Are transexual women attractive to hetero men?

P_1

Jaysis lads. All I'm saying is that if you want to label yourself that's cool, if you don't want to label yourself that's also cool. If you want to explore thats cool, if you don't want to, guess what, that's also cool.

The world is fcuked up enough without us getting ourselves bogged down in minutia. So long as you're not harming anyone with what you do then bloody well do it

lawred2

Out of interest, let's say someone was 97% on this spectrum... How would that three percent manifest itself?

P_1

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Would you find that an acceptable thing for a straight person to say to a gay person?
"I'm sure if you made the effort you could fancy people of the opposite sex. I personally don't think much of your CHOICE to not do so?"

Everyone's individual choice and perspective seems to be so much more interesting and the spice of life when that perspective only undermines one side of any debate on these matters.

I fully believe some people are gay and bi and trans and whatever, and fully respect to their to choose their own way without any form of judgement, but surely we can afford straight people the same respect?

But that's not what I'm saying, essentially I'm saying that painting yourself into a corner isn't the best of ideas.

Omackeral

lawred2 wrote: »

Out of interested, let's say someone was 97% on this spectrum... How would that three percent manifest itself?

By finding this one attractive...

There's a willy between those legs

P_1

lawred2 wrote: »

Out of interested, let's say someone was 97% on this spectrum... How would that three percent manifest itself?

It likely wouldn't manifest itself in any meaningful way to be perfectly honest. Now say if somebody identified as 80% on the others hand you may see some manifestation.

It's an off the wall idea I know but at least it's got people thinking this fine sunny morning

P_1

Omackeral wrote: »

You kinda called him boring ,in a roundabout way, for not exploring his sexuality!

True but one person's boring is another's exciting. Like it's one of those questions where there's no right or wrong answer, it ll depends on the perspective of the person who's answering it

Omackeral

P_1 wrote: »

True but one person's boring is another's exciting. Like it's one of those questions where there's no right or wrong answer, it ll depends on the perspective of the person who's answering it

I think calling someone boring for something they've no control over is a bit crappy though.

lawred2

Omackeral wrote: »

By finding this one attractive...

There's a willy between those legs

Before or after willy presence was known

The Bishop Basher

P_1 wrote: »

But that's not what I'm saying, essentially I'm saying that painting yourself into a corner isn't the best of ideas.

Why ?

If you're comfortable with your sexual orientation what's wrong with stating it.

Omackeral

lawred2 wrote: »

Before or after willy presence was known

We'll see that's the thing. If you're attracted to her before you know, you're still attracted to a trans woman. Them's the facts.

P_1

Rennaws wrote: »

Why ?

If you're comfortable with your sexual orientation what's wrong with stating it.

Absolutely nothing

BurnUp78

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i would say no. surely the definition of a hetro male is attraction to hetero women? transexual women are not hetero women

I've chatted with trans women online and they've all said pretty much said the same: they get bombarded with hundreds of messages from straight men. Id even go as far to say an attractive trans woman would be far more popular than your average looking biological woman on those dating sites.

lawred2

Omackeral wrote: »

lawred2 wrote: »

Before or after willy presence was known

We'll see that's the thing. If you're attracted to her before you know, you're still attracted to a trans woman. Them's the facts.

Because biologically I am predisposed naturally to be attracted to the female form. And that's a well engineered female form.

But with a penis.

The Bishop Basher

P_1 wrote: »

essentially I'm saying that painting yourself into a corner isn't the best of ideas.

Rennaws wrote: »

Why ?

If you're comfortable with your sexual orientation what's wrong with stating it.

P_1 wrote: »

Absolutely nothing

I'm not sure you've thought this through..

chopperbyrne

Much like women who are born to a female body, some are, some aren't.

Mellor

Omackeral wrote: »

We'll see that's the thing. If you're attracted to her before you know, you're still attracted to a trans woman. Them's the facts.

Actually it's a just photograph. Pixels on a screen. If it appears to be a photo of a women, she's going to be interpreted as a women. You brain can't process what it doesn't know.

The fact you mentally thought of that photo, suggests you well you know...

HappyAsLarE

A man being attracted to a trans woman is simply a victim to a con.

Annasopra

lawred2 wrote: »

Out of interest, let's say someone was 97% on this spectrum... How would that three percent manifest itself?

Admiring people maybe

StereoSound

If a man is attracted to a transexual woman then he is biologicaly gay. That's fine if that's the case.

