If someone says they’re not interested in dating Republicans, it doesn’t mean they are any better than the average person at picking one out from a crowd.
Attraction can change as you learn more about a person. There’s plenty of people on tinder who looked hot in their pictures but their bio then went on to turn me off.
I don’t see such a statement in this comment chain. Closest thing is “exclusive sexual interest”, which isn’t as broad as “experiencing attraction” and also doesn’t imply a magical way of filtering out anyone he believes is in that group but isn’t.
So in this metaphor trans people are AI, cartoons, and wax figures, and cis people are human?
Or, on a less confrontational tact, do you only experience attraction once you’ve confirmed that the person is cis? How does that work, do you ask for medical records before having an initial impression of people?
I’m cis. I’m a cis man with a exclusive sexual interest in cis women.
Here. Unless you know for certainty that you can 100 percent correctly identify every person you meet as cis or trans, you wouldn’t have the knowledge to confidently make that statement.
I have very clearly stated that I am exclusively interested in cis women. Are you suggesting that a trans person would ignore my very clearly stated preference and lie to me in order to have sex with me?
I very clearly stated my preference. You’re trying to use pedantic arguments to invalidate my clearly stated preference. Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t be allowed to have a preference or that people who don’t like that preference or don’t think I should have that preference should be allowed to simply ignore my preference?
I think that your “preference” is based on very sloppy thinking rooted in ambient transphobia. I think you are also confusing a desire for precision of thought with being pedantic.
I think you’re trying to imply that preferences are neutral facts. I think you should consider how you’d react to someone saying “I am only attracted to white women” or “I am only attracted to 18 y/o women”. Do you think their preference is a neutral fact or an expression of something?
Oh, also, expression of “preference” is different than having a preference. Ask why you felt the need to say it in this thread.
It’s also important to remember that “perfect” is the enemy of “good”. There will never be a perfect ally, because allies don’t have the same lived experience. But (I think) that allyship is still a good thing.
At minimum keep it to yourself. Ask yourself what the utility of saying it is. Because what I read is “I support trans people but I still find them gross personally because if I don’t say that people will think I’m a f*g”
Are you nitpicking an ally for using “exclusive” instead of “principal”?
MapleEngineer doesn’t actually know for sure that he has never been attracted to a trans woman. So it’s important to correct him when he says he has an exclusive sexual interest in cis-women.
Is that your point? That failing to acknowledge the nuance that sexuality exists on a spectrum must be addressed confrontationally because it’s erasure?
Transphobia and homophobia are too often literally (yes, I mean literally) beaten into men. We have to work to unlearn it. If an ally says he wouldn’t be able to keep it up if he learned the woman he was courting was assigned male at birth, believe him, but don’t discount him as an ally. Imo your efforts are better spent combating active transphobia than policing your allies. If their terminology hurts you, suggest better ways to articulate their points but do it collaboratively instead of confrontationally.
Having read about your experiences (elsewhere in the thread, you hadn’t posted them when I started my prior comment) I understand your reaction better.
Hmm. So in other words, you think you can always tell if someone is trans?
If someone says they’re not interested in dating Republicans, it doesn’t mean they are any better than the average person at picking one out from a crowd.
No, but they didn’t say not date, they said not attracted to.
They didn’t actually use either of those terms.
Attraction can change as you learn more about a person. There’s plenty of people on tinder who looked hot in their pictures but their bio then went on to turn me off.
So you were never attracted to those people?
There was initial attraction but the additional information killed it.
So in other words, you are not defending the statement that the commenter was making, about never experiencing attraction?
I don’t see such a statement in this comment chain. Closest thing is “exclusive sexual interest”, which isn’t as broad as “experiencing attraction” and also doesn’t imply a magical way of filtering out anyone he believes is in that group but isn’t.
Do you consider yourself attracted to AI, cartoons, and or wax figures? Or do withhold judgment until you find out if they are human?
So in this metaphor trans people are AI, cartoons, and wax figures, and cis people are human?
Or, on a less confrontational tact, do you only experience attraction once you’ve confirmed that the person is cis? How does that work, do you ask for medical records before having an initial impression of people?
Of course. For example, this woman is obviously trans:
I don’t think that MTG is trans but she is utterly unattractive to me physically and she’s a fucking horrible person.
Can you go back and show me where I said that?
Here. Unless you know for certainty that you can 100 percent correctly identify every person you meet as cis or trans, you wouldn’t have the knowledge to confidently make that statement.
Unless I misunderstand?
I have very clearly stated that I am exclusively interested in cis women. Are you suggesting that a trans person would ignore my very clearly stated preference and lie to me in order to have sex with me?
Hey, maybe instead of leaning on the “trap” meme that gets trans women brutally murdered you can actually engage with the content of what I’m saying.
I very clearly stated my preference. You’re trying to use pedantic arguments to invalidate my clearly stated preference. Are you suggesting that I shouldn’t be allowed to have a preference or that people who don’t like that preference or don’t think I should have that preference should be allowed to simply ignore my preference?
I think that your “preference” is based on very sloppy thinking rooted in ambient transphobia. I think you are also confusing a desire for precision of thought with being pedantic.
I think you’re trying to imply that preferences are neutral facts. I think you should consider how you’d react to someone saying “I am only attracted to white women” or “I am only attracted to 18 y/o women”. Do you think their preference is a neutral fact or an expression of something?
Oh, also, expression of “preference” is different than having a preference. Ask why you felt the need to say it in this thread.
I think you make some very good points.
It’s also important to remember that “perfect” is the enemy of “good”. There will never be a perfect ally, because allies don’t have the same lived experience. But (I think) that allyship is still a good thing.
I have a preference. Am I not allowded to have a preference that you disagree with? I should just accept what you want and keep my mouth shut?
At minimum keep it to yourself. Ask yourself what the utility of saying it is. Because what I read is “I support trans people but I still find them gross personally because if I don’t say that people will think I’m a f*g”
Are you nitpicking an ally for using “exclusive” instead of “principal”?
Is that your point? That failing to acknowledge the nuance that sexuality exists on a spectrum must be addressed confrontationally because it’s erasure?
Transphobia and homophobia are too often literally (yes, I mean literally) beaten into men. We have to work to unlearn it. If an ally says he wouldn’t be able to keep it up if he learned the woman he was courting was assigned male at birth, believe him, but don’t discount him as an ally. Imo your efforts are better spent combating active transphobia than policing your allies. If their terminology hurts you, suggest better ways to articulate their points but do it collaboratively instead of confrontationally.
Just my two cents.
If you have issues with my tone maybe you should have raised the issue instead of me, because you obviously know how to do it better.
You can still collaboratively discuss with him why he is incorrect and how he is falling into ambient transmisogyny if you want.
Having read about your experiences (elsewhere in the thread, you hadn’t posted them when I started my prior comment) I understand your reaction better.
I’ll try to explain it to MapleEngineer.