Are men afraid of transgender women?
Discussion
GroundEffect said:
I don't understand the issue from Straight men. 'Used to be a man'. By very definition they are no longer a man then.
Loosely, it's like not sleeping with someone because they used to be a child. Take them for who or what they are now.
And really, the differences between men and women are very small. And I know because I bat for both teams so unlike our armchair experts, I'm a seasoned pro
they are the same to kiss, they smell the same. Only real difference is that women's skin is softer.
Not sure that exactly follows. By all means, if a person is a woman now, I'd be happy to treat her as a woman. But there are things in people's pasts that might put someone off taking someone as a new sexuality partner. If I met a female-born woman now who used to be a drug addict/murdered someone/liberal democrat, etc then their past would have a bearing on whether I thought they were a suitable partner.Loosely, it's like not sleeping with someone because they used to be a child. Take them for who or what they are now.
And really, the differences between men and women are very small. And I know because I bat for both teams so unlike our armchair experts, I'm a seasoned pro
they are the same to kiss, they smell the same. Only real difference is that women's skin is softer. Being born a man and transitioning is of course no where near as bad as the examples I've given (don't think it's bad at all, each to their own and all that). But some people would find it off-putting and it WOULD have an effect on whether they'd have decided to sleep with that person had they known.
It doesn't make that person trans-phobic any more than being a gay man makes someone a mysoginist. Everyone has a preference of who they would like to take as a sexual partner and that's fine.
Not sleeping with someone because they used to be a child doesn't follow because it's generally accepted that an adult was at some point a child in the past.
[/quote]
Blatant deflection.
The point Glasgowrob is making, unless I am very greatly mistaken, is in allowing ones young daughter (on her own) to use the same toilet facilities in common with a transgender person who is biologically male.
Quite a lot of women will object to that too.
It is not suggesting that a transgender person is more likely to be a molester, simply that it is quite natural for people to equate male sex organs with maleness. Male behaviour is widely accepted as untrustworthy by the vast majority of the population, never mind those vociferously supporting transgender issues.
Why should the 'wearing of a dress' (pardon the crudeness) change that perception?
There needs to be tolerance and understanding on both sides of the discussion.
[quote=p2c]
I'm not sure it is deflection. What's needed is for Glasgowrob to clarify what his "serious issues" are with a male-to-female transgendered person using the same loos as his daughter "whilst she is still a child" - what danger/harm is he perceiving? The person is not going to be using the same cubicle as his daughter, and from the transgendered people I have met, they are not going to be taking a leak standing up, with the seat up and the cubicle door open, nor are they going to expose their genitals in the public areas. It would also be useful to know the answer to the question posed above about whether he would have the same worries if a female-to-male transgender used the same loos as a male child.
Europa1 said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
p2c said:
I'll have a go at answering that.
More kids are molested and assaulted in their home than in public toilets, and the latter figure is only a fraction, to the point of being undetected when you restrict the public toilet predator to be transgender.
Bonus fact though is the most likely person to become a victim of crime in the public toilet is the trans person.
Blatant deflection.More kids are molested and assaulted in their home than in public toilets, and the latter figure is only a fraction, to the point of being undetected when you restrict the public toilet predator to be transgender.
Bonus fact though is the most likely person to become a victim of crime in the public toilet is the trans person.
The point Glasgowrob is making, unless I am very greatly mistaken, is in allowing ones young daughter (on her own) to use the same toilet facilities in common with a transgender person who is biologically male.
Quite a lot of women will object to that too.
It is not suggesting that a transgender person is more likely to be a molester, simply that it is quite natural for people to equate male sex organs with maleness. Male behaviour is widely accepted as untrustworthy by the vast majority of the population, never mind those vociferously supporting transgender issues.
Why should the 'wearing of a dress' (pardon the crudeness) change that perception?
There needs to be tolerance and understanding on both sides of the discussion.
Hopefully I've fixed it a bit.
The 'deflection' may not be intentional. It is quite easy to create an argument that doesn't quite fit the statement/question being made, especially when trying to include another point.
I accept that.
I admit, I take Glasgowrob's meaning as I've stated it, because it is the perspective from which it makes sense. I am open to correction if Glasgowrob confirms that is not what was intended.
Something that some people become confused about (unsurprisingly) is the definitions here.
Transgender generally refers to a person that feels they are of the opposite gender of their biological sex, their gender identity, and how they represent that in dress and behaviour.
It does not by any necessity imply their sexuality / sexual preferences.
