if a straight man wouldn't want to date a transsexual woman...would that be bigoted?

[Adi Shankara]

I think there was a thread that discussed this some while back ago, but not really in depth...also, my memory is crap so I want to refresh the topic. :P

But my question is to the revlefters: "if a straight man didn't want to date a transsexual woman strictly for being transsexual, would that make him a misogynist/bigot, and thus reactionary?"

discuss.

[Volcanicity]

I think there was a thread that discussed this some while back ago, but not really in depth, and it got closed because people couldn't be civil.

But my question is to the revlefters: "if a straight man didn't want to date a transsexual woman strictly for being transsexual, would that make him a misogynist/bigot, and thus reactionary?"

discuss.
You seem to have an unhealthy obssession my friend.

[Adi Shankara]

You seem to have an unhealthy obssession my friend.

with what? this is the first thread I ever started on this. Also, I am interested in LGBT issues.

what are you implying?

[Queercommie Girl]

Technically yes. But in reality it's often more complicated than that.

In reality there must be some kind of more concrete reason than just the totally abstract line "I don't date trans-sexuals". Whether or not the guy is reactionary would depend on what the actual concrete reason is. Is it because he just "hate" trans people (which is certainly bigotry) or is it just due to a purely personal factor, that actually he has a lot of trans friends, but he would just prefer to marry a cis-woman (maybe because cis-women can have their own biological children).

For comparison, consider the following question:

if a white man doesn't want to date a Asian girl, is he racist?

Not in every instance. He might really be a racist, or he might actually have many Asian friends, but it's just purely his own personal preference that he doesn't want to actually date an Asian.

The same logic would apply in this case. I completely reject any kind of transphobia which considers trans people to be inferior and denigrates trans people, just as I reject any kind of racism which considers Asian people to be inferior and denigrates Asians. But no one can force another person to change his purely personal preference. Of course, people can try to change his mind by trying to influence him.

[Queercommie Girl]

I believe in materialist ethics. Philosophically this means all ethical questions can only be analysed with very concrete examples, whether they are historical/factual or hypothetical. But ethics cannot be analysed in any purely abstract sense. Terms like "justice", "righteousness", "equality" and "freedom" mean absolutely nothing in a purely abstract sense, devoid from any concrete situation. So it is utterly impossible to have a simplistic one-line answer to Sankara's question here. Marxism rejects idealist ethics. Marxism believes in scientifically analysing each concrete real situation in a concrete way, not just throwing out vague dogmas. This is the same when the analysis is an ethical one as when it is one on the topic of political economy.

[scarletghoul]

Oh God, not this again..

[Queercommie Girl]

Oh God, not this again..

Not what again? The OP's kind of question is too complicated to answer simply in any serious sense.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

"You can't help who you fancy".

Who the hell cares? As long as there is love involved, and the two people respect each other's wishes, I can see no problem.

[scarletghoul]

Actually I was referring to this thread - http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-date-t113436/index.html?t=113436 which turned into a really stupid endless shitstorm
Just over a year ago :blink: doesnt time fly..

[LETSFIGHTBACK]

Oh God, not this again..


lo lol lol lol lol

[Queercommie Girl]

"You can't help who you fancy".

Who the hell cares? As long as there is love involved, and the two people respect each other's wishes, I can see no problem.

It matters if the man's choice to not date trans people stem from the fact that he is actually a transphobe, and not just a purely personal preference.

Just like a man could not date an Asian girl simply due to personal preference, but he could also not date an Asian because he is actually a pro-Aryan neo-Nazi and believe the Asian race is intrinsically inferior. Obviously these two cases are light-years apart.

[Queercommie Girl]

You seem to have an unhealthy obssession my friend.

Why do you think interest in LGBT issues is an "unhealthy obssession"?

[Volcanicity]

with what? this is the first thread I ever started on this. Also, I am interested in LGBT issues.

what are you implying?
Im not implying anything you just seem to bring it up a lot.They are flesh and blood trying to get through the day like anybody else.I mean who fuckin cares.

[Thirsty Crow]

But my question is to the revlefters: "if a straight man didn't want to date a transsexual woman strictly for being transsexual, would that make him a misogynist/bigot, and thus reactionary?"

If your question implies sexual intercourse, then I don't see how that could necessarily make him a bigot. You know, people have sexual preferences, and if he (the supposed bigot) wishes to engage i vaginal sexual intercourse and not anything outside of these confines - that's just it, a matter of personal preference and "taste".
On the other hand, if this person were to express views such as "Yuck, transgendered people make me sick, it's unnatural" etc. - a bigot indeed, case closed.
But the point is that no one can reach a definite conclusion if the only data is that the man doesn't want to date a transsexual woman.

[Adi Shankara]

Im not implying anything you just seem to bring it up a lot.They are flesh and blood trying to get through the day like anybody else.I mean who fuckin cares.

But I haven't brought it up at all, not this particular issue.

[Volcanicity]

Why do you think interest in LGBT issues is an "unhealthy obssession"?
I dont its just the OP seems to be hung up on it.Its 2010 get fuckin over it!

[the last donut of the night]

oh fuck not this thread again

[Volcanicity]

But I haven't brought it up at all, not this particular issue.
Are you kidding me.

[Chambered Word]

Although I think there is definately a nasty stigma that still exists in society around dating transsexuals, most straight guys just aren't into dicks in the first place.


Just like a man could not date an Asian girl simply due to personal preference, but he could also not date an Asian because he is actually a pro-Aryan neo-Nazis and believe the Asian race is intrinsically inferior. Obviously these two cases are light-years apart.

I pretty much agree with this.

[The Feral Underclass]

Actually I was referring to this thread - http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-date-t113436/index.html?t=113436 which turned into a really stupid endless shitstorm
Just over a year ago :blink: doesnt time fly..

I owned that thread.

[Queercommie Girl]

Although I think there is definately a nasty stigma that still exists in society around dating transsexuals, most straight guys just aren't into dicks in the first place.


However, many MtF trans people for example are also post-op, and do have vaginas, albeit "artificial" ones. And probably most MtFs, or at least a very great majority of them, do potentially plan to "go all the way".

So I don't think you can say that straight guys aren't interested in dicks and therefore they aren't interested in MtF trans people. Two different things.

In fact, there are many MtF trans people, for instance, who just wish to be considered as 100% women by society, and don't even identify themselves as a part of the "queer" community intrinsically.

[AK]

Trust Thomas_Sankara to make these weird ass threads.

[Queercommie Girl]

Trust Thomas_Sankara to make these weird ass threads.

It sounds like you think trans people are weird for some reason.

[Obs]

It sounds like you think trans people are weird for some reason.
what

[Volcanicity]

People really need to stop being so fuckin touchy.:(

[Queercommie Girl]

what

I just don't understand what's so wrong with Sankara starting this thread. Maybe people don't like him but as far as the thread is concerned, I don't think there is anything wrong with it at all. Why is it "weird"? It's just a completely neutral question for someone with a bit of an interest in LGBT issues.

Of course, you could say there has already been a thread on this topic before, which dragged on for hundreds of posts. But frankly can't use the past to judge the now, in my opinion.

I'm not saying people are being transphobic, but I find it weird that some people can find Sankara's perfectly neutral thread here "weird", to be frank.

[Obs]

My mistake, I thought you were accusing AK of being transphobic.

[Queercommie Girl]

People really need to stop being so fuckin touchy.:(

Actually I think queer people have the right to defend themselves against potential instances of prejudice. I'm not actually calling anyone here explicitly transphobic. But to think like you that "well it's 2010 so let's just all forget about LGBT politics" is frankly stupid. I take LGBT politics seriously and LGBT people are still very much discriminated against in virtually every part of the world, and this is not going to go away without conscious political struggle and just pretending that everything is fine already.

[S.Artesian]

I think there was a thread that discussed this some while back ago, but not really in depth...also, my memory is crap so I want to refresh the topic. :P

But my question is to the revlefters: "if a straight man didn't want to date a transsexual woman strictly for being transsexual, would that make him a misogynist/bigot, and thus reactionary?"

discuss.


Only if he didn't want to date her because of her skin color, religion, or because she was now a woman.

Other than that, no.

This is a pretty stupid question BTW, aren't there bigger fish to catch and fry then this "left" version of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kind of polling?

A moderator truly moderating would end and trash this thread.

[Queercommie Girl]

Only if he didn't want to date her because of her skin color, religion, or because she was now a woman.

Other than that, no.

This is a pretty stupid question BTW, aren't there bigger fish to catch and fry then this "left" version of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kind of polling?

A moderator truly moderating would end and trash this thread.

Actually I don't think it's necessarily racist if someone just says well I like Asians, but I don't feel physically attracted to Asian girls to date them.

It's just a personal preference.

[anticap]

The answer to the poll question is "I don't know; you tell me." To elaborate: It would be bigoted if it were for bigoted reasons; it would not be bigoted if it were not for bigoted reasons (just as others have correctly observed). So, the question is too vague for me to respond.

On a personal note, it is transgendered women who are to be credited with helping me to understand that Kinsey was probably on the right path with his scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale) (though I reject the "exclusive" ends of the scale). I saw a TV show with several incredibly beautiful women, who were revealed to be transgendered (with penises still attached). When I didn't stop drooling, I realized that sexual attraction is far more complicated than I had been led to believe. My personal (unscientific) opinion, based on discussions with many people, as well as my own feelings, is that we are all bisexual to varying degrees, though it is suppressed in most of us so that we might never believe it until circumstances revealed it. (Read that again carefully: I am not suggesting that sexual orientation is not inherent; I believe that it absolutely is, and that the majority of us are primarily heterosexual with latent homosexual tendencies; that a significant minority are the reverse; and that a smaller minority are aware of their bisexuality.)

On another note, I find it offensive when people say things like, 'To each his own, but I'm just repulsed by cocks.' It is crudely simplistic to believe that just because a person wants to wretch when he visualizes sucking a cock, in the abstract, while sitting at his computer, that he must be exclusively heterosexual. Under different (real-world) circumstances, he might find himself feeling intimate toward a person who just happened to have a penis, and he would then realize that his detached, abstract, non-contextualized musings on attraction were practically meaningless; and if that relationship were to blossom, then, if he were a truly loving person, he would want to fulfill that relationship and satisfy that other person in every possible way, and he would certainly not be sickened by doing so. I believe that this subject is more accurately centered on intimacy than lust.

[Queercommie Girl]

The answer to the poll question is "I don't know; you tell me." To elaborate: It would be bigoted if it were for bigoted reasons; it would not be bigoted if it were not for bigoted reasons (just as others have correctly observed). So, the question is too vague for me to respond.

On a personal note, it is transgendered women who are to be credited with helping me to understand that Kinsey was probably on the right path with his scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale) (though I reject the "exclusive" ends of the scale). I saw a TV show with several incredibly beautiful women, who were revealed to be transgendered (with penises still attached). When I didn't stop drooling, I realized that sexual attraction is far more complicated than I had been led to believe. My personal (unscientific) opinion, based on discussions with many people, as well as my own feelings, is that we are all bisexual to varying degrees, though it is suppressed in most of us so that we might never believe it until circumstances revealed it. (Read that again carefully: I am not suggesting that sexual orientation is not inherent; I believe that it absolutely is, and that the majority of us are primarily heterosexual with latent homosexual tendencies; that a significant minority are the reverse; and that a smaller minority are aware of their bisexuality.)

On another note, I find it offensive when people say things like, 'To each his own, but I'm just repulsed by cocks.' It is crudely simplistic to believe that just because a person wants to wretch when he visualizes sucking a cock, in the abstract, while sitting at his computer, that he must be exclusively heterosexual. Under different (real-world) circumstances, he might find himself feeling intimate toward a person who just happened to have a penis, and he would then realize that his detached, abstract, non-contextualized musings on attraction were practically meaningless; and if that relationship were to blossom, then, if he were a truly loving person, he would want to fulfill that relationship and satisfy that other person in every possible way, and he would certainly not be sickened by doing so. I believe that this subject is more accurately centered on intimacy than lust.

