Are transexual women attractive to hetero men?

PlaneSpeeking

Rennaws wrote: »

I got as far as cis..

I think it was probably about 4 seconds in..

Lads ye are better men/women/indeterminate socially constructed entities than me - the title and his/her/zer smug grid did me in!!!

seamus

I've seen in this discussion before people claiming that heterosexuality is strictly an attraction to someone of the genetically opposite sex.

Which is bollox of course, because your brain when deciding whether it finds someone attractive, hasn't a clue what their genetics are.

It also implies that a man who is attracted to a trans man, post-op genitals and all, is a heterosexual.

Heterosexuality when defined in boxed-off terms is probably only most useful in regards to physical attraction. And in that regard it's still not simple. For example, most hetero men would say that a mostly feminine woman with feminine physiology is attractive. But many will also say that a very masculine woman is not, regardless of what body parts she has. And others would find a very feminine man attractive, and a masculine man, not.

Where is the "hetero" line? Is it demeanour, or is it biology? If someone doesn't find a masculine woman attractive, are they still hetero?

If we visualise it as a matrix of what is attractive, then the below illustrates the traditional hetero male:
|Woman|Man
Feminine|Yes|No
Masculine|Yes|No

And we can say that being hetero is bound to the biology of the other party.

But what about this:
|Woman|Man
Feminine|Yes|No
Masculine|No|No


If we say that the above person is hetero, then it implies that heterosexuality isn't necessarily bound to biology, and it's more complicated than that.

If we say that both are hetero - and the second is a subset of the first, then it evokes an obvious question: Is this person hetero?:
|Woman|Man
Feminine|Yes|Yes
Masculine|No|No


If not, why not? We've already established that biology is not the sole decider.

OK, so we might say that table 1 and table 2 are both hetero, and table 2 describes a subset of hetero people. But then that means that table 2 and table 3 are some other type of sexuality. And table 2 is a subset of that.

What is this sexuality?

So clearly it's a mistake to think that sexuality is at all simple, or black-and-white. If a man is attracted to trans women and wants to call himself hetero, then I see no reason to deny it. If he specifically gravitates towards pre-op trans women, then I'd be inclined to categorise him as hetero with a fetish, but unless he also finds men attractive, then I see no logical reason to claim he's not hetero.

If he wants to call himself.....

I see a common theme here.

Sure why have definitions anyway?

I indentify as and want to be called attractive and rich.... everyone is bigoted if they don't agree and treat me so.

Omackeral

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not at all. That would be the place to go if you wanted a ban or to be chastised for even posing such a question

Had a look in there once and it's honestly people (well one user mostly) just getting triggered and it's enabled by the moderator. I've never really witnessed the whole triggered thing outside of it being said ironically or with tongue in cheek but my word it's pretty toxic. Echo chamber would be a good description.


Mod-Banned

PlaneSpeeking

Omackeral wrote: »

Had a look in there once and it's honestly people (well one user mostly) just getting triggered and it's enabled by the moderator. I've never really witnessed the whole triggered thing outside of it being said ironically or with tongue in cheek but my word it's pretty toxic. Echo chamber would be a good description.

I've spent my fair share of time and coin in the fair gay bars of our country and others - the community at large are a gas lot, took this hag in with a huge heart.

Some LGBT fora do NOT reflect the warmth of the gay community.

P_1

seamus wrote: »

I've seen in this discussion before people claiming that heterosexuality is strictly an attraction to someone of the genetically opposite sex.

Which is bollox of course, because your brain when deciding whether it finds someone attractive, hasn't a clue what their genetics are.

It also implies that a man who is attracted to a trans man, post-op genitals and all, is a heterosexual.

Heterosexuality when defined in boxed-off terms is probably only most useful in regards to physical attraction. And in that regard it's still not simple. For example, most hetero men would say that a mostly feminine woman with feminine physiology is attractive. But many will also say that a very masculine woman is not, regardless of what body parts she has. And others would find a very feminine man attractive, and a masculine man, not.

