Study shows most Cis People Won't Date Trans People.

[Leonardo_thebest]

It's infuriating to see just how backwards the cis world is, even in 2018.
If a cis-woman gets a boob job, guys are all okay with it.
What does gender at birth have to do with anything.

https://www.them.us/story/cis-trans-dating

Where do you stand?

[FredWolfLeonardo]

I love coconuts.

[Autbot_Benz]

I love coconuts.

https://i.imgur.com/wIRFIkH.gif

[Leonardo_thebest]

I love coconuts.

Exactly. You can't find love among your own species, so you turned to fruit.
People shouldn't set boundaries. Why close yourself off.

Does your nut have a name?

[IndigoErth]

I love coconuts.
https://i.imgur.com/wIRFIkH.gif
https://i.gifer.com/SYq2.gif

Does your nut have a name?
In before someone turns it weird...


The world is a cruel, unfair place. Things will surely change, but change is slow. (Is it a reasonable factor that some cis people might want to be able to have biological children with their partner?)

[Leonardo_thebest]

There are so many ways to have children today. My Friend has two girls with his husband. They used a surrogate both times for the egg, and alternated sperm donation.

I don't know that it's important to have children who share your DNA. A child is a child, and family is family.

[IndigoErth]

Sure, it doesn't make someone's child any less their child, but is it now wrong for some to want their kid to ideally be genetically related to both parents and to go through having a kid together in the typical fashion?

[Leonardo_thebest]

Nothing wrong with wanting that, but it might be worth noting that about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. Perhaps excluding 50% of the population from ones mating pool could be hamstringing the possibility of longer lasting, happier unions.


"Virtually all heterosexuals excluded trans folks from their dating pool: only 1.8% of straight women and 3.3% of straight men chose a trans person of either binary gender. But most non-heterosexuals weren’t down for dating a trans person either, with only 11.5% of gay men and 29% of lesbians being trans-inclusive in their dating preferences. Bisexual/queer/nonbinary participants (these were all combined into one group) were most open to having a trans partner, but even among them, almost half (48%) did not select either ‘trans man’ or ‘trans woman.’

Of the seven participants who themselves identified as transgender or nonbinary, 89% were willing to date another trans person."

Even Trans people excluded other Trans people.

Wow, we suck.

[Ninjinister]

Are you saying people aren't supposed to have a choice anymore of who they date, or what?

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[Andrew NDB]

At the risk of gross... most dudes don't want to make 100% of their input a hairy butthole. Or see a dick and balls dangling around while they're doing their business. Probably. Not all of them, but probably more than the lion's share. And that seems fair to me. They like genuine born women who have no... confusion. That's just the way most dudes are wired.

[Sumac]

There are so many ways to have children today. My Friend has two girls with his husband. They used a surrogate both times for the egg, and alternated sperm donation.

I don't know that it's important to have children who share your DNA. A child is a child, and family is family.
Most people want to have sex with people who have genuine working sex organs and want to have their own children.
Also, very few want to deal with emotional baggage transpeople have.

TL;DR: People want to have sex and families with normal people, with normal bodies.

Are you saying people aren't supposed to have a choice anymore of who they date, or what?

I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Actually, yes, he is.
This is a relatively new thing with transcult: some of them (not all, at least not now), consider people who don't want to have sex with transpeople, to be transphobic, including Homosexuals, because, they dare "to be attracted to genitalia".
Apparently in their narcissism and self-entitlement some transpeople completely miss idea of sexuality and freedom to choose your own partner.

You should have seen amount of death and rape threats and abuse received by Lesbians who not only dare to say that dick is not a female organ (which of course it's not for any sane person), but also dare to not hop on the those "delicious" "female" dicks and not consider people with artificial vaginas (i.e. wounds that need to be cleaned) to be a genuine women and Lesbians (which trans women are not).

It's another prove how previously oppressed group, led by males, become oppressors and bullies when given sufficient power and can get away with spouting homophobic and misogynistic stuff, protecting themselves with "muh suffering give me rights to **** others" and "I am gonna kill myself if you don't do things my way".

[IndigoErth]

Even Trans people excluded other Trans people.

Wow, we suck.
:ohwell:

That was kind of my next question, what the ratio for trans people themselves is. Does a typical trans man and trans woman find each other appealing on average, or do they also tend to favor a cis partner?



only 1.8% of straight women
only 11.5% of gay men
Perhaps not a coincidence those two demographics are lower percentage than their counterpart when it comes to what they want in a partner... I mean, not to be rude or anything. Kind of telling that lesbians are the highest percentage. Just... how do I non offensively say that, well, you know...the lady bits might be able to be sculpted and implanted, but I imagine part of the man bits might be limited in what's possible...?

I mean, I've got nothing against trans people and I wish them all happiness with someone who loves and accepts them for who they are. But people love who they love and I think this is one of those things that needs to be personal and on a case by case basis between two people. If two people click and love enough other enough to overlook things like this (or anything else for that matter), awesome for them. It's kind of hard to do a cold clinical poll like that when it's based on judging a potential unknown suggested partner responders have no feeling for, rather than answering based on actual experience. Which is maybe what they should do... poll cis people who have dated or considered dating someone who turned out to be trans, or at least knows one enough to be acquainted with the idea.


At the risk of gross...
I kind of assumed we had to be talking post-op, because yeah... pre-op is certainly going to be an issue with the majority.

[Leonardo_thebest]

I kind of assumed we had to be talking post-op, because yeah... pre-op is certainly going to be an issue with the majority.



Andrew wanted to make it sound as un appealing as possible, of course. Cis sex can be just as revolting, from a certain vantage point. We can get gross, but Hetero is always romanticized, 'cause 7.5 billion just a'int enough. I get that, it's a common cis thing, to debase and vilify something because it scares you, and to try and use disgust to paint a damning picture.

He does not imagine the possibility of loving someone for who they are, he is caught up in the exterior.

[plastroncafe]

Okay having read the primary source (huzzah for one of the benefits of graduate school!), goodness that's a really small sample size, and event he authors admit they had no hypothesis. This was small correlation finding from a larger study.

A, Huh...that's interesting, and nothing more.

There's nothing inherently bigoted about not being attracted by vulvas, just as there's nothing inherently bigoted about not being attracted by penises.

But there is something interesting in delving deeper into WHY we are/aren't attracted by things.

For instance, there are straight men in straight relationships who find themselves no longer attracted to their breast cancer surviving spouses.
Because breasts are that ingrained into the the groove of their sexual identity.

It's just interesting.

[Sumac]

That was kind of my next question, what the ratio for trans people themselves is. Does a typical trans man and trans woman find each other appealing on average, or do they also tend to favor a cis partner?
From some statistics it seems most trans people do not want to date trans people either. I guess, they want to have partners with genuine working sex organs and with less psychological problems.
Funny how they demand everyone else to have sex with themselves. :lol:

Andrew wanted to make it sound as un appealing as possible, of course. Cis sex can be just as revolting, from a certain vantage point. We can get gross, but Hetero is always romanticized, 'cause 7.5 billion just a'int enough. I get that, it's a common cis thing, to debase and vilify something because it scares you, and to try and use disgust to paint a damning picture.
Nothing scares anyone about you.
People just have right for their own preferences and saying "NO" no matter their reasoning and they hate when someone is trying to coerce to have sex with someone who they don't find attractive. It's normal.

It's not a defect. It's not hatred. It's goddamn right of any free human being to say "I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX with you". And you MUST respect it.
Any attempts to blackmail anyone to have sex with you, by threatening suicide or self-harm will be useless and out you as a self-entitled narcissist who don't care about anyone else but yourself.
And if you don't respect people's autonomy, but demand respect for yourself, than, in my book, you can go away with your pity party. And your lame attempts to coerce other people to have sex with you to validate your identity and mental fantasies are sexism and homophobia.

He does not imagine the possibility of loving someone for who they are, he is caught up in the exterior.
Yeah, sexual orientation totally not a thing, no sir. It's just some weird phobia which exists solely to offend poor trans people.
And Lesbians and Gay are, of course, the worst offenders. How dare they being attracted to biological sex and not your wonderful totally genuine [insert gender here] identity? :ohwell:

For instance, there are straight men in straight relationships who find themselves no longer attracted to their breast cancer surviving spouses.
Because breasts are that ingrained into the the groove of their sexual identity.
And women stop being attracted to men, who loses their penises for whatever reason.
Imagine that: sexual drive working differently for different people.
It's normal because sexual attraction is a normal thing to have when you are in relationship. I hope, it's obvious for everyone.

And it has nothing to do with sexism or misogyny. Just with the human nature and what people find sexually attractive, which is coded into genes, much like sexual orientation. I know for more...progressively-minded people it's hard to figure it out that some things are out of cultural control, due to their mantra "everything is political" and due to their inability to understand how normal people work, but it is...a reality.

[Leonardo_thebest]

This
From some statistics it seems most trans people do not want to date trans people either. I guess, they want to have partners with genuine working sex organs and with less psychological problems.
Funny how they demand everyone else to have sex with themselves.



Doesn't jive with this

Imagine that: sexual drive working for differently for different people.
It's normal because sexual attraction is a normal thing to have when you are in relationship. I hope, it's obvious for everyone.

Just saying.

...
It's just interesting.

I think so, but it's also clear that there will be winners and losers, and it seems to have a hierarchy attached, at least according to the study.
I think there was a similar article that examined the problem of Grinder V Tinder V blackpeoplemeet V Jdate, but I forget where I read it.
Effectively the piece suggested that it's not fair to split the dating pool at all, and yet it still happens, despite being a racist/bigoted idea.

Then there's incels, and that whole thing - though to be honest, I have zero interest in supporting a bunch of men who can't get there **** together enough to be attractive to anyone.

[Sumac]

This
Doesn't jive with this
Just saying.
Actually it does.

Most people have underlying understanding of biological sex of other people, even outside of cultural codes. Thus, people who have no Homosexual desires won't be attracted to trans people.
Lack of desire to deal with mental and biological state of trans people is another aspect of it.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Actually it does.

Most people have underlying understanding of biological sex of other people, even outside of cultural codes. Thus, people who have no Homosexual desires won't be attracted to trans people.
Lack of desire to deal with mental and biological state of trans people is another aspect of it.


I'm sharing a study that resulted in conversation worthy results. It has implications for the entire gender spectrum. You're slinging insults, again.

You agree not everyone shares the same desires, but then follow up with the implication that Trans people are mentally ill. Weren't you banned for this type of behavior once before?

[Sumac]

I'm sharing a study that resulted in conversation worthy results. It has implications for the entire gender spectrum. You're slinging insults, again.

You agree not everyone shares the same desires, but then follow up with the implication that Trans people are mentally ill. Weren't you banned for this type of behavior once before?
There is no gender spectrum, since it's artificial construct, and there is no "cis". Normal people don't need prefix to validate someone else having prefix.

And yes, "inner feeling" that urges oneself to butcher their body seems like a mental illness, not different from any other form of self-mutilation.

And, no, I wasn't banned for that.

[Storm Eagle]

Well excuse me for having a preference.

[Redeemer]

Op I would take that article with a grain of salt. I did not see a link to the actual study which makes me question the internal validity of the study and 95 people is a very, very small sample size to pull from.

[plastroncafe]

There's a link in the text, but the journal is behind a paywall.
If you want to read it I can get your a .pdf.

[Andrew NDB]

I kind of assumed we had to be talking post-op, because yeah... pre-op is certainly going to be an issue with the majority.

Even post-op. I think most dudes would like to f*** literally an inverted penis even less than a hairy butthole.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Even post-op. I think most dudes would like to f*** literally an inverted penis even less than a hairy butthole.

Are you this disgusting when you talk to Sophie Campbell, or are you just gunning to close this thread?

[FredWolfLeonardo]

or are you just gunning to close this thread?

This thread was doomed to the fiery pits of hell before you even thought of it.

[Cure]

I am a cis man who will date only cis women. Sue me.

[Andrew NDB]

Are you this disgusting when you talk to Sophie Campbell, or are you just gunning to close this thread?

What? I am just saying what most dudes would (or wouldn't) do. This is a fact supported by data. Will this change in 5, 10, 20 years? Maybe. Probably. There are many dudes right now more than willing and eager to have sex with pre-op and post-op transsexuals as they would with genetic women and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, nor do I think in any way their man card should be revoked if they do... I'm just pointing out that this is a comparatively and statistically very small number, as well as the brutally honest reasons as to why this is right now.

And then there's the whole having kids thing. While genetic women that can't have kids or women who think they can have kids, marry, and it turns out they can't is very much a real thing, and sad for all parties... beyond "sowing your oats" days for dudes (i.e., let's have a lot of sex without commitment) or dudes who (probably very wisely) have determined kids or more kids aren't for them... this is a huge deal. It's a completely understandable deal breaker. With a transexual woman... you know from the gate that is impossible. We can talk about "Well, what about adoption, you insensitive assclown??" and that's probably a viable alternative for a small percentage of dudes... but most just want to have their own kids. And I don't think that's strange or in any way weird, certainly not a thing that should be shunned. Conversely, I think it is weird that there is a movement to make that seem weird. Beyond the societal level, even on a genetic, our ingrained purpose to exist is to procreate. It's there. It's always going to be there.

[Leonardo_thebest]

...

Thanks for finally taking the topic seriously. That's all I wanted.

I think most of the arguments really come down to feeling anything beyond hetero relationships are "morally wrong". I also think, this generation is heavily invested in changing that perception. Yeah, in a few years, I can see people being far more open.

I know there's a lot of defense from folks who have the same point of view as Sumac, or Fredwolfleonardo; they have moral issues with the idea that they can't unlearn. I get that, but i think it's something that can be unlearned.

Not to say that people should change their personal preferences, only that, this knee jerk reaction to the topic is clearly defensive and fear based. It shouldn't be.

There's too much unhappiness in the world already.

[Andrew NDB]

Thanks for finally taking the topic seriously. That's all I wanted.

I think most of the arguments really come down to feeling anything beyond hetero relationships are "morally wrong". I also think, this generation is heavily invested in changing that perception. Yeah, in a few years, I can see people being far more open.

I know there's a lot of defense from folks who have the same point of view as Sumac, or Fredwolfleonardo; they have moral issues with the idea that they can't unlearn. I get that, but i think it's something that can be unlearned.

Not to say that people should change their personal preferences, only that, this knee jerk reaction to the topic is clearly defensive and fear based. It shouldn't be.

There's too much unhappiness in the world already.

I can appreciate that. Your initial post seemed fueled with vitriol... even outrage. You began with "what does your born gender have to do with anything" and my points were... "a lot." For a variety of reasons, almost all of them completely understandable.

Everything I've ever stood for is people can and should do whatever they want as long as it isn't hurting anybody else. A hundredfold to the contrary if it's hurting a child. Beyond that? Hey, have fun. Not going to judge or belittle beyond disagreements on facts (the recent deal about "my truth" vs. your truth vs.... the actual truth) or when movements make dudes like me seem the bad guy for understanding simple truths in the day to day.

[Sumac]

I think most of the arguments really come down to feeling anything beyond hetero relationships are "morally wrong". I also think, this generation is heavily invested in changing that perception. Yeah, in a few years, I can see people being far more open.
I don't see any relationships as morally wrong. I think that most people don't care about morality, but more about practicality and healthiness of the relationships.

I know there's a lot of defense from folks who have the same point of view as Sumac, or Fredwolfleonardo; they have moral issues with the idea that they can't unlearn. I get that, but i think it's something that can be unlearned.
I won't unlearn that, because, my issues with this topic has nothing to do with morality.
If you carefully read my posts, than you could figure it out.

Not to say that people should change their personal preferences, only that, this knee jerk reaction to the topic is clearly defensive and fear based. It shouldn't be.

There's too much unhappiness in the world already.
Yes, it's defensive, because, it's coercion for sex, no, it has nothing to do with fear, because, there is nothing to fear.

And you bring even more unhappiness by denying people their sexual preferences. Good work!!

[plastroncafe]

If there's one thing the work of Kinsey has taught us, it's that most people are dishonest when answering survey questions regarding their sexual habits. the only way he got people to open up about it was to have a very rigorous anonymizing technique for Gathering data.

It's how culturally and religiously conservative States like Utah can consume more pornography than any other state in the Union.

There are many self-identified cis heterosexual men out there who seek the company of trans woman sex workers, regardless of whether or not those women have sought out gender confirmation bottom surgery.

It takes all kinds to make a world.

[Venom]

Are you this disgusting when you talk to Sophie Campbell, or are you just gunning to close this thread?

This thread was doomed to the fiery pits of hell before you even thought of it.

Oh, I’ve gotten reports all right, but thus far the discussion has remained mostly civil, in spite of some “inciting” posts. I like this topic, it’s doing what a controversial topic *should* do: allow everyone to express and explain their viewpoint, regardless of how polarizing some views are.

That was the whole point of the Volcanic Asteroid, yet we all saw what happened there.

If it gets personal or derails, then it’s off to the Disintegrator.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Oh, I’ve gotten reports all right, but thus far the discussion has remained mostly covil, in spite of some “inciting” posts. I like this topic, it’s doing ehat a controversial topic *should* do: allow everyone express and explain their viewpoint, regardless of how polarizing some views are.

That was the whole point of the Volcanic Asteroid, yet we all saw what happened there.

If it gets personal or derails, then it’s off to the Disintegrator.


Thanks for giving it a chance. I think some discussions can get heated - but maybe that's how you get to a mutual respect and understanding.

I was irritated by the comment that Trans means mental illness, it's an ignorant thing to say - and I can't respect that opinion, but I won't pursue an argument, as it seems a bit bait-ish.

[Sumac]

There are many self-identified cis heterosexual men out there who seek the company of trans woman sex workers, regardless of whether or not those women have sought out gender confirmation bottom surgery.
If someone needs a "bottom confirmation surgery to be a "woman"", than it is not a woman.
Also, I hardly can imagine men en masse seeking company of trans women, when they can just date normal women.

I was irritated by the comment that Trans means mental illness, it's an ignorant thing to say - and I can't respect that opinion, but I won't pursue an argument, as it seems a bit bait-ish.
"I am feeling like a woman", "I am feeling like a Napoleon", "I am feeling like a president of the universe".

[Redeemer]

There's a link in the text, but the journal is behind a paywall.
If you want to read it I can get your a .pdf.

Yeah sure, I am wondering if the article tried to slant the results a certain way. I just want to look at the pretty numbers :lol:

[Leonardo_thebest]

It would be awesome if you could send me .pdf as well Plastron.
Thank you.

[plastroncafe]

Yeah sure, I am wondering if the article tried to slant the results a certain way. I just want to look at the pretty numbers :lol:

It would be awesome if you could send me .pdf as well Plastron.
Thank you.

Sure thing!
Keep your eyes peeled on your email inboxes, and let me know if that didn't work.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

I'd like a look at that, too, if it's not too much trouble. I do fully understand Andrew's point here, and agree with it for the most part. I also would like to say that his "if it doesn't hurt anyone, do what you want" attitude is to be applauded, as it is very much what I believe as a Wiccan as well. In fact it's the prime tenet.

That said, I think that the ingrained desire to gravitate toward the genetic opposite gender IS a huge part of the reason for those stats, but at the same time, social norms are changing, so those numbers might change in a decade or two once the stigma of being trans begins to disappear, much like the stigma of being gay or bi has been doing. Nature is NOT black and white, as some might naievely believe, and there are literally hundreds of permutations of what is "normal" within any given species. And there is a thing called evolution which tends to alter those species norms over time. It's why certain moths changed colors over time to adapt to changes in the environment brought about by humans, even within the last two centuries.

As hard as it is for some to grasp, being genetically one or the other is NOT the only option. It is simply the most common denomiinator in the equation.

[snake]

Most "trans people" really don't look convincing enough to make a straight person want to date them.

[Andrew NDB]

If someone needs a "bottom confirmation surgery to be a "woman"", then it is not a woman.

What's interesting to me lately is that lot of articles and stuff I'm seeing coming out, "sexual reassignment surgery"/"SRS" has almost entirely been removed from popular vernacular anywhere on the internet. It's just not said anymore. It's suddenly now, "Bottom Confirmation Surgery." For motivations that seem pretty obvious.

Liberals are doing their "we need to control the language" thing. Divorced from science.

[Candy Kappa]

What's interesting to me lately is that lot of articles and stuff I'm seeing coming out, "sexual reassignment surgery"/"SRS" has almost entirely been removed from popular vernacular anywhere on the internet. It's just not said anymore. It's suddenly now, "Bottom Confirmation Surgery." For motivations that seem pretty obvious.

Liberals are doing their "we need to control the language" thing. Divorced from science.

it's almost like language changes over time. Similar to Idiot and Imbecile no longer are medical terms used by psychiatrists to categorize a person's level of learning disability.

plus, bottom surgery refers to just that and not the rest like top surgery and facial surgery.

[Sumac]

Nature is NOT black and white, as some might naievely believe, and there are literally hundreds of permutations of what is "normal" within any given species. And there is a thing called evolution which tends to alter those species norms over time. It's why certain moths changed colors over time to adapt to changes in the environment brought about by humans, even within the last two centuries.

As hard as it is for some to grasp, being genetically one or the other is NOT the only option. It is simply the most common denomiinator in the equation.
Except existence of women and men are fundamental part of the human species and mammals in general. And so far most mammals have not evolved out of that. Yes, there are some rare mutations, but generally there are still only female and male species.

Appealing to evolution is ridiculous: evolution has created division for female and male species in the first place. It existed since simple mononuclear organisms.

Believing that humanity might evolve out of that division, especially with no outside hostile conditions present, especially since humanity very successfully procreates with females and males and ESPECIALLY given that humans are very complex organisms, which can't significantly evolve and change in a span of a hundred years, makes all this "evolution" talk absolutely ridiculous and unscientific, unless one believes in some kind of magic.

Bottom line: humans won't evolve out of females and males in the next hundred years or most likely ever. Outside of wishful thinking of some mentally unstable people, there is no way it can naturally happen, since most people don't have desire to butcher themselves and alter their bodies with hormones and other crap, and since there are no outside factors pressuring humanity as a species to make such significant evolutionary change.

When 99% of species are genetically normal, it means that this is normal for those species. So, presence of female species with clearly defined female traits and presence of male species with clearly defined male traits are normal for humanity. Various mutations shouldn't be taking into account, since mutations do happen in every species and they are not indicative of what species normally are.
At least that's how logic works on that matter. Not sure what about ideology and "magics".

What's interesting to me lately is that lot of articles and stuff I'm seeing coming out, "sexual reassignment surgery"/"SRS" has almost entirely been removed from popular vernacular anywhere on the internet. It's just not said anymore. It's suddenly now, "Bottom Confirmation Surgery." For motivations that seem pretty obvious.

Liberals are doing their "we need to control the language" thing. Divorced from science.
1984 in a nutshell.
Peace is war, war is peace, men are women, women are men.

it's almost like language changes over time.
It's almost like this change was done to further validate delusions of mentally sick people that they are of sex, they are not.

[newfan]

so far acceptance is society goes, the issue here may improve to a degree, where you get a person who is attracted to a transperson for example but fear of not being accepted by society may prevent them from dating to that person. However, so far as a persons instinctive desires go, this is who people are, while they may accept and respect how others identify themselves, they cannot make themselves feel or desire something that they just don't.


.

[plastroncafe]

Most "trans people" really don't look convincing enough to make a straight person want to date them.

I would say some might be a better word to use in this instance than most, and that not all trans people want a straight partner.

In the sex work industry trans women who have not chosen to undergo bottom gender confirmation surgery are quite popular with straight cis men, according to Dan Savage.

But I don't have peer-reviewed dataset to support that assumption.
Only anecdotal evidence.

Like, does anyone else have the experience of straight dudes being way more fascinated by dick, then straight women are by vulvas?


That said, I think that the ingrained desire to gravitate toward the genetic opposite gender IS a huge part of the reason for those stats, but at the same time, social norms are changing, so those numbers might change in a decade or two once the stigma of being trans begins to disappear, much like the stigma of being gay or bi has been doing. Nature is NOT black and white, as some might naievely believe, and there are literally hundreds of permutations of what is "normal" within any given species. And there is a thing called evolution which tends to alter those species norms over time. It's why certain moths changed colors over time to adapt to changes in the environment brought about by humans, even within the last two centuries.


Our closest living genetic relative is the bonobo chimpanzee, who will literally engage in sexual intercourse with pretty much anything. And they will have sex outside of a specified breeding season, basically they use it as a form of group cohesion, and for straight-up pleasure. I don't think it's beyond the pale to make the assumption that heterosexual monogamous pair bonding is a relatively new adaptation to our species.

We didn't really need paternity certainty of any sort until after the Advent of agriculture anyway.

What's interesting is that sexually dimorphic body plans don't really exist in cultures that are still predominantly hunter-gatherer. There's also a correlation between penis size and how much bodily autonomy a woman has any given culture.

That's not really relevant to the conversation at hand, I just think it's pretty interesting.
That evolutionarily speaking, survival of the just good enough continues even when we seemingly are not making choices based on survival.

As hard as it is for some to grasp, being genetically one or the other is NOT the only option. It is simply the most common denomiinator in the equation.

One of the main problems with understanding human biology is that we only seen to study pathology.
There's a lot of use of normal in this thread, and how 99% of people are normal. statistically speaking 99% of a thing is something that falls within two standard deviations away from the average. if all of our understanding of the human genome and human physiology comes not from normative studies, but only from pathological ones, we have no idea where that mean is. We have no idea where the center of that normal distribution Parabola sits.

We have no idea what normal is, and won't when our data set includes people having medical problems.

Monogamy might not be normal for us, in a non coercive environment.
X and Y might not be normal predictors of genetic male or female, because the average person who isn't pathological for something gets tested to see if those chromosomes exist in agreement with their secondary sexual characteristics.

[Sumac]

In the sex work industry
Sex work? You mean rape per money?
Heh, typical libfem.
Something tells me, you are one of those people who won't support this particular line of thinking by example. Or do you?

Like, does anyone else have the experience of straight dudes being way more fascinated by dick, then straight women are by vulvas?
If they do, its called Homosexuality.
No Homo.:P

Our closest living genetic relative is the bonobo chimpanzee, who will literally engage in sexual intercourse with pretty much anything. And they will have sex outside of a specified breeding season, basically they use it as a form of group cohesion, and for straight-up pleasure. I don't think it's beyond the pale to make the assumption that heterosexual monogamous pair bonding is a relatively new adaptation to our species.
Are you hinting that monogamous relationships are somehow "bad" and humans must revert to ****ing everything regardless of their sexual preferences? And all of this just to serve small group of people who can't get sex due to their mental problems?
Because, I am not really sure where are you going with this idea.

Also, other animals have widely different habits, when it comes to sex and relationships. Monogamous relationships also exist in the wild, so it's not typical modern human trait only.

Besides, humans are much more complicated than any other animal. So such correlations, while interesting, are largely meaningless, since they don't take into account human intellect and our range of emotions. Not to mention human cultures.

That's not really relevant to the conversation at hand, I just think it's pretty interesting.
That evolutionarily speaking, survival of the just good enough continues even when we seemingly are not making choices based on survival.
Humanity has opted from natural selection as soon as the first medicine has been developed.

Right now it's not "survival of the fittest" or "good enough", but complete blind chaos, where your chances of survival depend on multitude of random factors, including your health, doctors, medicines, dangers of the outside world and so on.

However, the core of the evolutionary mechanism: presence of females and males is still there and will be there.

One of the main problems with understanding human biology is that we only seen to study pathology.
There's a lot of use of normal in this thread, and how 99% of people are normal. statistically speaking 99% of a thing is something that falls within two standard deviations away from the average. if all of our understanding of the human genome and human physiology comes not from normative studies, but only from pathological ones, we have no idea where that mean is. We have no idea where the center of that normal distribution Parabola sits.

We have no idea what normal is, and won't when our data set includes people having medical problems.
If we stop speaking in grandeur mumbo-jumbo and go back to Earth, than we do know what is normal - being human who doesn't want to butcher their body IS normal.
Being human who wants to butcher their body because their feelings dictate so, is not. Simple as that.

Otherwise, your ideas are stink of traditional PoMo garbage-think: "we don't know anything, therefore everything can be truth".

No, we do know something, and while some of this knowledge is inconclusive, there are enough data to understand what is normal for our species and its members.

Otherwise, doctors won't be ever treat even cold, if they didn't have idea of what normal state of human being is, not to mention even more serious conditions.

Monogamy might not be normal for us, in a non coercive environment.
X and Y might not be normal predictors of genetic male or female, because the average person who isn't pathological for something gets tested to see if those chromosomes exist in agreement with their secondary sexual characteristics.
As I said useless PoMo.
Even than, it doesn't change that females and males are different and no amount of interference can turn a man into an actual woman. And vice-versa.
You're welcome.

[Leonardo_thebest]

What's the over under on how long it will be before Sumac comes out?

[TurtleWA]

It's infuriating to see just how backwards the cis world is, even in 2018.
If a cis-woman gets a boob job, guys are all okay with it.
What does gender at birth have to do with anything.

https://www.them.us/story/cis-trans-dating

Where do you stand?

Wanted to contribute to the thread but am not certain exactly what it’s about. People have reasons for what they do and who they connect with. I’m not sure I needed a study to tell me that.

Could I ask what the study result would have needed to look like to be not so “infuriating?”

[plastroncafe]

What's the over under on how long it will be before Sumac comes out?

I'm told it's illegal to be queer in Russia, in some instances punishable by death.

[Sumac]

What's the over under on how long it will be before Sumac comes out?
Can you contribute something useful except pitiful provocations?

I'm told it's illegal to be queer in Russia, in some instances punishable by death.
As far as Russian laws go, no, being Gay is not a crime in Russia. Not officially.
Though in some regions you are indeed can be killed for that. Naturally official government will deny everything.

Though, it has nothing to do with me. I am supporting rights of Lesbians and Gays and not exactly against transsexuals, as long as they don't try to push their insanity to usurp rights of women and indoctrinate children with their crazy ****.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Though, it has nothing to do with me. I am supporting rights of Lesbians and Gays and not exactly against transsexuals, as long as they don't try to push their insanity to usurp rights of women and indoctrinate children with their crazy ****.

Quoting for the mods to see exactly what kind if nonsense this member spews.

I'm told it's illegal to be queer in Russia, in some instances punishable by death.

Must be where all the animosity stems from. Maybe they'll find the strength to live their best life?

[Sumac]

Quoting for the mods to see exactly what kind if nonsense this member spews.
It's can be nonsense only for a member of transcult, which automatically means that you are self-entitled narcissist who doesn't give a **** about women and kids and wants to validate his own feefees at the expense of health and safety of everyone else.
Which is usually a sign of hateful male misogynist.

Must be where all the animosity stems from. Maybe they'll find the strength to live their best life?
Try harder.
Or better do something more productive with your life.

[Leonardo_thebest]

It's can be nonsense only for a member of transcult, which automatically means that you are self-entitled narcissist who doesn't give a **** about women and kids and wants to validate his own feefees at the expense of health and safety of everyone else.
Which is usually a sign of hateful male misogynist.


Try harder.
Or better do something more productive with your life.

That wasn't very lady like. I'm appalled.

[IndigoErth]

and not exactly against transsexuals, as long as they don't try to push their insanity to usurp rights of women
Explain that more...?

Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but I really don't see how trans people pose any threat of usurping women's rights.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Explain that more...?

Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but I really don't see how trans people pose any threat of usurping women's rights.

Nobody does. Only a mentally ill person would draw that kind of conclusion.
You'd have to be crazy to talk that way.

[Sumac]

Explain that more...?

Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but I really don't see how trans people pose any threat of usurping women's rights.
Simple. I will try to keep emotions out of it and follow facts, as unpleasant for some people as they might be.

Some companies are opting from using the word "women", substituting it for "menstruators" and other pretty rather insulting things, like "pregnant people" or "lactating parents". Link (https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/the-word-woman-is-being-erased-from-public-life/)
Link (https://twitter.com/TheDivaCup/status/1029456272209444864)
Link (https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/05/trans-rights-should-not-come-at-the-cost-of-womens-fragile-gains)
Link (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/altrincham-grammar-school-transgender-ban-14135480?service=responsive#ICID=sharebar_facebook )
Link (https://fullcreamweb.blog/2017/11/03/breastfeeding-is-not-a-neutral-act/)
Link (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/midwives-rail-against-proposal-to-call-women-persons-in-new-code-of-conduct/news-story/0c3b37b55934effcfc48498b64a1256f?nk=421247626d9465 982dc52c03420df677-1511910216)
Link (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2015/09/what-s-matter-talking-about-pregnant-people)

While by themselves, those incidents might look like an anecdotal overreaching, however, together with transcult rhetoric it paints a rather questionable picture. Words pertaining to women and processes linked to their biology as slowly phased out for fear of insulting tiny percent of population. And interestingly enough, most of those people are males.

In some countries, males can get access to the female prisons, shelters, crisis centers, that help women who have suffered from male abuse and rape. It's already led to some incidents. The problem is that not only post-operational men can get into them, but new laws basically allow anyone who identify themselves as a woman to get inside. I think we can agree that this is problematic, as "progressives" like to say.
Link (https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/uk-prisoner-who-identifies-as-female-accused-of-sexual-assaults-spurs-transgender-debate)
Link (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/transgender-rights-bill-female-born-spaces-1.4110634)
Link (https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/07/03/im-pediatrician-transgender-ideology-infiltrated-field-produced-large-scale-child-abuse/)
Link (https://twitter.com/lascapigliata8/status/966718744541171712)

Attempts of women to fight for their rights and respectfully discuss issues which are directly and inherently related to them, are met with hysterical overreaction from transcult and their allies. Including censorship, death and rape threats, bullying and even physical violence.
Link (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44288431)

There is also increasingly toxic and violent rhetoric, aimed, primarily at Lesbians (I wonder why?) because they are refusing to see transwomen (including those who have not transitioned nor have intend to) as viable sexual partners. Those transactivists, some of them identifying themselves as women, use traditional "female" insults ("choke on my dick") and rape threats. Though, it seems also happens with Gay men as well.
Link (https://sisteroutrider.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/lezbehonest-about-queer-politics-erasing-lesbian-women/)
Link (https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/08/13/lesbians-excluded-vancouver-dyke-march-name-inclusivity/)
Link (https://whoiscis.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/gay-man-to-gay-man-an-open-letter-to-owen-jones/)

And there is an outright threat to the female sports, since according to new rules males, who "pass enough" can challenge female athletes at some events. Naturally those male athletes still has an inherent advantage due to their biology, but apparently their feelings are more important than rights of women for fair play or their efforts.
Link (https://twitter.com/KaeleyT/status/1006742173570568192)
Link (https://askdrbrown.org/library/how-it-fair-when-male-weightlifter-competes-against-women)
Link (https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/99434993/professor-of-physiology-says-trans-athlete-has-advantage-in-speed-and-power)
Link (https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/fallon-fox-why-hormones-dont-make-a-woman/)
Link (http://turtleboysports.com/this-freshman-boy-with-mustache-destroyed-every-girl-at-the-ct-district-championship-track-meet-because-transgenderism-is-a-direct-assault-on-teenage-girls/)

This also goes for politics and other accomplishments of women, usurped by men.

Once again, by themselves those might look like an unconnected incidents, however, when put together they show rather disturbing picture, where transactivists or rather so called "progressives" supporting them believe that their rights should be more important than rights of others: women, kids, Lesbians, Gays, anyone.

Naturally a lot of women are disturbed about this, however, as I said, their voices are silenced or they are threatened. Whether all of this are valid reasons for concern or not, I leave it up to you to decide.

Nobody does. Only a mentally ill person would draw that kind of conclusion.
You'd have to be crazy to talk that way.
More crazy than thinking that you are born in the "wrong body"?
I don't think so, man.

That wasn't very lady like. I'm appalled.
Ah, sexist insult. As expected.
How soon you tell me to "choke on your wonderful female dick"?

Also, I wonder about something: being transexual (the one on hormones and operations) is quite hard - aside from obvious mental problems related to your own body and self-image, being transexual also means lack of proper sexual intercourses, due to fake sexual organs, lack of orgasms and complete sterility. So, I wonder, why some people want to push this life on as many people as possible?

I mean, ill people should get their treatment, no questions. But what I see is a sickness becoming a trend, a fad. Easily manipulated people, including autists, kids, as well as people with various psychological traumas, are choosing transitioning, even though their problems are completely unrelated to the sexual dysphoria.
And all this while being encouraged to do so by people who are actually "supposedly" suffering from this horrible condition. It doesn't make sense.

It's like if someone with AIDS would've encourage others to get this illness, knowing full well, what kind of ramifications it has on their life. :ohwell:

It's more like "transexualism" has become more of political movement, where people spearheading it (not necessarily transexuals themselves, but politicians and various crazy radicals) need more "canon fodder" to push their "progressive values", which at this point more and more reminds me of fascist dictatorship, where people are punished for "wrong think", censorship is in abundance and unquestionable obedience of "opinion leaders" is the only right way to progress.

Seeing medical condition being forcefully pushed on others, especially kids, who have no experience and full awareness of themselves, is bound to rise some questions. And I find rather depressing and appalling that some people think what's going on is fine course of events.

And as I've said, I have experience with both dictatorship and insanity and I can say for sure, what I observer reminds me of combination of both.

But apparently my personal experiences are irrelevant because I dare to deny FEELINGS and as "progressive" movement tells us, feelings are more important than logic or truth. Or safety and health of people.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Look lady, you need to examen what your problem is. Honestly. The cray amount of rage you have is, well, it can't be healthy. Did a trans person touch in the bad place when you were a kid? are you questioning your sexual identity? Do penises frighten you? What is it? Why are you so wrapped up in this, when it really doesn't affect you at all?

Trans woman identifies as a woman, and is identified as a woman - this action has ZERO to do with you. A Trans man and a straight woman have a one night stand, again, zero to do with you. A trans man counsels a child on their identity. THIS IS NOT your problem.

Your problem, it seems is that you are vocal about what others are doing with their life.

You, I don't give a damn who you're sleeping with, or not sleeping with. My guess is, that would be nobody, seeing how revolting you are here - i can't imagine anyone wanting to touch you irl. But that's really not the point.

Or is it? Are you so opposed to the trans community because they're getting action and you're not?

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Except existence of women and men are fundamental part of the human species and mammals in general. And so far most mammals have not evolved out of that. Yes, there are some rare mutations, but generally there are still only female and male species.

Appealing to evolution is ridiculous: evolution has created division for female and male species in the first place. It existed since simple mononuclear organisms.

Believing that humanity might evolve out of that division, especially with no outside hostile conditions present, especially since humanity very successfully procreates with females and males and ESPECIALLY given that humans are very complex organisms, which can't significantly evolve and change in a span of a hundred years, makes all this "evolution" talk absolutely ridiculous and unscientific, unless one believes in some kind of magic.

Bottom line: humans won't evolve out of females and males in the next hundred years or most likely ever. Outside of wishful thinking of some mentally unstable people, there is no way it can naturally happen, since most people don't have desire to butcher themselves and alter their bodies with hormones and other crap, and since there are no outside factors pressuring humanity as a species to make such significant evolutionary change.

When 99% of species are genetically normal, it means that this is normal for those species. So, presence of female species with clearly defined female traits and presence of male species with clearly defined male traits are normal for humanity. Various mutations shouldn't be taking into account, since mutations do happen in every species and they are not indicative of what species normally are.
At least that's how logic works on that matter. Not sure what about ideology and "magics".

1984 in a nutshell.
Peace is war, war is peace, men are women, women are men.

It's almost like this change was done to further validate delusions of mentally sick people that they are of sex, they are not.


Wow. Way to completely miss the point. AGAIN. Just because something is the "normal/status quo" of a given species does NOT make binary gender as the only valid or real options. Nature is quirky in the extreme- we have males with an extra X chromosome, females who have a Y, some even have doubles!, and so on. And that is just a small portion of the permutations of gender that exist in humans, to say nothing of other species. Are male and female the majority? Yes, of course they are. Are they the ONLY two options? Hardly. Genetics is a fascinating subject, and even a casual perusal of the data at hand shows that your version of reality is severely limited in understanding of the subject. Try reading some actual science book once in a while, instead of rhetoric filled websites that only reinforce a very closed view of what gender entails.

Further, it has been PROVEN by numerous studies that the brains of men and women are wired differently on a very fundamental level, and not only that, but that trans people almost overwhelmingly have brains wired like the gender they identify as! You want to refute scientific studies that say trans people actually ARE their professed gebder, in mental configuration, if not in genital construction? Seems you have ignored an entire array of logical facts. Because they dispute your views.

Once again, rather than viewing evidence with an open mind, here we see nothing but rants against "liberal agenda". No one is forcing you or anyone else to give up their own gender identity, although I do feel that parents automatically thinking a child is misidentifying simply because they don't fit established gender-role "norms" is short-sighted at best and certainly harmful at worst. But being an idiot is not a crime, just grounds for possible future nomination for a Darwin award.


I would say some might be a better word to use in this instance than most, and that not all trans people want a straight partner.

In the sex work industry trans women who have not chosen to undergo bottom gender confirmation surgery are quite popular with straight cis men, according to Dan Savage.

But I don't have peer-reviewed dataset to support that assumption.
Only anecdotal evidence.

Like, does anyone else have the experience of straight dudes being way more fascinated by dick, then straight women are by vulvas?

Our closest living genetic relative is the bonobo chimpanzee, who will literally engage in sexual intercourse with pretty much anything. And they will have sex outside of a specified breeding season, basically they use it as a form of group cohesion, and for straight-up pleasure. I don't think it's beyond the pale to make the assumption that heterosexual monogamous pair bonding is a relatively new adaptation to our species.

We didn't really need paternity certainty of any sort until after the Advent of agriculture anyway.

What's interesting is that sexually dimorphic body plans don't really exist in cultures that are still predominantly hunter-gatherer. There's also a correlation between penis size and how much bodily autonomy a woman has any given culture.

That's not really relevant to the conversation at hand, I just think it's pretty interesting.
That evolutionarily speaking, survival of the just good enough continues even when we seemingly are not making choices based on survival.

One of the main problems with understanding human biology is that we only seen to study pathology.
There's a lot of use of normal in this thread, and how 99% of people are normal. statistically speaking 99% of a thing is something that falls within two standard deviations away from the average. if all of our understanding of the human genome and human physiology comes not from normative studies, but only from pathological ones, we have no idea where that mean is. We have no idea where the center of that normal distribution Parabola sits.

We have no idea what normal is, and won't when our data set includes people having medical problems.

Monogamy might not be normal for us, in a non coercive environment.
X and Y might not be normal predictors of genetic male or female, because the average person who isn't pathological for something gets tested to see if those chromosomes exist in agreement with their secondary sexual characteristics.


See, you get it! Those were in fact some of the very things I was considering as hard data, as even a casual glance across the animal kingdom reveals a shocking amount of diversity in gender roles and preferences both sexually and socially. Dolphin males will mate with anything they can, including each other, and there are clearly homosexual relationships across multiple species, like- oh, say- penguins and chimps. And various forms of hermaphrodism in almost EVERY species from worms to fish and yes, mammals. You get that. But of course, those species- aren't US, so maybe they're irrelavent, at least to some people's views.

[plastroncafe]

I just can't really fathom the idea that anyone who has an understanding of biology, or claims to at very least, expects nature to have a simple on-off switch.

There is not a single thing about biology that is clean or neat. In fact evolution damn near requires Gray.

you can't have survival of the just good enough if you don't have variation to choose from period and a strict male-female binary is not variation, it's a toggle.

And that doesn't even get into the foolish notion that Evolution has a directionality to it, it doesn't.
More evolved merely means more adapted to a single environmental circumstance.

you want to know what a highly evolved plant looks like? It's the banana. so highly of all of it I can't even reproduce on its own.

or the panda bear, which is so highly evolved that it has one environment in which I can live, and if you divorce it from that environment you have to teach it how to mate because it doesn't even have that instinct anymore.

[Andrew NDB]

http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/same-same-but-different-gif-2.gif

[Machias Banshee]

This thread is closed for review.