It may also apply (previously more commonly known as transsexual) to someone who has had gender reassignment therapy and/or surgery.
Again, it does not by any necessity imply their sexuality / sexual preferences.
I accept that this is a difficult issue for transgender people, and it must present many problems, especially during transition phases (if they are in fact proceeding with the therapy and surgery options).
I also submit that everyone's position in society is something of a negotiated one.
I am immediately accepted as male because that is how I present myself in my dress, hairstyle (if it could be vaguely described as 'style'), the timber of my voice and mannerisms.
That is my opening position in the social negotiation.
You referred to "a male-to-female transgendered person".
I am uncertain how one is to be as certain as is reasonably possible that someone is honestly transgender or 'a bloke in a skirt', and their sexuality in either case?
Granted, we don't know the sexual preferences or predilections of every woman that uses a public convenience when our precious daughter in in there, but it's a statistically very low probability of danger, and one people are used to dealing with mentally.
Glasgowrob said:
This thread makes me realise just how out of touch I am with the world I am.
Anyone else utterly baffled with genders and isms?
On topic though I have no issues with transgendered people, each to their own and all but where I would have serious issues is with a non woman using the same bathroom as my daughter whilst she's still a child. You know that difficult age for dads where their old enough to go themselves but still young enough to worry about.
I think an entirely natural parent's sentiment.Anyone else utterly baffled with genders and isms?
On topic though I have no issues with transgendered people, each to their own and all but where I would have serious issues is with a non woman using the same bathroom as my daughter whilst she's still a child. You know that difficult age for dads where their old enough to go themselves but still young enough to worry about.
amusingduck said:
What are you trying to convince me of, exactly?
The woman in your example is biologically male, is she not?
Did I say that makes her a bloke? Did I say that being biologically male precludes someone from being considered a woman?
I'm trying to argue since you posted thisThe woman in your example is biologically male, is she not?
Did I say that makes her a bloke? Did I say that being biologically male precludes someone from being considered a woman?
amusingduck said:
The biology is entirely clear cut and irreversible, isn't it?!
You're either XX or XY (or very rarely, something else). Nothing can ever change that. The only things that can be changed are your characteristics, but not the fundamental biology.
Biology isn't clear cut, and isn't irreversible.You're either XX or XY (or very rarely, something else). Nothing can ever change that. The only things that can be changed are your characteristics, but not the fundamental biology.
Your use of the words 'fundamental biology' shows a willingness to cling to what you can more easily measure rather than the reality most people find themselves in when the 'fundamental biology' goes wrong.
popeyewhite said:
Europa1 said:
I'd like to understand why?
Social norms and values, class and culture. I've been in several countries where mixed toileting is more normal, mixed changing at the swimming pool is now fairly standard and I've heard they even let women drink at the bar in some pubs...
Silly things are silly and shouldn't be tolerated. It's just dicks and fannies, we've all got them - they're nothing to do with sadistic paedophilia, seeing one won't turn you into John Wayne Gacy - if it did we should start on banning the internet because it's nothing but...
Glasgowrob said:
This thread makes me realise just how out of touch I am with the world I am.
Anyone else utterly baffled with genders and isms?
I don't think you are out of touch TBH, the whole trans/gender/isms thing seems blown massively out of proportion, with society at large seemingly pandering to an tiny minority. Anyone else utterly baffled with genders and isms?
The vast majority of people, don't know much, nor care much, about trans issues and the drama that goes with them.
julian64 said:
amusingduck said:
What are you trying to convince me of, exactly?
The woman in your example is biologically male, is she not?
Did I say that makes her a bloke? Did I say that being biologically male precludes someone from being considered a woman?
I'm trying to argue since you posted thisThe woman in your example is biologically male, is she not?
Did I say that makes her a bloke? Did I say that being biologically male precludes someone from being considered a woman?
amusingduck said:
The biology is entirely clear cut and irreversible, isn't it?!
You're either XX or XY (or very rarely, something else). Nothing can ever change that. The only things that can be changed are your characteristics, but not the fundamental biology.
Biology isn't clear cut, and isn't irreversible.You're either XX or XY (or very rarely, something else). Nothing can ever change that. The only things that can be changed are your characteristics, but not the fundamental biology.
Your use of the words 'fundamental biology' shows a willingness to cling to what you can more easily measure rather than the reality most people find themselves in when the 'fundamental biology' goes wrong.