In a nutshell, yes you are correct, both sexuality and gender identity lie along a continuous spectrum.

[leftace53]

I agree with most of the people in this thread, if the man/woman has bigoted reasons then he is a bigot. If its just sexual preference, well there is nothing that we can do about it.

I however hardly find that "there are bigger fish to fry" is the right approach to a thread like this. It is an honest question, and as communists aren't we opposed to oppression and bigotry? No fish is too little to fry because bigotry is bigotry, we can't pick and choose which oppressions we want to fix.

I do wonder though, about sexual preferences, as in what if subconciously they are, in a sense, bigoted? I don't know if we could even find out the answer to questions such as, why do we like the things/people we do. Like others have mentioned, sexual attraction is more complicated than just "i hate cock" etc....

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree with most of the people in this thread, if the man/woman has bigoted reasons then he is a bigot. If its just sexual preference, well there is nothing that we can do about it.

I however hardly find that "there are bigger fish to fry" is the right approach to a thread like this. It is an honest question, and as communists aren't we opposed to oppression and bigotry? No fish is too little to fry because bigotry is bigotry, we can't pick and choose which oppressions we want to fix.

I do wonder though, about sexual preferences, as in what if subconciously they are, in a sense, bigoted? I don't know if we could even find out the answer to questions such as, why do we like the things/people we do. Like others have mentioned, sexual attraction is more complicated than just "i hate cock" etc....

It's too difficult to analyse "subconscious influences".

We all have our dating preferences, doesn't mean we are all bigots.

[~Spectre]

Attraction is a biological mechanism that people don't consciously choose. The sex drive is based around reproduction which would mean that there would probably be an uncontrolled lack of preference for mate unable to reproduce.

As has already been said:

-Not being attracted to someone doesn't make you a bigot.

-Issuing views such as "Transsexuals are inferior" would make you a bigot.

[Queercommie Girl]

Attraction is a biological mechanism that people don't consciously choose. The sex drive is based around reproduction which would mean that there would probably be an uncontrolled lack of preference for mate unable to reproduce.

As has already been said:

-Not being attracted to someone doesn't make you a bigot.

-Issuing views such as "Transsexuals are inferior" would make you a bigot.

I don't think the analysis is as simple as a mechanistic direct biological mechanism.

Because given that gay couples can't reproduce, and trans people aren't biologically fertile, using the simplistic explanation you have given, it would be hard to explain why queer sexuality has existed over the entire period of the history of the human species.

There is a reason why people say that Marxism is a form of dialectical materialism rather than mechanical materialism.

Generally I do not like social darwinisque evolutionary psychology type arguments. I find for one thing they cannot explain the existence of queer sexuality so easily. Secondly there might be a problem in terms of ethics too. You said those who look down upon trans people would be considered as bigots, which is of course, completely correct. But have you ever thought about this: why should we defend the rights of trans people? Strictly speaking Marxist ethics is materialist ethics not metaphysical ethics. It doesn't actually subscribe to "human rights" in an absolutist sense. Can't one say that since queer sexuality (LGBT in general) does not positively contribute to human reproduction then in terms of materialist ethics socialists should not support LGBT rights?

Of course I'm asking a rhteorical question here, I'm queer and trans myself, so obviously I'm not going to say that queer rights shouldn't be defended. But the question is, what is the firm ideological basis for the defense of queer rights?

[Volcanicity]

Actually I think queer people have the right to defend themselves against potential instances of prejudice. I'm not actually calling anyone here explicitly transphobic. But to think like you that "well it's 2010 so let's just all forget about LGBT politics" is frankly stupid. I take LGBT politics seriously and LGBT people are still very much discriminated against in virtually every part of the world, and this is not going to go away without conscious political struggle and just pretending that everything is fine already.
I never said "lets forget about LGBT politics" i think its hugely important,what i meant was this is a forum for leftists so we should all be trying to fight against any kind of bigotry.I thought the poll inane thats all.

[infraxotl]

It matters if the man's choice to not date trans people stem from the fact that he is actually a transphobe, and not just a purely personal preference.

Just like a man could not date an Asian girl simply due to personal preference, but he could also not date an Asian because he is actually a pro-Aryan neo-Nazi and believe the Asian race is intrinsically inferior. Obviously these two cases are light-years apart.

That sounds pretty racist to me. The notion that race is comparable to gender also seems pretty racist.

[Queercommie Girl]

That sounds pretty racist to me. The notion that race is comparable to gender also seems pretty racist.

I disagree with me on 2 grounds:

1) I don't think it is racism. People should have the freedom of choice. There are certain people I don't wish to date, doesn't mean I discriminate against them. Just because I treat everyone equally intrinsically doesn't mean I have to equally sleep with everyone.

If say I just don't feel romantically attracted to people from a certain country, that is simply my freedom, it is against the principle of democracy to tell me why I must like someone I don't really like. Sounds like feudal-style "arranged marriages" to me.

2) If you think deciding to not date Asian girls is racist yet deciding to not date trans-women is not transphobic, then I think you are bordering on transphobia, or at least it is certainly wrong. Why are the two cases so different? At least be consistent.

No-one is saying "race is comparable to gender". Transphobia is not discrimination based on gender, it is discrimination based on the failure of recognition of gender. To put it simply, trans-women should be considered as women, to not do so is transphobic. Doesn't mean everyone has to feel romantically attracted to trans-women though.

[~Spectre]

I don't think the analysis is as simple as a mechanistic direct biological mechanism.

Because given that gay couples can't reproduce, and trans people aren't biologically fertile, using the simplistic explanation you have given, it would be hard to explain why queer sexuality has existed over the entire period of the history of the human species.

It woudln't be that hard to explain when you consider that homosexuality is a minority in the overall sexual preference.

Reproduction is based on survival and replication to be precise. Attraction triggers not only involve factors that indicate replication (like broad hips seeming to correlate with an easier time giving birth, or long hair indicating a healthier mother), but survival. A person who gives off vibrancy of strength and value can be found attractive by those biological triggers, which would make a man attractive to another man.


Perhaps in the future we will find that homosexuality may have links to inherent subconscious preferences in certain attraction triggers over others.

Consequently, I don't see how you can deny the inherent biological basis of the sexual preference. Sure social factors may cause an expression of an innate trait, but homosexuality is observed in other animals as well. The dynamics of human society would seem obviously irrelevant then to the question.





There is a reason why people say that Marxism is a form of dialectical materialism
Yes, it's usually because they misunderstand Marx.




You said those who look down upon trans people would be considered as bigots, which is of course, completely correct. But have you ever thought about this: why should we defend the rights of trans people? ?Whether an ideological defense of transsexual rights is grounded in your conception of Marxism is irrelevant.

Personally, I just advance a simple ethical rule, I cannot put forth an sort of logical argument for why they shouldn't be entitled to the same rights and humane treatment that I myself wish to have and receive. Any basis of rights that would exclude LGBT people is intellectually bankrupt.

[infraxotl]

I disagree with me on 2 grounds:

1) I don't think it is racism. People should have the freedom of choice. There are certain people I don't wish to date, doesn't mean I discriminate against them. Just because I treat everyone equally intrinsically doesn't mean I have to equally sleep with everyone.

If say I just don't feel romantically attracted to people from a certain country, that is simply my freedom, it is against the principle of democracy to tell me why I must like someone I don't really like. Sounds like feudal-style "arranged marriages" to me.

"just because I discriminate against certain people, doesn't mean I discriminate against certain people" - you, sounding ridiculous.

You are using race, and now nationality, as grounds for not dating someone. You are saying that I am stepping all over your freedoms to not like people of certain races. The more you post, the more racist you sound.



2) If you think deciding to not date Asian girls is racist yet deciding to not date trans-women is not transphobic, then I think you are bordering on transphobia, or at least it is certainly wrong. Why are the two cases so different? At least be consistent.

No-one is saying "race is comparable to gender". Transphobia is not discrimination based on gender, it is discrimination based on the failure of recognition of gender. To put it simply, trans-women should be considered as women, to not do so is transphobic. Doesn't mean everyone has to feel romantically attracted to trans-women though.

You just did.

[Queercommie Girl]

It woudln't be that hard to explain when you consider that homosexuality is a minority in the overall sexual preference.

Reproduction is based on survival and replication to be precise. Attraction triggers not only involve factors that indicate replication (like broad hips seeming to correlate with an easier time giving birth, or long hair indicating a healthier mother), but survival. A person who gives off vibrancy of strength and value can be found attractive by those biological triggers, which would make a man attractive to another man.

Perhaps in the future we will find that homosexuality may have links to inherent subconscious preferences in certain attraction triggers over others.

Consequently, I don't see how you can deny the inherent biological basis of the sexual preference. Sure social factors may cause an expression of an innate trait, but homosexuality is observed in other animals as well. The dynamics of human society would seem obviously irrelevant then to the question.


Your idea here may offer some degree of explanation for homosexuality as found in the natural world, but what about transgenderism? The two are related but not the same. Please offer a biological-reductionist explanation of transgenderism.

Also, some of the more radical LGBT activists actually believe that queer sexuality is not just a small minority, but actually all of us are "bi-sexual" to some extent, the degree of which lies upon a spectrum. How do you explain this through your biological-reductionist theory?



Yes, it's usually because they misunderstand Marx.


Most serious Marxist thinkers have criticised mechanical materialism in some way, sometimes (but not formally) also referred to as "vulgar materialism". It's the same kind of materialistic ideological basis that fueled social darwinism, providing a scientific justification for Nazism etc.

The lack of dialectics in this case, in the precise concrete sense, amounts to the idea that essentially one has failed to see that humanity is not just another kind of animal, but actually qualitatively higher than animals. As Lenin put it, even the most crude human engineer is superior to the bees, because when bees construct things they only do it out of a sense of instinct, but human engineers do so out of a sense of self-consciousness. Humans are not dictated by instinct. The subconscious biological influence is less significant than you think. It has been shown by archaeological evidence that in primitive communist societies gender distinctions were often fluidic. For example see the following archaeology article on ancient communism:

http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html)

Individuality and gender relations

The burial objects found in the graves emphasize not only social equality since they differ only marginally concerning their quantity and character (Mellaart 1967: 206) but also confirm the individual differences between persons. The burial objects even vary within one living space (Mellaart 1963: 100f.) and thus rather document differences between individuals than differences due to membership of different classes (Childe 1952: 143-144).
Mellaart could not imagine the societal wealth he found to be generally, equally distributed. Therefore he presumed that the area he excavated was the quarter of the priests, and in the rest of the town circumstances must have been poorer. This was an assumption which could be rejected with good arguments especially after the results of skeleton examinations had been published by Angel in 1971. Already in 1969, it was demonstrated that the collective findings were easier to reconcile with a society without stratification (Narr 1969: 12/2, see esp. Grünert 1982: 194, Hermann 1983: 65-68, and, on the basis of Mellaart's results: Hummel 1996: 269). Hodder's early investigations proved that Çatalhöyük looked everywhere as it did in the area excavated by Mellaart (Hodder 1996b: 360/2-361/1, Balter 1998: 1443/2, Hodder 2003: 10). This means that in Çatalhöyük those differences between people are absent that are so striking in a society divided into classes. Archaeologists accordingly describe this society as egalitarian (Balter 1999: 891/3, Moore 1998) or discuss subtle differences between an egalitarian and a stratified society (for a stratified society: Wason 1994: 153-179, for a society in between: Hodder 1996b: 366/2, for a purely egalitarian society: Hamilton 1996: 262/2). Here, Naomi Hamilton finds the resolving words for this discussion: "Difference need not mean structural inequality. Ranking by age, achieved status, social roles based on skill and knowledge etc. do not necessarily contradict an egalitarian ethos."

