New Testingstan

IB, the only possible issues that I see are a communication issue and a life goal issue.

To take the latter first and the former second:

The life goal issue could be that there are people who while wanting monogamous relationships want to have children that are both theirs and their partners, genetically. As I don't actually have this hangup, its not something that I can really speak to other than to say that I know it exists, and that I also know it messes with far more cis/cis relationships than cis/trans ones simply on a statistical basis. These are typically the people who will spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars and many years on fertility treatments rather than adoption. Rationality is not playing much of a role there.

The communication issue involves how/when information is delivered. Not having been in the situation myself - at least that I know of - I don't think I'd have an issue dating a transwoman (identifying female, did I get that right?), but when discussions reached commitment stages (proposals, marriage, that kind of thing) I think, based on my own trust issues, that I would expect disclosure. If that sort of thing (and I mean significant issues, not just gender identity, but stuff like say legal history or other things like that) weren't disclosed, I would see that as a significant betrayal. Trust is a huge issue for me. I go out of my way to be fully honest with those I care about, and I expect that to be a two way street. I'm also not shy about saying that, so it's not like this should come as a surprise.

Beyond those two issues, I can't think of anything that would pose a problem to the theoretically perfectly non-bigoted person myself either.

He's totally catholic. Which means now he's going to hell.

Baptists can have most of the same hangups, Flagg, and particularly evangelicals.

Well if you're looking for reproduction, then wouldn't it be more accurate to say you're looking for a partner who's fertile and reproductively a match for you, rather than it being an attraction issue and only wrt trans people? Like you said it's much more likely that if you find a partner you're not reproductively compatible with, someone being trans isn't an issue.

With the trust thing, something like a full trust, merger of the lives marriage is something where if you're going to ask about those sorts of things, then yeah, that works. Presumably, though, if you're that serious with someone, they'll have already told you at some point, and if they haven't, one has to wonder what reasons they would have for not doing it. If it ends up being a trust issue you couldn't be a match with, again that seems like the problem's elsewhere and the trans part would just be something that brings it to light. And also like before, it doesn't really match with attraction in general.

Infinity Biscuit wrote:I'm not going to judge a person simply for having such a bias, but if they cling to it consciously rather than making the choice to try to get around it when the issue comes to light, then comes the judgement.

What do you mean by "try to get around it"? The idea that you should feel some sort of onus to "keep an open mind" about who you want to sleep with honestly strikes me as vaguely creepy. If somebody doesn't want to have sex with black people or trans people or whatever because personal reasons that's not some kind of injustice that needs remedying. The whole thing comes off as rather prescriptive: "your attractions and standards aren't OK because they don't fit with my idea of what they should be."

In here there's another element where I wonder how much you consider someone's gender identity as fully real if there's... well for lack of better word, the "taint" of their assigned gender keeping you from being attracted to them.

I think the important thing isn't to not have biases or "incorrect" beliefs but to not be a dick. The important thing is that you treat trans people with basic respect as human beings, which means in accordance with their social gender identity, don't support dick laws that screw them over, and generally don't act like a dick toward them. Fully accepting their wo/manhood at a personal and emotional level in your heart of hearts would be good, but I think behavior in accordance with the "don't be a dick" standard is what's really important.

I think our culture is too fixated on making people have the correct ideas and feelings instead of having a more pragmatic behavior-focused attitude. I think it's the legacy of Protestantism: the whole "salvation through faith, not works" thing and corresponding emphasis on the inner life.

IB, I agree with you on both, just pointing out that those are two barriers to long-term relationships. As I generally think in those terms, those are the potential issues that came up.

As for attraction, yeah, that's irrelevant to both issues, but I really don't think in terms of hook-ups/short-term, so my first responses aren't to consider the difference between attraction and long-term compatibility. On your comment about racial features, one should be very careful with that categorization. as there are other aspects to the whole phenotype than skin color. For myself, if given head shots of 20 beautiful women, the odds are the ones I'm going to rank most attractive are going to be the tall blonds/redheads with blue or green eyes. I'm not exclusively attracted to that type, but it does form a bit of a pattern. Does that make me a racist, or simply a guy with a bit of a type?

EDIT: Jung, the whole sola fide thing is the biggest reason I continue to identify as catholic - to bring this whole conversation full circle.

EDIT AGAIN: BTW, from an accuracy perspective, can we please mock the next person who says "Archbishop of Rome?"

