Trans folk could be excluded simply because, for a lot of people, sticking with what’s most familiar to them has its own appeal. Kind of like, if all you’ve known is lovers with circumcised penises, you may not be all too interested in deviating from that path. There are unknown unknowns. How will sex feel? You just don’t know. People tend to gravitate to what they are accustomed to, and cis people are used to having sex with other cis people.
It’s a mistake to conflate the perception that someone isn’t a “real woman/man” with the thought that one needs a partner with {insert whatever} to have good sex. Personally, I don’t think I would be sexually satisfied if my partner didn’t have a penis that works like his does.
Yes, IMHO. As long as he doesn’t complain about how hard it is to find someone. And as long as he is aware how he may come across by asking that question and accepts the associated costs (turning away good potential partners regardless of their genitalia).
If not spending time with someone with a dick is THAT important to this guy, then being frank from day one shouldn’t be a problem for him. The easier alternative is for him to wait till the point when sexual cards are normally put on the table. If he’s not used to having a kind of a conversation where cards on put on the table, then shame on him for not being a responsible adult.
This doesn’t free the other person from their obligation to disclose, mind you. But if a woman normally waits until the third date to talk about her “private area issues” with a sex partner (STDs, vaginismus, contraception challenges, major deformities, etc.), then I don’t see why a woman with a penis has to wear a sandwich board announcing as much on the first day. Unless she’s dealing with a transphobe.
I don’t “think” anything about this. It’s a word. It’s arbitrary. If the general consensus is that “woman” is defined to label a category that includes both cis-women and trans-women, then that is a linguistic issue. It has no bearing on my sexuality.
If that’s the definition of “woman,” then “woman” is no longer the correct term for defining my sexual interests. I’ll have to say “cis-woman,” or whatever term is deemed sufficiently accurate. And then my definition of “heterosexual” has to use the word “cis-woman” instead of “woman.”
Because changing the definition of “woman” doesn’t change sexuality. It doesn’t actually make cis-women and trans-women the same type of human in terms of sexuality.
You used the word “should” in one of your above posts, which is baffling to me.
And what is this “all-in” status? Is it one that must be achieved in order not to be an anti-trans bigot?
A date—especially one set up through a dating app or website as in the OP link—assumes that a possible romantic or sexual encounter or relationship is under consideration. I would not entertain such a consideration if there were any doubt about the cis- or trans- status of the other person, and the sexual equipment thereto.
I don’t think there is any reason to bring up credit scores on the first date either, but at least one poster thinks it’s okay. Is genitalia any different?
The guy in the OP. Actually, E never says what ēs gender is, maybe? E could be a man or a woman. Whatever, that person is into (apparently) cis-women and post-op trans-women, but not pre-op trans-women. If E’s a man then we could say that E has a one-penis policy. Does the “should” apply to em then? “Should” E be willing to entertain the possibility of a partner with a penis?
ISTM the columnists could have simply addressed the matter of etiquette, where the answer is easy: “NO, there’s no unawkward way to ask about someone’s genital configuration ahead of time, sorry.” Making “I cannot imagine being so put off” comments added nothing to that answer and could have been left out. But of course doing that would have made for a short dull column, and including it would make people comment on what that meant. Which probably explains why they are writing for that site and I am not.
:dubious: If by “woman” you mean “anybody at all who qualifies for the category defined as ‘woman’”, then “woman” was never the correct term for defining your sexual interests.
I simply don’t believe that you have always been willing to date any cisgender woman whatever, irrespective of her age or looks or anything else about her. Nor do I believe that you have always interpreted the term “heterosexual”, applied to men, to mean being sexually attracted to any cisgender woman whatsoever.
But up to now, apparently, you have been comfortable with describing yourself as “heterosexual” and “sexually interested in women” and so forth even though the accepted definition of “woman” has doubtless always included hundreds of millions of women in the world that you would never be sexually attracted to or willing to date. Then why in the ever-loving blue-eyed world are you now having such a conniption fit over the inclusion in the category “woman” of a mere ten million or so additional women whom you would never be sexually attracted to or willing to date?
Sizewise, the transgender-women population probably doesn’t even rank in the top five categories of women you’re not in the least attracted to and totally unwilling to date. So I can’t fathom for the life of me why you think the inclusion of transgender women in the category “woman” somehow requires you to entirely redefine how you describe your “sexual interests” and how you interpret the term “heterosexual”. Have you considered just getting over yourself instead?
Think of it this way. You may say, “I only date or marry humans” - even though, obviously, there are many humans in the world you wouldn’t date. Then someone asks you if you would be willing to marry his pet German Shepherd, that he classifies as human. Would you marry the dog?
:dubious: I hesitate to describe the analogy you came up with as being meaningfully related to “thinking”, but okay.
Perfectly reasonable, both logically and linguistically.
[QUOTE=Velocity]
Then someone asks you if you would be willing to marry his pet German Shepherd, that he classifies as human. Would you marry the dog?
[/QUOTE]
No. I’d tell the owner something like “I don’t think it would be right for me to marry Rex, and I’m not attracted to Rex in that way, primarily because of Rex being a dog”.
I certainly would not have any kind of existential meltdown about whether the owner’s peculiar and idiosyncratic inclusion of Rex in the category “human” somehow invalidates or redefines my statement that “I only date or marry humans”, or whether my statement somehow obligates me to marry Rex. Any such reaction would be pointless and ridiculous.
And btw, IMO using a dog-owner’s personal classification of his pet as “human” as an analogy for recognizing transgender women as women is pretty distasteful if not downright offensive. It’s up there with the bullshit “people marrying dogs” hypotheticals that homophobic bigots used to trot out as “arguments” against same-sex marriage.
It’s a free country and you can ask all sorts of things, but I don’t think anyone owes you (or anyone else asking for a justification) any explanation at all.
Hmmm, but suppose you just don’t really like red hair. You don’t have to exclude red-haired people from being women, but you could certainly and quite reasonably exclude them from the set of people you would be willing to date.
IMO, it perfectly reasonable for someone to decide they don’t want to pursue a relationship with another person at any stage - that might be before the relationship starts (if the disliked characteristic is something generally outwardly conspicuous, like red hair), or it might be later on, if it turns out to be a characteristic that isn’t on public display - such as the appearance of their genitals, or any other thing that people don’t reveal in public.
It’s reasonable, (even though it might seem shitty) to end a relationship when you find out something about the other person that a)you really don’t like and b)isn’t going to change.
It’s not reasonable to expect people to declare any and every private things that someone else might not like about them.
I’ve asked the following of the thread participants already but didn’t get any satisfactory responses:
Should a woman without a uterus disclose this information on the first date?
Should a guy with a micro penis disclose this information on the first date?
Should someone with an STD disclose this information on the first date?
Should someone with a prostetic sexual organ (breasts, penis, etc.) disclose this information on the first date?
Should someone with a history of trauma or mental illness disclose this information on the first date?
Should someone with financial problems disclose this information on the first date?
Should someone with a highly inheritable disorder (Huntington’s) disclose this information on the first date?
Should someone with a non-obvious racial/ethnic background disclose this information on the first date?
Seems to me if posters can understand why a person usually waits awhile before revealing this sensitive information, they should be able to understand why a person would do the same for unexpected genitalia.
And it seems to me the question that all reasonable, non-bigoted people should be wondering is at what point in time in the dating process would non-disclosure of unexpected genitalia be considered unethical. I believe expecting this information before the first date without any prompting is straight-up bananas, but I don’t think it is crazy to not want to be blindsided with this information as panties are hitting the floor. Just like I don’t think it’s crazy to not want to be blindsided with an disclosure of HIV right as the uglies are bumping. I think reasonable people can agree that there should be a conversation about all potential issues before sex acts are initiated, but still debate exactly when this disclosure should happen.
Expecting people to treat one genitalia issue differently than all other genitalia issues is unfair and bigoted, IMHO. A crooked micropenis is repulsive to a good portion of heterosexual womanhood, but I don’t think a woman has been wronged if she’s had five dates with a guy before he reveals this information to her. If he can sit on this information, why not a woman without a vagina?
:dubious: If by “woman” you mean “anybody at all who qualifies for the category defined as ‘woman’”, then “woman” was never the correct term for defining your sexual interests.
I hesitate to describe the analogy you came up with as being meaningfully related to “thinking”, but okay.