Would you date a transgender?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.

Would you date a transgender?

Yes
6
50%
No
3
25%
Maybe
3
25%
 
Total votes: 12

Jamie in Chile
Full Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegetarian

Re: Would you date a transgender?

Post by Jamie in Chile » Sat Dec 22, 2018 6:27 pm

Didn't read all of that, but read most of it.

It's commendable that you would take another long at your own views and change.

I'm not sure that it's fair to compare saying you wouldn't date a transgender to Jews or blacks, say. You might avoid transgender people because you think (as a man) the odds are they will be less feminine which is a less arbitrary. I'm not saying I would support this viewpoint, but I think saying it's not AS bad as a skin colour discrimination. Saying you won't date trans on the basis that you ultimately want a relationship with biological children might just about not be bad at all.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sat Dec 22, 2018 6:54 pm

Jamie in Chile wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 6:27 pm
I'm not sure that it's fair to compare saying you wouldn't date a transgender to Jews or blacks, say. You might avoid transgender people because you think (as a man) the odds are they will be less feminine which is a less arbitrary. I'm not saying I would support this viewpoint, but I think saying it's not AS bad as a skin colour discrimination.
My point is that it is as irrational, not that it is as bad. There's not any basis for believing that a trans woman will be less feminine, and this would be an assumption purely based on stereotypes. That being said, I see little reason for it being any less bad, especially as the results of this sort of discrimination can be deadly with people murdering the person they are dating after realising that they are trans.
Saying you won't date trans on the basis that you ultimately want a relationship with biological children might just about not be bad at all.
Agreed. However, saying one wouldn't date a trans person on the basis of stereotypes (such as the ones Jebus and Cloppy used) is a whole different kettle of fish.
Join my Democratic People's Republic: https://discord.gg/N2Uqehc
Follow my Twitter: https://twitter.com/AgentBl65800546

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9169
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:43 am

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:26 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:05 am
Whole, EquALLity, the hostility to Cloppy is unhelpful to the ends of educating.
Why not post pictures of pretty girls instead so Cloppy can reflect on the nature of attraction?
Again, I scarcely believe brimstoneSalad would have made this same response if this thread were titled "Would you date a Jew?". What would be the more expected response to somebody saying that they would never date a Jew? Hostility, or posting some pictures of Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman so that the anti-semite in question can relate on the nature of attraction?
Ethically Jewish, or religiously so?

The latter is a perfectly reasonable question to ask of an audience of mostly atheists. Same for the question about Christians, Muslims, etc.

The matter is about the root of *why* the asker of the question may think the person giving an answer might say no.

When it comes to Jewish ethnicity (rather than religion) there's really no room for confusion there. People aren't so misinformed about what a Jewish person must be like to think that's a reasonable question unless they're racists.

There's a lot of otherwise innocent confusion about transgender issues.

Do you think all transwomen look like men? Easily corrected.
Do you think they're all liberal? Again, a misunderstanding.

Ignorance is wrong, but there are various levels of defensibility of the character of those plagued by the ignorance.

SOME DAY it will be as indefensible to believe those things about trans-people as about those who are ethnically Jewish. But I don't think that's the case *yet* in our modern context.

There's no reason to give a Nazi the benefit of the doubt. There still is with somebody who is misinformed about trans-issues. Give it a couple more years for the zeitgeist to catch up and for people to be generally better informed before you shoot first and ask questions later.

I know it's not fair to ask trans-people to basically wait while cis people get less stupid, but that's how it goes with all social progress. You can't treat somebody who is ignorant about trans-issues like a Nazi, one is much more stale and inexcusable.

Kind of how we understand being a flat-Earther is a bit different from being a climate change denialist. Both equally wrong, but one has been consensus a lot longer and there's less excuse for ignorance.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:00 am

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:43 am
Ethically Jewish, or religiously so?
Ethnically Jewish. That being said, I think there probably would be a heavy amount of bigotry necessary to cut out the possibility of dating somebody you may have a successful relationship with just for being religious.
The matter is about the root of *why* the asker of the question may think the person giving an answer might say no.

When it comes to Jewish ethnicity (rather than religion) there's really no room for confusion there. People aren't so misinformed about what a Jewish person must be like to think that's a reasonable question unless they're racists.

There's a lot of otherwise innocent confusion about transgender issues.

