Could You Date A Transexual?

[mike1921]

Imagine a famous man (they don't need to be famous, it just helps in finding common ground), I dunno, Stan Lee. I assume we all know who he is. Now, you don't know the status of Stan Lee's genitals because you've never seen Stan Lee's genitals - he's a writer, not a stripper. If you thought that it was more likely that Stan Lee had female reproductive organs than male reproductive organs, or if you knew that Stan Lee had female reproductive organs, would you address Stan Lee as "him" or "her"?

Honestly here, did you just use Stan Lee as an example out of nowhere or were you trying to get us to think of Stan Lee's dick and then the thought of Stan Lee with a vagina?

 

[jovack22]

The section you quoted had NOTHING to do with being turned off, and came just before I said that not being attracted to ANY group of people is an okay thing, as long as you act like a decent human being about it. My point was about the reaction of people, not to transsexuals in a dating scenario, but transsexuals IN GENERAL.

Bringing up chromosomes in not a valid argument, because it is not as simple as XX female/XY male. What about people with unusual chromosome groupings? (Please note the word "groupings", because some people have three sets of chromosomes.)
Let's face it. You don't judge someone you're going to date on their CHROMOSOMES. On their gender, probably; on their ability to reproduce, perhaps. On their history, very likely. But what do you REALLY know about the chromosomes of the people around you? Or yourself? How often is that checked?
You don't want to date transsexuals, fine. But saying that you're turned off by their chromosomes baffles me.

Finally, if you want to date someone who you can reproduce with, that's also fine. That's something which is important to you in a relationship. But a lot of people don't view that as an important thing. Even some who DO view it as important, don't view it as a deal breaker. You make it sound as if all people will only ever be happy if they can reproduce with their partners, which cuts out all gay people, all bisexual people who end up with a same-sex partner, all infertile/sterile people, all people with hereditary diseases they won't risk passing on, all women who can't carry a child... That's a lot of people who CANNOT have children, either with their partner or at all. Transsexual people are not a large percentage of that, so making it sound as if passing on your genes is "the very most basic important characteristic of living" is kind of... Well, dickish, really. To ALL of those groups (and any I forgot.)
(Just as an aside, even if I weren't trans, I would be VERY hesitant to have children, because I don't want to pass on my family's spotty medical history. Plus there's enough unwanted kids in the world, I'm happy giving at least one of them a home.)

I agree with your first paragraph, (restating what I said) everyone deserves to be treated like a human being if they act like one. However the thread is about asking if people would be OK with dating.

The Y chromosome has everything to do with physical appearance. I don't need to karyotype someone to predict what sex they are... and if things are ambiguous (say someone with Turner's syndrome X0, klinefelters XXY, etc) I would not find myself sexually attracted to them in the first place.

It all comes down to biological evolution and has nothing to do with being shallow. A male who has undergone surgery to become female still has many, many male characteristics (bone structure, fat/muscle distribution, laryngeal prominence, etc.) The anomalies are pretty evident, and even if someone who closely resembles female.. say the canada's next top model.. i forgot her name.. to me the whole idea of self mutilation would not sit well with me once I found out.

Again, you can say that I'm being a "dick" by saying that reproduction is the most important characteristic to life, but it is the cold truth. When I'm looking for a sexual partner, my body looks for a female archetype -- it is an innate trait that I have no control over and is the cause for the continuation of any species. It's not about actually having children (i.e. hooking up with someone and using a condom with no interest of further contact), it's the primal urge to have them that drives the most basic urge.

The overpopulation and sustainability of the Earth, thousands of other children left abandonened, etc, are all secondary, intellectual thoughts that would not have come to mind had our prefrontal not have evolved to what it is.

Like I said, this thread is not about "would I be friends with trans", it is talking about dating. To me a healthy relationship involves both mental and physical. Say what you will but physical appearance is what creates the first spark, and a good personality is what keeps it going. I understand you have a lot of cognitive dissonance going on, but coming to this thread to try and lecture (the majority of) people that we are wrong for our beliefs is just pointless. I wish you the best of luck in your personal live and professional endeavours, however despite my open-mindedness and education it is a clear no for me. There are clearly others who don't mind, which means you shouldn't care what people like me say.

 

[mike1921]

The Y chromosome has everything to do with physical appearance. I don't need to karyotype someone to predict what sex they are... and if things are ambiguous (say someone with Turner's syndrome X0, klinefelters XXY, etc) I would not find myself sexually attracted to them in the first place

It all comes down to biological evolution and has nothing to do with being shallow. A male who has undergone surgery to become female still has many, many male characteristics (bone structure, fat/muscle distribution, laryngeal prominence, etc.) The anomalies are pretty evident, and even if someone who closely resembles female.. say the canada's next top model.. i forgot her name.. to me the whole idea of self mutilation would not sit well with me once I found out.

If you're not dating them because they have ambiguous gender physically the reason you're not dating them isn't genotype it's phenotype. Same with bone structure. All things that can potentially be ironed out or fixed at some point (assuming medical technology advances).

Why is it self mutilation instead of an improvement? Because they're physically altering themselves? Would you also have issues dating a girl who has holes in their ears?

 

[jovack22]

The Y chromosome has everything to do with physical appearance. I don't need to karyotype someone to predict what sex they are... and if things are ambiguous (say someone with Turner's syndrome X0, klinefelters XXY, etc) I would not find myself sexually attracted to them in the first place

It all comes down to biological evolution and has nothing to do with being shallow. A male who has undergone surgery to become female still has many, many male characteristics (bone structure, fat/muscle distribution, laryngeal prominence, etc.) The anomalies are pretty evident, and even if someone who closely resembles female.. say the canada's next top model.. i forgot her name.. to me the whole idea of self mutilation would not sit well with me once I found out.

If you're not dating them because they have ambiguous gender physically the reason you're not dating them isn't genotype it's phenotype. Same with bone structure. All things that can potentially be ironed out or fixed at some point (assuming medical technology advances).

Why is it self mutilation instead of an improvement? Because they're physically altering themselves? Would you also have issues dating a girl who has holes in their ears?

You didn't understand my post, as I see you're trying to explain geno/phenotypes to me -- both of which are linked very closely in most cases which makes what I wrote valid.

And since I see you like playing devil's advocate, there is a difference between poking holes in your ears for an earring, and removing your penis entirely, then warping the tissues into a pseudo vagina... But of course, nothing is obvious on internet forums.

 

[mike1921]

You didn't understand my post, as I see you're trying to explain geno/phenotypes to me -- both of which are linked very closely in most cases which makes what I wrote valid.

And since I see you like playing devil's advocate, there is a difference between poking holes in your ears for an earring, and removing your penis entirely, then warping the tissues into a pseudo vagina... But of course, nothing is obvious on internet forums.

Linked not identical. Also genotype's effect on certain aspects of phenotype can be altered if not utterly destroyed with medical advances. So in a situation dealing with transexuals where certain genes can become utterly irrelevant to phenotype , No, looking at chromosomes is not valid.

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I see no reason to call it "mutilation" when someone who psychologists agree is mentally a female wants to have female genitalia when we have so many women (and men) punching holes in their ears to put pieces of metal in them. I would go as far as to say ear rings are more mutilation.

 

[Knight Templar]

A person being transsexual wouldn't affect if I wanted to date them or not. It feels wrong to say it is unimportant, since I imagine to them it's very important, so I guess irrelevant is the word I am going for here? The only way it would really affect the situation is I would want to be told at some point.

I do not understand why people have such an issue with the concept.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I see no reason to call it "mutilation" when someone who psychologists agree is mentally a female wants to have female genitalia when we have so many women (and men) punching holes in their ears to put pieces of metal in them. I would go as far as to say ear rings are more mutilation.

And you can feel that way, just don't expect the rest of us to agree with you that earrings are more of a "mutilation" than actual genital mutilation.

 

[mike1921]

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I see no reason to call it "mutilation" when someone who psychologists agree is mentally a female wants to have female genitalia when we have so many women (and men) punching holes in their ears to put pieces of metal in them. I would go as far as to say ear rings are more mutilation.

And you can feel that way, just don't expect the rest of us to agree with you that earrings are more of a "mutilation" than actual genital mutilation.

How about no. I will expect it because it's a reasonable expectation and I will not pretend like your opinion is worthy of respect.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

How about no.

Too bad, we are entitled to our opinions without having to get your approval first.

I will expect it because it's a reasonable expectation and I will not pretend like your opinion is worthy of respect.

You seem to want to present a subjective view as fact, and that just doesn't work. It is your opinion that it is a "reasonable expectation", it is not objectively true. You can not objectively prove that getting a small hole in your ear for earrings is more of a mutilation than cutting off a penis, scrotum and testicles and using that removed flesh to create a cavity in the pelvis to mimic the appearance of a vagina.

As for your refusal to acknowledge that other people might disagree with you and still have legitimate opinions, that is just childish. I don't like the idea of having sex with a MTF or dating a person who is MTF, but you don't see me saying that anybody who would have sex or date a MTF doesn't have an "opinion [that] is worthy of respect".

 

[jovack22]

You didn't understand my post, as I see you're trying to explain geno/phenotypes to me -- both of which are linked very closely in most cases which makes what I wrote valid.

And since I see you like playing devil's advocate, there is a difference between poking holes in your ears for an earring, and removing your penis entirely, then warping the tissues into a pseudo vagina... But of course, nothing is obvious on internet forums.

Linked not identical. Also genotype's effect on certain aspects of phenotype can be altered if not utterly destroyed with medical advances. So in a situation dealing with transexuals where certain genes can become utterly irrelevant to phenotype , No, looking at chromosomes is not valid.

I'm not playing devil's advocate. I see no reason to call it "mutilation" when someone who psychologists agree is mentally a female wants to have female genitalia when we have so many women (and men) punching holes in their ears to put pieces of metal in them. I would go as far as to say ear rings are more mutilation.

Please stop drivelling.

Did I ever say they were identical? How about this, in the context of XX vs XY, genotype is directly linked to phenotype. By your logic, when I go out for halloween, all my phenotypes are invalid because I can put on any costume I want. I can be undead, or another species, or a robot, it's all good just because I say I'm something else, and look like something else...

We're not talking about eye colour, hair colour, insulin production levels, risk of cardiac disease, etc.

When a trans begins thinking they are lets say a woman, yet still have a penis, they are still a man in the eyes of modern medicine. Legally countries out of respect for the individual allow them to change status, but scientifically they are still whatever sex they were born with.

Again, I couldn't give a damn about what anyone pretends they are. But lets not delude ourselves, and even worse, ignore modern science.

I'm not taking your troll bait, and if you're being serious, then I could care less since people like you don't exist in the world of academia where logic actually matters. Just one more time for the records.. you say getting an ear piercing is more of a mutilation than a sex change? hahaha

 

[Rawne1980]

Well, it's nice to see the thread managed to stay on track with no verbal abuse whatsoever.

In fact, i'm bringing the Penguin back out....

 

[mike1921]

SNIP

Mike, you are an angry anime nerd. Perhaps getting yourself a proper education could solve a lot of your issues (i.e. an education an ACTUAL biology or anything really).

There's a reason you were banned once. Reading your other posts, and the way you are replying, it's clear you're not worth anyone's time.

I'll just finish off by correcting your post one more time... even though you're too stupid and ignorant to realize it -- Hormone therapy is not Gene therapy. They must take hormone therapy for the duration of their lives.. for the exact reason that their genes cannot be fully suppressed.

There's a lot you have to learn (not that you ever will)... maybe anger management or a self-image class would be a good start.

Why wouldn't you be angry when so many people have such revolting opinions? Especially when they come across as bigoted? Why is anime relevant?

I know everything biologically relevant that you have bothered to bring up.

I'm aware hormone therapy is not gene therapy, you're not teaching me anything and you're not correcting anything. A normally woman on (100% effective) birth control who stays on birth control is effectively infertile even if they have to take it everyday.

And seriously? I need anger management? Maybe I wouldn't be angry if you weren't acting like a condescending ass in the first place. "Please stop drivelling.""I'm not taking your troll bait, and if you're being serious, then I could care less since people like you don't exist in the world of academia" "you say getting an ear piercing is more of a mutilation than a sex change? hahaha"

Oh and for the record: No I am not just angry all the time, I just very rarely post when something doesn't cause a strong emotional response from me and anger is the easiest to cause.

Well, it's nice to see the thread managed to stay on track with no verbal abuse whatsoever.

In fact, i'm bringing the Penguin back out....

That...would be nice I guess. I'd probably post a lot less though.

 

[AperioContra]

....wow... uh I don't know. I don't THINK so... but there's a lot of factors here.

I mean, If I met them at a bar and they say something like: "Hey, Jacky, I just got the ol' nip-tuck, wanna try a drive on the newly paved freeway?" I would probably back away quickly (depending on the amount of drunk I am at the time, of course).

But if we had been dating a while, and at the time we start talking serious and she confesses that she used to be a man. Wow I don't even know then. I would have to think on it. Am I going through the motions, or do I feel like I can love this person? Can I see through it to the person I saw before? Or would my mind constistantly badger me about it, like it does with everything else?

I consider myself a very open minded person, and if a transsexual found love, I'm happy for them, I'm genuine about that. But as for with me.... I just don't think so. I know my mind, and the second I found out, it would be like finding out that my favorite pizza was made from catshit. It might taste the same, but every bite I just couldn't help but think of the pounds of catshit went into making that pizza.

So in brief, dating a transexual is like eating a catshit pizza.... wait that came out wrong.

 

[Callate]

Were I available to date, which I'm not, perhaps I could, but it would probably be a bad idea. It would be too easy for it to become a kind of permanent emotional debit on the relationship: "Oh yeah? Well, I'm ignoring the fact that you used to be a guy, do you think that's so easy? You think I like having our friends looking at me weirdly?"

Relationships can be hard enough without such hurdles. I applaud anyone who thinks they could (or has) navigate(d) such matters without falling into such a trap; I'm not confident that I could.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

when I have the psychological community on my side my subjective view might as well be fact when compared to yours. Yes I guess if you want to be a semantic asshole about it you can't prove that it's more so mutilation but it should have been obvious that my real point was that it's not mutilation.

I didn't say that other peoples' opinions can't be legitimate. I just said yours is not. If I told you that I think black people should all be locked up in cages and when you criticized me for it I'd say "entitled to my opinion man, accept my beliefs" you're realize how fucking ridiculous that line of logic is.

I didn't say it's illegitimate that you don't want to have sex with an MTF, I said it's illegitimate that you think they're mutilating myself.

Well...the definition

(Websters) Mutilation-
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

Fits the act. You're literally reconfiguring the genitals via surgical equipment, as well as altering secondary body characteristics using the same tools. Making a comparison to earrings, which is punching a small hole through the skin/cartilage of the ear then placing a small metal/plastic object in it, is irreconcilable from a logical standpoint.

If you're making the argument that any act that causes a small cosmetic change to the body is mutilation, I disagree rather strongly with the assertion, but it could work in that context and does, sort of, fit within the confines of the definition of the term.

As for whether or not genital manipulation is more of a mutilation than an ear piercing? I wouldn't say that you would be particularly hard pressed to find someone who would agree with you, but the vast majority of people would disagree. It's reasonable to assume that said majority would be arguing from a definite point of advantage as well.

 

[Christyr Belacqua]

I could if I loved them <3

 

[Tyelcapilu]

If it is mutilation for a transwoman to 'remove' her penis for a vagina, then is it mutilation for someone to remove a malignant tumor from their leg by removing their leg for a 'fake' one?
If it is, then the question is, would mutilation remain your excuse also against the person with the fake leg?

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions doesn't mean I have to accept or respect them.

But it does mean that you can't force others to view your subjective "fact" as being objective.

when I have the psychological community on my side my subjective view might as well be fact when compared to yours.

Really? Care to back up that claim that the psychological community supports the idea that a pierced ear is more of a mutilation than a person having their penis, testicles and scrotum cut off?

Yes I guess if you want to be a semantic asshole about it you can't prove that it's more so mutilation but it should have been obvious that my real point was that it's not mutilation.

Fist off I'm not an asshole because I called out your nonsensical claim that a pierced ear is more of a mutilation than having your penis, testicles and scrotum cut off. Second, your point wasn't clear at all.

I didn't say that other peoples' opinions can't be legitimate. I just said yours is not. If I told you that I think black people should all be locked up in cages and when you criticized me for it I'd say "entitled to my opinion man, accept my beliefs" you're realize how fucking ridiculous that line of logic is.

How is my opinion of who I have sex with or who I date less legitimate than the person who chooses to have sex and/or date MTF?

I didn't say it's illegitimate that you don't want to have sex with an MTF, I said it's illegitimate that you think they're mutilating myself.

And this is when we get in to subjective views, because as far as I'm concerned it is mutilation.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

I'm transgender, and this thread is hilarious.

 

[A Distant Star]

Honestly, if I was macking on a girl, and I get her pants off and there's a dick there... well she's clearly hot enough that I was macking on her and I'm already all hot and bothered... there's a very good chance I will just suck that dick.