GC: Is sexual attraction only based on genitals, or is there more to sexual attraction (e.g. attraction to secondary sexual characteristics, "femininity", "masculinity", etc)?

submitted by Not_a_celebrity from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

It’s dependant on the assumed sex of the stranger. If the man had turned back around and was ‘apparently female’ again, but the assumption of being actually female was gone, there would be no further attraction.

well, of course previous perception is retained in the evaluation of the apparent gender.

It’s the difference between attraction being based on superficial appearance and attraction being based on what superficial appearance further suggests about a person, i. e. their biological sex. At most I would say sexual orientation is based on sex and apparent sex (I don’t think gender comes into play at all in the case of orientation). If attraction was based on apparent sex and not actual sex, information about actual sex wouldn’t affect the attraction.

I'm not sure that "actual sex" is really overriding apparent gender. Case in point, the Playboy, pretty much the bastion of male hetrosexuality has, repeatedly, featured transgender women as models(obviously we are not talking about ones that are still obviously of the male apparent gender), but never men (whether transgender or non-transgender) as ones. While the magazine was open about the models in question being transgender. Which means that there were clearly heterosexual men attracted to transgender women, even after being informed of the birth sex of the person they were jerking of to.

You also have to consider, that sexual attraction is rooted more in the primitive, animalistic instinct of humans, going primarily of the persons perception. Abstract knowledge (e.g. the other persons sexual orientation, fertility, marriage status or, yes, not percepted "actual sex") might cause the person to cease persueing, but the sexual attraction based on the perceived properties is most likely still persisting.

So I’ve read your point b a few times now, and I admit, I’m having a hard time understanding what the judgement of a homophobic government proves about the fundamental nature of sexual orientation. Can you explain how this (or even your homophobic parent example, for that matter) is relevant to understanding the nature of sexual orientation?

well, if people who judge other people based on their sexual orientation, whether we are talking individually or on a societal level, consider sexual orientation as a concept to be based on apparent gender, is that really not an argument for considering it to be based on apparent gender? Fundamentally "Hetrosexual", "Bisexual" and "Homosexual" are labels for certain sets of behavior. It is a societal consensous to associate these labels with these sets of behaviors. The homophobes mentioned (individuals and gouvernments) clearly are part of said societal consensous, and as far as I can see, the societal consensous is, that sexual orientation is based on apparent gender.

[–]strictly 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Playboy, pretty much the bastion of male hetrosexuality has, repeatedly, featured transgender women as models

They are a bastion of both male heterosexuality and male gynandromorphophilia as they feature males to cater gynandromorphophilic men too.

but never men (whether transgender or non-transgender) as ones.

You just said they did. Playboy features males gynandromorphophilic men find attractive.

the magazine was open about the models in question being transgender

Of course, as many gynandromorphophilic men are more attracted if they know the person is male.

Which means that there were clearly heterosexual men attracted to transgender women

It clearly shows that the user base of play boy wasn't just heterosexual men but also significant group of bisexual gynandromorphophilic men. Playboy catered two categories.

It seems like your argument is that as gynandromorphophilic men exist then heterosexual men can’t exist and therefor male heterosexuality should refer male gynandromorphophilia instead.

Male gynandromorphophilia doesn’t affect the existence of male heterosexuality, there are many female-attracted men who are indeed exclusively attracted to females. And as there are significant differences between heterosexual men and bisexual gynandromorphophilic men we obviously need different labels for them (you are already conflating these two distinct groups so uniting them under the same label would just increase this confusion).

Abstract knowledge (e.g. the other persons sexual orientation, fertility, marriage status or, yes, not percepted "actual sex") might cause the person to cease persueing, but the sexual attraction based on the perceived properties is most likely still persisting.

Abstract knowledge affects perception and perception affect the vision interpretation. The eyes don’t see the world the way our consciousness sees the world as the latter is the already interpreted version. If I know someone is male there is no way for me to perceive this male as female, he will be perceived as the male he is and I am not attracted males, so zero attraction as I am a lesbian, not gynandromorphophilic.

sexual orientation is based on apparent gender.

