HomophobiaWhat trans people don't get is that homosexuals were NEVER attracted to them.

submitted by 7874 from self.LGBDropTheT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I would argue that this line of thinking leads to an inevitable conclusion that all attraction (even with so-called cisgendered individuals) is ultimately based on illusion. That's kind of a Buddhist perspective and as such is very attractive to me (not to mention consistent with my experience). However it's not very practical. The more pragmatic perspective is closer to this one, basically that attraction has an evolution over time. Even in the case of an LTR attraction can wane for a variety of reasons, often (in the long term) having nothing to do with physical attributes.

One of the things I find so triggering about the "genital preferences" line of argumentation is the idea of locking in attraction at the earliest possible time. I have had a personal and very negative experience with somebody who tried to do this to me -- argue why I should have been attracted him based on signals I may or may not have given at an early point in time -- and when it was clear the argument was going nowhere proceeded to attempt covertly to damage my reputation. It's because so many outspoken trans people communicate a willingness to do this exact very thing that I hate them so much.

[–]7874[S] 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think there's a difference between feeling attracted to someone, and then having the attraction dissipate because you learned they are actually an asshole or something, and feeling attracted to a front someone is intentionally putting on, an actual lie, and truly feeling zero attraction for that actual, real human being. They're not just a person who you didn't know was rude to waiters, it's someone who is lying about their actual physical body. They are lying about their sex, which attraction is contingent upon for anyone who isn't bisexual.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

which attraction is contingent upon for anyone who isn't bisexual.

And for most of us here who are, who generally dislike the presumptive "if you're bi you'll be attracted to trans people" propaganda that is spewed elsewhere.

Did you happen to see the Superstraight/gay/bisexual/lesbian movement / moment go by? That's how it happened: Those of us who know what words mean getting exasperated with all the ways that they have been misused. Being bisexual is no exception. I require the natural configurations in both cases. If someone has started swapping parts, etc. then I am not attracted to them for the same reason gay men and lesbians aren't.

[–]7874[S] 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I never said "if you're bi you'll be attracted to trans people". I just said that non-bisexuals are incapable of being attracted to more than one sex.

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Okay, I think it's a word-choice glitch. Let me try to clarify:

I am not sure how much you are aware of this, so: By implication in statements like yours, bisexuals are relentlessly misidentified as the folks who will of course want to date TQ+ people when that is not true at all for many of us, so I am making that distinction explicit here so you'll understand if you get irritated responses from bisexuals here when we get rhetorically forced into a role that has nothing to do with our orientation. It's a common TRA refrain. Let's review this again in that light to see why I responded as I did:

They are lying about their sex, which attraction is contingent upon for anyone who isn't bisexual.

My attraction is 100% contingent on the other person 1. knowing what sex they are and thus being okay with it (and thus, being okay with their sexual orientation as well without any transition or declaring of NB status, etc.), and therefore 2. not lying about their sex. So we don't actually need to bring bisexuals into this as if we'd feel otherwise. That's what I am saying. Leave us out if it isn't relevant to the point you are making. You implied that bisexuality would equal being okay with deception about sex. Maybe that was unintentional, but that's how it is coming across. I am immovable about this point because so many people play fast and loose with this term and as someone who doesn't want to play along with the distortion of word meanings, I hope you will understand why I don't want to and won't do the same regarding being bisexual. Once people start changing / expanding / distorting the meanings of important words they start changing the lives of the people who use them in reference to themselves. Ask any lesbian who keeps being stalked and harassed by trans women (men) who call themselves lesbians.

So the baseline assumption I expect people to maintain is that being bisexual still means the same thing it always has meant: Attracted to biological males and biological females who accept biology and reality and thus their own bodies. (We didn't used to have to make the distinction about them also needing to accept reality, but here we are. That was assumed as part of the deal.)

Lesbians and gay men have the same expectations, they are just dealing with a subset rather than both sexes.

If that doesn't clear up why I will quickly offer a clarification about the use of the word "bisexual" then we'll have to agree to not understand one another for a bit longer and sort it out as time permits.

I'm trying to tell you there's a minefield here for bisexual people just like there is for gay men and lesbians, about how we are talked about and how we are treated and what we are assumed to want.

[–]7874[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My attraction is 100% contingent on the other person 1. knowing what sex they are and thus being okay with it (and thus, being okay with their sexual orientation as well without any transition or declaring of NB status, etc.), and therefore 2. not lying about their sex.

And those are preferences, not sexual orientation, and not every single bisexual feels that way. However, every single homosexual is unable to feel sexual attraction to the opposite sex.

And sorry I mentioned bisexuals, but it is relevant because trans people are being homophobic by expecting homosexuals to somehow override their homosexuality and date them. The reason homosexuals aren't attracted to trans people of the opposite sex is because they're homosexual and these trans people are being homophobic by trying to pressure them to be with the opposite sex. Bisexuals are not attracted to trans people not because they're bisexual, but because trans people are undesirable partners for 9999999 other reasons, and no one should be pressured to date someone they're not interested in of course. I'm just pointing out the different mechanisms and the distinct homophobia in play when they target homosexuals.

I'm trying to tell you there's a minefield here for bisexual people just like there is for gay men and lesbians, about how we are talked about and how we are treated and what we are assumed to want.

And people who say you should date trans people are filthy incels, but what bisexuals face on this front is a bit different from what homosexuals face. Homosexuals have their own homosexual-only spaces they've created that are infiltrated by homophobic incels. These spaces are the only places they have. They have zero other options for dating other than homosexual-only spaces like apps, bars, cafes.

Attracted to biological males and biological females who accept biology and reality and thus their own bodies.

That isn't a sexual orientation. Sexual orientation only describes the sex one is attracted to. I don't date white people (no offense lol sorry to anyone reading this, I'll be friends but I'm simply not interested for physical reasons) because I don't feel attraction to them, but that doesn't make it part of my sexual orientation. There are no qualifiers in sexual orientation. Homosexuals like the same sex, heteros the opposite, and bisexuals both. If bisexuals think a person with breasts and a dick is unattractive because that's weird, more power to them and they have zero obligation to date anyone. However, said person is still male, and therefore falls within the bounds of a bisexual orientation, but is excluded by preferences.

I notice you brought up political reasons why you're arguing this point and I get it. But also consider the implications if we start adding preferences into sexual orientation. That's part of the reason we have ridiculous new "orientations" nowadays like "pansexual" or "cupiosexual" or any number of others. And if we say that orientations are not exclusively sex-based, that messes with the definitions we have now of "gay" and "lesbian". Who's to say we can't just start adding qualifiers like the TRAs? "Gay means attracted to males except there are exceptions for certain women." No! Gay just means homosexual male. If homosexuals have qualifiers or exceptions, what do they need the right to be homosexual for? If orientation is not sex-based, they can just find some very specific person of the opposite sex to be with. No. Sexual orientation is defined exclusively by the sex(es) on is attracted to.