Wtf is with all the blatant transphobia?locked
Edit I'm just gonna delete this soon. I posted it and made most of my comments while angry and looking for blood. yea a lot of cringe stuff got said on that post but I don't think my post is contributing anything to the sub other than anger, and possibly driving people away. Sorry to the people I snapped at, I hope yall have a good nightđ
The comments are full of people saying transphobic shit and op doubling down on his "making your trans partner feel dysphoric is fine" shit. He'll that pic was a re-upload from one of the mods here. What the fuck!!!! This is fucking 196 why are we out here defending blatant transphobia? People are in there calling trans people karens with a persecution complex, there's tons of defense of treating trans men like shit, "allies" telling trans people they're overreacting, all kinds of inexcusable shit. If this is how lemmy 196 is gonna be I hope this place crashes and burns
And I hope you deal with your internalized transphobia. We need to stick together, not gang up on eachother to look good for The Cisâ˘. Stop defending blatantly transphobic bullshit (or pretending it doesn't even exist in your case)
Who's ganging up on you? If anything you're the one ganging up by trying to flame the person in the screenshot for answering what their sexual preference is when someone asked them.
There was nothing that was "blatantly transphobic" other than the Karen comment that rightfully had several rebuttals shutting it down.
I don't stick with people just because of characteristics we share. They have to be a good person for me to want to support and be with them. You are not that, so I will not defend you just because we're both trans. Trans people can suck too, as you've shown.
@Dee
I think that your impression that this user wants to be angry is correct, because the person they were mad at for being insensitive in their wording appeared in this very thread an hour ago and made themselves available to speak to the person calling you a Pick Me and being rude, but the user chose to continue arguing with you, rather than address the (IMO, reasonable) response of the original 'offender.'
I agree that the wording was insensitive but when the user in question clarified their POV, as far as I can tell, they were still being reasonable. It's telling that the OP chose to continue to attack you further rather than engage with the original 'offender.'
I don't think further engagement here will be beneficial to you, or the OP, though obviously you're free to do as you wish. I hope you have a lovely day.
You're absolutely right, I guess I just wanted to inject some sanity into this mess. But I'm running into Brandolini's Law over and over again. If these people want to be angry I guess I should let them. I hope you have a lovely day as well. Thanks for the virtual hand on the shoulder haha
I'm sure when a cis guy murders another trans person under the "trans panic defense" the one news station reporting on it will put in the eulogy that "they were always civil and 'one of the good ones'" just after their deadname.
Where in the fuck did that come from?? This has nothing to do with violence against trans people, this has nothing to do with dead naming. I know you seem to be angry but stay on topic.
This is about a cis man who was asked if he would date a trans man, and the comment section that happened after. Nothing else.
He said he would date a pre-op trans man, because he is not attracted to penis and is attracted to breasts. He recognized that it wouldn't be an easy relationship due to the dysphoria most trans men feel about those two areas, therefore he likely would not end up dating a trans man. He used not the best wording to express this. The comments were mainly in agreement that it was not particularly transphobic. A few comments in the post were transphobic and were then rightfully flamed by the replies. Now here we are.
Yeah I wonder where that came from. It's not like the "genital preferences" discussion is preamble to the "not disclosing your trans/genital status is tantamount to rape" discussion. NOPE NO SIREE.
Not when they're directly asked what their sexual preferences are it's not?? Somebody asked him what his sexual preferences were, how is a cis person supposed to honestly answer that question if any time they do people like you accuse them of being transphobic?
I'm not saying that's not an issue it's just wildly unrelated to the topic at hand.
He disclosed his sexual preferences - women.
Genital preferences aren't sexual preferences. Genitals are like any other physical attribute. Nobody is saying you can't have a genital preference, that'd be like saying you can't prefer one hair color over another. The problem is genital preferences are widely used as a shield and a dog-whistle to discredit and derail discussions about trans people in a sexual context.
Gross ass comments about women aside (femininity = solely secondary sexual characteristics apparently), the problem people have with the original comment is that he doesn't see trans men as men, he literally admits to seeing them as women-lite. That's the problem.
Checks original comment
Do you have some alt-text I don't see or something? You're not even trying to make a point at this stage, you're just arguing semantics. Apologies if the exact sentence structure isn't to your liking. The dude was just answering a question he was asked. Everyone already admitted that he could've used better word choice, myself included. That does not make him transphobic. You and OP are both being utterly ridiculous to conflate this into something it's clearly not. Nobody was attacking trans people, or specifically, trans men in those comments other than the comments that were already pointed out and addressed.
Do you always require context to be written out or is it just in this instance?
To the question "...Straight guy... are you attracted to women.... or to femininity?"
OP answered
and then answered the follow up question
with
If straight men are attracted to women and OP claims to be straight but is okay with pre-transition trans men, he doesn't consider them men.
Is that plain enough for you or are you going to keep flailing around for yet another way to paint anyone who takes issue with blatant transphobia as irrational?
This is also entirely before the conversation about the problems surrounding "women = pussy+boobs and men = penis".
Ah, so you're missing a ton of additional context to their views or choosing to actively ignore it. That's fine. Means our conversation is over since that's not a position I have any chance of breaking through to. Not that I thought I had any chance in the first place. I guess these rebuttals were more for the lurkers since I knew this was a brick wall conversation from the onset. If you want to be angry at everything then you're certainly welcome to, it's your life. Best of luck with that though.
I'm not particularly attracted to any gender; I have no gender preference. I am however exclusively attracted to female sex organs.
The original thread asked "Hey, straight man, are you attracted to women or to femininity?" I didn't answer that question because I think the question was too vague. I think "straight" means you like female sexual characteristics. Pre-op trans man, post-op trans woman, cishet woman, they all qualify.