Current Events > Is a lesbian who won't have sex with trans women transphobic?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Cyricz, lets not pretend you dont throw the term transphobic around more frequently than the majority of people here. In this topic you just mentioned the lady is transphobic in the strict sense, but generally you either insinuate or directly claim other users are transphobic without adding a qualifier like you did for this lady, the way you have called or implied multiple users of being transphobic is generally done with the implication that it comes from a place of hate and malice. But I understand if you deny this perception is valid, carry on.

---

Dathrowed1 posted...

See Sammy's remarks

Yes, being heterosexual or homosexual is transphobic. That doesn't make being heterosexual or homosexual wrong. I guess the phrase is "super straight" and "super gay" these days.

---

CyricZ posted...

I asked you to prove I called someone a transphobe

CyricZ posted... Strictly speaking yes, it's transphobic

CyricZ posted... yet despite being told quite a bit of the harm she's causing, she chooses to double down and press on regardless of that. That's where she crosses into "being a transphobe".

Making use of your own established chain of logic, we can surmise that when you label a behavior as transphobic, what you're actually doing is telling everybody who engages in that behavior that they are a transphobe...unless they change their ways as soon as you make them 'aware' of the harm you deem them to be causing.

So, in essence, within the span of this very topic and using only your own statements to build the chain of logic...you are saying that everybody who consistently chooses not to date or sleep with trans individuals, even after being accused of transphobic behavior, is actually a transphobe.

---

David1988 posted...

Cyricz, lets not pretend you dont throw the term transphobic around more frequently than the majority of people here.

I do say "transphobic" a lot there I said it again.

But I understand if you deny this perception is valid, carry on

I actually have noticed that people take particular offense to having been insinuated that something they did was transphobic, or racist, or whatever. And me doing this without calling them "a transphobe", or "a racist", or "a whatever".

One of two reasons I don't call them "a whatever" is because that's moddable. The other reason is because it's ultimately reductive.

I think it's better to point to actions done, explain the situation, and allow people the opportunity to course correct rather than just dump them in a bucket that would imply there's no getting out of.

So I offer them this opportunity and y'know what? They get angry and how dare I imply they did something wrong and their first instinct is to fight back and shore up defenses, because otherwise they'd be WRONG. On the INTERNET, no less.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Making use of your own established chain of logic, we can surmise that when you label a behavior as transphobic, what you're actually doing is telling everybody who engages in that behavior that they are a transphobe...unless they change their ways as soon as you make them 'aware' of the harm you deem them to be causing.

So, in essence, within the span of this very topic and using only your own statements to build the chain of logic...you are saying that everybody who consistently chooses not to date or sleep with trans individuals, even after being accused of transphobic behavior, is actually a transphobe.

As with everything in life it's not that simple and does require a level of commitment.

Are you willing to commit? You do seem to hang out in these topics a lot.

Are you willing to become an actual transphobe just to prove me wrong? I admit I wasn't expecting this level of commitment and I respect the hustle.

---

CyricZ posted...

I think it's better to point to actions done, explain the situation, and allow people the opportunity to course correct

You seem to operate under the assumption that your "explanations" of the situation are factual and not just your personal opinion.

Let me be clear and frank: you're not amicably educating people who are unaware--you're attempting to envelop people into your worldview. If they happen to disagree with your way of viewing things, you lash out and make indirect accusations about the bigotry that you've personally designated them to have.

The fact that you said this is very telling, I'll say:

CyricZ posted...

And me doing this without calling them "a transphobe", or "a racist", or "a whatever".

One of two reasons I don't call them "a whatever" is because that's moddable.

Which means...you wish you could do it without being modded, right? I imagine you'd be making such accusations all day long if you could get away with it.

This is why moderating people for their specific phrasing rather than their clear intent is such a crap-shoot. It lets people get away with accusations of the same thing they'd otherwise be suspended for, as long as it's worded like a lawyer wrote it. All you have to do to avoid being warned is tip-toe along the line.

---

A common fallacy I hate to see, yet is far too common regardless of who's arguing what, is equating the context of a term with the entire breadth or most common idea associated with that term.

Like, a hispanic grandma from the barrio saying you should marry a white person for money is different from a literal, actual, KKK hoodie guy, right? They're both racist, but the racism at play is extremely different.

---

CyricZ posted...

Are you willing to become an actual transphobe just to prove me wrong?

If your definition of a transphobe is somebody who doesn't feel attraction to trans individuals, despite the 'harm' such an orientation supposedly causes...then yes, I suppose I've always been one. Feel free to keep calling me that.

It's not an issue of being offended or taking it personally, it's an issue of you (and other people like you) taking a word that used to be a damning indictment of bigoted behavior, and turning it into a schoolyard insult that has almost no real meaning anymore. You took the bite out of the word by using it way too often. Like, way too fucking often.

Now, it doesn't even sting. It doesn't mean what it used to mean, so why should I be bothered by it?

---

Bass_X0 posted...

Yes, being heterosexual or homosexual is transphobic. That doesn't make being heterosexual or homosexual wrong. I guess the phrase is "super straight" and "super gay" these days.

I was really kidding tbh

---

I still dont understand the stubborn desire to use phobic to describe literally any aspect of this discussion.

CyricZ posted...

I do say "transphobic" a lot there I said it again.

I actually have noticed that people take particular offense to having been insinuated that something they did was transphobic, or racist, or whatever. And me doing this without calling them "a transphobe", or "a racist", or "a whatever".

One of two reasons I don't call them "a whatever" is because that's moddable. The other reason is because it's ultimately reductive.

I think it's better to point to actions done, explain the situation, and allow people the opportunity to course correct rather than just dump them in a bucket that would imply there's no getting out of.

So I offer them this opportunity and y'know what? They get angry and how dare I imply they did something wrong and their first instinct is to fight back and shore up defenses, because otherwise they'd be WRONG. On the INTERNET, no less.

I can understand if you call the mentality of other users transphobic by adding qualifiers like you did for this lady that you mean it in a strict sense, not in the sense that their transphobia comes from a place of hate or malice and that theyre vile in some sense because of it. Generally when people perceive someone is signaling they are vile in some sense, their natural disposition will be to get defensive and angry. Unfortunately my perception of your posts are that you routinely signal either directly or indirectly a number of other user are in some sense vile because of transphobic prejudices they have, perhaps thats just my perception, maybe you dont mean it in that way, but I can understand the reaction to your posts given the tone of how you express your sentiments.

Additionally, people are under no obligation to reflect on what you say about them, especially if they perceive its coming from a place where its either lecturing or downright moralizing about how theyre being vile. Youre not some god who has all the correct thoughts on these matters, they are under no obligation to agree or even listen to anything you have to say.

---

I would say it is not inherently transphobic. Heres my line of thinking. Anyone fee free to weigh in.

Something most would agree on: A woman attracted to only women is not misandrist or man-phobic because she doesnt want to sleep with men. She can be a misandrist in addition to being a lesbian, but they are not synonymous.

But if transwomen are women, why is she exlcuding them here?

First, sexual preferences do not inherently indicate a general aversion or bigotry towards groups they exclude. Sexual preferences are generally going to be very exclusive compared to the pool of people we choose to associate with platonically.
A straight woman may like men, but not be attracted to overly short men, overly pale men, overly skinny/fat men, quiet men, extroverted men, etc. While she may also be bigoted towards these groups, her lack of sexual interest cannot be used as proof of bigotry on its own.

Similarly, a lesbian may have no trouble accepting that trans women are women. Even so, she is likely not sexually interested in all women of all types. This can be rooted in bigotry, but I dont think it necessarily always is.

Anyway the people trying to shame others for their sexual preferences are a pretty small group that mostly exists on Twitter. Unless you count conservative Christians (or any fundamentalist religious groups). Those groups actually are numerous and a real threat to people with non-hetero orientations.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Let me be clear and frank: you're not amicably educating people who are unaware

Oh I absolutely begin with that, but then I end up dealing with folks like you and here we are. I'm sorry if you feel I'm being mean to you, but when you're just so convinced you're right to the point of....

Which means...you wish you could do it without being modded, right? I imagine you'd be making such accusations all day long if you could get away with it.

...these kinds of accusations just in order to attack my character and not address the argument, the quality and tone of the argument becomes combative. And you are most certainly combative, if nothing else.

Because I did give a second reason, if you'll remember. Even so I do have an interest in preserving this as an active account, but now you're going to latch onto this "revelation" like you've found a "win", because that's what you're looking for.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's not an issue of being offended or taking it personally, it's an issue of you (and other people like you) taking a word that used to be a damning indictment of bigoted behavior, and turning it into a schoolyard insult that has almost no real meaning anymore. You took the bite out of the word by using it way too often. Like, way too fucking often.

Now, it doesn't even sting. It doesn't mean what it used to mean, so why should I be bothered by it?

Yeah you're really not bothered at all are you.

---

David1988 posted...

Unfortunately my perception of your posts are that you routinely signal either directly or indirectly a number of other user are in some sense vile because of transphobic prejudices they have

It gets more pronounced when they don't stop.

For example, there were multiple people in this topic who said "no" to the poll and then just left. Note I'm not chasing them down.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's not an issue of being offended or taking it personally, it's an issue of you (and other people like you) taking a word that used to be a damning indictment of bigoted behavior, and turning it into a schoolyard insult that has almost no real meaning anymore.

when was it a damning indictment of bigoted behaviour?

---

Not wanting to have sex with someone who has a penis is fair.

---

I think I can admit that it's fair to say that some words certain people feel are "charged" and there's a care that should go into using them in conversation rather than just throwing them out.

What I'm saying is, I recognize these words are triggering you, and I promise to do better.

---

CyricZ posted...

Gobstoppers12 posted...
It's not an issue of being offended or taking it personally, it's an issue of you (and other people like you) taking a word that used to be a damning indictment of bigoted behavior, and turning it into a schoolyard insult that has almost no real meaning anymore. You took the bite out of the word by using it way too often. Like, way too fucking often.

Now, it doesn't even sting. It doesn't mean what it used to mean, so why should I be bothered by it?

Unlike you, Im actually bothered by it. A word that is reserved for damning indictment of bigoted behavior is routinely used like a schoolyard insult by certain users here and it does bother me

---

Shes not a lesbian then

---

There seems to be a confusion or misuse of what it actually means to be transphobic here. Actual text book definition is: Having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against transgender or transsexual people.

So unless you dislike someone and/or show prejudice just because they are trans, it wouldn't be transphobia. Simply not wanting to dating someone because you don't find them sexually attractive for whatever reason, isn't transphobia. You like them as a person, but not enough on a intimate level. You just aren't sexually attracted to them and don't want a romantic relationship with them. And it could be for any reason. It's no different than a lesbian woman not wanting to date men, or a straight men not wanting to date other men.

It's absolutely sickening seeing a fringe group of people here who claim they are pro-trans and claim to represent the trans community, but call others transphobic because they don't want them because of sexual preference. Like you make the trans community look bad and look like a joke.

Transphobia and Homophobia are rooted deep into hatred and violence against trans and gay people. Misusing that word to force and guilt people of their sexual preference is gaslighting and immoral and ethical. How many fucking topics are we gonna keep going through this? Like it doesn't need to be spelled out. Let people love who they want to love. Forcing others isn't going to help, and its only hurting the trans community.

And these fucking topics need to be banned.

---

Any person can reject anyone they want, for any reason. Period. Consent matters.

Iodine posted...

Not wanting to have sex with someone who has a penis is fair.

I wouldn't want to either.

---

CyricZ posted...

I mean, except for the use of referring to a trans woman as "biologically male", but sure, why not.

I mean you can use all the different phrasing you like, I'm sure that the lesbian woman isn't referring to them as a biological male to their face, but at its core that's the scientific fact.

You can be polite to trans people and accept their preferred gender and pronouns but that doesn't change the fact that they were still biologically born a specific sex and that's the key reason why a lot of people prefer not to engage in sexual intercourse with them.

You sit here wondering why people keep making topics on this subject, maybe it's because the majority thinks you're wrong and don't like being called bigots for excluding trans people from their sex pool.

Also this is a majority left message board, I imagine you would see actual transphobia were this a right leaning message board.


---

Arcanine2009 posted...

So unless you dislike someone and/or show prejudice just because they are trans, it wouldn't be transphobia.

So what would you call it if a post-op trans woman was rejected because she was trans?

---

deoxxys posted...

You sit here wondering why people keep making topics on this subject, maybe it's because the majority thinks you're wrong and don't like being called bigots for excluding trans people from their sex pool.

Oh I've long stopped wondering why people keep making these topics. I know why.

And I've called no one a bigot.

---

CyricZ posted...

So what would you call it if a post-op trans woman was rejected because she was trans?

Excluded due to personal sexual preference. Rejection can come from a phobic perspective, but it shouldnt be assumed to be so without proof. If someone would sleep with a trans woman but has fears of socially being viewed as gay and thus refuse to move forward for that reason, then thatd be a form of it.

Nemu posted...

Excluded due to personal sexual preference. Rejection can come from a phobic perspective, but it shouldnt be assumed to be so without proof. If someone would sleep with a trans woman but has fears of socially being viewed as gay and thus refuse to move forward for that reason, then thatd be a form of it.

"transphobic" is a description of the actions/words themselves, and their consequences. it has nothing to do with the perspective behind them

---

Nope. This nonsense needs to be immediately dismantled. Don't even allow it to float around for a second.

Toxic, bully movement.

---

averagejoel posted...

"transphobic" is a description of the actions/words themselves, and their consequences. it has nothing to do with the perspective behind them

Phobic has a specific connotation behind it that does not apply to all situations, so using it in contexts where it does not apply simply makes no sense. Putting forth the argument that something is actually coming from a place of phobia is one thing. Ascribing that to anything beyond a certain line is at best misguided

Also, there's 30 people on this board that condone rape.

If you think a woman has an obligation to have sex with someone against their will, that's rape.

---

Nemu posted...

Putting forth the argument that something is actually coming from a place of phobia is one thing.

Sorry, but could you clarify the difference between "coming from a place of phobia" and "-phobic"?

---

Nemu posted...

Phobic has a specific connotation behind it that does not apply to all situations, so using it in contexts where it does not apply simply makes no sense.

please elaborate on what that "specific connotation" is, and which situations it is applicable in.

Putting forth the argument that something is actually coming from a place of phobia is one thing. Ascribing that to anything beyond a certain line is at best misguided

what is your method for determining what that "certain line" is?

---

CyricZ posted...

Sorry, but could you clarify the difference between "coming from a place of phobia" and "-phobic"?

Same thing. Im just saying there is a difference between saying all rejection (for lack of a better word) of trans people is inherently transphobic and the idea of analyzing a specific rejection and putting forth the argument that the specific instance in question involves transphobia.

HairyQueen posted...

I would say it is not inherently transphobic. Heres my line of thinking. Anyone fee free to weigh in.

Something most would agree on: A woman attracted to only women is not misandrist or man-phobic because she doesnt want to sleep with men. She can be a misandrist in addition to being a lesbian, but they are not synonymous.

But if transwomen are women, why is she exlcuding them here?

First, sexual preferences do not inherently indicate a general aversion or bigotry towards groups they exclude. Sexual preferences are generally going to be very exclusive compared to the pool of people we choose to associate with platonically.
A straight woman may like men, but not be attracted to overly short men, overly pale men, overly skinny/fat men, quiet men, extroverted men, etc. While she may also be bigoted towards these groups, her lack of sexual interest cannot be used as proof of bigotry on its own.

Similarly, a lesbian may have no trouble accepting that trans women are women. Even so, she is likely not sexually interested in all women of all types. This can be rooted in bigotry, but I dont think it necessarily always is.

Anyway the people trying to shame others for their sexual preferences are a pretty small group that mostly exists on Twitter. Unless you count conservative Christians (or any fundamentalist religious groups). Those groups actually are numerous and a real threat to people with non-hetero orientations.

This post also nails it

---

Nemu posted...

Same thing. Im just saying there is a difference between saying all rejection (for lack of a better word) of trans people is inherently transphobic and the idea of analyzing a specific rejection and putting forth the argument that the specific instance in question involves transphobia.

Ah okay sorry. Was a little confused there.

The thing I take issue with, myself, is if we were to present two women that looked exactly the same except one was post-op trans, I come across people in these topics who will tell me "I won't date the trans woman" and "I'm not attracted to trans women" and what that says to me is the mere knowledge of them being trans is itself a dealbreaker and that comes across as prejudiced to me.

I mean, the only plausible difference between these two hypothetical women at that point is "fertility", and even then it comes across weak if they then admit that they won't, y'know, ask every woman how fertile they are if that's such a dealbreaker.

And then there's the fact that they're so comfortable sharing with the rest of us. Like, would you feel comfortable saying "I don't date black women" to the rest of CE? Maybe some people would, but I feel being exclusory this openly just doesn't sit right with me. Like sure, everyone has things they like and don't like, but usually the "don't like" falls under negative personality traits and not something that the person in question doesn't have control over.

And questioning some of these people further sometimes leads to "Oh I can tell if they're trans" and "if they don't tell me they're trans, it's rape" and a whole host of red flags pop up and it doesn't happen every time, but often to people who get overly defensive on the subject.

---

CyricZ posted...

just in order to attack my character and not address the argument

Yeah, no, you don't get to play that game lol. You address the arguments I've addressed, whenever you're ready.

Post #155 is plenty of proof that you're indirectly but unquestionably accusing a great deal of people of being transphobes. I'm not the one who made it combative. Your habit of ducking and weaving around statements you don't want to answer for can only carry you so far.

CyricZ posted...

Because I did give a second reason, if you'll remember.

By the way, I ignored your second reason. I don't buy it for a second. You're not worried about it being 'reductive' at all. You're worried about being modded. That's why you listed your 'second reason' second, and your main reason first.

---

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Yeah, no, you don't get to play that game lol. You address the arguments I've addressed, whenever you're ready.