Jung wrote:What do you mean by "try to get around it"? The idea that you should feel some sort of onus to "keep an open mind" about who you want to sleep with honestly strikes me as vaguely creepy. If somebody doesn't want to have sex with black people or trans people or whatever because personal reasons that's not some kind of injustice that needs remedying. The whole thing comes off as rather prescriptive: "your attractions and standards aren't OK because they don't fit with my idea of what they should be."

It's because this stuff isn't just a sexual thing; that's just one symptom of it. If you can't find yourself attracted to an entire race, especially one denigrated by societal standards, odds are incredibly high that's not just some sexual quirk of yours, but part of a larger thing of you unconsciously buying into the idea of white beauty or into xenophobia. If you can't find yourself attracted to someone who's trans because you're monosexual and no matter how much they look, act, or anything else like anyone else of their gender, they were assigned the gender you're not attracted to, then there's obviously some disconnect in how much you really feel they are their gender.

I think the important thing isn't to not have biases or "incorrect" beliefs but to not be a dick. The important thing is that you treat trans people with basic respect as human beings, which means in accordance with their social gender identity, don't support dick laws that screw them over, and generally don't act like a dick toward them. Fully accepting their wo/manhood at a personal and emotional level in your heart of hearts would be good, but I think behavior in accordance with the "don't be a dick" standard is what's really important.

I think our culture is too fixated on making people have the correct ideas and feelings instead of having a more pragmatic behavior-focused attitude. I think it's the legacy of Protestantism: the whole "salvation through faith, not works" thing and corresponding emphasis on the inner life.

Well yes, actions are how we judge people, and a massive misanthrope who despite it all acts as a nice and helpful person is better than someone who's really nice at heart but hurts everyone they meet.

But the most reliable way to ensure people do the right thing is to have people believe in doing the right things, not just as a matter of social lubrication, but because to them it's right. It's also much better in sustaining those right things to do when people believe in them, since they're more likely to pass them on or further examine and better these beliefs.

If you treat trans people as their gender, but don't believe, on some level or other, that they're their gender, then you're at least doing the right thing, but it could be better. If it's not a belief of yours, it's probably going to slip through in some way or other that you may or may not even realise, causing hurt, among other things.

To be clear, good action without good belief is better than good belief without good action, but good action and belief is the best overall. Is that still on some level creepy and thoughtcrimeish, or when put into that sentence is it better for you?

Infinity Biscuit wrote:It's because this stuff isn't just a sexual thing; that's just one symptom of it. If you can't find yourself attracted to an entire race, especially one denigrated by societal standards, odds are incredibly high that's not just some sexual quirk of yours, but part of a larger thing of you unconsciously buying into the idea of white beauty or into xenophobia.

I don't disagree, but observing this is one thing, literally just flat out saying an in and of itself basically harmless preference makes you a bad person is another.

But the most reliable way to ensure people do the right thing is to have people believe in doing the right things, not just as a matter of social lubrication, but because to them it's right. It's also much better in sustaining those right things to do when people believe in them, since they're more likely to pass them on or further examine and better these beliefs.

Yeah, but I suspect you'll have better luck convincing the RyanThunders of the world to treat trans strangers and associates with basic respect and courtesy than convincing them they should be OK with having one for a lover.

When the apparent standard of not bad personhood is "you should be OK with sex with them" it does come off as rather personally intrusive.

Well, saying he's an asshole went beyond just "hey I'm not attracted to trans women" but the way he said it and the fact that he's RyanThunder and so I'm taking in some previous context

I mean maybe he was trying to be delicate and just bungled it badly but "attracted to people who have/have had ovaries" just reeks of really weird cissexism.

I wasn't trying to be delicate but I did bungle that pretty badly. ¯\(º_o)/¯

"I'm only attracted to ciswomen" would've been enough

RyanThunder wrote:I wasn't trying to be delicate but I did bungle that pretty badly. ¯\(º_o)/¯

"I'm only attracted to ciswomen" would've been enough

How on earth do you know that? As we've discussed before, there's not a lot of external cues, and if your picking out chicks with an MRI you're even weirder than I though.

well great now i am devastated to learn ryan thunder was never attracted to me

this is a pretty huge blow to my ego

Infinity Biscuit wrote:Well, saying he's an asshole went beyond just "hey I'm not attracted to trans women" but the way he said it and the fact that he's RyanThunder and so I'm taking in some previous context

Yeah, I know. It's mostly that it was jarring to see you of all people using what felt uncomfortably like something a couple of steps removed from rapist logic ("I've decided that your reasons for not wanting to have sex are not good...").

I dunno, I think "your sexual attractions are almost certainly showing as a symptom of a deeper harmful bias" is different from "you should have sex with me/this person regardless of your feelings". I'm not saying he or anyone else needs to go out and fuck anyone, just trying to get people like that to reexamine their own feelings from another perspective.