Your fundamental biology is either XX or XY (for the sake of this conversation we'll exclude XXY etc). This fundamental biology then shapes your characteristics. XY will develop testes, XX will develop ovaries and so on.
Your characteristics can be altered through hormones and surgery, but your fundamental biology cannot.
Perhaps we just disagree on the meaning of "fundamental biology"? Maybe you can explain your viewpoint
FredClogs said:
Class? Values?
I've been in several countries where mixed toileting is more normal, mixed changing at the swimming pool is now fairly standard and I've heard they even let women drink at the bar in some pubs...
Silly things are silly and shouldn't be tolerated. It's just dicks and fannies, we've all got them - they're nothing to do with sadistic paedophilia, seeing one won't turn you into John Wayne Gacy - if it did we should start on banning the internet because it's nothing but...
It reads as though Glasgowrob is likely behaving entirely in accordance with his upbringing, class and culture. As a parent he has had more pressing business than questioning local social mores - such as which gender uses which toilet. Incidentally Rob (if that's his name - seems likely!) has mentioned nothing about sadistic paedophilia, nor hinted at it. How on Earth anyone can come that conclusion from what he wrote is frankly astonishing. I've been in several countries where mixed toileting is more normal, mixed changing at the swimming pool is now fairly standard and I've heard they even let women drink at the bar in some pubs...
Silly things are silly and shouldn't be tolerated. It's just dicks and fannies, we've all got them - they're nothing to do with sadistic paedophilia, seeing one won't turn you into John Wayne Gacy - if it did we should start on banning the internet because it's nothing but...
popeyewhite said:
FredClogs said:
Class? Values?
I've been in several countries where mixed toileting is more normal, mixed changing at the swimming pool is now fairly standard and I've heard they even let women drink at the bar in some pubs...
Silly things are silly and shouldn't be tolerated. It's just dicks and fannies, we've all got them - they're nothing to do with sadistic paedophilia, seeing one won't turn you into John Wayne Gacy - if it did we should start on banning the internet because it's nothing but...
It reads as though Glasgowrob is likely behaving entirely in accordance with his upbringing, class and culture. As a parent he has had more pressing business than questioning local social mores - such as which gender uses which toilet. Incidentally Rob (if that's his name - seems likely!) has mentioned nothing about sadistic paedophilia, nor hinted at it. How on Earth anyone can come that conclusion from what he wrote is frankly astonishing. I've been in several countries where mixed toileting is more normal, mixed changing at the swimming pool is now fairly standard and I've heard they even let women drink at the bar in some pubs...
Silly things are silly and shouldn't be tolerated. It's just dicks and fannies, we've all got them - they're nothing to do with sadistic paedophilia, seeing one won't turn you into John Wayne Gacy - if it did we should start on banning the internet because it's nothing but...
FredClogs said:
Class? Values?
I've been in several countries where mixed toileting is more normal, mixed changing at the swimming pool is now fairly standard and I've heard they even let women drink at the bar in some pubs...
Silly things are silly and shouldn't be tolerated. It's just dicks and fannies, we've all got them - they're nothing to do with sadistic paedophilia, seeing one won't turn you into John Wayne Gacy - if it did we should start on banning the internet because it's nothing but...
But, relating back to GlasgowRob's post, in such circumstances as you outline, one would be able to accompany ones young son/daughter into the facility, thus negating any concerns that might otherwise be felt. Thus 'problem' solved.I've been in several countries where mixed toileting is more normal, mixed changing at the swimming pool is now fairly standard and I've heard they even let women drink at the bar in some pubs...
Silly things are silly and shouldn't be tolerated. It's just dicks and fannies, we've all got them - they're nothing to do with sadistic paedophilia, seeing one won't turn you into John Wayne Gacy - if it did we should start on banning the internet because it's nothing but...
That's just not how it works in Britain or North America (that I've seen or experienced) for now.
As an afterthought, aside from attending a concert at the old Wembley stadium. Many women would choose to queue for the Men's room cubicles while men out of courtesy used the urinals when possible. Entirely different from any normal circumstances though it does show that many people can overcome social norms when necessity requires it.
FredClogs said:
popeyewhite said:
FredClogs said:
Class? Values?
I've been in several countries where mixed toileting is more normal, mixed changing at the swimming pool is now fairly standard and I've heard they even let women drink at the bar in some pubs...
Silly things are silly and shouldn't be tolerated. It's just dicks and fannies, we've all got them - they're nothing to do with sadistic paedophilia, seeing one won't turn you into John Wayne Gacy - if it did we should start on banning the internet because it's nothing but...
It reads as though Glasgowrob is likely behaving entirely in accordance with his upbringing, class and culture. As a parent he has had more pressing business than questioning local social mores - such as which gender uses which toilet. Incidentally Rob (if that's his name - seems likely!) has mentioned nothing about sadistic paedophilia, nor hinted at it. How on Earth anyone can come that conclusion from what he wrote is frankly astonishing. I've been in several countries where mixed toileting is more normal, mixed changing at the swimming pool is now fairly standard and I've heard they even let women drink at the bar in some pubs...
Silly things are silly and shouldn't be tolerated. It's just dicks and fannies, we've all got them - they're nothing to do with sadistic paedophilia, seeing one won't turn you into John Wayne Gacy - if it did we should start on banning the internet because it's nothing but...
popeyewhite said:
FredClogs said:
Class? Values?
I've been in several countries where mixed toileting is more normal, mixed changing at the swimming pool is now fairly standard and I've heard they even let women drink at the bar in some pubs...
Silly things are silly and shouldn't be tolerated. It's just dicks and fannies, we've all got them - they're nothing to do with sadistic paedophilia, seeing one won't turn you into John Wayne Gacy - if it did we should start on banning the internet because it's nothing but...
It reads as though Glasgowrob is likely behaving entirely in accordance with his upbringing, class and culture. As a parent he has had more pressing business than questioning local social mores - such as which gender uses which toilet. Incidentally Rob (if that's his name - seems likely!) has mentioned nothing about sadistic paedophilia, nor hinted at it. How on Earth anyone can come that conclusion from what he wrote is frankly astonishing. I've been in several countries where mixed toileting is more normal, mixed changing at the swimming pool is now fairly standard and I've heard they even let women drink at the bar in some pubs...
Silly things are silly and shouldn't be tolerated. It's just dicks and fannies, we've all got them - they're nothing to do with sadistic paedophilia, seeing one won't turn you into John Wayne Gacy - if it did we should start on banning the internet because it's nothing but...
I'm failing to see the issue. This isn't about being right-on and leftie. This about being sensible and taking a view that a TG or TS person using a public toilet poses virtually zero risk (certainly no more than other members of the general public).
I don't want to get wrapped up to much in this debate because I think too much of it is running on emotion rather than fact. There are a few points which should be raised/mentioned though and apologies if they've already been said somewhere in the last 40+ pages...
1) It's too easy to equate the word transphobia with 'fear of trans people'. Phobia is not just fear, it's aversion. This is really about asking if men "dislike" transgender women, and I think the unfortunate answer is yes.
2) A couple of users have stated that they feel uncomfortable with their children, specifically daughters, using a public toilet if a transwoman is also using that toilet. I wonder if this same discomfort is felt with their sons using a toilet where a transman is present? Or whether they would take issue with gay men or women using the toilet? Should I, as a gay man, use a separate toilet because your son is in the regular one? And if not, why should a transman?
3) Conversation about 'putting in boxes' and 'too many labels' always comes up. There are a lot of terms and it's easy to think that they do more to divide than unite. The most common terms are cis-gender and trans-gender. It's really just a way of saying "trans or not trans" and only needs to be used when you want to make it clear whether the person you're talking about is one or the other. In the majority of cases, you don't need to know whether someone is trans or not, because it makes no difference. But the terms are useful when you're discussing cases of discrimination, medical issues, or other more specific topics.
4) Having a penis is not the symbol of being male-gendered. What someone has between their legs is really no concern of anyone except them and anyone who wants to sleep with them. No one is tricking you if they flirt with you before telling you that they are transgender. No one is under any obligation to tell you their status unless they want to. If you get to to the point that you're pulling their pants down, one would expect a bit of conversation would have occurred beforehand and the transperson would mention "just so you know..." first. Usually for selfpreservation as it's not exactly rare for a trans person to be a victim of violence purely for the reason they are trans. And if they haven't, that's their perogative. Just as you are not obligated to have told them about a weird nipple, or whether or not you're circumcised, or any other bodily feature which is not 'common'. Common decency between two adults would dictate some sort of conversation about preferences would have occurred, but if it doesn't, that is not tricking you. It is assuming you are man enough to handle the truth.
1) It's too easy to equate the word transphobia with 'fear of trans people'. Phobia is not just fear, it's aversion. This is really about asking if men "dislike" transgender women, and I think the unfortunate answer is yes.