The graves in Çatalhöyük already show that a social division of labour was missing since the dead were given tools for various activities of basic production and in each house there were seeds (Connolly 1999: 798/2). However, it can also be seen that people were partially specialized according to their aptitudes in skilled activities that exceeded basic production, from burial objects such as painting utensils or copper (Mellaart 1967: 209). Presumably by producing ceramics, people in Çatalhöyük had discovered how to smelt metallic copper from copper ore, as documented by the preserved slag (Mellaart 1967: 217-218).

There is a striking difference to class societies: burial objects were not produced explicitly for burials, but they rather were goods which people had used during their lives and which were left to them in death (Mellaart 1967: 209). This also holds true for objects which truly are at the end of the "gradual spectrum". Perfectly crafted flint daggers, mirrors sanded from obsidian that were more brilliant than antique metal mirrors (Mellaart 1967: pl. XIV and XII) as well as flawless tools made from obsidian (Hamblin 1975: 17), all of them found in graves: they document both the deployed different preferences and abilities of people who were able to produce them and the respect of their fellow human beings who left these objects to them in their graves instead of retaining them for themselves. Pieces like these led Mellaart to the assumption that they could have been produced in this perfection only by full specialists, particularly since he did not find any midden resulting from production (Mellaart 1967: 211, Balter 1998: 1443/2). During the new excavations specific attention was paid, therefore, to microscopic traces of midden in the clay floors, and domestic waste was analyzed. In this way, evidence could be provided for midden resulting from working on stones. This means that manufacturing stones was not the task of full specialists but was conducted in every household, or associated households in the case of complex production processes that were possible only collectively (Connolly 1999: 798-799, also see Balter 1998: 1443/2 and Hodder 1999: 6/1). Burial objects that were found in a house had been produced and used in that house and been buried with the person who had manufactured and used them. Hodder draws the conclusion that "we cannot argue for total control of production by an elite" (Hodder 1996b: 361/2).
Just like the "living houses" that changed with their inhabitants and were adapted to changing living circumstances, this attachment of people to the objects of daily life conveys an integrated image of organic structures and vital coherences.

Truly outstanding and especially remarkable is the fact that women, too, received tools as burial objects, just as men did (Mellaart 1967: 209) (Footnote:This seems to have held true for neolithic civilizations in general, even for Central European linear pottery culture (linearbandkeramik) (Nordholz 2004: 124). However, this interrelation rarely seems to be observed. (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html#_ftn6) 6). In later class societies, men (of the "middle classes") received burial objects that allowed conclusions as to their profession but women's graves contained only jewellery: rich women were given rich jewellery, poor women poor jewellery. That these women worked just as hard - if not even harder - than men is not reflected in the burial objects. The tools in neolithic women graves illustrate that women were recognized as equals as a matter of course in the production of goods. This, in turn, supports the assumption that in this society the antagonism between production and reproduction was abolished. There are mural paintings in Çatalhöyük that complement and confirm this assumption; they show men dancing with children (Mellaart 1966: pl. LIV, LV, LIX, LXI), a motif that does not occur in class society until the 13th century B.C. and also later only led a shadowy existence. Also, in contrast to Mellaart's statement, not only women were buried with children but men also (Hamilton 1996: 253/1).


However, not only were women buried with tools but also men were buried with jewellery, partially with considerable amounts (Hamilton 1996: 262) (Fussnote:Mellaart's converse argument stems from the fact that he frequently determined the sex of the skeletons according to their grave goods (!). It was only after Angel's anatomical examinations of the skeletons six years after that the true facts were revealed (Hamilton 1996: 245/2, 258/2). (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html#_ftn7) 7). Naomi Hamilton who in Hodder's team is responsible for working with the graves and therefore for analyzing gender relations, doubts if the definition of a social gender apart from biological sex is at all helpful in the discussion on Çatalhöyük. She regards the concept of gender as bound to our times and their problems and considers the possibility that neolithic humans did not perceive man and woman as being a polarity (Hamilton 1996: 262). Indeed, already in 1990 Hodder developed the thought that the decisive polarity for neolithic perception may have been of a different nature (Hodder 1990). It is interesting that more recent considerations lead to an analogous assumption concerning the Palaeolithic (Heidefrau 2004). The author, Elke Heidefrau, writes: "Possibly, the discussion on gender ... mainly reveals something about our own culture: a culture in which it seems immensely important to know sex of another person (see the first question asked after the birth of a child). To us, a culture in which this is not the case seems almost unthinkable; therefore, such thoughts could open new horizons to us and thus enrich the current gender discussion!" (Heidefrau 2004: 148; translated). Obviously, at that time the real individuals were at the centre, and when they liked to adorn themselves their jewellery was not taken away from them when they died - regardless of their sex. And it was people who produced, possessed and used tools and therefore also kept them in their graves - again, regardless of their sex.

Hodder dedicated a separate publication to gender relations in order to refute the older conceptions of a matriarchy in Çatalhöyük (Hodder 2004). In this article in "Scientific American" he presents an impressive documentation of gender equality in Çatalhöyük: there were no significant differences concerning nutrition, body height and life style between men and women. Men and women performed very similar tasks, as can be deduced from the abrasion of bones. Both sexes stayed in and outside the house equally long and were equally active in the kitchen as in tool production. There are no hints pointing to a gender-related division of labour. It is only from artwork that one can deduce that outside the house, men hunted whereas women engaged in agriculture (cf. Hodder). Mural paintings show, however, women together with men in depictions of chase, as published in Mellaart's excavation reports (Mellaart 1966: Pl LIIb, LVIb, LXIIb). And the equal burial of men and women sealed equality even in death.

Unless you can provide a convincing biological-reductionist account of transgenderism and the fact that gender boundaries were often fluidic throughout much of human history (but not so among other animals), which could be difficult as transgenderism seems to violate some basic tenets of your kind of sexual evolutionary psychology, then it seems to suggest that for humans, social factors have to a large extent overridden innate biological factors.



Whether an ideological defense of transsexual rights is grounded in your conception of Marxism is irrelevant.

Personally, I just advance a simple ethical rule, I cannot put forth an sort of logical argument for why they shouldn't be entitled to the same rights and humane treatment that I myself wish to have and receive. Any basis of rights that would exclude LGBT people is intellectually bankrupt.


For a serious Marxist, to have an ideological justification of trans rights based on Marxist ideas is not irrelevant at all, but highly important. It may not be my conception of Marxism, but as a Marxist for me it would have to be based on some conception of Marxism. Marxism forms the basis of my entire philosophical world-view.

Your personal ethics is still at the level of abstract and simplistic "human rights" of the bourgeois class. No wonder some socialists and socialists who are actually opposed to LGBT rights (including many in third world countries) claim that the LGBT movement is a petit-bourgeois movement, not a proletarian movement. I'm very serious about LGBT activism and just basing it on a vague notion of "human rights" is not adequate.

Furthermore, in an ideological sense, there is the danger that if explanations for human sexuality and gender identity are based too much on biological considerations, then it would have the objective end-effect of enforcing hetereo-normativity as well as rigid gender roles on society. I cannot accept such an outcome, because it is a shackle of oppression upon humanity.

[Queercommie Girl]

"just because I discriminate against certain people, doesn't mean I discriminate against certain people" - you, sounding ridiculous.

You are using race, and now nationality, as grounds for not dating someone. You are saying that I am stepping all over your freedoms to not like people of certain races. The more you post, the more racist you sound.


No, it just means I don't think I have to sleep with someone equally in order to treat them equally.

You are an idiot if you think I have to be attracted to someone sexually in order to consider them equally.

Do you treat gay people equally with straight people? How come then you don't sleep with gay people then?

Your logic is fundamentally flawed because just because I decide not to sleep with some people, doesn't mean I happen to discriminate against them in any way.



You just did.
You are an idiot. I told you already, transphobia is not discrimination based on gender, therefore to say that not equating transphobia with racism is wrong is not saying that race and gender are the same.

What is your justification for saying that not dating Asian girls based on their race is wrong but not dating trans women based on their trans status (not gender) is not wrong?

[the last donut of the night]

I owned that thread.

Just like you owned this one: http://www.revleft.com/vb/welsh-t138174/index.html?highlight=welsh.

Stop being so arrogant, TAT.

[infraxotl]

No, it just means I don't think I have to sleep with someone equally in order to treat them equally.

You are an idiot if you think I have to be attracted to someone sexually in order to consider them equally.

Do you treat gay people equally with straight people? How come then you don't sleep with gay people then?

Your logic is fundamentally flawed because just because I decide not to sleep with some people, doesn't mean I happen to discriminate against them in any way.

You are an idiot. I told you already, transphobia is not discrimination based on gender, therefore to say that not equating transphobia with racism is wrong is not saying that race and gender are the same.

What is your justification for saying that not dating Asian girls based on their race is wrong but not dating trans women based on their trans status (not gender) is not wrong?

You might be born straight, but you aren't born straight with no sexual feelings for Hans Chinese. That's something you pick up over the years, and just because it might not be a conscious decision, does not mean it isn't a racist one that should be challenged.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you, you know what I meant by gender.

[Blackscare]

If only I could go back and post on the first page, I'd say

"Hey guys I can post one-line non-answers to. amidoinitrite?"

Anyways, props to the people who didn't just immediately shit all over sankara again and then circle-jerk their thank you buttons repeatedly.


You bunch of dickheads.

[Queercommie Girl]

You might be born straight, but you aren't born straight with no sexual feelings for Hans Chinese. That's something you pick up over the years, and just because it might not be a conscious decision, does not mean it isn't a racist one that should be challenged.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you, you know what I meant by gender.

Hey, I was only using a metaphor, personally I don't mind dating Asians or people of any race at all. But if people did, I don't think it's a problem. Just because I don't sleep with someone doesn't mean I don't like them or respect them or can't become friends with them. But I don't have a "duty" to become romantically attracted to every single person on this planet.

It's not semantics at all, transphobia is not gender discrimination, if you dispute that, you are going to have to be much more clearer than that. Trans-girls are women, not gay men, so if you don't date them specifically, then it has nothing to do with gender. You are just rejecting a sub-set of women, like someone who romantically rejects Asian women or white women.

[infraxotl]

Hey, I was only using a metaphor, personally I don't mind dating Asians or people of any race at all. But if people did, I don't think it's a problem. Just because I don't sleep with someone doesn't mean I don't like them or respect them or can't become friends with them. But I don't have a "duty" to become romantically attracted to every single person on this planet.

It's not semantics at all, transphobia is not gender discrimination, if you dispute that, you are going to have to be much more clearer than that. Trans-girls are women, not gay men, so if you don't date them specifically, then it has nothing to do with gender. You are just rejecting a sub-set of women, like someone who romantically rejects Asian women or white women.

Do you think it is wrong for a person to reject a person for their racial/ethnic background alone? It sounds to me like you think it's alright, which is why I am calling you out for racism.

I don't consider it to be transphobia for a straight person to not date transgendered persons. More often than not, you need to be drunk and/or high to confuse a biological male or female for a transgendered male or female.

[Blackscare]

Do you think it is wrong for a person to reject a person for their racial/ethnic background alone? It sounds to me like you think it's alright, which is why I am calling you out for racism.

I'm pretty sure that he was basically saying that attraction is a basic compulsion and hence cannot really be controlled in order to fit a certain ethical standard. A person who simply is not attracted to black women, for example, isn't a racist. If he was attracted to them but declined to date them because of some perceived inferiority, that would be.




I don't consider it to be transphobia for a straight person to not date transgendered persons. More often than not, you need to be drunk and/or high to confuse a biological male or female for a transgendered male or female.


So you accuse him of bigotry in one line, then spew this insensitive trash the next? There are many degrees of transexual/transgender aesthetics. Many trans women "pass" just fine. I hate this fucking stereotype that trans people just fuck drunks and go "whoops, surprise, I have a dick" when the time comes. Trans people have better things to do than prey on people who are drunk. Trans people can actually have real relationships, their romantic lives aren't predicated on the amount of alcohol consumed by some dude at a bar.

[~Spectre]

Your idea here may offer some degree of explanation for homosexuality as found in the natural world, but what about transgenderism? The two are related but not the same. Please offer a biological-reductionist explanation of transgenderism.

Also, some of the more radical LGBT activists actually believe that queer sexuality is not just a small minority, but actually all of us are "bi-sexual" to some extent, the degree of which lies upon a spectrum. How do you explain this through your biological-reductionist theory?

Varying levels of emphasis on various attraction triggers, genetics, etc.

And spare me the "reductionist" backhand. To be honest comrade, no offense, but I find the idea that you reject a biological theory simply because it is "mechanical" and you think Marxism is "dialectical" is just flat out goofy shit.


Whenever any Marxist attempted to transmute the theory of Marx into a universal master-key and ignore all other spheres of learning, Vladimir Ilyich (Lenin) would rebuke him with the expressive phrase: “Komchvanstvo” (“Communist swagger”).

Indeed.







Most serious Marxist thinkers have criticised mechanical materialism in some way, sometimes (but not formally) also referred to as "vulgar materialism". It's the same kind of materialistic ideological basis that fueled social darwinism, providing a scientific justification for Nazism etc.


No.




The lack of dialectics in this case, in the precise concrete sense, amounts to the idea that essentially one has failed to see that humanity is not just another kind of animal, You're just spouting bullshit now.


Unless you can provide a convincing biological-reductionist account of transgenderism and the fact that gender boundaries were often fluidic throughout much of human history (but not so among other animals), which could be difficult as transgenderism seems to violate some basic tenets of your kind of sexual evolutionary psychology,

You haven't shown how it has. Varying social roles in terms of labor and occupation =/= transgenderism.

You're off in a very strange tangent.





For a serious Marxist, to have an ideological justification of trans rights based on Marxist ideas is not irrelevant at all, but highly important. It may not be my conception of Marxism, but as a Marxist for me it would have to be based on some conception of Marxism. Marxism forms the basis of my entire philosophical world-view.


Whenever any Marxist attempted to transmute the theory of Marx into a universal master-key and ignore all other spheres of learning, Vladimir Ilyich (Lenin) would rebuke him with the expressive phrase: “Komchvanstvo” (“Communist swagger”).






Your personal ethics is still at the level of abstract and simplistic "human rights" of the bourgeois class. No wonder some socialists and socialists who are actually opposed to LGBT rights (including many in third world countries) claim that the LGBT movement is a petit-bourgeois movement, not a proletarian movement. I'm very serious about LGBT activism and just basing it on a vague notion of "human rights" is not adequate.



Whenever any Marxist attempted to transmute the theory of Marx into a universal master-key and ignore all other spheres of learning, Vladimir Ilyich (Lenin) would rebuke him with the expressive phrase: “Komchvanstvo” (“Communist swagger”).




Furthermore, in an ideological sense, there is the danger that if explanations for human sexuality and gender identity are based too much on biological considerations, then it would have the objective end-effect of enforcing hetereo-normativity as well as rigid gender roles on society. I cannot accept such an outcome, because it is a shackle of oppression upon humanity.


Whenever any Marxist attempted to transmute the theory of Marx into a universal master-key and ignore all other spheres of learning, Vladimir Ilyich (Lenin) would rebuke him with the expressive phrase: “Komchvanstvo” (“Communist swagger”).

[Queercommie Girl]

Do you think it is wrong for a person to reject a person for their racial/ethnic background alone? It sounds to me like you think it's alright, which is why I am calling you out for racism.

I don't consider it to be transphobia for a straight person to not date transgendered persons. More often than not, you need to be drunk and/or high to confuse a biological male or female for a transgendered male or female.

You are a transphobe, because trans people aren't technically gay. Many trans people are genderqueer in some way, but many simply identify completely with their brain sex. And many trans people actually pass really well. In fact, in Iran for instance, homosexuality is actually illegal, but transgenderism is not, and the government actually pays people to have SRS. So technically everyone who marries a trans person in Iran is actually straight, not gay. (Gays can't exist in the country, obviously I completely oppose that, but I'm just using it as an example here)

Many gays don't actually date trans people, unless genderqueers are involved, because a gay man wishes to date another gay man, not a trans-woman.

Your biggest problem is not that you insist on the point that one has to be equally attracted to every race to be non-racist, but that you apply such a double standard when it comes to trans people.

[Dr Mindbender]

what troubles me is the question itself because it uses loaded language. It reads like a trap designed to trip those into answering negatively to be uber-politically correct neural-nazis. Then commenceth again the whole tiresome circle of die hard heterosexual teenage boys defending their 'right' to mantain their reactionary baggage of finding transexualism and those who partake in it repulsive. Because if transwomen were ever to acheive equal sexual identity legitimacy, that would be such an affront to your sexuality, right?

The question that titles this thread shouldnt be is a man bigoted for wanting/not wanting to date a transexual, but is a man bigoted for not wanting to date a woman because of her transexuality?

The phenomenon in this matter we ought to be challenging is the anti-materialist mentality that transwomen are not legitimate females any more than birth females.

Oh, not all birth females are fertile and not all transwomen have dicks by the way.

[~Spectre]

The phenomenon in this matter we ought to be challenging is the anti-materialist mentality that transwomen are not legitimate females any more than birth females.

Oh, not all birth females are fertile and not all transwomen have dicks by the way.

Has anyone tried to make this claim?

[leftace53]

I'm pretty sure that he was basically saying that attraction is a basic compulsion and hence cannot really be controlled in order to fit a certain ethical standard. A person who simply is not attracted to black women, for example, isn't a racist. If he was attracted to them but declined to date them because of some perceived inferiority, that would be.


I find statements like the bolded one above to be... really wierd. For current purposes I'll stick to simply sexual attraction, which more often than not deals with pure physical attraction.

Taking "black people" as an example, how can someone (who likes women) not be attracted physically to any black woman, there are many facets to attraction, how can no black woman embody even one of these? Focusing on physical characteristics there may be many traits shared amongst black women (like you know, being black), but most physical characteristics differ from individual black woman to individual black woman. Maybe this hypothetical person is attracted to a thin tall type, well there are many thin and tall black women, why would these women be discounted simply because of their skin colour?

What I'm sort of trying to get at is that statements like "I'm just not attracted to asian men" are an overgeneralization. It might just be that they haven't come across an asian man they are attracted to, maybe they don't even know any asian men. I don't think something like is racist per se, just more on the weird side.

Then again, maybe I'm arguing semantics, in which case, just ignore me.

[Dr Mindbender]

Has anyone tried to make this claim?

Well yes, and if you care to go back to the start some people have reacted negatively to the idea of going with transwomen because 'straight guys dont like dicks'.

[Queercommie Girl]

Varying levels of emphasis on various attraction triggers, genetics, etc.

And spare me the "reductionist" backhand. To be honest comrade, no offense, but I find the idea that you reject a biological theory simply because it is "mechanical" and you think Marxism is "dialectical" is just flat out goofy shit.


I don't completely reject the biological basis, if you actually care to read what I wrote carefully, you would see that quite clearly. But I'm calling your idea "biological-reductionist" since you over-emphasise the role of direct biology in forming human sexuality and gender identity. What you have failed to see is that actually there is a qualitative difference between humans and animals and often biological explanations for human behaviour cannot be applied directly. This is the missing "dialectical" approach I'm talking about, in fact, you don't even have to use such a word "dialectical" if you don't wish to, I'm not applying dialectics in any "mystical" sense here. The key here is that any simplistic reductionist formula for human sexual behaviour is likely to be inadequate.



No.
Lenin for instance supported dialectical materialism at the expense of mechanical materialism in his book "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism". A lot of Mao's works also explicitly criticised "mechanical materialism" as a bourgeois ideology.

Lenin actually explicitly said that humans are not just "social animals". Sorry if you don't see this, but there is nothing "goofy" or "mystical" if I actually say that humanity is not just a kind of animal. The only people who can't understand this would be those who rely on a biological-reductionist view of humanity.

On the central place that "dialectics" (of the right kind of course, not the "mystical" type) has within a socialist revolution, Lenin has this to say: "They all call themselves Marxists, but their understanding of Marxism is degenerate to the extreme. The determining factor of Marxism, the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism, they have no understanding of at all."



You're just spouting bullshit now.
Spare me the personal insults. What I'm saying is that one aspect of dialectics is the idea of "quantitative and qualitative change". Humans are not just quantitatively apart from animals, we are qualitatively apart from animals. Biological-reductionism tends to fail to see this.



You haven't shown how it has. Varying social roles in terms of labor and occupation =/= transgenderism.

You're off in a very strange tangent.
You accuse me of ignoring scientific knowledge using a quote from Lenin, but that is precisely what I have not done and what you have done here. The archaeological evidence shows that 1) the genderal division of labour was far more fluidic than a simplistic biological-reductionist model of human sexuality and gender relations would explain and 2) queer sexuality, including transgenderism, was actually quite widespread during the primitive tribal era, for instance among the "two spirits" in the Native American tribes etc. I think you must never even have heard of the second point.

And the primitive tribal era lasted for 95% of the entire history of the human species. This shows that there is a clear qualitative separation between human and animal sexuality, and that unlike animal sexuality, human sexuality cannot be explained simply through reductionist biology.

This is not to say that in the ultimate sense human sexuality has no biological under-pinning. Transgenderism may have a root in animal behaviour too, but for animals it may be case that homosexuality and transgenderism were not separated in any meaningful sense. After all, since animals have no self-consciousness, perhaps they have no "genderal consciousness" in the mental sense either, "genderal behaviour" in animals may simply be driven by direct instinct, like (to put it crudely) one's natural state in a mating position or one's natural response to seeing a young. It's only among humans that with the emergence of self-consciousness, people actually know their own gender.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well yes, and if you care to go back to the start some people have reacted negatively to the idea of going with transwomen because 'straight guys dont like dicks'.

So you think that Sankara "deliberately" set up this thread because he is implicitly transphobic or something?

[danyboy27]

its a personnal choice, that pretty much it.
now that its settled, lets pack our bag and move to a more relevant thread.

[Dr Mindbender]

So you think that Sankara "deliberately" set up this thread because he is implicitly transphobic or something?

I was avoiding finger pointing but since you insist it was comrade lewis who cast that remark


Although I think there is definately a nasty stigma that still exists in society around dating transsexuals, most straight guys just aren't into dicks in the first place.

[Blackscare]

Then again, maybe I'm arguing semantics, in which case, just ignore me.

Fair enough, noted. :P

I see your point though, although complexion is a physical trait like any other, and may be a turn-off (for whatever reason) for some people.

[Adi Shankara]

Fair enough, noted. :P

I see your point though, although complexion is a physical trait like any other, and may be a turn-off (for whatever reason) for some people.

Personally, I think if one wants to or not wants to date someone because they are attracted to skin color...who are we to regulate what turns on someone else?

[infraxotl]

I'm pretty sure that he was basically saying that attraction is a basic compulsion and hence cannot really be controlled in order to fit a certain ethical standard. A person who simply is not attracted to black women, for example, isn't a racist. If he was attracted to them but declined to date them because of some perceived inferiority, that would be.

So you accuse him of bigotry in one line, then spew this insensitive trash the next? There are many degrees of transexual/transgender aesthetics. Many trans women "pass" just fine. I hate this fucking stereotype that trans people just fuck drunks and go "whoops, surprise, I have a dick" when the time comes. Trans people have better things to do than prey on people who are drunk. Trans people can actually have real relationships, their romantic lives aren't predicated on the amount of alcohol consumed by some dude at a bar.

If a person sees an objectively attractive Black woman and is repulsed by the pigmentation of her skin, there is something wrong. What you are attracted to, to an extent, CAN be helped. You don't have to be a supremacist to be racist.

It is a truism that a biological male does not typically look like a biological female, even if the biological male's true identity is female. That they are easily identified as transgendered does not mean that they prey on drunken innocents, and it does not mean they can't have real relationships. I implied neither.

[Blackscare]

That they are easily identified as transgendered does not mean that they prey on drunken innocents, and it does not mean they can't have real relationships. I implied neither. You seem to have not met many trans people who have gone through hormone therapy, etc. Or maybe you have and you don't know. :D

Many trans people "pass" very well, and look very feminine, especially as time goes on. Not all trans people are "drag queens".