Annasopra

StereoSound wrote: »

If a man is attracted to a transexual woman then he is biologicaly gay. That's fine if that's the case.

No. He's straight!

pickarooney

Dravokivich wrote: »

No it isnt. Its why we have black and white.

But also very, very, very dark blue.

skybox2014

Mellor wrote: »

Well technically, Hetro- means "other" or "different". So heterosexual actually meant attracted to people with a different sex to your own. These new "sexes" are kinda making hetro-, homo-, bi- a little obsolete.

Realistically this topic is beyond the comprehension of AF. Considering people can't tell the difference between transvestites and transsexuals.

There really aren't new 'sexes" though.
People are still biologically male or female, but some are now choosing to present themselves publicly as a gender that doesn't match their biology.
The trans term these days seems to incorporate a lot more than most people understand, and seems to change quite quickly.

Stonewall UK say ' Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.'

_Kaiser_

Wouldn't be for me, and would be an instant deal-breaker especially if someone wasn't upfront about it.

I've no problem with someone living how they want to live, but personally I am only interested in "original/natural" (or however you want to phrase it) women.

Samuel T. Cogley

Have to agree with P1 here. Everyone is on the spectrum it's why were seeing it manifest itself in the younger generation with more bi/pan-sexual people. Older generations, including mine, had a huge element of social condidtioning convincing them they were 100% straight or latterly 100% gay. People can move on spectrum ans there's not only one spectrum. Frankly everyone is different and it's whatever you're comfortable with. If you're 100% straight then good on you, however the need to assert that, quite forcefully by some would lead me to question how much is nature and how much is nurture.

suicide_circus

as surgical manipulation gets more advanced it's gonna get harder to tell who is or isn't particularly in people whose form was already more feminine in the traditional sense.

PlaneSpeeking

I don't see why not. Ever see that Candice Caine who's a mate of Caitlin Jenner's ? I know a few blokes would be after fancying her! I'm a straight woman but say Chaz Bone wouldn't do it for me but there's a male model called Laith Ashley, born female and he certainly would!

What gets insane is what a mate of mine was told not long back. He's gay, so is his husband (tends to work out that way!!) and so neither are looking for anyone else but were asked would they date a transgender man.

My mate goes "guy who used to be a woman ? If he's had all his surgeries etc, and I fancied him - why not ?"

Turns out they were asking about a physical woman who "identified" as a trans man. The exact question was "say Angelina Jolie says she's a man". Mate goes "well no, cos I don't fancy the boobs and curvy bits - kind of a preference when you're gay!!"

Got called a bigot and friend won't now speak to him - because a gay man would not sleep with a physical woman!! That's how mad we're getting!!!

PlaneSpeeking

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Have to agree with P1 here. Everyone is on the spectrum it's why were seeing it manifest itself in the younger generation with more bi/pan-sexual people. Older generations, including mine, had a huge element of social condidtioning convincing them they were 100% straight or latterly 100% gay. People can move on spectrum ans there's not only one spectrum. Frankly everyone is different and it's whatever you're comfortable with. If you're 100% straight then good on you, however the need to assert that, quite forcefully by some would lead me to question how much is nature and how much is nurture.

My percentage ranges from 87% straight to 110% - depending on whether I'm watching a Shakira video or Jamie Dornan in The Fall.

We are what we are.

johnnyskeleton

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Have to agree with P1 here. Everyone is on the spectrum it's why were seeing it manifest itself in the younger generation with more bi/pan-sexual people. Older generations, including mine, had a huge element of social condidtioning convincing them they were 100% straight or latterly 100% gay. People can move on spectrum ans there's not only one spectrum. Frankly everyone is different and it's whatever you're comfortable with. If you're 100% straight then good on you, however the need to assert that, quite forcefully by some would lead me to question how much is nature and how much is nurture.

I dont think anyone is denying that there is a spectrum of sexualty. Its P1's asserion that nobody is 100% straight that people take issue with.

As with all these things, its easier to understand why people are annoyed by the suggestion when you flip it on its head. If someone were to say that they dont think that anyone could really be 100% gay, people would rightly find it offensive.

The rule which we have all implictly agreed on, as a society, is that you respect other peoples stated sexuality.

enfant terrible

Check out 13 minutes into this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsM494LcvMQ&t=853s

PlaneSpeeking

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dont think anyone is denying that there is a spectrum of sexualty. Its P1's asserion that nobody is 100% straight that people take issue with.

