as opposed to treating the other person like a crawling horror.
On the other hand, people who put blatant examples of bigotry of any sort in their profiles would avoid the two of us wasting time by going on a date, which may be seen as a positive on both sides.
No I think you’re wrong, I wish we could arrange a real life test to prove it, but I’m pretty confident, in an in-person encounter about 90% of people could spot 90% of them probably a higher percentage actually. It’s even more ridiculous to say nobody has any fucking idea, maybe you can’t tell the difference I think most people can.
The closest I’ve ever come to the OP situation has been with regard to religion. I’ve met a woman, had some conversation, and at some point one of us suggested dinner/drinks. During that first date she mentioned god/her church/etc and I realized that our first date would also be our last. I explained that I’m an atheist, and a pretty hard atheist at that. Dessert was the final course.
It’s not ridiculous to say. I mean it’s bloody tautological - if they pass and you don’t clock them, then you don’t include them in your mental “TRANS ! TRANS SPOTTED !” tally. I’m not saying nobody has a fucking idea, or that a fucking idea is unreachable. I’m just saying you specifically can’t reach a fucking idea from anecdotal or subjective observations (nor me specifically).
I mean obviously I know what you’re basing it on - trans who just can’t pass no matter how hard they try because X, or even who could absolutely pass if it were not for morphological detail Y.
At the same time should you start looking for e.g. pictures of trans models you will absolutely go “wait, what ? She’s really a dude ?!”
(note to progs : I know that’s a problematic and shiteheaded thought or statement to begin with - but you also know that’s the baseline unexplored normies come from so don’t give me shit. I’m not saying I embrace it uncritically or at all - I’m using it for illustrative purposes.)
I mean, that’s whence the whole “trap” meme comes from. Straight dudes who sincerely thought they were macking on ciswomen and were having a great time, up until the object of their lust revealed her history.
It is very possible that most transwomen are “recognizable” to someone with a discerning eye, but this is only because the stigmatization of transgenderism has historically kept many trans people from accessing early interventions.
Perhaps in the near future, we will see a big wave of transwoman who never experienced male puberty and are thus are 100% passable. And I’m thinking that the stigma towards transwomen will be lessened because of this. I mean, I could see why a transwoman who has presented as a woman only for a couple of years could be seen as “other” by both cismen and ciswomen. But if a transwoman has spent 30 years going by female pronouns and presenting as a woman, then only a serious bigot would find it necessary to quibble over whether this person is a “real” woman.
It’s also because most people swear they have “a discerning eye” absent any real evidence.
It’s gaydar all over again. Back in the day people were honestly shocked to learn that Liberace could have been some type of homo. Liberace. LIBERACE. Meanwhile I got “awww” half disbelief, half sincere pity, half condescension looks from gay acquaintances because I’d never even considered Kevin Spacey could have been gay. Which, yanno, in knowing retrospect miiiight just have been a little obvious or worth considering based on this or that. But the question itself didn’t come to me.
But that’s my whole point : you don’t know, until you know. And until you know, it’s beyond expectations or perceptions.
Am i mistaken in my understanding that it’s when (or if) the transgender person undergoes hormonal transition therapy that plays the largest (or at least a very large) role in how “passable” that person will be as their preferred gender, post-transition? Those who get hormones pre-puberty usually look more traditionally like their gender of identity.
People are allowed to have their own sexual preferences, even if they don’t make sense to you. The reality is that, even after surgery, a surgically created vagina/penis is not the same as a biological one. I know that nowadays it is considered bigotry to acknowledge that trans people are in fact distinguishable from people who were born that sex, but that is the reality with current technology.
This kind of shit is why so many people now have an issue with the trans movement. If you want to live your life as a trans person doing your own thing, fine, most of us don’t care since it doesn’t affect us. However, when you want to control the way other people think about or speak about trans people, shame them for having sexual preferences that don’t include trans people, etc. then you are going to create a backlash.