You seem to be basically picking out the people in intermediary stages of transition (or who don't want to fully transition) as the face of what it is to be trans. This is just the most apparent facet of it though. After all, the goal is to pass as the sex that you want to be as believably as possible, so obviously it's going to be harder to notice people who do this well than those who don't.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Thomas,

In the light of "the personal is the political", would you date an m to f transsexual? I mean this for "pre-op" and "post op". No harm either way, I would not think you're bigoted or reactionary. I know you have a g/f and all that, but if you were single.

Just curious.

[infraxotl]

You are a transphobe, because trans people aren't technically gay. Many trans people are genderqueer in some way, but many simply identify completely with their brain sex. And many trans people actually pass really well. In fact, in Iran for instance, homosexuality is actually illegal, but transgenderism is not, and the government actually pays people to have SRS. So technically everyone who marries a trans person in Iran is actually straight, not gay. (Gays can't exist in the country, obviously I completely oppose that, but I'm just using it as an example here)

Many gays don't actually date trans people, unless genderqueers are involved, because a gay man wishes to date another gay man, not a trans-woman.

Your biggest problem is not that you insist on the point that one has to be equally attracted to every race to be non-racist, but that you apply such a double standard when it comes to trans people.

Are we talking exclusively about post-op transgendered folk? How many transgendered persons ever go through with those operations anyhow? If we're talking about ALL transgendered persons, it's pretty stupid to consider it a double standard. A straight man not liking darker skin is not akin to a straight man not liking cock and balls.


You seem to have not met many trans people who have gone through hormone therapy, etc. Or maybe you have and you don't know. :D

Many trans people "pass" very well, and look very feminine, especially as time goes on. Not all trans people are "drag queens".

You seem to be basically picking out the people in intermediary stages of transition (or who don't want to fully transition) as the face of what it is to be trans. This is just the most apparent facet of it though. After all, the goal is to pass as the sex that you want to be as believably as possible, so obviously it's going to be harder to notice people who do this well than those who don't.

You're discounting the vast majority of transgendered individuals for the sake of your argument. Hormone therapy isn't something that works like magic at any point in a persons life.

[Adi Shankara]

Thomas,

In the light of "the personal is the political", would you date an m to f transsexual? I mean this for "pre-op" and "post op". No harm either way, I would not think you're bigoted or reactionary. I know you have a g/f and all that, but if you were single.

Just curious.


I don't think I would, because I really enjoy the idea of a woman who grew up a girl, who can share the entire experience of being a girl...that and I really want a woman who could give me children, and I know it sounds harsh, but I don't even think I'd date a girl who couldn't give me children. even so, the chance of an infertile woeman is the exception, not the rule, unlike with transsexual women.

wanting a family is a big part of my plans, and I'd be really crushed if I found out someone I fell in love with. I really wouldn't know what to do.

[Dimentio]

I think there was a thread that discussed this some while back ago, but not really in depth...also, my memory is crap so I want to refresh the topic. :P

But my question is to the revlefters: "if a straight man didn't want to date a transsexual woman strictly for being transsexual, would that make him a misogynist/bigot, and thus reactionary?"

discuss.

What. The. Fuck. Is. This. Thread. Doing. Here?

It. Should. Be. In. Discrimination. Or. Chit. Chat.

[Blackscare]

On that note, lenina, I was on during 420chan's monthly smoke-a-thon and there was a "trap" as they call them on cam (it was on stickam). I found "her" to be insanely pretty for a goth girl, but when she spoke, brix were shat, to say the least.

I remember being on cam and just looking at the screen and saying "well... uh.. hm... yea I'd definitely still do you" :D (granted, perhaps that's not the most tactful thing to say, but then again 420chan isn't exactly like going to thanksgiving dinner)

I love being a fag. I use that term purposefully, because I don't identify as fully gay but I am not the exact 50/50 mix that people tend to think "bi" means. I'm also a minimalist and am of the personal opinion that the tendency to categorize every specific shade of alternative sexuality is actually counter-productive to the movement. I think the fact that all of the acronyms that exist can even be made shows that sexuality is very fluid and based on shades of grey. It cannot and should not be rigidly categorized.

[Adi Shankara]

I love being a fag. I use that term purposefully, because I don't identify as fully gay but I am not the exact 50/50 mix that people tend to think "bi" means. I'm also a minimalist and am of the personal opinion that the tendency to categorize every specific shade of alternative sexuality is actually counter-productive to the movement. I think the fact that all of the acronyms that exist can even be made shows that sexuality is very fluid and based on shades of grey. It cannot and should not be rigidly categorized.

You should look at the Kinsey scale man, it'd interest you; most persons, according to Alfred Kinsey, were neither really straight or gay, but somewhat bi, more or less.

[Queercommie Girl]

Are we talking exclusively about post-op transgendered folk? How many transgendered persons ever go through with those operations anyhow? If we're talking about ALL transgendered persons, it's pretty stupid to consider it a double standard. A straight man not liking darker skin is not akin to a straight man not liking cock and balls.



You're discounting the vast majority of transgendered individuals for the sake of your argument. Hormone therapy isn't something that works like magic at any point in a persons life.

Actually the majority of transgendered people do take part in some kind of hormonal therapy/surgery at some point, unless they really have no means to do so. That is the whole point of being transgendered. It can't just be "all the head", otherwise it's just a fantasy or a fetish, not genuine transgenderism. Technically people like drag queens aren't even genuinely trans.

A straight man not liking darker skin isn't necessarily racist either. You seriously confuse racial equality with romantic attraction. I don't have to be sexually attracted to everyone I like, let alone everyone I treat equally.

You can try all you like, no-one is going to like being forced to be attracted to someone they are not.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think I would, because I really enjoy the idea of a woman who grew up a girl, who can share the entire experience of being a girl...that and I really want a woman who could give me children, and I know it sounds harsh, but I don't even think I'd date a girl who couldn't give me children. even so, the chance of an infertile woeman is the exception, not the rule, unlike with transsexual women.

wanting a family is a big part of my plans, and I'd be really crushed if I found out someone I fell in love with. I really wouldn't know what to do.

Reproductive technology of the future may change the material basis of sex and gender in a fundamental way. This is why I agree with what Mao used to say that revolution isn't just "class struggle", but also "productivity advance" and "scientific research". It's also why I've been influenced by transhumanism and post-genderism.

[Queercommie Girl]

I was avoiding finger pointing but since you insist it was comrade lewis who cast that remark

It is a sign of ignorance, since I think more MtF trans people are post-op or plan to become a post-op compared with those who just want to stay as pre-ops. But I don't think it's directly transphobic.

[Adi Shankara]

Reproductive technology of the future may change the material basis of sex and gender in a fundamental way. This is why I agree with what Mao used to say that revolution isn't just "class struggle", but also "productivity advance" and "scientific research". It's also why I've been influenced by transhumanism and post-genderism.

who knows how many years away that is though, and it'd be impossible without a womb, of which you couldn't really give someone a womb without completely reassembling them.

[Queercommie Girl]

who knows how many years away that is though, and it'd be impossible without a womb, of which you couldn't really give someone a womb without completely reassembling them.

Well, I'm saying I'm influenced by post-genderist ideas in principle to some extent. I know it's not going to come about in the near future.

But I don't agree that "you can't really give someone a womb without completely reassembling them", in fact, I think it's more likely that we would use external wombs in the future.

[infraxotl]

Actually the majority of transgendered people do take part in some kind of hormonal therapy/surgery at some point, unless they really have no means to do so. That is the whole point of being transgendered. It can't just be "all the head", otherwise it's just a fantasy or a fetish, not genuine transgenderism. Technically people like drag queens aren't even genuinely trans.

A straight man not liking darker skin isn't necessarily racist either. You seriously confuse racial equality with romantic attraction. I don't have to be sexually attracted to everyone I like, let alone everyone I treat equally.

You can try all you like, no-one is going to like being forced to be attracted to someone they are not.

I think the issue here is that you do not know the difference between attraction and sexual identity. Furthermore, you have a very narrow definition of what a transgendered person is, as if all transgendered individuals are transsexuals.

Black skin is not the same as bad skin or deformities. It's something that you learned to dislike for some reason.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think the issue here is that you do not know the difference between attraction and sexual identity. Furthermore, you have a very narrow definition of what a transgendered person is, as if all transgendered individuals are transsexuals.

Black skin is not the same as bad skin or deformities. It's something that you learned to dislike for some reason.

Well put it this way, you are not transgendered just because you wear women's clothes or drag sometimes. (I mean who is to say that high heels say are intrinsically women's clothing?) It has to be something in one's subjective core identity. Most trans people do not just fantasise about things in their heads.

There are genderqueers who don't fall into the traditional MtF and FtM categories, but numerically they are a minority.

Also, it's strange to think that people who refuse to date black women say must consider "black skin" to be deformed in some way. Many preferences are neutral, not discriminatory.

But the question remains: forget about the exact range covered by the term "trans" for the moment, just consider MtF transsexuals: would you consider it to be a case of transphobia if a straight man refuses to date someone who is a MtF transsexual (and who physically would pass as a woman)?

[Blackscare]

You should look at the Kinsey scale man, it'd interest you; most persons, according to Alfred Kinsey, were neither really straight or gay, but somewhat bi, more or less.

Yes I've read about that before. Interesting stuff.

[Dimentio]

Moved to discrimination

Don't fucking start threads like these in politics any more

[Il Medico]

Transphobia is not discrimination based on gender, it is discrimination based on the failure of recognition of gender. To put it simply, trans-women should be considered as women, to not do so is transphobic. Doesn't mean everyone has to feel romantically attracted to trans-women though.
This is kinda of the point that people don't ever seem to get. When you look at the argument of "personal preference" it only works on an individual basis. I am not particularity fond of big noses, so I wouldn't usually be attracted to someone with a big nose, trans or otherwise. However, not all trans-women/men have big noses. Trans women are just as diverse as people who were born that sex. The argument "I am not attracted to trans women because I am straight" is pretty point blank rejection of the 'womanness' of the woman in question. So saying that one would not date trans women because they are trans is, in my opinion, transphobic, yes.

* I can understand why a straight guy wouldn't be super comfortable dating someone who is pre-op, it is something physical that they are not attracted to. But I am assuming that Thomas meant post-op women, as was the question in the last thread on this.

[Queercommie Girl]

This is kinda of the point that people don't ever seem to get. When you look at the argument of "personal preference" it only works on an individual basis. I am not particularity fond of big noses, so I wouldn't usually be attracted to someone with a big nose, trans or otherwise. However, not all trans-women/men have big noses. Trans women are just as diverse as people who were born that sex. The argument "I am not attracted to trans women because I am straight" is pretty point blank rejection of the 'womanness' of the woman in question. So saying that one would not date trans women because they are trans is, in my opinion, transphobic, yes.

* I can understand why a straight guy wouldn't be super comfortable dating someone who is pre-op, it is something physical that they are not attracted to. But I am assuming that Thomas meant post-op women, as was the question in the last thread on this.

Well people can have a neutral preference about a category of people, be they black women or trans women. So just because one doesn't really look for trans women to date doesn't mean that one is necessarily reactionary, as long as one recognises them as women and don't consider them to be inferior. Then it would just be a neutral preference about a category of people.

We don't have the duty to be potentially available to sleep with everyone we consider to be equal and with respect.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

Define transexual woman.

If we're discussing an individual who is physically male but indentifies as a female, than no I would not be interested in dating them. I'd have no problem being friends/coworkers/comrades etc. and we'd be equal, I just wouldn't be attracted.

If we're discussing an individual who was physically male and identified as a female and had surgery to become physically female, than I would have no problem dating them. I would be concerned about being able to have children, but there are many children around the world in need of adoption and loving homes. It'd be something we'd have to talk about.

If we're discussing an individual who is physically female but indetified as a male, than I wouldn't have any objections to dating them.