As with all these things, its easier to understand why people are annoyed by the suggestion when you flip it on its head. If someone were to say that they dont think that anyone could really be 100% gay, people would rightly find it offensive.

The rule which we have all implictly agreed on, as a society, is that you shouldnt doubt other peoples stated sexuality.

Some people are resolutely 100% gay or straight and that's cool. I know lads who wouldn't so much as look at a woman and one who has been with his now hubby for nearly 30 years - every time Nigella Lawson sucks her fingers he needs a lie down!

We're all different and as long as we don't hurt anyone deliberately, sleep with whoever you want!!

TomSweeney

The majority wouldn't be, I certainly wouldn't. I like women to have an XX chromosome.
But this makes me "transphobic" apparently.


edit Blair White .... wow ....

Redpatio

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Some people are resolutely 100% gay or straight and that's cool. I know lads who wouldn't so much as look at a woman and one who has been with his now hubby for nearly 30 years - every time Nigella Lawson sucks her fingers he needs a lie down!

We're all different and as long as we don't hurt anyone deliberately, sleep with whoever you want!!

Why do you feel the need to say "so long as you don't hurt anyone, sleep with whoever you want"?

Nobody has said otherwise, it's like saying water is wet.

PlaneSpeeking

TomSweeney wrote: »

The majority wouldn't be, I certainly wouldn't. I like women to have an XX chromosome.
But this makes me "transphobic" apparently.

Too many uses of that - do you hate transgender people and wish them harm ? You don't seem to.

When did we have to force ourselves to fancy someone we may not, just to tick a box ?

Mind you, i was called a racist when I said I didn't fancy dark skinned men like Idris Elba. FFS!

One eyed Jack

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Have to agree with P1 here. Everyone is on the spectrum it's why were seeing it manifest itself in the younger generation with more bi/pan-sexual people. Older generations, including mine, had a huge element of social condidtioning convincing them they were 100% straight or latterly 100% gay.

That’s not being on any spectrum though, those too are completely separate and distinct sexual orientations. They too are influenced by social conditioning, but I disagree that anyone actually needs convincing to acknowledge their sexual orientation for themselves. It’s their efforts to convince other people that everyone’s on a spectrum and that nobody is 100% heterosexual can be irritating, when someone says they are heterosexual.

People can move on spectrum ans there's not only one spectrum. Frankly everyone is different and it's whatever you're comfortable with. If you're 100% straight then good on you, however the need to assert that, quite forcefully by some would lead me to question how much is nature and how much is nurture.

I don’t see any difference between that and the same need to assert to the same degree that everyone’s on a spectrum, as though there is indeed a continuum of sexual orientation which implies that for example someone is 97% heterosexual and 3% homosexual.

There’s absolutely no way to objectively quantify that measurement as though it’s like a compass where heterosexual points north, and anything which deviates from that can be measured in degrees. Homosexuality, bisexuality, pan or asexuality aren’t even on the same compass, they’re on different compasses so to speak. They orient north according to their identified separate and distinct sexual orientation.

Undoubtedly peoples sexual orientation may change throughout the course of their lives, it’s a well observed phenomenon in puberty for example, but if an adult identifies themselves as heterosexual, I don’t understand what is to be gained by implying they aren’t. That says more about the person saying they aren’t, than the person who says themselves that they are, or the “nutter versus nature” argument, if you will

Redpatio

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Too many uses of that - do you hate transgender people and wish them harm ? You don't seem to.

When did we have to force ourselves to fancy someone we may not, just to tick a box ?

Mind you, i was called a racist when I said I didn't fancy dark skinned men like Idris Elba. FFS!

Well by definition you are racist as you discriminate based on skin colour.

There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination or racism. Unfair racism is wrong.

PlaneSpeeking

Redpatio wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to say "so long as you don't hurt anyone, sleep with whoever you want"?

Nobody has said otherwise, it's like saying water is wet.

I fail to see your point ?

Redpatio

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I fail to see your point ?

The point is you're posting a non sequitar, projecting against an argument that nobody made.

PlaneSpeeking

Redpatio wrote: »

Well by definition you are racist as you discriminate based on skin colour.

There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination or racism. Unfair racism is wrong.

I smell... something.

No dear, I like skinny ginger men, there's my preference.

Stop trying to find racism where none exists, k ???