Where is the "hetero" line? Is it demeanour, or is it biology? If someone doesn't find a masculine woman attractive, are they still hetero?

If we visualise it as a matrix of what is attractive, then the below illustrates the traditional hetero male:
|Woman|Man
Feminine|Yes|No
Masculine|Yes|No

And we can say that being hetero is bound to the biology of the other party.

But what about this:
|Woman|Man
Feminine|Yes|No
Masculine|No|No


If we say that the above person is hetero, then it implies that heterosexuality isn't necessarily bound to biology, and it's more complicated than that.

If we say that both are hetero - and the second is a subset of the first, then it evokes an obvious question: Is this person hetero?:
|Woman|Man
Feminine|Yes|Yes
Masculine|No|No


If not, why not? We've already established that biology is not the sole decider.

OK, so we might say that table 1 and table 2 are both hetero, and table 2 describes a subset of hetero people. But then that means that table 2 and table 3 are some other type of sexuality. And table 2 is a subset of that.

What is this sexuality?

So clearly it's a mistake to think that sexuality is at all simple, or black-and-white. If a man is attracted to trans women and wants to call himself hetero, then I see no reason to deny it. If he specifically gravitates towards pre-op trans women, then I'd be inclined to categorise him as hetero with a fetish, but unless he also finds men attractive, then I see no logical reason to claim he's not hetero.

Have to say that's the most balanced take I've seen on this yet

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote:

Had a look in there once and it's honestly people (well one user mostly) just getting triggered and it's enabled by the moderator. I've never really witnessed the whole triggered thing outside of it being said ironically or with tongue in cheek but my word it's pretty toxic. Echo chamber would be a good description.

Yup. It's terrifying. Some of the absolute hatred and victimhood on display in there is staggering. No place for discourse and no realisation that such "safe spaces" are usually more damaging than productive.

(Especially when I discovered that one particular person wasn't a troll)

Mod-Banned

P_1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yup. It's terrifying. Some of the absolute hatred and victimhood on display in there is staggering. No place for discourse and no realisation that such "safe spaces" are usually more damaging than productive.

(Especially when I discovered that one particular person wasn't a troll)

I'd have a very large degree of sympathy given what trans people have to put up with but I would agree with the safe space echo chambers are counter productive and in some cases potentially dangerous

jobbridge4life

Deleted User wrote: »

Not at all. That would be the place to go if you wanted a ban or to be chastised for even posing such a question

Imagine having an LGBT forum where the members don't want to be constantly asked to justify their existence to every randomer who thinks they have something really important to contribute...

As to the question posed. I know I have been attracted to transmen, and absolutely dumbfounded when I became aware of the fact that they were transgender. I can't say for certain if I would be attracted 'in the act' or not but certainly intially.

wexie

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I've spent my fair share of time and coin in the fair gay bars of our country and others - the community at large are a gas lot, took this hag in with a huge heart.

I think the majority of people in the LGBT forum seem to be perfectly nice and accepting people quite willing to explain issues from their point of view or engage in reasoned and respectful debate. (of course a lot of threads don't necessarily start off that way)

Deleted User wrote: »

(Especially when I discovered that one particular person wasn't a troll)

Omackeral wrote: »

(well one user mostly)

That person seems to have an awful lot of anger issues and as far as I'm concerned is doing their cause more harm than they could possibly fathom.

jobbridge4life

jobbridge4life wrote:

Imagine having an LGBT forum where the members don't want to be constantly asked to justify their existence to every randomer who thinks they have something really important to contribute...

Have it only available to members who request to join then.

On a public discussion board, open to all, immediately shutting down genuine questions or opinions an "outsider" may have because they "aren't like them" will only lend to further segregation.

Some people will troll and some will want to learn. Treating them both the same will lead to people who want to understand becoming disinterested or even more ironically, intolerant of people who treat them differently.

Lemongrease

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

No, you effectively turn it inside out and create lady parts - complete with orgasm centre!

Are there sensors on the innards of a schlong that allow such???

wexie

Lemongrease wrote: »

Are there sensors on the innards of a schlong that allow such???

I think they're called nerves....?

PlaneSpeeking

Lemongrease wrote: »

Are there sensors on the innards of a schlong that allow such???

In my limited knowledge I believe the surgeons keep the nerve endings of a penis to form a and rudimentary clitoris.

According to actress Candice Cayne - a pal of Caitlyn Jenner's - it works fine!

jobbridge4life

Deleted User wrote: »

Have it only available to members who request to join then.

On a public discussion board, open to all, immediately shutting down genuine questions or opinions an "outsider" may have because they "aren't like them" will only lend to further segregation.

Some people will troll and some will want to learn. Treating them both the same will lead to people who want to understand becoming disinterested or even more ironically, intolerant of people who treat them differently.

I don't administer this site, so such matters are beyond my influence. I will note that the LGBT Forum is already treated differently in some respects from the general discussion boards. Furthermore there are differing standards applied in different sections of Boards well beyond just the LGBT Forum, for instance one gets away with alot of things in after hours that you can't in the Politics forum (as I've learned the hard way).

In a more general sense though I will say that LGBT people (and other minorities) do not owe you an education. There is an interesting article in the Irish Times yesterday from a lady in a wheelchair about the tendency of people to ask why she is in a wheelchair and the irritation that this causes.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/please-don-t-ask-me-why-i-m-in-a-wheelchair-1.3581931

Malayalam

Calhoun wrote: »

https://youtu.be/k5GYlZKfBmI think you might be transphobic.

Jayziz :rolleyes: bring back Alex Jones

jobbridge4life

jobbridge4life wrote:

In a more general sense though I will say that LGBT people (and other minorities) do not owe you an education. There is an interesting article in the Irish Times yesterday from a lady in a wheelchair about the tendency of people to ask why she is in a wheelchair and the irritation that this causes.

I'm not owed anything. I know that. But if I'm told that any group (not specifically lgbt) wants me to accept them and their lifestyle/culture but shoot me down and accuse me of bigotry for asking a question, there's a good chance I will never accept them.

Tolerance and respect are two way streets.

Thankfully my experiences with lgbt people outside that forum have been mostly positive so when I refer to the forum as toxic, I'm talking about that forum, not the community.

jobbridge4life

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not owed anything. I know that. But if I'm told that any group (not specifically lgbt) wants me to accept them and their lifestyle/culture but shoot me down and accuse me of bigotry for asking a question, there's a good chance I will never accept them.

This is contradictory. You claim you are not owed anything, but at the same time you make your 'acceptance' of their 'lifestyle' conditional on them justifying their existence to you.

Deleted User wrote: »

Thankfully my experiences with lgbt people outside that forum have been mostly positive so when I refer to the forum as toxic, I'm talking about that forum, not the community.

I'm glad for that. And yes individuals can become very embittered and overreact to things, but as you can see from the article from the lady in the wheelchair, what might seem like an innocous once off remark from you, can be something that individual deals with on a constant basis.

Samuel T. Cogley

wexie wrote: »

I made it to a minute and 22 seconds and used up my entire tolerance for bollocks for the rest of the day

See what you did there! :pac:

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

Have it only available to members who request to join then.

On a public discussion board, open to all, immediately shutting down genuine questions or opinions an "outsider" may have because they "aren't like them" will only lend to further segregation.

Some people will troll and some will want to learn. Treating them both the same will lead to people who want to understand becoming disinterested or even more ironically, intolerant of people who treat them differently.

the lgbt forum is often plagued with trolls telling people that they are ill. That kind of idiocy gets banned of course.

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote:

the lgbt forum is often plagued with trolls telling people that they are ill. That kind of idiocy gets banned of course.

And rightly so

jobbridge4life

jobbridge4life wrote:

This is contradictory. You claim you are not owed anything, but at the same time you make your 'acceptance' of their 'lifestyle' conditional on them justifying their existence to you.

If I went up to a gay person on the street or in a gay bar and demanded that they educate me, or if I stormed into a mosque and demanded the Koran explained to me. I'd be a right entitled prick.

But of all the places I thought it would be acceptable to ask a genuine question it would be a discussion forum about that topic. I'm not owed an answer but it would be helpful.

I don't think it's unreasonable.

Samuel T. Cogley

professore wrote: »

Have to say as a hetero man Blaire White is disturbingly hot. There are lots of worse looking cis women out there.

Sorry but I don't see it. There's something 'off' and it's not becuase she's trans it's probably platic surgery. I don't know I can't put my finger on it.

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

If I went up to a gay person on the street or in a gay bar and demanded that they educate me, or if I stormed into a mosque and demanded the Koran explained to me. I'd be a right entitled prick.

But of all the places I thought it would be acceptable to ask a genuine question it would be a discussion forum about that topic. I'm not owed an answer but it would be helpful.

I don't think it's unreasonable.

what is your 'genuine question'?

cgcsb

cgcsb wrote:

what is your 'genuine question'?

I've asked a few in here and have gotten quite good responses. I've asked a few and spoken about my opinions in that forum and have been called bigoted and phobic.

It's all good. I am not campaigning for acceptance in the lgbt forum. I just thought it would be helpful to be a bit more, dare I say it, inclusive of differing opinions. No biggie.

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

I've asked a few in here and have gotten quite good responses. I've asked a few and spoken about my opinions in that forum and have been called bigoted and phobic.

It's all good. I am not campaigning for acceptance in the lgbt forum. I just thought it would be helpful to be a bit more, dare I say it, inclusive of differing opinions. No biggie.

but what is your question and/or your opinion?

On this thread?

My opinion is no. I don't find trans women attractive

My question on this would be, If you are attracted to a trans woman and are fully aware that they are/were at one stage in possession of a penis and testicles, would that not automatically be a deal breaker for most straight people and if it wasn't, aren't you not straight?

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

On this thread?

My opinion is no. I don't find trans women attractive although some do

My question on this would be, If you are attracted to a trans woman and are fully aware that they are/were at one stage in possession of a penis and testicles, would that not automatically be a deal breaker for most straight people?

Can't speak for everyone but as a straight woman, as long as he has them now then all systems go.

Expecting to find a woman sexually attractive with all female bits - and being called transphobic for not, that's where the insanity lies.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote:

Can't speak for everyone but as a straight woman, as long as he has them now then all systems go.

Fair dues. I just think as a bloke, I'd be aware I was having sex with a man's inside out Willy (crudely put) and no matter how attractive and convincing the rest of the body and face was, I wouldn't be having sex with a woman.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair dues. I just think as a bloke, I'd be aware I was having sex with a man's inside out Willy (crudely put) and no matter how attractive and convincing the rest of the body and face was, I wouldn't be having sex with a woman.

Each to their own I'd say!

TBH - that's exactly what gender confirmation surgery for M-F is, inside out indeed!

Works apparently!

Another question would be whether or not a trans person should have a legal obligation to disclose the fact before engaging as sex, and if so, in those cases would the trans woman (formerly a man) be exempt from any rape charge and the trans woman (formerly a woman) be able to be prosecuted as a rapist

DEFTLEFTHAND

Deleted User wrote: »

Another question would be whether or not a trans person should have a legal obligation to disclose the fact before engaging as sex, and if so, in those cases would the trans woman (formerly a man) be exempt from any rape charge and the trans woman (formerly a woman) be able to be prosecuted as a rapist

It never gets that far.

You'll know before the act occurs.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

Another question would be whether or not a trans person should have a legal obligation to disclose the fact before engaging as sex, and if so, in those cases would the trans woman (formerly a man) be exempt from any rape charge and the trans woman (formerly a woman) be able to be prosecuted as a rapist

Grey area, and I'll be honest I have no idea but what does worry me is this nonsense where rapists (male) rock up one day to the warden and "identify" as a woman and in many cases have been moved to a women's prison. Anatomically male in good working order.

This can only end very very badly.

ELM327

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Grey area, and I'll be honest I have no idea but what does worry me is this nonsense where rapists (male) rock up one day to the warden and "identify" as a woman and in many cases have been moved to a women's prison. Anatomically male in good working order.

This can only end very very badly.

When they let "male to female" trans people into MMA/wrestling/track and field, that already ends badly. IMO it's PC gone mad. If I wear a dress and call myself elmette can I fight women in MMA and win? And be applauded for it? Hogwash.


I'm all for people's rights to do whatever the heck they want but thats too much imo

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It never gets that far.

You'll know before the act occurs.

If someone can be found guilty of rape for removing a condom, this is actually closer to the idea of rape than that. It's literally using false pretences to induce sex.

Redpatio

ELM327 wrote: »

When they let "male to female" trans people into MMA/wrestling/track and field, that already ends badly. IMO it's PC gone mad. If I wear a dress and call myself elmette can I fight women in MMA and win? And be applauded for it? Hogwash.


I'm all for people's rights to do whatever the heck they want but thats too much imo


If someone can be found guilty of rape for removing a condom, this is actually closer to the idea of rape than that. It's literally using false pretences to induce sex.

Then women who wear make up could be charged with rape.

PlaneSpeeking

ELM327 wrote: »

When they let "male to female" trans people into MMA/wrestling/track and field, that already ends badly. IMO it's PC gone mad. If I wear a dress and call myself elmette can I fight women in MMA and win? And be applauded for it? Hogwash.


I'm all for people's rights to do whatever the heck they want but thats too much imo


If someone can be found guilty of rape for removing a condom, this is actually closer to the idea of rape than that. It's literally using false pretences to induce sex.

Whatever you do - don't make my mistake of saying "most men are naturally physically stronger than most women".

You'd think I'd peed on a nativity scene at midnight mass.

PlaneSpeeking

Redpatio wrote: »

Then women who wear make up could be charged with rape.

That might be the most ridiculous post I've read, ever.

DEFTLEFTHAND

But the sex never occurs.

seamus

ELM327 wrote: »

When they let "male to female" trans people into MMA/wrestling/track and field, that already ends badly. IMO it's PC gone mad. If I wear a dress and call myself elmette can I fight women in MMA and win? And be applauded for it? Hogwash.

Yeah, that's not true at all. You're missing the gazillions of tests and several years of hormone treatments that are required before any trans athlete can be approved to compete.

If someone can be found guilty of rape for removing a condom

Just as well they can't then.

ELM327

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

That might be the most ridiculous post I've read, ever.

For sure

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

But the sex never occurs.

But what if it did. I've done some, shall we say, reading, on the subject and it's often quite difficult to tell.


Doesn't bother me anyway but only if told upfront. To be honest there's a lot of attractive trans women anyway. I used to be pretending that I didnt find them attractive if I found out afterwards they used to be a man but sure there's no point in that, why deny what you find attractive.

ELM327

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, that's not true at all. You're missing the gazillions of tests and several years of hormone treatments that are required before any trans athlete can be approved to compete. .

Bang on point:

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Whatever you do - don't make my mistake of saying "most men are naturally physically stronger than most women".

You'd think I'd peed on a nativity scene at midnight mass.

seamus wrote: »

Just as well they can't then.

Care to explain this then:
https://www.newstalk.com/Man-in-Switzerland-convicted-for-rape-for-taking-off-condom-during-sex-

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

When they let "male to female" trans people into MMA/wrestling/track and field, that already ends badly. IMO it's PC gone mad. If I wear a dress and call myself elmette can I fight women in MMA and win? And be applauded for it? Hogwash.


I'm all for people's rights to do whatever the heck they want but thats too much imo
.

Already happened in MMA - look up Fallon Fox - it's very uncomfortable viewing - incredibly dangerous!

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

Already happened in MMA - look up Fallon Fox - it's very uncomfortable viewing - incredibly dangerous!

Was that the one Ronda Rousey wouldn't fight ?

Don't blame her!

I believe strongly in LGBT rights and equality but science and evolution has made the male of the species heavier and physically stronger.

seamus

ELM327 wrote: »

Bang on point:

Well no, it's a different point. A man in a dress is obviously going to be stronger than a woman standing beside him. A trans man after several years of hormonal treatment and proper monitoring by the athletic authorities will see muscular atrophy to the extent that they're on a par to a comparable woman.

There's obviously a lot more monitoring to take place and data to be collected.. Separate trans competitions may be necessary, but glib nonsense like "man in a dress" is just fake news.

Care to explain this then:
https://www.newstalk.com/Man-in-Switzerland-convicted-for-rape-for-taking-off-condom-during-sex-

Yes!

1. That's a different country. The definition of "rape" varies from country to country
2. On appeal the court ruled that it was overreach and reduced the charge to "defilement". Which is presumably an analog for sexual assault.

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

On this thread?

My opinion is no. I don't find trans women attractive

ok

Deleted User wrote: »

My question on this would be, If you are attracted to a trans woman and are fully aware that they are/were at one stage in possession of a penis and testicles, would that not automatically be a deal breaker for most straight people

It might be for some, maybe not for others, which camp is the majority is anyone's guess. But of course everyone's an individual and many people might reject the idea out of hand and then when the right person comes along all those pre conditions change. You could say you'd never fancy a red head and then boom there you are, ginger city, population you. Life works out in peculiar ways

Deleted User wrote: »

and if it wasn't, aren't you not straight?

No, you're very much still straight. But of course, those definitions are self-defined

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

Another question would be whether or not a trans person should have a legal obligation to disclose the fact before engaging as sex,

Eh no. It's a private act between individuals, not disclosing key aspects of your past before hand maybe considered uncool, but it's certainly not something the state need to put laws on. Just like all the lads who wont be prosecuted for telling girls they invented postetts years ago to impress them.

The Bishop Basher

seamus wrote: »

A trans man after several years of hormonal treatment and proper monitoring by the athletic authorities will see muscular atrophy to the extent that they're on a par to a comparable woman.

That sounds like a very broad statement. I’m sure there are countless variables involved. None of which change the fact that It’s still a man competing against a woman.

Sal Butamol

Some of them do a great job to be fair, they could be professional stylists or make up artists





But there's usually tell-tale signs that surgery can't hide, like large hands and the male jawline

ceadaoin.

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, that's not true at all. You're missing the gazillions of tests and several years of hormone treatments that are required before any trans athlete can be approved to compete.

There are trans athletes who are not on hormones competing against girls in Connecticut state high school competitions. Unsurprisingly they are finishing in the top 2 places. Given that scholarships could be on the line here don't you think that's grossly unfair and could result in less female athletes becoming professionals?


https://usatodayhss.com/2018/connecticut-parents-ban-transgender-track-athletes

Is hormone treatment going to shrink the skeletons of biological males, and reduce lung and heart capacity to completely remove any advantage? The answer is no

Also, the levels of testosterone allowed in trans athletes is well above what the average female would naturally have, even those who are professional athletes.

Pa8301

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Some of them do a great job to be fair, they could be professional stylists or make up artists





But there's usually tell-tale signs that surgery can't hide, like large hands and the male jawline

Is the last one not Glenda Gilson?! ;-)