[Il Medico]

Well people can have a neutral preference about a category of people, be they black women or trans women. There is certainly a difference. If a person just doesn't generally find black women attractive, it tends to be due to physical features among that group of people. (Say the person in question doesn't like dark skin or what not). When it comes to trans women, there is a difference, it is a metal repulsion.


So just because one doesn't really look for trans women to date doesn't mean that one is necessarily reactionary, Of course.


as long as one recognises them as women The problem is, with this metal repulsion, they don't. The reason a straight guy won't find trans women attractive as a whole is because they see them as 'men'.

[727Goon]

No.
I'm not homophobic because I don't want to date a gay man.
I'm not racist because I don't want to date a white woman.
I'm not anti-trans because I dont want to date a transexual woman.
Duh.

[infraxotl]

When it comes to trans women, there is a difference, it is a metal repulsion.

I think it's interesting that you allow for mental repulsions for trans people, yet for things like skin color or ethnicity it's no big deal, nothing can be done.

You won't date an attractive trans woman? BIGOTED TRANSPHOBE!
You won't date an attractive asian woman? Oh that's alright, everyone has their preferences!

[AK]

It sounds like you think trans people are weird for some reason.
No, it's just that it seems like every second one of Sankara's threads are about sex practises or some abstract "what if" scenario.

[Queercommie Girl]

Define transexual woman.

If we're discussing an individual who is physically male but indentifies as a female, than no I would not be interested in dating them. I'd have no problem being friends/coworkers/comrades etc. and we'd be equal, I just wouldn't be attracted.

If we're discussing an individual who was physically male and identified as a female and had surgery to become physically female, than I would have no problem dating them. I would be concerned about being able to have children, but there are many children around the world in need of adoption and loving homes. It'd be something we'd have to talk about.

If we're discussing an individual who is physically female but indetified as a male, than I wouldn't have any objections to dating them.

Most trans-women won't just stay in the stage of "being physically completely male but feel that they are female". The whole point of transgenderism is to change one's physical sex to fit in with one's brain sex.

If a case of transgenderism is just in the head, then it's probably not a genuine form of transgenderism. It's probably just a dirty old man's autosexual fetishes. Being transgendered necessarily implies action. Genderqueers are somewhat different but they are a minority category.

[Queercommie Girl]

There is certainly a difference. If a person just doesn't generally find black women attractive, it tends to be due to physical features among that group of people. (Say the person in question doesn't like dark skin or what not). When it comes to trans women, there is a difference, it is a metal repulsion.
Of course.
The problem is, with this metal repulsion, they don't. The reason a straight guy won't find trans women attractive as a whole is because they see them as 'men'.

Not necessarily. One could intrinsically still recognise a trans-woman as woman but still think that one does not really want to date her because she hasn't gone through the transitions yet, and still physically look like a male. But it's not transphobia as long as intrinsically one considers her to be a woman.

Some cis-women look "ugly" because they look very masculine. Basically to say that one won't date a pre-op trans-woman because she still looks like a man is like saying one won't date a overly masculine-looking cis-woman. But in both cases the woman is still considered to be a female. Therefore it's not transphobia in this case. It's just a matter of physical attraction.

You are right that if there is mental repulsion involved, then it's transphobia. But why does it have to involve any kind of mental repulsion? One could still identify a pre-op trans woman as a woman mentally but say "well you still look like a man at the moment, so I can't consider dating you". That's not transphobia.

[Queercommie Girl]

By the way, even without any fanciful futuristic post-genderist technologies and such, it is wrong to think that intrinsically trans-women cannot have their own genetic children. It is a more tedious process, but basically it's no different from if a male gay couple wanted to have children. Basically she could have some of her sperms taken out before her physical operation and then artificially inseminate one of her friends who is willing to carry her children, or indeed her own partner if she is in a lesbian relationship. Gay couples do this to, for instance with their lesbian friends.

[Queercommie Girl]

No, it's just that it seems like every second one of Sankara's threads are about sex practises or some abstract "what if" scenario.

I do recognise that Sankara is not well-liked by quite a few members on this forum.

You should see the posts in the "Mongolian neo-Nazis" thread. I think he was trying to prove that racially Mongols and Chinese are different because a tiny minority of Mongols happen to have "blonde hair". :rolleyes:

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm not anti-trans because I dont want to date a transexual woman..
As i said the question is badly worded, it should not have been wether or not you consciously want to date a transexual but why you would regard a woman differently because of her transexuality. The reproductive argument doesnt cut it.

[Dr Mindbender]

Some cis-women look "ugly" because they look very masculine. Basically to say that one won't date a pre-op trans-woman because she still looks like a man is like saying one won't date a overly masculine-looking cis-woman..

You see, i dont think the trans-sceptics here would have problems dating masculine cis-women because they were born that way so the 'ickyness' factor of them once having a penis is not there. Therein lies the transphobia here.

[Queercommie Girl]

You are a transphobe if you:

1. Consider trans people to be inferior.

2. Refuse to intrinsically consider trans-men and trans-women as men and women.

If you just don't want to date someone due to physical attraction, then it's not transphobia. People have the freedom and the right to consider other people to be attractive or unattractive.

Of course, there may be other forms of discrimination involved, for instance one could argue that the idea that masculine women are not attractive is a kind of sexist idea imposed upon people by class society etc. (But in this case it is not the subjective fault of the person who decides not to date a masculine woman - he can't be responsible for the social conditioning imposed upon himself) But it is not transphobia.

[Queercommie Girl]

You see, i dont think the trans-sceptics here would have problems dating masculine cis-women because they were born that way so the 'ickyness' factor of them once having a penis is not there. Therein lies the transphobia here.

Well, that your hypothesis. We are not sure if that is the case or not.

But in principle, you are right that what you are describing here would be a form of transphobia.

[Il Medico]

Not necessarily. One could intrinsically still recognise a trans-woman as woman but still think that one does not really want to date her because she hasn't gone through the transitions yet, and still physically look like a male. But it's not transphobia as long as intrinsically one considers her to be a woman. I was talking specifically about post-op trans women/men as Thomas asked about transexual women (this usual refers to women who have already had the op and are physically women to my understanding.)


Some cis-women look "ugly" because they look very masculine. Basically to say that one won't date a pre-op trans-woman because she still looks like a man is like saying one won't date a overly masculine-looking cis-woman. But in both cases the woman is still considered to be a female. Therefore it's not transphobia in this case. It's just a matter of physical attraction.

You are right that if there is mental repulsion involved, then it's transphobia. But why does it have to involve any kind of mental repulsion? One could still identify a pre-op trans woman as a woman mentally but say "well you still look like a man at the moment, so I can't consider dating you". That's not transphobia.Of course. Can't blame a straight guy for not wanting to date someone who is physically male. But as I said I am talking about post-op women. So it comes down to metal rejection. Which means that they either don't consider post-op trans women women, or they consider them a women, but they want a "real (natural born) woman'. The former is an outright rejection of their gender, the latter is saying they are inferior to natural born women, both are transphobic.

[Il Medico]

I think it's interesting that you allow for mental repulsions for trans people, yet for things like skin color or ethnicity it's no big deal, nothing can be done.

You won't date an attractive trans woman? BIGOTED TRANSPHOBE!
You won't date an attractive asian woman? Oh that's alright, everyone has their preferences!
If you exclusively like women/men who look like they've had a bucket of white paint poured on them, then I doubt you are going to find a black woman/man attractive no matter how gorgeous they may be. Physical attraction/repulsion quite simply. Everyone has different standards of attractiveness. This does not apply for trans-women. Not finding post op trans women as a whole attractive has little to do with physical attraction. It is a metal repulsion. It is more analogous with saying "I don't find women from Boston attractive". Perhaps you're a foaming at the mouth Yankee's fan in that case, however, when it comes to trans women, it is not so innocent as a baseball rivalry. Rather, it is a rejection of their gender, or, considering them inferior those those who are natural born women, which is indeed bigotry.

[Fietsketting]

Oh God, not this again..
Thats what I think when you bring up support threads for some commie party in the middle of nowhere :D

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

This does not apply for trans-women. Not finding post op trans women as a whole attractive has little to do with physical attraction.

Can you explain why sexual attraction based on physical features is altogether different from sexual attraction based on psychological or mental preferences? I ask because you treat them differently(notwithstanding the fact that there is considerable overlap between the two). According to you, one has little control over what physical features they find sexually appealing, therefore someone who finds say black skin distasteful is not a bigot because it’s not something they can help. On the other hand, psychological preferences(or “mental attraction” as you call it), say preferring “natural born” women to transwomen, must be, in your view, amenable to volitional change, therefore it is accurate to describe people who hold such sexual preferences as bigots.
So to clarify, I’m trying to understand what underlies this assumption, that physical sexual preferences are inflexible, while mental sexual preferences are malleable and therefore one should be held accountable and scolded(when appropriate) for them.

[Queercommie Girl]

Can you explain why sexual attraction based on physical features is altogether different from sexual attraction based on psychological or mental preferences? I ask because you treat them differently(notwithstanding the fact that there is considerable overlap between the two). According to you, one has little control over what physical features they find sexually appealing, therefore someone who finds say black skin distasteful is not a bigot because it’s not something they can help. On the other hand, psychological preferences(or “mental attraction” as you call it), say preferring “natural born” women to transwomen, must be, in your view, amenable to volitional change, therefore it is accurate to describe people who hold such sexual preferences as bigots.
So to clarify, I’m trying to understand what underlies this assumption, that physical sexual preferences are inflexible, while mental sexual preferences are malleable and therefore one should be held accountable and scolded(when appropriate) for them.

One difference is that there is no mental difference between cis-women and post-op trans-women. The brain sex and hormonal levels of post-op trans-women are all female, just like cis-women.

So it's just a kind of prejudice to think that just because trans-women have not always been women, then psychologically they must be distinctively different from cis-women. In the case of race the difference is objective, in the case here the "mental difference" is only in the prejudiced head of the heterosexual man.

The only credible reason for a straight man to reject trans-women as an entire category without being transphobic is that trans-women cannot naturally get pregnant. It is not the case that trans-women cannot have genetic children however, as I have already explained in this thread.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

Maybe my last post was too convoluted. I apologize for that. To clarify, I wasn't questioning whether there were any significant neurological differences between trans-women and cis-women.

My actual question is merely why are some sexual preferences arbitrarily treated as being amenable to voluntary control(finding "natural born" women more sexually appealing than trans-women) while others are not(finding white women more sexually appealing than women of other "races" or ethnicities)? My last post was essentially questioning the logic underlying the distinctions that "The Doctor" was making.

[incogweedo]

well im a straight male. does not wanting to date another man make me a bigot? does not wanting to date girls with hairy legs and pits make me a bigot? does not wanting to date dogs make me a bigot?

it's all just your personal preference, simple as that. Everybody has one. Some people like to date transexuals, some people are homosexual, some like really hairy girls, and some (oh god) like to "date" dogs.

I have a black friend who is very progressive/leftist and he just doesn't find most black girls attractive. He thinks some are, but to him most aren't. He doesn't discriminate against other blacks at all, he just prefers white girls. Is it so wrong to not find curtain things attractive?

[Adi Shankara]

well im a straight male. does not wanting to date another man make me a bigot? does not wanting to date girls with hairy legs and pits make me a bigot? does not wanting to date dogs make me a bigot?

Come on man I agree with most of what you say, but don't compare homosexuality to bestiality, it makes you look like a fundie jerk ass.

[Adi Shankara]

I do recognise that Sankara is not well-liked by quite a few members on this forum.

You should see the posts in the "Mongolian neo-Nazis" thread. I think he was trying to prove that racially Mongols and Chinese are different because a tiny minority of Mongols happen to have "blonde hair". :rolleyes:

I don't really care if people dislike me on this forum, tbh. it's not like none of you will ever meet me.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

It sounds like you think trans people are weird for some reason.

Well speak for yourself I am happy being weird...
:rolleyes::tongue_smilie:

... I get it, most aren't. But the subject is a tedious discussion and I am getting side tracked on my way to the stonerthread.