I don't know what this "apparent gender" is supposed to refer to. It’s not assumed sex, as you suggest someone can know someone is male yet label the apparent gender "female" anyway making it seem more like its a gender identity thing. Maybe apparent gender is factor in your attractions but that's not how my attractions work like. As people like me, who are exclusively attracted to only one sex, clearly exist, then we ought to have labels for that, and we have. I am not against creating new terminology for attraction patters like yours too. But there is an obvious difference in sexual orientation as you say the way my sexual orientation works is nonsensical (meaning you can clearly not relate) and I can’t relate to attraction patterns you describe either so our distinct sexual orientations should be distinguished in terminology to reflect these differences.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

They are a bastion of both male heterosexuality and male gynandromorphophilia as they feature males to cater gynandromorphophilic men too.

quoting wikipedia on "gynandromorphophilia" : In scientific literature, the term gynandromorphophilic is often used for men who are attracted to trans women who possess a combination of male and female physical characteristics.[20] ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attraction_to_transgender_people#Terminology ). This is clearly false use of terminology on your part, as none of the transgender women featured had visually apparent (and since they were featured in pictures, that was all the perceptive input the readership had) male physical characteristics. Also, if heterosexual men are not attracted to transgender women, wouldn't that mean, that they would be repulsed by the transgender women featured, regardless of them being indistinguashable (at least in terms of the medium used) from women?

but never men (whether transgender or non-transgender) as ones.

You just said they did. Playboy features males gynandromorphophilic men find attractive.

please pay attention to what I said. What I said was, that the playboy has never featured non-transgender men or female to male transgender people.

It clearly shows that the user base of play boy wasn't just heterosexual men but also significant group of bisexual gynandromorphophilic men. Playboy catered two categories.

if the Playboy was catering to bisexual men too, then it would have featured men (and, just to clarify, the use of the term "men" here excludes transgender women) too.

It seems like your argument is that as gynandromorphophilic men exist then heterosexual men can’t exist and therefor male heterosexuality should refer male gynandromorphophilia instead.

no. My argument is, that male heterosexuality includes attraction to any person that appears to the male in question as female, regardless of the sex or gender of the person. In regards to "gynandromorphophilia" (which, again, is defined in academia is attraction towards people with female secondary sexual characteristics and male primary ones) I refer back to my previously introduced conceptualization of "genital preferences" as a component of sexual orientation. So a man who would be attracted to people he perceives as women (but not people he perceives as men) and does requiere said people to have female primary sexual characteristics would be a CGP-Heterosexual ("Congurent Genital Preference"), a man who is in addition attracted to gynandromorphs (as previously in this paragraph defined) but still not towards people he percives as men would be a NGP-Heterosexual ("No Genital Preference"). A man solely attracted towards gynandromorphs (as previously in this paragraph defined) would be an IGP-Heterosexual ("Incongurent Genital Preference").

Abstract knowledge affects perception and perception affect the vision interpretation. The eyes don’t see the world the way our consciousness sees the world as the latter is the already interpreted version. If I know someone is male there is no way for me to perceive this male as female, he will be perceived as the male he is and I am not attracted males, so zero attraction as I am a lesbian, not gynandromorphophilic.

so, for you knowledge of someones birth sex influences your perception and therefore the apparent gender you have of said someone.

I don't know what this "apparent gender" is supposed to refer to. It’s not assumed sex, as you suggest someone can know someone is male yet label the apparent gender "female" anyway making it seem more like its a gender identity thing.

"apparent gender" refers to what sex/gender a person appears to an observer, based on said observers previous and current perception and state of information about the person. This category is independent of birth sex and gender identity (as in, for example, someone can be of the male birth sex and identify as male and still appear female [say, a particulary feminine crossdresser], can be of the male birth sex and identify female and appear male [in the case of a poorly passing transgender woman] or can be of the female birth sex and identify as male and appear male [in the case of a well passing transgender man] )

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the term gynandromorphophilic is often used for men who are attracted to trans women who possess a combination of male and female physical characteristics.

True, there is no combination of male and female traits here, just male traits that may or may not have been estrogenized.

This is clearly false use of terminology on your part, as none of the transgender women featured had visually apparent (and since they were featured in pictures, that was all the perceptive input the readership had) male physical characteristics.

They only feature male traits and gynoandromorphilic men are into the fact that the traits the estrogenized males have are male traits which have been estrogenized, not female traits. Some gynoandromorphilic men are even more attracted to estrogenized males than they are attracted to females, so if they find someone attractive and realize the person is male then the male knowledge alone can be an attraction booster to them. Perception is more than just the visual information the eyes take in (as said, we don’t see the way our eyes see), perception is the interpretation of those visual cues and knowledge affect that interpretation.

if heterosexual men are not attracted to transgender women, wouldn't that mean, that they would be repulsed by the transgender women featured

They can turn the page as playboy features women too, those who can’t deal with the males at all probably just don’t buy playboy. I imagine the average playboy reader is probably more gynoandromorphilic than the average man though.

if the Playboy was catering to bisexual men too, then it would have featured men

Which they did, you just don’t think it should count for some reason. There are lesbians who are only attracted to butches, if they had a magazine featuring good-looking butches I wouldn’t doubt their attraction to women just because they don't feature feminine women too in their magazine. People can have narrow types within their sexual orientation.

My argument is, that male heterosexuality includes attraction to any person that appears to the male in question as female, regardless of the sex or gender of the person.

If a man knows someone is male then that male person isn’t going to appear female to them. A man with a female partner might worry about getting his partner pregnant. A man who knows his partner is an estrogenized male would never worry about getting the estrogenized male pregnant. Two women in a lesbian relationship never worry about the sex leading to accidental pregnancies as homosexual sex can’t lead to pregnancy. Yet it is not unusual for women with an estrogenized male partner to take precautions against getting pregnant as they know heterosexual sex with males can lead to pregnancy. The male appears male to their partners as the partners act on that male knowledge and being into males who appear male is male attraction. In other words, the male appearing estrogenized is not the same thing as the male appearing female which would require the male to be in stealth.

attraction towards people with female secondary sexual characteristics and male primary ones

They have male primary sex organs, even those with bottom surgery, surgeons don’t cut the penis off and throw it away in a garbage can, they invert the penis so the male primary sex organ is still there. Some gynoandromorphilic men might prefer non-inverted penises but they are probably quite a few who find the inverted penis variant interesting too.

I refer back to my previously introduced conceptualization of "genital preferences" as a component of sexual orientation

It’s not a preference, calling it a preference diminish the important of something that is a requirement.

so, for you knowledge of someones birth sex influences your perception and therefore the apparent gender you have of said someone.

My knowledge of someones birth sex influences my perception of someone's sex, there is no apparent gender variable. To put an example, let’s say I have seen Bob’s Halloween wolf costume and then later at night at Halloween I see a furry figure running in woods and I recognize it's Bob’s in his Halloween costume. Knowing it’s Bob influences my perception of Bob’s species, had I not known it was Bob I might I have mistaken the dark figure for wolf but as I know it’s Bob and know Bob is human I perceive Bob as human even in his wolf costume. There is no apparent spirit variable in that.

"apparent gender" refers to what sex/gender a person appears to an observer

You obviously have a different definition of appearing as you think males who appear male can still appear female so I still don’t know what you mean with “apparent gender” here. Either way, it seems you get things backwards. You seem to think I care about the perception itself, i.e wanting someone I perceive as female. Maybe that is how sexuality works for you, not for me. Perception is the tool, not the goal. The role of perception is to help me get closer to what I actually want, someone who actually is female. Perception is just the attempt to calculate the probability of the underlying feature.