Do you think all transwomen look like men? Easily corrected.
Do you think they're all liberal? Again, a misunderstanding.
Well, this doesn't answer the question of why they are a racist in the first place. As Jebus pointed out, racism is learned, not inherited. If somebody is raised in a racist environment with racist friends and/or racist parents who keep parroting misconceptions about the Jews, the blacks, the Arabs, etc., the chances are that that person will grow into a racist. Likewise, if somebody is raised in an environment with friends, parents and acquaintances who keep parroting misconceptions about trans people, there is a heavy chance that that person could become a transphobe. In either case, there is reason to try and correct these misconceptions before we judge either person too heavily. However, if those people continue to believe racist/transphobic lies despite the evidence contrary to them, then they are likely beyond saving.

This I would like to make clear: I think I was probably wrong to suggest that hostility is the correct response to meet somebody who holds transphobic beliefs with (I do however think that those who will continue to hold those beliefs, despite being proven wrong, should be met with hostility). That being said, I think that whatever amount of hostility we meet a transphobe with, the same amount should be met towards a racist as the explanation for somebody holding those beliefs is more or less the same.
Ignorance is wrong, but there are various levels of defensibility of the character of those plagued by the ignorance.

SOME DAY it will be as indefensible to believe those things about trans-people as about those who are ethnically Jewish. But I don't think that's the case *yet* in our modern context.
Firstly, although society in general has became significantly more tolerant of racial minorities, there are still significant amount of children raised in racist communities. I think they have just as much explanation of why they hold those ideas as a person with transphobic beliefs, as in either case, it is because of their upbringing. Ergo, the level of defensibility of the character is more or less the same.

Secondly, it isn't as indefensible to be transphobic as it is to be antisemitic in today's society, but I don't think that we are helping matters any further by treating antisemites more hostilely than transphobes. This only really adds legitimacy to the idea that one is more defensible than the other.
There's no reason to give a Nazi the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe not a Nazi, but there is just as much reason to give somebody misinformed about racial issues the benefit of the doubt as there is reason to give that to a person misinformed about trans issues.
Give it a couple more years for the zeitgeist to catch up and for people to be generally better informed before you shoot first and ask questions later. I know it's not fair to ask trans-people to basically wait while cis people get less stupid, but that's how it goes with all social progress.
That's true, however, social progress won't really be helped along by trying to educate people who have made it abundantly clear that they are never going to change their mind. Those sorts of people should be met with hostility in order to demonstrate to them and to society in general that their values are as inexcusable as those of a racist.
You can't treat somebody who is ignorant about trans-issues like a Nazi, one is much more stale and inexcusable.
Definitely not, as most people who become Nazis aren't just doing it because of the environment that they are being raised in. That being said, I believe you can, and you should, treat somebody who is ignorant about trans issues the same as you would somebody who is ignorant about racial issues.
Kind of how we understand being a flat-Earther is a bit different from being a climate change denialist. Both equally wrong, but one has been consensus a lot longer and there's less excuse for ignorance.
I personally don't really understand that at all. Both a flat earther and a climate change denier are likely to hold those beliefs for the same reasons (e.g. ignorance of the facts, not enough access to relevant information, distrust of "the official story", etc.). I actually think being a climate change denier is much worse, for the sheer impact of the consequences of catastrophic climate change that can be exacerbated by denial of climate change. Besides spreading ignorance, there isn't that much of a negative consequence to thinking that the earth is flat.
Join my Democratic People's Republic: https://discord.gg/N2Uqehc
Follow my Twitter: https://twitter.com/AgentBl65800546

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9169
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:38 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:00 am
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:43 am
Ethically Jewish, or religiously so?
Ethnically Jewish. That being said, I think there probably would be a heavy amount of bigotry necessary to cut out the possibility of dating somebody you may have a successful relationship with just for being religious.
Religion is an ideology and essentially a choice (in so far as there are any choices).
If it's a world view you don't agree with, and particularly if you aren't interested in arguing about it and it's important to you, that's perfectly reasonable.

It's often pretty easy to de-convert somebody since the facts are not on their side, but not everybody wants to have that argument again and again with every person he or she dates.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:00 am
This I would like to make clear: I think I was probably wrong to suggest that hostility is the correct response to meet somebody who holds transphobic beliefs with (I do however think that those who will continue to hold those beliefs, despite being proven wrong, should be met with hostility).
Sure, that's fair.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:00 am
That being said, I think that whatever amount of hostility we meet a transphobe with, the same amount should be met towards a racist as the explanation for somebody holding those beliefs is more or less the same.
The thing is, a racist has more likely already been confronted with and rejected the facts.
The probability of a racist living under a racist rock and never having been exposed to reality is less likely than a transphobic living under a transphobic rock. It's all about context.

