So why not also include “bigot” in the identifier? “A lot of bigoted cishet guys…”?
That would be kind of tautological, wouldn’t it? What I was saying was basically “A lot of cishet guys exhibit this form of bigotry”, and you think it ought to be rephrased as “A lot of bigoted cishet guys exhibit this form of bigotry”. Well, okay, sure?
No one is ramming anything down your throat. You are not being bullied. Everyone recognizes your preference to NOT date or have sex with trans gender people to be a legitimate preference to be respected.
What the rest of us are objecting to is your notion that the rest of the world has to cater to your preferences. None of us are psychic. You have to use your words. YOU have to communicate that you do not wish to have sex with trans gender people.
You also have to accept the possibility that on a first date or first few dates it may be revealed that the person you are dating is trans gender. The correct response when that happens is to say “That is not my preference” in a polite and courteous manner and then end the date also in a polite and courteous manner and seek elsewhere for a partner. The non-correct response is to whine, bitch, moan, and complain that you were “deceived” if you had not expressed your own preferences up front in advance, or to whine, bitch, moan, and complain that you are not provided with perfect partners but have to go through the same process as everyone else in seeking a partner.
Well said. I think there is nothing exceptional about genital configuration in this regard. If you discover that your date has some other feature that is sharply at odds with your unwavering preference, the protocol should just be the same for that, whatever it is.
Well said. No need to be rude about it.
Weren’t you the guy who posted this a couple days ago?
I mean, kudos for not trying to be “funny” about it, but you’re making exactly the same unsupported accusation that Mallard is making.
Are there any other preferences, also shared by 95+% of the dating populace, that should also be mentioned?
It seems somewhat less than efficient to tell the overwhelming majority that they have to communicate that they are the overwhelming majority. Otherwise the list of what you are looking for in a partner is going to get pretty long.
Regards,
Shodan
Why would you assume 95% of the dating populace aren’t in any way, shape or form down with dating trans folk ?
I disagree. The probability is so low that the reasonable expectation is actually (and here is where the language police become so annoying) that the date is non transgender. And with a violent response a real possibility what sounds good in polite courtship theorycraft fails the reality/pragmatism test.
nm
What the hell does “reasonable expectation” has to do with anything ? It’s an undeniable possibility. Just because you assume it ain’t gonna happen has no bearing whatsoever on the probability of it happening. And if you really, but really don’t want it to happen ; that’s up to you to mitigate it. How is any trans supposed to know you’re explicitly, emphatically not down for *that *based on your profile picture ?
(I also don’t know what language has to do with anything there, but you’re evidently set on doing you)
I mean, you’re talking about some form of dating realpolitik here - but what seems more prudent to you : a) openly advertising your transdom (with all the explicit problems that implies and **Jragon **mentioned), or b) subtly testing the waters on the first date and, as the case may be, possibly pretext some reason or other (besides “I think you’re a transphobic asshole”) to not go on date #2 up to and including straight ghosting the person who gave you super bad vibes ?
Again, in a context where a baseball bat to the grill can be the nigh-immediate, terminal penalty for a wrong assessment.
The tranny should assume that and know better. To discriminate in terms of accommodation or employment is one thing, a social setting is quite something else. IMHO of course.
I’m curious. Do you not realize that your choice of words is possibly offensive to others, or do you know this and yet choose to do it anyway?
In that context a) would seem the more prudent choice.
If [ul][li]there is something about you that causes most people to not consider you as a romantic partner, and []some smaller percent of that majority might react with violence if they go out on a date with you, and []it is considerably harder to hit someone with a baseball bat over a website, rather than in person[/ul]ISTM the more prudent step is avoid that danger, even with the other disadvantages listed. [/li]
Unless you have a lot more confidence in your ability to be subtle, and especially to figure out who will react badly and then get out safely before they can figure out the situation.
I guess you would have to weigh your relative chances of finding
[list=A][li]Finding someone who can accept you for what you really are[/li][li]Someone who is not going to accept you, but not be an asshole about it[/li][li]Someone who is not going to accept you and is going to be an asshole about it[/list][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
The “overwhelming majority”, according to you, are the ones with the preference. The trans folks in question don’t have such a preference – they just want to meet people.
If someone has such a preference, and it’s so important of them to avoid even a single date with someone who doesn’t meet their preference, then it’s on them to do their best make sure that happens. Not on others.
Most folks have lots of preferences. And most dates will probably violate some of them. Not a big deal to go on a date with someone that doesn’t meet all your preferences. If you think it’s a big deal, then it’s on you to avoid it.
Here’s what happened to a trans person that I know:
She lived in a small town on the outskirts of a major Southern city. She posted an ad on a personals website. She included pictures and a description, like most other ads, and also mentioned that she was trans. She didn’t hide this.
She went on a handful of dates over a few months. One guy clicked, and they had an intimate encounter (let’s call it 2nd base, or something like that). They lost contact – she figured he’d lost interest. Then, out of the blue, about a month later, this guy (a spammer who was almost certainly him, based on some of the details of the incident) emailed/posted on social media to her boss, many of her family members, friends, and neighbors, with pictures (the same picture from the dating site), that she was a lying dirty trans expletive. Not all of her friends/family and none of her coworkers were aware of this. It became unbearable and she quit her job.
In my understanding, this kind of thing is not a terribly uncommon experience for trans folks who openly date online. Many of them are probably already out, so such an outing is irrelevant. But many are not. Outing one’s self carries considerable risk, and thus many trans folks will opt to “save” such information for when it’s really, really necessary – i.e. before an intimate encounter with someone they believe they can trust. There’s a risk there, of course, but that can be minimized by timing the conversation to a public place – like at the end of a meal at a restaurant.
In a society (or maybe just a locality) with lots of transphobes, some of whom are capable of violence, there’s no 100% safe way for trans folks to date. Based on conversations with trans folks, I think the safest strategy is to reveal this information in a public place after some level of trust and rapport has developed, but before any intimate encounter.
[quote=“Shodan, post:275, topic:843329”]
In that context a) would seem the more prudent choice.
If [ul][li]there is something about you that causes most people to not consider you as a romantic partner, and []some smaller percent of that majority might react with violence if they go out on a date with you, and []it is considerably harder to hit someone with a baseball bat over a website, rather than in person[/ul]ISTM the more prudent step is avoid that danger, even with the other disadvantages listed. [/li][/QUOTE]
Yeaaaah, no.
Putting myself in the shoes of a trans person, and speaking as a cis- strict clam-liker (tested, even - it’s a long and, admittedly unfair story I nevertheless have no interest in revisiting yet), I think setting up ogre-like layers of “in that case, hazy polite no” seems more conducive to my not getting harassed - or worse.
You don’t deserve, nor are you owed, a fuck from any given date.
“trans” was used in #271 so I don’t see much difference.
On the off chance you’re not aware of this, “tranny” is considered (due to past usage) to be a slur, much like racial slurs that you’re undoubtedly aware of (with a similar history of usage and violence). “Trans” is a simple non-slur descriptor, just like “black”, “white”, or “gay”.