Cheers!:cool:

[Queercommie Girl]

well im a straight male. does not wanting to date another man make me a bigot? does not wanting to date girls with hairy legs and pits make me a bigot? does not wanting to date dogs make me a bigot?

it's all just your personal preference, simple as that. Everybody has one. Some people like to date transexuals, some people are homosexual, some like really hairy girls, and some (oh god) like to "date" dogs.

I have a black friend who is very progressive/leftist and he just doesn't find most black girls attractive. He thinks some are, but to him most aren't. He doesn't discriminate against other blacks at all, he just prefers white girls. Is it so wrong to not find curtain things attractive?

Your comparison with dating dogs is pretty stupid.

Also, trans-women don't generally have "hairy" legs etc.

And actually there are some men who like "hairy" women anyway.

It's not that your idea is in principle wrong, it's just that the way you've worded it is pretty dumb.

If I want to be a bit strict about it, I'd say that you are implicitly homophobic and transphobic. You are one of those people who hold an innate prejudice against queer people but care too much about superficial "political correctness" to be explicitly discriminatory.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't really care if people dislike me on this forum, tbh. it's not like none of you will ever meet me.

Personally I don't really have any interest at all to get involved in one of those petty inter-personal antagonisms here on RevLeft. So while other people might give you a bit of a hard time due to some personal reason, I won't.

But just a friendly advice to you: don't write too many things that you are not really sure about, it just gives other people a means to say things against you. Your idea about the Mongols being a different race from the Han Chinese just because a tiny minority of Mongolians happen to have "blonde hair" is pretty ignorant to be frank. If I didn't know you better, I'd say it's an implicit form of white supremacy. It's the kind of thing one would get on places like Stormfront: "since the Mongols were great conquerors, there must be some "white blood" in them. No race without the "aryan blood" can become a great conqueror!"

[Queercommie Girl]

Well speak for yourself I am happy being weird...
:rolleyes::tongue_smilie:

... I get it, most aren't. But the subject is a tedious discussion and I am getting side tracked on my way to the stonerthread.

Cheers!:cool:

That's not the point. I'm not saying that "being weird" is necessarily bad intrinsically. But subjectively speaking when a person calls trans people weird, that person is being prejudiced. That's where the problem is.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes I've read about that before. Interesting stuff.

The scale theory is basically correct, judging from archaeological evidence of primitive communist societies.

It's not just sexuality, but gender identity that is fluidic as well. Of course there are overlaps between the two.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

Most trans-women won't just stay in the stage of "being physically completely male but feel that they are female". The whole point of transgenderism is to change one's physical sex to fit in with one's brain sex.

If a case of transgenderism is just in the head, then it's probably not a genuine form of transgenderism. It's probably just a dirty old man's autosexual fetishes. Being transgendered necessarily implies action. Genderqueers are somewhat different but they are a minority category.

But you just said that most trans-women won't stay in the stage of "being physically completely male but feel that they are female." Acknowledging that there are some trans-women who haven't changed physically, for whatever reason.

It is also incredibly cost-prohibitive for many individuals to be able to complete the surgery as it can cost anywhere between $7,000 and $24,000. So there may be trans-women who are physically male, and due to high cost involved, unable to get the surgery they desperately need.

I don't really see anything in my post that can be criticized....

[Queercommie Girl]

But you just said that most trans-women won't stay in the stage of "being physically completely male but feel that they are female." Acknowledging that there are some trans-women who haven't changed physically, for whatever reason.

It is also incredibly cost-prohibitive for many individuals to be able to complete the surgery as it can cost anywhere between $7,000 and $24,000. So there may be trans-women who are physically male, and due to high cost involved, unable to get the surgery they desperately need.

I don't really see anything in my post that can be criticized....

Hey comrade, I wasn't criticising you. I mean I essentially agree with your position, that you reject transphobia but obviously you still keep your freedom to select a mate. I'm also heavily influenced by Trotskyism.

I replied to you as a clarification, not criticism. I completely agree also with your point here that due to the high costs of therapies etc for trans people, trans people really should support socialism, which includes free public health care.

Also, in case you don't know, I am transgendered. I consider myself to be female intrinsically, but my situation is a bit complicated, since I'm also genderqueer, so I don't feel as "desperate" to change sex as the more traditional MtFs would. But as I said, genderqueers are a small minority. Also I can't change sex at the moment more due to social reasons rather than directly financial ones, but that's going off-topic.

Another point I would like to emphasise is that my definition of "transgenderism" is a scientific one, not one based on post-modern identity politics like the liberals use. So my definition is narrower than the one used by those endorsing identity politics. For me, transgenderism implies a discrepancy of some kind between one's brain sex and physical sex, leading to a trans core subjective identity. Therefore being transgendered is an objective state, not just a subjective identity. Not everyone who thinks he or she is trans is really trans. If one just cross-dresses now and then, one is not really trans.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

That's not the point. I'm not saying that "being weird" is necessarily bad intrinsically. But subjectively speaking when a person calls trans people weird, that person is being prejudiced. That's where the problem is.
I got the point, I just think there are enough factors missing from the question that make it really too vague. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong?

[incogweedo]

Your comparison with dating dogs is pretty stupid.

Also, trans-women don't generally have "hairy" legs etc.

And actually there are some men who like "hairy" women anyway.

It's not that your idea is in principle wrong, it's just that the way you've worded it is pretty dumb.

If I want to be a bit strict about it, I'd say that you are implicitly homophobic and transphobic. You are one of those people who hold an innate prejudice against queer people but care too much about superficial "political correctness" to be explicitly discriminatory.



Sorry, i was just making a point that some people do find animals sexually attractive, but i dont. im guessing you dont either, so are you and i a biggot?

and i wasn't associating trans-gender women with hairiness, i meant how some women in many parts of the world do not shave their legs/pits/etc. some find it attractive. but i dont. does it make me a biggot that i wont date a "hairy" woman?

also, i am not discriminatory to anyone. I fully support same sex marriages, and people who want to become the opposite sex. All i am trying to say here is: i wont date another man, does that make me a biggot? i don't find hairy legs on women, does that make me a biggot also?

[incogweedo]

Come on man I agree with most of what you say, but don't compare homosexuality to bestiality, it makes you look like a fundie jerk ass.

again, sorry everyone, but that's just how i see it. some people are gay, but im not. Some people like bestiality, but i dont. I wasn't comparing the two, im just putting a couple of things out there that some people enjoy, but i dont.

my point: i wont date men, dogs, trans-women, or "hairy" women. Im not a biggot, i just wont because i dont find those 4 things sexually appealing. Why is that so wrong?

[Queercommie Girl]

again, sorry everyone, but that's just how i see it. some people are gay, but im not. Some people like bestiality, but i dont. I wasn't comparing the two, im just putting a couple of things out there that some people enjoy, but i dont.

my point: i wont date men, dogs, trans-women, or "hairy" women. Im not a biggot, i just wont because i dont find those 4 things sexually appealing. Why is that so wrong?

Your dating preference is not wrong. Your comparison is wrong because frankly I don't think humans should be allowed to have sex with animals even if they wanted to (I'm a Marxist, not a liberal who believes "anything goes" and "absolute freedom"), but LGBT rights should be considered human rights.

There are certain sexual things that should not be allowed, like rape, pedophilia and bestiality. There are certain sexual things that should be allowed, like homosexuality and transgenderism.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think it's interesting that you allow for mental repulsions for trans people, yet for things like skin color or ethnicity it's no big deal, nothing can be done.

You won't date an attractive trans woman? BIGOTED TRANSPHOBE!
You won't date an attractive asian woman? Oh that's alright, everyone has their preferences!

But you are applying exactly the same kind of double standards, just in the opposite way.

[incogweedo]

Your dating preference is not wrong. Your comparison is wrong because frankly I don't think humans should be allowed to have sex with animals even if they wanted to (I'm a Marxist, not a liberal who believes "anything goes" and "absolute freedom"), but LGBT rights should be considered human rights.

There are certain sexual things that should not be allowed, like rape, pedophilia and bestiality. There are certain sexual things that should be allowed, like homosexuality and transgenderism.

great point. So lets exclude the whole bestiality thing then, I believe it's not bigotism (idk if that's even a word) if one does not find a curtain race/gender/fetish/etc attractive, and therefor will not date or have sex with any of these people. i think being a "bigot" all relies on if you have a hatred for those people or try to treat them differently than any other human being because of those circumstances.

[bailey_187]

in b4 people start getting banned/restricted

[Dr Mindbender]

There are certain sexual things that should not be allowed, like......and bestiality.

Why so? Because of the moralist argument that it 'harms' the animal?

By that logic you want to ban also the meat industry.

A cow cannot give its consent to be killed for its meat anymore than any other animal can give its consent for sex.

[Reznov]

No its not. It is the mans choice if he wants to be with someone based on his own decisions and feelings.

Now should he discriminate against the person? No.

But this comes down to his choice really and his personal preferences and like it has been said, this is personal and he has a choice on a matter like this.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why so? Because of the moralist argument that it 'harms' the animal?

By that logic you want to ban also the meat industry.

A cow cannot give its consent to be killed for its meat anymore than any other animal can give its consent for sex.

Actually to be frank I think in the future humans should eat cloned meat rather than kill animals for them.

[Dr Mindbender]

Actually to be frank I think in the future humans should eat cloned meat rather than kill animals for them.

Then its a circular argument, should zoophiles fuck only cloned animals?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Sorry, i was just making a point that some people do find animals sexually attractive, but i dont. im guessing you dont either, so are you and i a biggot?
The difference is that those of us who are trans are human. And comparing the two ideas is offensive.


and i wasn't associating trans-gender women with hairiness, i meant how some women in many parts of the world do not shave their legs/pits/etc. some find it attractive. but i dont. does it make me a biggot that i wont date a "hairy" woman?
I personally find hairy armpits attractive on other women:tt1:, but not on myself. :tt2:


also, i am not discriminatory to anyone. I fully support same sex marriages, and people who want to become the opposite sex. All i am trying to say here is: i wont date another man, does that make me a biggot? i don't find hairy legs on women, does that make me a biggot also?
Are you trying to claim that transwomen are still men? Because the body I was born into is irrelevant to the fact that I have always been a woman.

[gorillafuck]

The reproductive argument doesnt cut it.
Of course it does. What if, hypothetically, I want a child from my sperm and my partners eggs? Is that somehow an invalid want?

Edit: and that is not actually something that I would care about, it's hypothetical.

[synthesis]

Devil's advocacy time.


Because the body I was born into is irrelevant to the fact that I have always been a woman.

How do you define "woman"?

[Queercommie Girl]

Devil's advocacy time.



How do you define "woman"?

There is no simple "abstract" definition. But in the reality of daily life, many trans people have felt very strongly and deeply that they really are members of the opposite sex (relative to their physical bodies) from a very young age. Recent scientific research shows that there is probably some biological basis for transgenderism, or at least a certain sub-set of transgenderism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Transgender_people_and_science

Some recent findings have provided clues and possibly answers as to how or why some or most cases of transsexuality occur. In 1997, J.N. Zhou, M.A. Hofman, L.J. Gooren and D.F. Swaab conducted tests on the brains of transgender individuals. Their tests showed that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour, is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Their study was the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones.

Transgenderism is a serious phenomenon and the transgender movement is a serious movement. It's a part of the wider LGBT movement, which is an intergral part of the progressive left movement in general. Trans people face a lot of discrimination and prejudice of all kinds in every part of the world. Trans issues are not some kind of joke to play being "devil's advocate" around with. Don't treat trans issues like a joke.

[Queercommie Girl]

The difference is that those of us who are trans are human. And comparing the two ideas is offensive.


I personally find hairy armpits attractive on other women:tt1:, but not on myself. :tt2:


Are you trying to claim that transwomen are still men? Because the body I was born into is irrelevant to the fact that I have always been a woman.

To be fair I don't think he was actually comparing trans people or gays with animals. In fact, judging by the views of some people here, having sex with animals may not even be considered an intrinsically negative thing by many...

[Dr Mindbender]

Of course it does. What if, hypothetically, I want a child from my sperm and my partners eggs? Is that somehow an invalid want?

Would you reject a sterile cis-womans affections for that reason? Be honest.

In the heat of passion i somewhat doubt your long term family planning would be on your mind. Furthermore, there are options even with a partner unable to bear your children. Adoption and surrogacy for instance. Women are more than egg carrying vessels.

[gorillafuck]

Would you reject a sterile cis-womans affections for that reason?

No you wouldnt.
What if I would?

Edit: these are hypothetical situations. I would never actually reject someone for that reason

[Dr Mindbender]

What if I would?

When you confront potential sexual partners you ask them about their sterility on the first encounter or immediately before you have intimate behaviour with them?

I wouldnt worry about concieving then you are safe as houses.

[gorillafuck]

When you confront potential sexual partners you ask them about their sterility on the first encounter or immediately before you have intimate behaviour with them?

I wouldnt worry about concieving then you are safe as houses.
I assume you missed where I said "hypothetically" in my first post you responded to, and the "what if" in the second one? Correct me if I'm wrong there.

Now basically your argument is that I'm an asshole (and if I would reject someone for not being able to have kids then yes I would be an asshole), but nothing you've said makes rejecting someone for that assholish reason transphobic.

Edit: And for the record, unless it is a reproductive thing then I do think that not dating someone for being transexual is transphobic if you wouldn't be able to tell from looking at them.

[counterblast]

Of course it does. What if, hypothetically, I want a child from my sperm and my partners eggs? Is that somehow an invalid want?

Women aren't birthing machines, y'know...

[gorillafuck]

Women aren't birthing machines, y'know...
Fair point, my bad.

[Start a Fire]

If a person doesn't want to associate or be friends with a transgendered woman because they're transgendered, they are clearly bigoted.

If they don't want to date them, that just means they have a preference. There's really nothing wrong with having certain preferences when it comes to romance and sexuality. Some guys don't like to date women of a certain ethnicity or religion, and I think that's fine too. I imagine that most guys would not want to date or have sex with a transgendered woman, but who knows, that may change in the future as transgenderism is more excepted.

[gorillafuck]

If they don't want to date them, that just means they have a preference. There's really nothing wrong with having certain preferences when it comes to romance and sexuality. Some guys don't like to date women of a certain ethnicity or religion, and I think that's fine too. I imagine that most guys would not want to date or have sex with a transgendered woman, but who knows, that may change in the future as transgenderism is more excepted.
If a straight man won't date a woman solely because she's bisexual, it's pretty obviously homophobic. I don't see how transgenderism is much different. Race can be different because someone might not be attracted to someone with a certain skin color or might not be attracted to what are usually Asian features. But if you want to date someone at first but then do not want to because you found out they have Asian ancestry, then that is blatantly racist.

[Start a Fire]

If a straight man won't date a woman solely because she's bisexual, it's pretty obviously homophobic. I don't see how transgenderism is much different. Race can be different because someone might not be attracted to someone with a certain skin color or might not be attracted to what are usually Asian features. But if you want to date someone at first but then do not want to because you found out they have Asian ancestry, then that is blatantly racist.
What if that man was simply turned off by the fact that the woman had sexual relations with other women, and not because he had moral objections? I think it would be a pretty silly thing to be turned off by something like that, but sexuality is a complex thing. If someone found out that a woman they previously found attracive used to be a man, they may or may not be attracted to them anymore. It all depends on individual preference.

I completely agree with the second part, but I think that finding out someone has distant asian ancestry (distant enough that you wouldn't notice it) is different than finding out someone used to be a man.

[Queercommie Girl]

What if that man was simply turned off by the fact that the woman had sexual relations with other women, and not because he had moral objections? I think it would be a pretty silly thing to be turned off by something like that, but sexuality is a complex thing. If someone found out that a woman they previously found attracive used to be a man, they may or may not be attracted to them anymore. It all depends on individual preference.

I completely agree with the second part, but I think that finding out someone has distant asian ancestry (distant enough that you wouldn't notice it) is different than finding out someone used to be a man.

I can understand if someone does not want to date a trans-woman because he wants to have his children carried to term by her, or that the trans-woman doesn't look feminine enough and is easily recognisable as being trans, or that her manners etc are not womanly enough.

But suppose objectively the trans-woman is perfect for the man in every way - she can't carry children inside her but he doesn't mind that; she is pretty/hot and completely passable; she has a great personality that almost perfectly matches his, etc...then in such a case if the man solely rejects her based on the fact that she is transgendered, I do think it's borderline bigotry, even if the man is not transphobic in any other way - i.e. he is perfectly willing to be her colleague and friend etc. Not to mention that objectively the man is missing out on the date of his life.

If as you say it is silly that a man rejects a woman simply because she is bi, it is also silly if he rejects a woman simply because she is trans, even so she is completely ok in other ways.

However, on the more optimistic side, I think with the younger generations, in the West and other developed countries at least, people are becoming more and more open to the possibility of dating trans people.

[Dr Mindbender]

If a person doesn't want to associate or be friends with a transgendered woman because they're transgendered, they are clearly bigoted.

If they don't want to date them, that just means they have a preference.
That premise implies that cis-women and post op transwomen are always physically distinguishable, which isnt always the case. Assuming you are a heterosexual male there are probably some transwomen that you would choose over some cis-women without the benefit of hindsight.

You wouldnt shun a sterile cis-women sexually because of her [lack of] fertility which brings me back to my point about the argument against relationships with transwomen for that reason being null and void.

[mel]

That premise implies that cis-women and post op transwomen are always physically distinguishable, which isnt always the case. Assuming you are a heterosexual male there are probably some transwomen that you would choose over some cis-women without the benefit of hindsight.

It's often the case, if not most of the time, that they are physically distinguishable. Even so, I don't want to pursue a relationship with everyone I'm physically attracted to, which brings me to my next point.


You wouldnt shun a sterile cis-women sexually because of her [lack of] fertility which brings me back to my point about the argument against relationships with transwomen for that reason being null and void.

I would shun a sterile cis-woman because of her [lack of] fertility. Or rather, let me put it this way:

If I started seeing a woman and we started talking about the future (something much healthier to do towards the beginning of a relationship than several years in) and she knew she was sterile, that would be a highly problematic incompatibility. With transwomen, at this point in the relationship, it will always be the case that they know they are infertile. This is a dealbreaker.

Most cis-women wouldn't already know that, so generally the relationship makes it a great deal further before you find out. If I've already built a life with this person as part of it, it's going to be hard but it's not a dealbreaker once you're that invested in a person.

Summary: If early in a relationship I found out that the person I'm dating didn't want or could not have children, that relationship would not continue much longer. If I've already built a life with somebody, I'm not gonna leave them over it, I'm not heartless.

That said, why pursue a relationship from that you know from the beginning isn't gonna be everything you want it to be? The transwoman would be better off with somebody who doesn't want their own kids and I'd be better off with somebody who wants and can provide their own kids too (or at least somebody that does not know that they can't). It's not only in my best interest, but hers as well, that people not be guilted into dating people that aren't right for them in the name of fighting bigotry.

[Dimentio]

The wheel is running but the hamster is dead.

That is this discussion thread.

[Dr Mindbender]

The wheel is running but the hamster is dead.

That is this discussion thread.

The thread was started on a loaded question anyway.

[synthesis]

Transgenderism is a serious phenomenon and the transgender movement is a serious movement. It's a part of the wider LGBT movement, which is an intergral part of the progressive left movement in general. Trans people face a lot of discrimination and prejudice of all kinds in every part of the world. Trans issues are not some kind of joke to play being "devil's advocate" around with. Don't treat trans issues like a joke.

How was I treating it like a joke?

[Queercommie Girl]

How was I treating it like a joke?

It is meaningless to ask abstract questions like "how do you define a woman"? That, and your use of the term "devil's advocate", led me to believe that you were not really serious as such.

Regardless of whether or not "man" and "woman" have precise abstract definitions (or should have them), the issue of transgenderism is a pragmatic one, because in actual daily life gender is clearly distinctly differentiated in the social sense. While this may change in the future, it probably won't for a very long time, and genuine changes won't be easy to come by at all.

[meow]

Is it bigoted if a straight man wouldn't wish to date a transsexual woman?

100%

if person is attracted to another person and is only not attracted to them because they find out they were born something "different" to what they are now that would be biggited. just like if a person was born "white" and later had a skin transplant to become "black" and someone did not want sex because they said you are no lot "black". that is biggited against "white" (swap color if you wish).

if a "straight" person says with no case as example they would not date trans person that is biggited. fuck them and send them to the fire to burn.

[synthesis]

It is meaningless to ask abstract questions like "how do you define a woman"?
How so? I think it's a very important question. From what I understand, "sex" is biological and "gender" is psychological, right?


That, and your use of the term "devil's advocate", led me to believe that you were not really serious as such.

I just think it's important that we don't construct a little "bubble" where we lose the ability to actually challenge the reactionary ideas that many working-class people still hold - especially outside the Western world, as you yourself noted.

Most people I know - generally proletarian and lumpen - don't even acknowledge the possibility that something like "transphobia" exists. Simply arguing that "no socialist is transphobic," and thereby completely dismissing transphobic socialists and/or proletarians as reactionaries - that seems counter-productive, at least at this point. There are ways to challenge ideas without putting those who hold them on the defensive.

Personally, I will admit at least some degree of ignorance on the subject. I don't really understand the scientific mechanisms by which "a woman is born into a man's body," or vice versa. Right now, I'm not sure that anyone does - again, in the scientific realm, not just here.

[Queercommie Girl]

How so? I think it's a very important question. From what I understand, "sex" is biological and "gender" is psychological, right?


The question itself isn't completely meaningless per se, but the way you phrased is divorcing it from any kind of practical daily experience, which is the fundamental element in any kind of materialist discourse. Which is why I said your question, by itself, is abstract.

Transgenderism is not an abstract topic, it is a very practical topic.



I just think it's important that we don't construct a little "bubble" where we lose the ability to actually challenge the reactionary ideas that many working-class people still hold - especially outside the Western world, as you yourself noted.

Most people I know - generally proletarian and lumpen - don't even acknowledge the possibility that something like "transphobia" exists. Simply arguing that "no socialist is transphobic," and thereby completely dismissing transphobic socialists and/or proletarians as reactionaries - that seems counter-productive, at least at this point. There are ways to challenge ideas without putting those who hold them on the defensive.

Personally, I will admit at least some degree of ignorance on the subject. I don't really understand the scientific mechanisms by which "a woman is born into a man's body," or vice versa. Right now, I'm not sure that anyone does - again, in the scientific realm, not just here.

Then they need to be educated and you need to be educated. The biological mechanism of transgenderism, at least for a certain sub-set of instances, has indeed already been analysed to some extent.

See:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/transgenderism-t139511/index.html?t=139511

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Transgender_people_and_science

Also, even if no precise biological basis is discovered, do you think this means trans people don't have rights? It is my body, and if I wish to change it to a feminine form, don't I have the right to do so? Do you necessarily need some kind of scientific justification first? Just like do gay people have no right to choose who they wish to sleep with just because no "gay gene" has ever been discovered? I really don't think so.

I think the right to decide what to do with your own body is a fundamental human right, regarding bodily autonomy.

[Queercommie Girl]

Then its a circular argument, should zoophiles fuck only cloned animals?

Actually you are missing the whole point.

Having sex with animals is wrong primarily because animals don't have a choice in the matter. Cloned animals is exactly the same in this case since they also have some degree of awareness. There is no difference between natural animals and cloned animals here. Having sex with animals is not wrong because animals are "natural-born".

Eating animal meat is wrong because animals with awareness are killed without their consent. But eating cloned meat is completely different because cloned meat are just meat cells and no living animal individuals are ever involved.

Therefore there is simply no comparison at all between the 2 cases.