2) A couple of users have stated that they feel uncomfortable with their children, specifically daughters, using a public toilet if a transwoman is also using that toilet. I wonder if this same discomfort is felt with their sons using a toilet where a transman is present? Or whether they would take issue with gay men or women using the toilet? Should I, as a gay man, use a separate toilet because your son is in the regular one? And if not, why should a transman?
3) Conversation about 'putting in boxes' and 'too many labels' always comes up. There are a lot of terms and it's easy to think that they do more to divide than unite. The most common terms are cis-gender and trans-gender. It's really just a way of saying "trans or not trans" and only needs to be used when you want to make it clear whether the person you're talking about is one or the other. In the majority of cases, you don't need to know whether someone is trans or not, because it makes no difference. But the terms are useful when you're discussing cases of discrimination, medical issues, or other more specific topics.
4) Having a penis is not the symbol of being male-gendered. What someone has between their legs is really no concern of anyone except them and anyone who wants to sleep with them. No one is tricking you if they flirt with you before telling you that they are transgender. No one is under any obligation to tell you their status unless they want to. If you get to to the point that you're pulling their pants down, one would expect a bit of conversation would have occurred beforehand and the transperson would mention "just so you know..." first. Usually for selfpreservation as it's not exactly rare for a trans person to be a victim of violence purely for the reason they are trans. And if they haven't, that's their perogative. Just as you are not obligated to have told them about a weird nipple, or whether or not you're circumcised, or any other bodily feature which is not 'common'. Common decency between two adults would dictate some sort of conversation about preferences would have occurred, but if it doesn't, that is not tricking you. It is assuming you are man enough to handle the truth.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
The 'deflection' may not be intentional. It is quite easy to create an argument that doesn't quite fit the statement/question being made, especially when trying to include another point.
I accept that.
I admit, I take Glasgowrob's meaning as I've stated it, because it is the perspective from which it makes sense. I am open to correction if Glasgowrob confirms that is not what was intended.
Something that some people become confused about (unsurprisingly) is the definitions here.
Transgender generally refers to a person that feels they are of the opposite gender of their biological sex, their gender identity, and how they represent that in dress and behaviour.
It does not by any necessity imply their sexuality / sexual preferences.
It may also apply (previously more commonly known as transsexual) to someone who has had gender reassignment therapy and/or surgery.
Again, it does not by any necessity imply their sexuality / sexual preferences.
I accept that this is a difficult issue for transgender people, and it must present many problems, especially during transition phases (if they are in fact proceeding with the therapy and surgery options).
I also submit that everyone's position in society is something of a negotiated one.
I am immediately accepted as male because that is how I present myself in my dress, hairstyle (if it could be vaguely described as 'style'), the timber of my voice and mannerisms.
That is my opening position in the social negotiation.
You referred to "a male-to-female transgendered person".
I am uncertain how one is to be as certain as is reasonably possible that someone is honestly transgender or 'a bloke in a skirt', and their sexuality in either case?
Granted, we don't know the sexual preferences or predilections of every woman that uses a public convenience when our precious daughter in in there, but it's a statistically very low probability of danger, and one people are used to dealing with mentally.
Very good post. I accept that.
I admit, I take Glasgowrob's meaning as I've stated it, because it is the perspective from which it makes sense. I am open to correction if Glasgowrob confirms that is not what was intended.
Something that some people become confused about (unsurprisingly) is the definitions here.
Transgender generally refers to a person that feels they are of the opposite gender of their biological sex, their gender identity, and how they represent that in dress and behaviour.
It does not by any necessity imply their sexuality / sexual preferences.
It may also apply (previously more commonly known as transsexual) to someone who has had gender reassignment therapy and/or surgery.
Again, it does not by any necessity imply their sexuality / sexual preferences.
I accept that this is a difficult issue for transgender people, and it must present many problems, especially during transition phases (if they are in fact proceeding with the therapy and surgery options).
I also submit that everyone's position in society is something of a negotiated one.
I am immediately accepted as male because that is how I present myself in my dress, hairstyle (if it could be vaguely described as 'style'), the timber of my voice and mannerisms.
That is my opening position in the social negotiation.
You referred to "a male-to-female transgendered person".
I am uncertain how one is to be as certain as is reasonably possible that someone is honestly transgender or 'a bloke in a skirt', and their sexuality in either case?
Granted, we don't know the sexual preferences or predilections of every woman that uses a public convenience when our precious daughter in in there, but it's a statistically very low probability of danger, and one people are used to dealing with mentally.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff