Poll: Would you date a transgendered person?

[BrainWalker]

You know, I've actually been reading up on transgenderism lately and I would be lying if I said I hadn't pondered this very question. I'm almost ashamed to admit it but I really don't think that, as a man, I would be willing to date an MTF. It's not that I wouldn't be able to accept them as a woman, or that I would be freaked out that they used to be a man. It's that physical intimacy is an important part of any romantic relationship, and I'm not sure that I would be comfortable gettin' freaky with frankenbits. I really feel for the plight of the transgendered, and I even have a couple friends who are transitioning and I wish them all the best. I've never really been down with plastic surgery, and the simple fact of the matter is that no amount of medical wizardry can give a man a vagina or a woman a penis. You can give them something that looks, and perhaps even has some rudimentary functions of the other team's equipment, but at the current level of medical technology, it will always be a pale imitation of the real thing.

Now, obviously what's in a person's pants doesn't encompass the entirety of who they are. It's entirely possible that if I were to actually fall in love with a trans woman, we might find some way to work it out. Without ever having had an experience like that, it's difficult to say. But it would definitely put some strain on the relationship.

It's also an oft-unconsidered fact that many transsexual individuals simply opt for the "top" surgery and leave their lower bits intact, for various reasons. For me, that option is right out. Dicks just aren't for me, even if they're attached to women.

 

[Satosuke]

The simple truth is that WORDS ARE ONLY AS POWERFUL AS WE LET THEM BE.

The simple truth is that MONEY IS ONLY AS POWERFUL AS WE LET IT BE.

Now beyond a doubt this is true. If we suddenly all decided currency was worthless then it would be worthless. Now consider how utterly stupid it would be to tell someone that when they're having trouble with money. How very helpful it would be.

Then let's look at death. Well the brutal death of your family only has as much meaning as let it have. So if it happens, just get over it. We all have the 'not caring' switch that we can flip in our heads, right? We can totally just automatically not care what people say about us. I read it in the journal of pseudopsychology once. It totally proved its case with how people who commit suicide due to bullying are totally just not flipping that switch that they could easily flip. They're definitely deliberately playing the victim when there is a totally proven easy way out of just not caring.

Wow...I am literally unable to comprehend just how you stuffed that much derp into two small paragraphs.

Long answer: I'm talking about encouraging people to rise above petty words and doing what is best to destroy their negative gravitas. Currency (commodity-backed, fiat, or otherwise) is merely a basic necessity in modern trade. Good luck convincing people to stop using currency transactions and going to a barter society again. Yeah, that obviously has everything to do with dealing with hate. And last I checked, murder is still a felony under law. It doesn't matter if I don't care. A crime is a crime, and must be punished so under the law.

Short Answer: Don't use false analogies. They're a basic logical fallacy.

 

[Satosuke]

Snipped Derp

Obviously dealing with hate isn't just gonna end at the individual level. It DOES require a lot of people together. My original point was that it's better to belittle and laugh at those who use offensive words with malicious intent, rather than attacking the word itself, only giving the word more power to offend. In that respect, it's absolutely true that words are only as powerful as we, as society, make them out to me. But alas, you decided to latch onto that phrase and miss all of MY points.

I'm done hijacking this topic.

 

[CrystalShadow]

snip

It's clear that you come from a subjective standpoint, what defines man and woman is biology, it's genetic. Currently there is no way to fix that for people who feel they aren't the right one. It's not transphobic or even unsupportive to know that.

Yeah, except that the 'objective' definition of man & woman, and the 'practical' definition. (As in, the one most people are actually using 99% of the time) are almost mutually exclusive.

Do you know the actual genetic sex of the people you meet? Of everyone you know, how many do you know for a fact are the sex they appear to be by the definition you're implying?

My guess would be 0.

Thus, even if it is an objectively true definition (Which I find dubious anyway, all things considered), it is out of touch with reality.

Think about this carefully:
How do you determine the sex of a person you've just met? What are you using? as a basis for that?

I'm female,& gosh,I really don't know.Whilst I know several male to female transgenders,many of whom are extremely attractive,lovely people,to my knowledge I've yet to meet a female to male transitioner.Whilst I can easily see how a guy could fall in love with many of these newly minted,gorgeous females,the only F to M ones I've seen have been on the telly,and none of them looked either terribly convincing or handsome.
Example:you guys get Bond model Caroline 'Tula' Cossey:

Spoiler: 'Images'

We get Chaz Bono:

Don't get me wrong,Chaz seems a sweet guy who I wish all the happiness in the world,but to date? No.I don't require movie star looks,but so far I've yet to see a F to M trangender that I felt attracted to.I'd happily liked to be proved wrong 'cos I don't like having preconceptions about this sort of thing.

Alsoenis.Or lack there of.None of the fake willies look very convincing,nor do they seem to actually work.I gotta admit I'd miss that.
(Insert archaic 'easier to make a hole than a pole' joke here.::Sigh:

Well, I personally know 3 FtM's, and I can't really say whether you'd consider any of them attractive.

But... That would first require knowing what you find attractive in a man.

All I can say is, one of them hasn't taken any hormones or had any surgery, and while I think you can probably imagine how that probably comes across, in practice it just makes him look like he's about 14.
(He is 18, so it's not a huge leap.)

The second... I doubt from looking at him that you'd ever even imagine this person wasn't always a man. Whether you'd think he was attractive or not is an entirely different question.
(Personally, men in general seem quite ugly most of the time... But I suppose I'm not a great judge of that.)

And the third? Looks a little strange, but I can't really describe why. (And is also over 60... So, you know, who do you expect to compare him to? XD)


(I can't show you pictures of them, because doing so without their permission would be really unfair of me...)

As for the penis thing... Yeah, that's rather unfortunate.
I've only ever seen what these look like once, and while it wasn't horribly obvious, it did look a little odd.
And functionally it's even stranger to consider what that's like...

Whether you'd consider an artificial penis to 'work' or not depends on what exactly you expect from it.
You can have sex, but there are several things about what would be involved that are quite strange.

(Artificial vaginas are generally considered more convincing, but they're not entirely functional either. There's issues around lubrication especially. - Then again, the two main functional problems remaining (other than the big one -> being able to have children) for artificial vaginas have already been solved in experimental procedures. They're just not mainstream techniques yet.

Artificial penises still have a long way to go by comparison. They have yet to devise a method for an artificial penis to have an erection that is even remotely like a normal penis... Current techniques involve an inflatable implant...)

 

[CrystalShadow]

I believe I fall into the same preferences of sexual appetite, but I would not, unlike half of these Escapists (Who, I am disappointed in) discriminate against any MtF; they shall fall under the exact same category of females I tend to look out for.

Why exactly is it discriminatory to be unattracted to them because of their body's past history as the sex I am unattracted to?

Because it's just that: history, and nothing else. People change, and should be accepted for their present, just as I expect no one will treat me like the uneducated, dumbass-idiot I was four years ago. When their sex and gender is the exact same per their definition with no flaw, I see no reason they stand out from anyone else.

Moreover, that is one of their wishes. To be accepted as who they've chosen to be. I respect that.

So what if it is history? Why is that unacceptable to factor in, in regards to attraction?

Their wishes are irrelevant to how attracted I am to them.

How about because it's probably a contradiction?

If you see them without knowing anything about their history, and you find them attractive? Are you really going to say you won't be attracted to them upon finding out their history?

I doubt that's actually true. More likely that you'll actually feel conflicted. (Because you found them attractive before...)

If you didn't find them attractive to begin with, how did you ever end up spending enough time with them to even find out about their history?

To put it differently, if being transsexual (or transgender) is something you can tell about a person just by looking at them, what relevance does their history have in the first place?

And if you can't tell the difference, then saying you wouldn't find such a person attractive is probably a false statement that wouldn't accurately reflect how you'd actually feel upon discovering their history.

 

[cthulhumythos]

no, i wouldn't. also this seem to be a touchy subject, so i won't give my reason because i'm finding it difficult to not be offensive in some way.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I believe I fall into the same preferences of sexual appetite, but I would not, unlike half of these Escapists (Who, I am disappointed in) discriminate against any MtF; they shall fall under the exact same category of females I tend to look out for.

Why exactly is it discriminatory to be unattracted to them because of their body's past history as the sex I am unattracted to?

Because it's just that: history, and nothing else. People change, and should be accepted for their present, just as I expect no one will treat me like the uneducated, dumbass-idiot I was four years ago. When their sex and gender is the exact same per their definition with no flaw, I see no reason they stand out from anyone else.

Moreover, that is one of their wishes. To be accepted as who they've chosen to be. I respect that.

So what if it is history? Why is that unacceptable to factor in, in regards to attraction?

Their wishes are irrelevant to how attracted I am to them.

How about because it's probably a contradiction?

If you see them without knowing anything about their history, and you find them attractive? Are you really going to say you won't be attracted to them upon finding out their history?

I doubt that's actually true. More likely that you'll actually feel conflicted. (Because you found them attractive before...)

Well as I said before, if I found out that someone used to weigh 500 lbs, that alone would make me feel somewhat repulsed, though that I could get over. I don't see how this is any different, just that the magnitude is somewhat more.

Well, I don't get how that works, but since I'm not you, I can't exactly say you're wrong.
(For instance, if I found out someone used to be really fat, my only reaction would be that I'd be impressed they'd lost so much weight.)

If you didn't find them attractive to begin with, how did you ever end up spending enough time with them to even find out about their history?

Erm, I'd get to know someone before I'd ever date them anyway.

That's not really an answer either way. Getting to know someone is a relative statement. HOW MUCH would you know about a person before you started dating them?

(And don't say you'd expect to know this about them beforehand. That's still really a way of avoiding the issue. If you have no reason to ask, which you wouldn't unless you were already suspicious, and the other person doesn't feel the need to mention it - After all, that depends as much on how they feel about the issue as it does about how you do...)

The point is, even if you expect to find out some things about someone before you start dating them, that doesn't mean you'd learn everything there is to know about them.

To put it differently, if being transsexual (or transgender) is something you can tell about a person just by looking at them, what relevance does their history have in the first place?

Why wouldn't it have relevance...? It would affect how attracted I feel to them.

Because if you can't work it out for yourself, your knowledge of their history depends entirely on their opinion of it's relevance.

So, you are leaving entirely up to the other person to tell you something which in your opinion might affect if you find them attractive or not.

OK, so maybe I'm separating attraction out into different categories.

That's probably because there's people I'm physically attracted to who have other traits to them that I find repulsive.
But that doesn't stop the physical attraction. Which leads to a contradiction, NOT a complete lack of attraction.

So, really I'm having a hard time following along with what you consider to be attraction.

And if you can't tell the difference, then saying you wouldn't find such a person attractive is probably a false statement that wouldn't accurately reflect how you'd actually feel upon discovering their history.

Eh? I'd stop finding them attractive afterward. Not seeing what's complicated about that.

Because it has no relation to my own experience of how attraction works? It's not something that can just be turned on or off like that as far as I know.

So I have a hard time believing that a single thing like this could really make you cease to be attracted to someone you were attracted to beforehand.

 

[Kurea]

I love accidentally hitting F5 after churning out paragraphs of insight. Thanks again, human error.

I'll instead offer a (loaded) summary of what I was hoping to say before I screwed my dumb self over.

To those who dismiss gender dysphoria and transgenderism in general as "mental disorders": Unless you WANT to make babies, right now, why do you need a fully functional vagina on your girl? Maybe you're threatened by the thought of being "gay"? It's an understandable fear, albeit an irrational one. And furthermore, what makes it a mental disorder rather than a physical one? How do you (and not, I dunno... a scientist maybe?) decide that? Trying to make an MtF into a straight up M or an FtM into an F smacks of trying to "pray the gay away", and we all know how well that works (at least, I hope you do, otherwise you've got a lot of reading to do). Nature makes mistakes, it happens all the time, it's how we get (physical) deformities like elephantiasis, and sometimes nature really is to blame rather than the nurture. Whether or not each and every case of gender dysphoria is or isn't the result of "unresolved issues" rather than a genuine mistake on the part of genes or fetal development isn't for me to decide, but nor is it for you, wouldn't you say? Let's hear it for science.

Distinct difference, dude. Same-sex attraction has uses in the reproductive cycle as observed in the mating habits of many fauna, that coupled with its tendency for life-long persistence and the frequency with which it occurs implies very strongly that it is not in any regard a disorder.
Transgenderism lacks this evidence, and so the possibility that it is a disorder, genetic or psychological, is not to be dismissed, likewise with the possibility that it is an entirely healthy condition. Yet, because of this lack of a definitive inclination, it becomes unfair to categorize it with basic same-sex attraction. It doesn't matter what it "smacks of", only what it's the same as.

Whether or not transgenderism lacks evidence of genetic origin or of having any evolutionary or sociological use is debatable. If it didn't, why would it exist throughout human history? It isn't a recent development. Also, true homosexuality in humans is still relatively rare, and gender dysphoria is always recurring and lifelong if it's a developmental problem for an individual. Boys who play with dolls in their formative years don't typically grow out of that behavior, they just deny it as best they can, typically by going to the other extreme (there are more military TGs out there than you might realize). I merely suggested that it might not be a psychological disorder but rather a developmental, and consequently physical, one, maybe, only that it might be, and that it's unwise to jump to any sort of conclusion. And besides, perhaps it could also be said that what we have here isn't so much a lack of evidence as a lack of research.

As for "smacking of", I was referring to the practice of resolving dysphoric feelings regarding gender identity by eliminating them through counseling, and possibly medication of questionable efficacy, not to gender dysphoria itself. Whether or not gender dysphoria is "healthy" doesn't change the fact that trying to cure it is a rather dictatorial approach. And I never described transgenderism as being the same as homosexuality, because they aren't, except in the minds of those unfamiliar with at least one of the two topics. It's a large portion of the male (and female, I'll be fair) population that makes that incorrect assertion. Like assuming that homophobia and racism are the same kind of bigotry just taking on different expressions, which is also untrue. All I want is for scientific research to be the deciding factor when deciding on this matter (as I believe it should be for all matters), not ill-informed bias brought on by unacknowledged insecurity (please note that I'm not accusing anyone reading this lecture of that), and as far as TG related crap goes, we've got a lot left to learn, unless we decide we already have the answers which would only hold human evolution back.

Ugh... I'm sorry for that. If I got paid by the word to lecture about anything at all, I'd be on to my fifth yacht by now. XD

 

[CrystalShadow]

I believe I fall into the same preferences of sexual appetite, but I would not, unlike half of these Escapists (Who, I am disappointed in) discriminate against any MtF; they shall fall under the exact same category of females I tend to look out for.

Why exactly is it discriminatory to be unattracted to them because of their body's past history as the sex I am unattracted to?

Because it's just that: history, and nothing else. People change, and should be accepted for their present, just as I expect no one will treat me like the uneducated, dumbass-idiot I was four years ago. When their sex and gender is the exact same per their definition with no flaw, I see no reason they stand out from anyone else.

Moreover, that is one of their wishes. To be accepted as who they've chosen to be. I respect that.

So what if it is history? Why is that unacceptable to factor in, in regards to attraction?

Their wishes are irrelevant to how attracted I am to them.

How about because it's probably a contradiction?

If you see them without knowing anything about their history, and you find them attractive? Are you really going to say you won't be attracted to them upon finding out their history?

I doubt that's actually true. More likely that you'll actually feel conflicted. (Because you found them attractive before...)

Well as I said before, if I found out that someone used to weigh 500 lbs, that alone would make me feel somewhat repulsed, though that I could get over. I don't see how this is any different, just that the magnitude is somewhat more.

Well, I don't get how that works, but since I'm not you, I can't exactly say you're wrong.
(For instance, if I found out someone used to be really fat, my only reaction would be that I'd be impressed they'd lost so much weight.)

Well if someone was in a state that I previously found repulsive as far as attraction that alone would be off putting somewhat.

If you didn't find them attractive to begin with, how did you ever end up spending enough time with them to even find out about their history?

Erm, I'd get to know someone before I'd ever date them anyway.

That's not really an answer either way. Getting to know someone is a relative statement. HOW MUCH would you know about a person before you started dating them?

(And don't say you'd expect to know this about them beforehand. That's still really a way of avoiding the issue. If you have no reason to ask, which you wouldn't unless you were already suspicious, and the other person doesn't feel the need to mention it - After all, that depends as much on how they feel about the issue as it does about how you do...)

The point is, even if you expect to find out some things about someone before you start dating them, that doesn't mean you'd learn everything there is to know about them.

Answer: I found them attractive before, afterwards I didn't. You're making an assumption that things cannot change it seems.

To put it differently, if being transsexual (or transgender) is something you can tell about a person just by looking at them, what relevance does their history have in the first place?

Why wouldn't it have relevance...? It would affect how attracted I feel to them.

Because if you can't work it out for yourself, your knowledge of their history depends entirely on their opinion of it's relevance.

So, you are leaving entirely up to the other person to tell you something which in your opinion might affect if you find them attractive or not.

OK, so maybe I'm separating attraction out into different categories.

That's probably because there's people I'm physically attracted to who have other traits to them that I find repulsive.
But that doesn't stop the physical attraction. Which leads to a contradiction, NOT a complete lack of attraction.

So, really I'm having a hard time following along with what you consider to be attraction.

Attraction is just how I feel in regards to them. And it would ruin the physical attraction. It has to do with their physical traits, just the past of them. I would no longer feel the same about them in a physical way. My view on their personality and other such traits would remain unchanged.

And if you can't tell the difference, then saying you wouldn't find such a person attractive is probably a false statement that wouldn't accurately reflect how you'd actually feel upon discovering their history.

Eh? I'd stop finding them attractive afterward. Not seeing what's complicated about that.

Because it has no relation to my own experience of how attraction works? It's not something that can just be turned on or off like that as far as I know.

So I have a hard time believing that a single thing like this could really make you cease to be attracted to someone you were attracted to beforehand.

Sure, it can get ruined. If, for instance, someone looks perfectly like an attractive girl, but has a dick that's gonna ruin it every time I see them even if I don't see it. Knowing someone's history, even if they've had surgery, is gonna ruin it similarly. The more I can picture it the worse it is.

Fair enough. I must not have much of an imagination then.

I think it's stupid, but since it's about how you feel, I really can't actually argue with it.

I guess I'm just trying to understand something about how you think.
Which I seem to have established about as well as I ever will be able to.

Makes no sense to me... But as I said, I'm not you.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I believe I fall into the same preferences of sexual appetite, but I would not, unlike half of these Escapists (Who, I am disappointed in) discriminate against any MtF; they shall fall under the exact same category of females I tend to look out for.

Why exactly is it discriminatory to be unattracted to them because of their body's past history as the sex I am unattracted to?

Because it's just that: history, and nothing else. People change, and should be accepted for their present, just as I expect no one will treat me like the uneducated, dumbass-idiot I was four years ago. When their sex and gender is the exact same per their definition with no flaw, I see no reason they stand out from anyone else.

Moreover, that is one of their wishes. To be accepted as who they've chosen to be. I respect that.

So what if it is history? Why is that unacceptable to factor in, in regards to attraction?

Their wishes are irrelevant to how attracted I am to them.

How about because it's probably a contradiction?

If you see them without knowing anything about their history, and you find them attractive? Are you really going to say you won't be attracted to them upon finding out their history?

I doubt that's actually true. More likely that you'll actually feel conflicted. (Because you found them attractive before...)

Well as I said before, if I found out that someone used to weigh 500 lbs, that alone would make me feel somewhat repulsed, though that I could get over. I don't see how this is any different, just that the magnitude is somewhat more.

Well, I don't get how that works, but since I'm not you, I can't exactly say you're wrong.
(For instance, if I found out someone used to be really fat, my only reaction would be that I'd be impressed they'd lost so much weight.)

Well if someone was in a state that I previously found repulsive as far as attraction that alone would be off putting somewhat.

If you didn't find them attractive to begin with, how did you ever end up spending enough time with them to even find out about their history?

Erm, I'd get to know someone before I'd ever date them anyway.

That's not really an answer either way. Getting to know someone is a relative statement. HOW MUCH would you know about a person before you started dating them?

(And don't say you'd expect to know this about them beforehand. That's still really a way of avoiding the issue. If you have no reason to ask, which you wouldn't unless you were already suspicious, and the other person doesn't feel the need to mention it - After all, that depends as much on how they feel about the issue as it does about how you do...)

The point is, even if you expect to find out some things about someone before you start dating them, that doesn't mean you'd learn everything there is to know about them.

Answer: I found them attractive before, afterwards I didn't. You're making an assumption that things cannot change it seems.

To put it differently, if being transsexual (or transgender) is something you can tell about a person just by looking at them, what relevance does their history have in the first place?

Why wouldn't it have relevance...? It would affect how attracted I feel to them.

Because if you can't work it out for yourself, your knowledge of their history depends entirely on their opinion of it's relevance.

So, you are leaving entirely up to the other person to tell you something which in your opinion might affect if you find them attractive or not.

OK, so maybe I'm separating attraction out into different categories.

That's probably because there's people I'm physically attracted to who have other traits to them that I find repulsive.
But that doesn't stop the physical attraction. Which leads to a contradiction, NOT a complete lack of attraction.

So, really I'm having a hard time following along with what you consider to be attraction.

Attraction is just how I feel in regards to them. And it would ruin the physical attraction. It has to do with their physical traits, just the past of them. I would no longer feel the same about them in a physical way. My view on their personality and other such traits would remain unchanged.

And if you can't tell the difference, then saying you wouldn't find such a person attractive is probably a false statement that wouldn't accurately reflect how you'd actually feel upon discovering their history.

Eh? I'd stop finding them attractive afterward. Not seeing what's complicated about that.

Because it has no relation to my own experience of how attraction works? It's not something that can just be turned on or off like that as far as I know.

So I have a hard time believing that a single thing like this could really make you cease to be attracted to someone you were attracted to beforehand.

Sure, it can get ruined. If, for instance, someone looks perfectly like an attractive girl, but has a dick that's gonna ruin it every time I see them even if I don't see it. Knowing someone's history, even if they've had surgery, is gonna ruin it similarly. The more I can picture it the worse it is.

Fair enough. I must not have much of an imagination then.

I think it's stupid, but since it's about how you feel, I really can't actually argue with it.

I guess I'm just trying to understand something about how you think.
Which I seem to have established about as well as I ever will be able to.

Makes no sense to me... But as I said, I'm not you.

It's not really how I think, it's just how I'm going to feel about the situation. No logic behind it, it's just a description of how I feel when introduced to the situation.

That's what I meant. I guess I wasn't very careful with my choice of words.

If it isn't a rational thought to begin with, trying to explain it rationally isn't really possible.

Which is fine.
(I have a much bigger problem here with the people that claim they have the one and only 'logical' definition of what makes someone a man or a woman. Because it's frequently inconsistent with the facts, AND what they're usually thinking about the subject most of the time.)

 

[CrystalShadow]

I believe I fall into the same preferences of sexual appetite, but I would not, unlike half of these Escapists (Who, I am disappointed in) discriminate against any MtF; they shall fall under the exact same category of females I tend to look out for.

Why exactly is it discriminatory to be unattracted to them because of their body's past history as the sex I am unattracted to?

Because it's just that: history, and nothing else. People change, and should be accepted for their present, just as I expect no one will treat me like the uneducated, dumbass-idiot I was four years ago. When their sex and gender is the exact same per their definition with no flaw, I see no reason they stand out from anyone else.

Moreover, that is one of their wishes. To be accepted as who they've chosen to be. I respect that.

So what if it is history? Why is that unacceptable to factor in, in regards to attraction?

Their wishes are irrelevant to how attracted I am to them.

How about because it's probably a contradiction?

If you see them without knowing anything about their history, and you find them attractive? Are you really going to say you won't be attracted to them upon finding out their history?

I doubt that's actually true. More likely that you'll actually feel conflicted. (Because you found them attractive before...)

Well as I said before, if I found out that someone used to weigh 500 lbs, that alone would make me feel somewhat repulsed, though that I could get over. I don't see how this is any different, just that the magnitude is somewhat more.

Well, I don't get how that works, but since I'm not you, I can't exactly say you're wrong.
(For instance, if I found out someone used to be really fat, my only reaction would be that I'd be impressed they'd lost so much weight.)

Well if someone was in a state that I previously found repulsive as far as attraction that alone would be off putting somewhat.

If you didn't find them attractive to begin with, how did you ever end up spending enough time with them to even find out about their history?

Erm, I'd get to know someone before I'd ever date them anyway.

That's not really an answer either way. Getting to know someone is a relative statement. HOW MUCH would you know about a person before you started dating them?

(And don't say you'd expect to know this about them beforehand. That's still really a way of avoiding the issue. If you have no reason to ask, which you wouldn't unless you were already suspicious, and the other person doesn't feel the need to mention it - After all, that depends as much on how they feel about the issue as it does about how you do...)

The point is, even if you expect to find out some things about someone before you start dating them, that doesn't mean you'd learn everything there is to know about them.

Answer: I found them attractive before, afterwards I didn't. You're making an assumption that things cannot change it seems.

To put it differently, if being transsexual (or transgender) is something you can tell about a person just by looking at them, what relevance does their history have in the first place?

Why wouldn't it have relevance...? It would affect how attracted I feel to them.

Because if you can't work it out for yourself, your knowledge of their history depends entirely on their opinion of it's relevance.

So, you are leaving entirely up to the other person to tell you something which in your opinion might affect if you find them attractive or not.

OK, so maybe I'm separating attraction out into different categories.

That's probably because there's people I'm physically attracted to who have other traits to them that I find repulsive.
But that doesn't stop the physical attraction. Which leads to a contradiction, NOT a complete lack of attraction.

So, really I'm having a hard time following along with what you consider to be attraction.

Attraction is just how I feel in regards to them. And it would ruin the physical attraction. It has to do with their physical traits, just the past of them. I would no longer feel the same about them in a physical way. My view on their personality and other such traits would remain unchanged.

And if you can't tell the difference, then saying you wouldn't find such a person attractive is probably a false statement that wouldn't accurately reflect how you'd actually feel upon discovering their history.

Eh? I'd stop finding them attractive afterward. Not seeing what's complicated about that.

Because it has no relation to my own experience of how attraction works? It's not something that can just be turned on or off like that as far as I know.

So I have a hard time believing that a single thing like this could really make you cease to be attracted to someone you were attracted to beforehand.

Sure, it can get ruined. If, for instance, someone looks perfectly like an attractive girl, but has a dick that's gonna ruin it every time I see them even if I don't see it. Knowing someone's history, even if they've had surgery, is gonna ruin it similarly. The more I can picture it the worse it is.

Fair enough. I must not have much of an imagination then.

I think it's stupid, but since it's about how you feel, I really can't actually argue with it.

I guess I'm just trying to understand something about how you think.
Which I seem to have established about as well as I ever will be able to.

Makes no sense to me... But as I said, I'm not you.

It's not really how I think, it's just how I'm going to feel about the situation. No logic behind it, it's just a description of how I feel when introduced to the situation.

That's what I meant. I guess I wasn't very careful with my choice of words.

If it isn't a rational thought to begin with, trying to explain it rationally isn't really possible.

Which is fine.
(I have a much bigger problem here with the people that claim they have the one and only 'logical' definition of what makes someone a man or a woman. Because it's frequently inconsistent with the facts, AND what they're usually thinking about the subject most of the time.)

Eh, why do you have a problem with it though? It's not as if it's some kind of conscious thought. I'll readily recognize people's gender and if they've transitioned. It just kinda throws a wrench in attraction, which isn't something controllable.

I know enough to know how ridiculously ignorant most of the thread ends up being in how it's treating gender. It's rather annoying since people seem to think they know it so well when they don't seem to have a real basis for thinking it besides their preconceptions.

It's a problem because the uncontrollable feeling is in essence potentially hurtful to to others. (Or hurtful to yourself if you end up faced with others whose feelings on the matter are vastly different.)

The problems with the definitions themselves are firstly that if the definition isn't based on something objective, you shouldn't go around claiming it is.

The second problem is the nature of a definition affects people's attitudes.

If sex is defined as something immutable, do you really think that has no effect on how people treat anyone that attempts to change their sex?

Let's say I define race to be something that doesn't exist. (There's scientifically valid reasons for saying that, for one.)
Does that make it possible for me to claim that anyone actually identifies as being part of a specific race is deluding themselves though?
Or that the issues they face aren't actually real?

Does the way these things are defined not actually end up influencing people's intuitive ideas though?

Would you be so disturbed by the idea if you found it normal, rather than something strange?

 

[holy_secret]

No...Just no.
I wish I could give a clear answer but I just don't like the idea of it, being with a transgendered person.