It's more fair to assume a racist has been given the facts and chose to reject them already, thus starting out with hostility is more understandable.
However, of course the best approach in either cases is giving somebody the benefit of the doubt and assuming (however improbable) innocent ignorance rather than active denial/elective ignorance.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:00 am
Secondly, it isn't as indefensible to be transphobic as it is to be antisemitic in today's society, but I don't think that we are helping matters any further by treating antisemites more hostilely than transphobes. This only really adds legitimacy to the idea that one is more defensible than the other.
Maybe. But if we are clear about the reasons for those different treatments I think people will understand.
They are equally wrong, but one is just more obviously wrong than the other in modern social context so it's less forgivable a mistake due to pure ignorance.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:00 am
Maybe not a Nazi, but there is just as much reason to give somebody misinformed about racial issues the benefit of the doubt as there is reason to give that to a person misinformed about trans issues.
Maybe some minor misinformation, but not to the point we'd recognize as overt racism today.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:00 am
That's true, however, social progress won't really be helped along by trying to educate people who have made it abundantly clear that they are never going to change their mind. Those sorts of people should be met with hostility in order to demonstrate to them and to society in general that their values are as inexcusable as those of a racist.
Sure, if those people reject education, by all means take the gloves off.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:00 am
I personally don't really understand that at all. Both a flat earther and a climate change denier are likely to hold those beliefs for the same reasons (e.g. ignorance of the facts, not enough access to relevant information, distrust of "the official story", etc.).
One has to go a bit more out of the way to reject consensus than the other.
There is still some fringe ~1% or so of polled scientists who are climate skeptics. The same is not true of the shape of the Earth.
Both quack theories are absolutely wrong, one is just more obvious and a little harder to deny than the other.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:00 am
I actually think being a climate change denier is much worse, for the sheer impact of the consequences of catastrophic climate change that can be exacerbated by denial of climate change. Besides spreading ignorance, there isn't that much of a negative consequence to thinking that the earth is flat.
That's true, but what we're talking about here is not just consequence but character. The excusability of ignorance.
If somebody *knows* their beliefs are harmful that can speak to character, but these people think their beliefs are true... so...

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:48 pm

First and foremost, I would like to apologise to you for making this remark:
Again, I scarcely believe brimstoneSalad would have made this same response if this thread were titled "Would you date a Jew?". What would be the more expected response to somebody saying that they would never date a Jew? Hostility, or posting some pictures of Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman so that the anti-semite in question can relate on the nature of attraction?
By making this remark, I insinuated that you were treating a transphobe differently to an antisemite due to believing that antisemitism was worse than transphobia. I had no evidence that you believed this, and it is clear that you do not believe this. So for that, I am truly sorry.

That being said, I think that the reason many people do treat transphobes differently to antisemites is because they believe antisemitism is worse than transphobia due to how society treats those bigotries and how the media reacts to them.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:38 pm
Religion is an ideology and essentially a choice (in so far as there are any choices).
If it's a world view you don't agree with, and particularly if you aren't interested in arguing about it and it's important to you, that's perfectly reasonable.

It's often pretty easy to de-convert somebody since the facts are not on their side, but not everybody wants to have that argument again and again with every person he or she dates.
You could say that about any worldview, not just religion. If somebody isn't going to date somebody with a worldview that they disagree with for those reasons, then they will die alone, as I don't think there are any two people on this planet who share every worldview.
The thing is, a racist has more likely already been confronted with and rejected the facts.
The probability of a racist living under a racist rock and never having been exposed to reality is less likely than a transphobic living under a transphobic rock. It's all about context.

It's more fair to assume a racist has been given the facts and chose to reject them already, thus starting out with hostility is more understandable.
However, of course the best approach in either cases is giving somebody the benefit of the doubt and assuming (however improbable) innocent ignorance rather than active denial/elective ignorance.
I think that that's reasonable. However, I doubt those are the same reasons everybody in society might treat those with transphobic beliefs less hostilely than those with racist ones. I don't know that their thought process when being hostile to a racist and being more lenient towards a transphobe takes into account the past experiences of the racist/transphobe in question. I imagine its probably more of a gut reaction, influenced by society's values. However, this is only my opinion and, of course, there's not really any way to know.
Maybe. But if we are clear about the reasons for those different treatments I think people will understand.
They are equally wrong, but one is just more obviously wrong than the other in modern social context so it's less forgivable a mistake due to pure ignorance.
A fair point. I'm agreed with you on that.
Maybe some minor misinformation, but not to the point we'd recognize as overt racism today.
I think it's very unlikely that somebody would be so misinformed that they would be that racist, however, I don't think it's impossible.
One has to go a bit more out of the way to reject consensus than the other.
There is still some fringe ~1% or so of polled scientists who are climate skeptics. The same is not true of the shape of the Earth.
Both quack theories are absolutely wrong, one is just more obvious and a little harder to deny than the other.
I think that climate change is much harder to deny because there is much more coverage of it in the news, especially now as scientists reckon it could get catastrophic soon. There's not really that much news about the shape of the earth. Because of the fact that more people are likely to be informed about climate change, I think it's a much harder fact to deny than the fact that the earth is round.