Post #155 is plenty of proof that you're indirectly but unquestionably accusing a great deal of people of being transphobes. I'm not the one who made it combative. Your habit of ducking and weaving around statements you don't want to answer for can only carry you so far.

By the way, I ignored your second reason. I don't buy it for a second. You're not worried about it being 'reductive' at all. You're worried about being modded. That's why you listed your 'second reason' second, and your main reason first.

So the argument only continues if I concede to not one but two of your fantasies.

Is what you're saying.

Anyone ever tell you really know how to inspire a good debate?

---

Yes, she sounds like a transphobe. I'm not forcing her to fuck a trans woman. Just calling her what she is.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Yes, she sounds like a transphobe. I'm not forcing her to fuck a trans woman. Just calling her what she is.

Would she be heterophobic for not wanting to date men? Would a cisman be homophobic for not wanting to date other men?

What's your definition of transphobic exactly? Doesn't seem to align with the text book definition that is based on fear, dislike, prejudice and violence.

Do you see differences between wanting to date someone as a partner based on sexual preferences vs having a platonic friendship?

---

HairyQueen posted...

I would say it is not inherently transphobic. Heres my line of thinking. Anyone feel free to weigh in.

Something most would agree on: A woman attracted to only women is not misandrist or man-phobic because she doesnt want to sleep with men. She can be a misandrist in addition to being a lesbian, but they are not synonymous.

But if transwomen are women, why is she exlcuding them here?

First, sexual preferences do not inherently indicate a general aversion or bigotry towards groups they exclude. Sexual preferences are generally going to be very exclusive compared to the pool of people we choose to associate with platonically.
A straight woman may like men, but not be attracted to overly short men, overly pale men, overly skinny/fat men, quiet men, extroverted men, etc. While she may also be bigoted towards these groups, her lack of sexual interest cannot be used as proof of bigotry on its own.

Similarly, a lesbian may have no trouble accepting that trans women are women. Even so, she is likely not sexually interested in all women of all types. This can be rooted in bigotry, but I dont think it necessarily always is.

Anyway the people trying to shame others for their sexual preferences are a pretty small group that mostly exists on Twitter. Unless you count conservative Christians (or any fundamentalist religious groups). Those groups actually are numerous and a real threat to people with non-hetero orientations.

this is the best post itt

---

---

These types of people are like those that say you shouldn't go by your own preferences, as if those are something you even choose yourself btw.

Sexual attraction isn't black and white, it's much more dynamic.

---

Depends.

Is she simply not attracted to the other person? That's not transphobic.

Is she attracted to the other person but explicitly won't have sex with them because they're transgender? That's transphobic.

It's that simple, y'all.

This shit is so unhinged and comedic

CyricZ posted...

Very few if you're familiar with Western culture, which is my point.

Well there's "equality vs. equity" again.

If you treated everyone you met with a firm right-handed handshake, what would you do if you met someone without a right hand?

Missed this when I went to shitpost or something

Shake the left hand, of course.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Yes, she sounds like a transphobe. I'm not forcing her to fuck a trans woman. Just calling her what she is.

Omg stfu.

Your bullshit rhetoric is why other lesbians in the article felt forced to engage in penetrative sex or else "they are transphobes".

Like seriously fuck off with your bullshit.

---

_Rinku_ posted...

Depends.

Is she simply not attracted to the other person? That's not transphobic.

Is she attracted to the other person but explicitly won't have sex with them because they're transgender? That's transphobic.

It's that simple, y'all.

No it's really not that simple, not all trans get operations
---

deoxxys posted...

Your bullshit rhetoric is why other lesbians in the article felt forced to engage in penetrative sex or else "they are transphobes".

do you have evidence of this?

---

epik_fail1 posted...

No it's really not that simple, not all trans get operations

It really is and you're really showing your hand by using "trans" as a noun like that.

averagejoel posted...

do you have evidence of this?

Did you read the article linked in the OP?

Theres more then one thing there to dwell on:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385

Heres the excerpt:
Another lesbian woman, 26-year-old Chloe*, said she felt so pressured she ended up having penetrative sex with a trans woman at university after repeatedly explaining she was not interested.
They lived near each other in halls of residence. Chloe had been drinking alcohol and does not think she could have given proper consent.
"I felt very bad for hating every moment, because the idea is we are attracted to gender rather than sex, and I did not feel that, and I felt bad for feeling like that," she said.
Ashamed and embarrassed, she decided not to tell anyone.
"The language at the time was very much 'trans women are women, they are always women, lesbians should date them'. And I was like, that's the reason I rejected this person. Does that make me bad? Am I not going to be allowed to be in the LGBT community anymore? Am I going to face repercussions for that instead?' So I didn't actually tell anyone."

---