I've got to say, IB, that's coming perilously close to the idea of thoughtcrime.

EDIT: OK, again I see what you're saying, but condemning anyone for their thoughts rather than their actions, particularly with the labels that you were throwing around (bigot, racist) is not appropriate either. I've learned more about LGBT issues from the people on this board and SDN than I have anywhere else, and its changed a lot of my ideas as I've learned more. Am I homophobic because I can't imagine myself attracted to a man, even if I have no problem with ANOTHER man being attracted to a man, or even to me? Because the parallel to the idea you've just proposed is that in order to be not homophobic, I have to be willing to have homosexual sex. And as Jung said, that's rapist logic.

P.S. I get that there are a couple differences, and that the slippery slope IS a fallacy, but sometimes getting on the slope at all is counterproductive.

EDIT YET AGAIN: I do see Jung's reply below mine, but I want to bring this out in the open. There's a tendency on this board to walk in the direction of thoughts not actions, and I find that a little bit scary. Motives do matter, but getting into the kind of no true scotsman arguments that have occurred here lately are a little disturbing, and I find that I become less comfortable as a member of the community when they happen. I really like you guys when we're discussing movies, or books, or all the other things we talk about, and I don't understand why the ugly head of orthodoxy must appear on certain issues, and people get labeled if they don't follow the orthodoxy. I keep waiting for you to come for me, because I'm relatively sure I'm (on different issues with ryan) the most out of step with the rest of the board now that Duchess has bowed out. And in fact, I am now wondering if that process has already started. I'm the only member of the board that has professed any specific belief in the catholic faith. Ryan has never actually named his faith, and the odds are, being Canadian, he's not catholic (even without his statement that he's not).

Infinity Biscuit wrote:I dunno, I think "your sexual attractions are almost certainly showing as a symptom of a deeper harmful bias" is different from "you should have sex with me/this person regardless of your feelings".

I know you meant the former, but it came out sounding like something that could lead into the latter.

Zablorg wrote:well great now i am devastated to learn ryan thunder was never attracted to me

this is a pretty huge blow to my ego

I know, right?

Questor wrote:And in fact, I am now wondering if that process has already started. I'm the only member of the board that has professed any specific belief in the catholic faith. Ryan has never actually named his faith, and the odds are, being Canadian, he's not catholic (even without his statement that he's not).

Flagg's just being his usual asshole self and razzing me, bless his soul. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned a couple times that I'm protestant. maybe on tob

Ryan mang, what you should have said is that you find fertility to be an attractive trait
Diplomacy

Something I thought of last night but it was past 4AM

To make it more clear that it's not an example of "the only way to support someone is to be willing to fuck them", another example of problematic feelings is, to build upon the previous two examples, white people who fetishise black people or cis people who fetishise trans people. Here we have examples of people emphatically not falling into the two things I talked about before, but it's also not a good thing to feel. It dehumanises people who are already dehumanised plenty by our society, and even though it seems like a positive feeling it's hurtful.

Also to reiterate, it's actions that are the only things we can judge other people for; feelings and beliefs are things that can be changed so as to better ensure good action. For an example, if you have someone who fetishises black women and doesn't do anything to act upon it, that's not bad. But there's always the issue of consequences of that feeling leaking out inadvertently if it's not consciously realised and addressed by that person.

To bring this argument straight to its absurd and exaggerated end, you could have a society of amoral sociopaths who all act like good people for politeness's sake or whatever, and that'd be better than a society where everyone is super loving and empathic at heart but ends up making everyone miserable. But wouldn't you rather the people both act like good people and be good at heart?

Questor wrote:I'm the only member of the board that has professed any specific belief in the catholic faith.

I was born into a Catholic family (both sides, as it happens) though none of us are what you might call practicing AFAIK (not even sure if any of my aunts, uncles or first cousins even attend things like Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, let alone regular Sundays).

Does that count?

If Ryan expressed a preference for having intercourse with partners that can be impregnated, would that still raise hackles? Because that shit is hot and I'm not apologizing for it.

Maybe if he'd not mentioned ovaries

'My dear you have the most voluptuous ovaries'

hey Al Pacino tried that trick in The Devil's Advocate!

Granted in that movie he was playing Satan and was goading Keanu Reeves into fucking his sister in order to create the antichrist.

now that's hot

If it weren't for the whole being illegal thing, I wonder how popular incest porn would really be.

Well, aside from the obvious lesbian twincest movies.