Redpatio

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I smell... something.

No dear, I like skinny ginger men, there's my preference.

Stop trying to find racism where none exists, k ???

Discrimination based on skin colour would be racist. The problem is you incorrectly assume all racism is bad. I would say that's because you are more susceptible to social conditioning than myself, i tend to see through it easier than others and see past group think.

PlaneSpeeking

Redpatio wrote: »

The point is you'reposting a non sequitar, projecting against an argument that nobody made.

10 posts ? Yeah stench getting stronger. Ignore time.

sbsquarepants

I go with the "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'd be happy enough to ride it like a duck"

That being said, I have yet to ride a duck - but I'd have no discernible objection to doing so. Problem is though, most I've seen, just look like blokes in dresses.

I look on it as much the same as any other change - several times I have been completely indifferent to a womans appearance only for her to go and dye her hair red and my jaw to hit the floor. It doesn't matter that she used to be a so-so blonde, she's not anymore, she's now a sexy redhead.

Same thing (albeit admittedly a lot more extreme) - it doesn't matter to me if she used to be a bloke - she's not now and that's good enough for me.

Redpatio

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

10 posts ? Yeah stench getting stronger. Ignore time.

You'll never learn if you shut down superior arguments, you won't grow as a person.

Lash Into The Pints

Am I attracted to a man who's used surgery and hormone treatment to take on the crude approximation of a woman?

No.

Dravokivich

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Have to agree with P1 here. Everyone is on the spectrum it's why were seeing it manifest itself in the younger generation with more bi/pan-sexual people. Older generations, including mine, had a huge element of social condidtioning convincing them they were 100% straight or latterly 100% gay. People can move on spectrum ans there's not only one spectrum. Frankly everyone is different and it's whatever you're comfortable with. If you're 100% straight then good on you, however the need to assert that, quite forcefully by some would lead me to question how much is nature and how much is nurture.

The rainbow is a spectrum, but for all intents and purposes, red is still red.

Samuel T. Cogley

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dont think anyone is denying that there is a spectrum of sexualty. Its P1's asserion that nobody is 100% straight that people take issue with.

As with all these things, its easier to understand why people are annoyed by the suggestion when you flip it on its head. If someone were to say that they dont think that anyone could really be 100% gay, people would rightly find it offensive.

The rule which we have all implictly agreed on, as a society, is that you respect other peoples stated sexuality.

If you do flip that on it's head you get the prevailing attitude of some in the gay community around 20-30 years ago. "You can't be bi you're simply confused". The social conditioning and agreed rules have lead to many cases of gay men either getting married to women or, it seems, joining the preisthood.


While I agree that there are people 100% in either direction as I said before how much of that is nature, how much is nurture? Does social conditioning on a massive scale actually change someone from Bi to straight or is it more likely all it does is shift someone down the spectrum and as P1 has said means the prevalence of 100% straight is not as common as people would like to believe.


You only need to look at history to see social conditioning the other was and suddenly you've got homosexual sex going on just as normally or perhaps even more normally than hetrosexual sex.


Apologies for spelling, my spell checker seems to be on holiday.

Samuel T. Cogley

Dravokivich wrote: »

The rainbow is a spectrum, but for all intents and purposes, red is still red.

Is it? Or does red contain many different wavelengths of red light some closer to other colours?

fleet_admiral

No.
If there's an apple in the throat there's a banana in the trousers

sbsquarepants

Omackeral wrote: »

We'll see that's the thing. If you're attracted to her before you know, you're still attracted to a trans woman. Them's the facts.

I've been with a lot of women who looked a damn sight less womanly than that.....but each and every one of them had one thing in common - a fanny. I insist on very little, but what I do insist on - I insist on!

TomSweeney wrote: »

The majority wouldn't be, I certainly wouldn't. I like women to have an XX chromosome.
But this makes me "transphobic" apparently.

As per above, I'm more of a fanny fan - I've yet to see a chromosome and think phwoar

The Bishop Basher

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I go with the "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'd be happy enough to ride it like a duck"

What if it looks like a lady duck and quacks like a lady duck but still has a penis ?

pickarooney

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Too many uses of that - do you hate transgender people and wish them harm ? You don't seem to.

When did we have to force ourselves to fancy someone we may not, just to tick a box ?

Mind you, i was called a racist when I said I didn't fancy dark skinned men like Idris Elba. FFS!

Lies, everyone fancies Idris Elba!