That being said, it is just the analogy I take issue with here and after putting some thought into it I am in agreement with the overall point that there is a clear distinction to be made between different groups of people who promote obviously false viewpoints, as some are more likely to have an explanation for why they hold those viewpoints in the first place
That's true, but what we're talking about here is not just consequence but character. The excusability of ignorance.
If somebody *knows* their beliefs are harmful that can speak to character, but these people think their beliefs are true... so...
Again, I think it's fair to say that transphobes should in most cases be treated differently to racists due to the environment which could foster those beliefs. However, I don't know that this is the reason many people treat them differently.
Join my Democratic People's Republic: https://discord.gg/N2Uqehc
Follow my Twitter: https://twitter.com/AgentBl65800546

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9169
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:51 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:48 pm
First and foremost, I would like to apologise to you for making this remark:
Thanks.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:48 pm
You could say that about any worldview, not just religion. If somebody isn't going to date somebody with a worldview that they disagree with for those reasons, then they will die alone, as I don't think there are any two people on this planet who share every worldview.
Then why do you have a problem with the Nazi worldview?

Some world views are more or less objectionable to different people than others. It's entirely possible for religion NOT to be in the "agree to disagree" territory, but for many other differences to be.

Also, religion is more foundational in many cases. It deals more with epistemology through faith and scripture, so it's harder to come to agreement on other things if there are strong differences there.
Whereas with two scientific naturalists, the evidence can lead the way to more broad agreement much of the time.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:48 pm
I think it's very unlikely that somebody would be so misinformed that they would be that racist, however, I don't think it's impossible.
Not impossible, but again, it's all about statistics.
When we judge people we're almost always playing an odds game.

Much higher odds that a transphobic person is just ill informed and can be corrected vs. a racist.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:48 pm
I think that climate change is much harder to deny because there is much more coverage of it in the news, especially now as scientists reckon it could get catastrophic soon. There's not really that much news about the shape of the earth.
That's because climate change is considered more controversial and political than the shape of the Earth: on the latter point virtually nobody disagrees.
Even if the disagreement is for bad reasons, there is more disagreement on climate change.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:48 pm
Because of the fact that more people are likely to be informed about climate change, I think it's a much harder fact to deny than the fact that the earth is round.
To the contrary, polarization and misinformation on climate change is much more prevalent. Easier to be fooled or confused on the point and not know who to look to for credible information.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:55 am

Some very good points. I think this is the only thing I'm really in disagreement with:
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:51 pm
When we judge people we're almost always playing an odds game.
This would be the rational way to judge people, but I don't know that most people really are that rational.
Join my Democratic People's Republic: https://discord.gg/N2Uqehc
Follow my Twitter: https://twitter.com/AgentBl65800546

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9169
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:02 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:55 am
Some very good points. I think this is the only thing I'm really in disagreement with:
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:51 pm
When we judge people we're almost always playing an odds game.
This would be the rational way to judge people, but I don't know that most people really are that rational.
How about:

When *we* judge people, we're always playing an odds game.
When people judge each other, they should be playing an odds game (even if sometimes they're just using their feelings and personal biases, which is wrong).

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:04 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:02 pm
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:55 am
Some very good points. I think this is the only thing I'm really in disagreement with:
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 9:51 pm
When we judge people we're almost always playing an odds game.
This would be the rational way to judge people, but I don't know that most people really are that rational.
How about:

When *we* judge people, we're always playing an odds game.
When people judge each other, they should be playing an odds game (even if sometimes they're just using their feelings and personal biases, which is wrong).
Okay it seems we're both agreed here.
Join my Democratic People's Republic: https://discord.gg/N2Uqehc
Follow my Twitter: https://twitter.com/AgentBl65800546

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests