GC: Is sexual attraction only based on genitals, or is there more to sexual attraction (e.g. attraction to secondary sexual characteristics, "femininity", "masculinity", etc)?

submitted by Not_a_celebrity from self.GCdebatesQT

I moved this from lgbropthet to here, after being called a 'troll' multiple times so here it is šŸ¤”

The TQs argue that sexual attraction is more than genitals, or has absolutely nothing to do with genitals. To give an example of this: https://imgur.com/m15ld9T

The user is a "trans man" who apparently never had an issue dating "gay" men (are the men she dated gay though?).

She argues, that sexual attraction is not based on genitals, otherwise lesbians would have no issue dating this "trans man" because she has a vagina: https://imgur.com/r1fTEV9

I'm not sure that's a picture of a "trans man", can you confirm? If that's a "trans man", she "passes" so well?? It's insane ... Where are the scars on her body? Shouldn't there be scars left from the removal of her breast tissue??

So many "gay" men date "trans men", and so many "straight" men date "trans women". What's happening here? These same men that date "trans women" would never date a "cis" man. They say, "I would suck a dick if it's on a trans woman, because they are women, but can't if it's on a man"

More and more people turn out are attracted to secondary sexual characteristics, "femininity", and "masculinity", rather than genitals.

Attraction isn't based on genitals.

Most people don't see someone and immediately think "they'd better have _____ genitals", they look at their outward appearance and are attracted or not based upon secondary sex characteristics that the person has. Attraction is nuanced and complicated and unless someone is a genital fetishist it isn't simply "oh, a random woman and she has vagina, this is all I need" or "oh, a random man and he has penis, this is all I need".

We're already attracted to someone way before we learn what's in someone's pants. Genitals can be a part of attraction but they're not the reason someone is gay or lesbian.

I have another example to show you.

This man is attracted to extremely "feminine" men: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelsWithoutHate/comments/lbp05m/serious_question_have_you_guys_ever_considered/glxbs9w?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Screenshots for if he ever deletes his comments: https://imgur.com/bK61sGc

He says because he is only attracted to "feminine" men, and not "masculine" men, he is "straight".

Being attracted to femininity is straight

I haven't convinced myself that I'm not straight. I literally AM straight. I just like femboys because they are feminine

The only thing that may be seen as borderline gay is that I like dicks, but even so those dicks are on feminine bodies and they just tend to look more feminine than the average penis but yeah, the dick is really the only difference between femboys and women that's actually significant enough for me to acknowledge the arguments against.

He went on to explain the difference between "feminine" and "masculine" penises ... : https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelsWithoutHate/comments/lbp05m/serious_question_have_you_guys_ever_considered/gn3tfa7?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

I also understand and acknowledge that from a purely materialistic perspective, their dicks are pretty much identical to any non-femboy male's dick, making them "just as masculine as any dude's dick". However, this statement about their dicks being of equal masculinity only applies when looking at the issue from a purely materialistic worldview.

This is what separates our views apart. In adition to viewing this issue (this issue = their dicks lmao) from a purely materialist perspective, I also take into account the more absract, idealist aspects.

Although it's physically identical to a traditionally masculine male's dick, the context, mental associations invoked by it and the meaning behind it make it more feminine. Yes, one could argue that it's made up of the same atoms, the same shape, contains the same hormones, etc. as a masculine dick, but we, the humans, are what ultimately give this collection of atoms which materialistically resembles a masculine dick, its deeper, more abstract meaning.

I understand that what I said in my earlier paragraph may be hard to comprehend, so try thinking of it via this metaphor:

There are two bayonets, bayonet A and bayonet B.

Bayonet A was used by a soviet soldier during WW2 to defend Stalingrad. It has been used to kill 3 enemy soldiers.

Bayonet B was made by a modern American company. It was made in the year 2018 and it has never been used to fight in a war, however, it is a PERFECT replica of bayonet A. Bayonet B is physically identical to Bayonet A down to every single atom.

Now, which one of these two Bayonets is more historically significant for Soviet history? Bayonet A is obviously more significant and the fact that it is physically identical to Bayonet B does not change this.

This is because historical significance is not a materialistic attribute. Historical significance is a more abstract thing than a physical attribute, like say, mass or velocity. Well guess what, so is femininity/masculinity. Femininity is a very abstract attribute that can't be measured by purely looking at the physical characteristics of a a subject.

Therefore, it is wrong of you to say that femboy dicks are just as masculine as "any guy's dick" and base this claim solely on their physical resemblance to the dicks of more masculine men. You have completely ignored the context and the more abstract meaning that we humans attribute to the dick which can't be measured via physical means.

TLDR; I'm straight for being attracted to femboys and their dicks even if their dicks are physically identical to even the most muscular, high-testosterone Chad's dicks

Thoughts?

Is there such a thing as a "feminine" or "masculine" penis?

Is a man that is only attracted to "trans women", and is not attracted to men that are not "feminine" and don't take hrts or surgeries to "pass as" women, really gay? Or is he "straight" for being only attracted to secondary sexual characteristics that are usually on women and "femininity"?

If this man is gay, why is he only attracted to "trans women"? Why not "cis" men?

What about a man that is only attracted to "trans women" and "cis" women, is he bi? Why isn't he attracted to "cis" men if he's bi?

Or what about a man that is only attracted to "feminine" men, but not "masculine" men like the second example? Is he bi or gay? Or is he "straight" for being attracted to "femininity"? Why isn't he attracted to "masculine" men if he's gay or bi?

Not gonna lie, this whole thing is confusing af šŸ™ƒ

top 100 commentsshow all 185
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[ā€“]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Feminine penis? No. A penis is a penis regardless of its size, how soft the skin might be, or how feminine the man whoā€™s penis it is might appear. Estrogen does not magically make a penis anything other than a penis. Itā€™s nonsense to claim it becomes anything other than a limper dick.

I donā€™t think I have anything worthwhile to contribute to defining peopleā€™s sexualities. Been in a hetero relationship for 8 years and will likely stay in it for life. I will say it looks as if homosexual peopleā€™s sexualities are being almost weaponised against them and/or erased in a drawn out intellectual exercise. Thereā€™s a lot of compulsory heterosexuality demands beneath all the gender identity rhetoric.

[ā€“]censorshipment 10 insightful - 6 fun10 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

Sexual orientation is based on the sex: male/XY/AMAB and/or female/XX/AFAB.

Sexual attraction/preference is based on the "gender": gender expression and appearance (facial features, height, weight, skin color, etc) and other shit.

TRAs are trying to force everyone to conflate sexual orientation and sexual preference.

I have seen pretty "trans women", such as Amiyah Scott (a homosexual male), who I'd date if they were female. I'm not sexually attracted to surgically/medically altered male bodies.

https://instagram.com/kingamiyahscott?igshid=80lwj9dxfao7

[ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What do you think of this comment that says sexual attraction is based on perceived sex or sex characteristics, rather than sex itself, which I'm guessing means sexual attraction is based on perception, and not the reality of biological sex, or sexual characteristics?: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/7do7/gc_is_sexual_attraction_only_based_on_genitals_or/ru64

Screenshot for if it gets deleted: https://imgur.com/CUqlcaN

The movie the matrix pretty much shows that what people are experiencing is more important than the actual underlying reality. Thus I would say that people are attracted to perceived sex characteristics rather than any biological or even non-biological reality that underlies those perceived traits.

There's another comment with a similar sentiment: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/7do7/gc_is_sexual_attraction_only_based_on_genitals_or/rtr2

Screenshot for if it gets deleted: https://imgur.com/uFWmBrw

[ā€“]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What do you think of this comment that says sexual attraction is based on perceived sex or sex characteristics, rather than sex itself

That's like saying that if I catfish a person, they should still be attracted to me because they were back when I was lying to them and catfishing them. Like wow what a manipulative argument.

[ā€“]BiologyIsReal 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Sexual orientation is based on sex. Genitals are a part on the attraction, but they are not the only thing that matters. Also, in the vast majority of the cases, we can tell wich kind of genitals someone has without pulling their pants down. While, secondary sex characteristics are not what defines sex, they're usually a good way to know someone's sex.

The people who insist that sexual orientation is really based on "gender identity" are mostly virtue signalling and don't practice what they preach. And the people whose dating life supposedly reflect this "inclusive" view are lying to themselves about they sexual orientations or are trying to satisfy their trans identified partners's need for "validation".

Finally, only males have a penis. Saying that a penis is "feminine" doesn't change that fact.

[ā€“]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I think a lot of heterosexual and bi women do not find male genitals visually attractive; appealing to touch with the hands; nice to kiss, lick or suck; or nice smelling, either. Many het and bi girls and women find male genitals ugly, gross, smelly, funny-looking, and/or scary, in fact.

Male genitals just happen to be part of the kind of sexed bodies we are attracted to. They're part of the package, as it were LOL, but far from the whole package and far from the main attraction. If a man knows how to use his dick well, dicks can bring girls and women sexual pleasure - but most girls and women find fingers and mouths are better sources of sexual pleasure than dicks are.

And of course, testicles and the organs that make seminal fluid are important to females who want to have children either by or with a male. But that's a far cry from girls and women being attracted to testicles.

To suggest that girls and women who are sexually attracted to males are mainly or even largely attracted to male genitals per se is, IMO, a misrepresentation of female sexuality.

[ā€“]worried19 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can't speak for any other woman, but I'm definitely attracted to male genitals. Assuming that good hygiene is a given.

[ā€“]anxietyaccount8 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe not "mainly attracted", but I would be genuinely surprised if a male-attracted woman did not find male genitals attractive at all. I have seen some women say they are grossed out by certain dicks, but it may be an issue of poor hygiene (?)

[ā€“]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I would argue that any person not attracted to normal opposite-sex traits is either a fetishist (many men who claim to be "straight" just have a fetish for femininity, which has nothing to do with actual female bodies) or pushed into a very limited form of sexuality due to psychological trauma involved in the subject, which most women have because we live in a society where hetero sex is a manifestation of male misogyny, narcissism and domination.

[ā€“]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm confused, how did I suggest straight or bisexual women were mainly attracted to male genitalia? I just focused on genitals because of OP's questions.

Anyway, genitals aren't what I find more appealing in a man. Though, I'd not say they are completely irrelevant, but I guess hygiene is important, too. Although, I wouldn't use my experiences as basis to speak about female sexuality in general.

[ā€“]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sorry I wasn't operating on the premise that you suggested

straight or bisexual women were mainly attracted to male genitalia

I was going on what the OP said, and just trying to amplify - and complicate - your comment that

Sexual orientation is based on sex. Genitals are a part on the attraction, but they are not the only thing that matters.

BTW, I'm not basing my comments solely on my own experience, but on work that's been done over many decades - by sex educators (such as Mary Calderone, founder of SEICUS), journalists, researchers like Shere Hite, sexologists, and what women revealed in the consciousness-raising groups of yore. All of which suggest that, speaking generally, males (in Western countries) overall are distinctly more genitally-focused in their sexual attraction than females; males - again generally speaking - have a more favorable view of the aesthetic appeal their own genitals than females have of theirs; and heterosexual males have a more favorable view of the genitals of both sexes than heterosexual females do.

One of the reasons for the difference is obvious: males can easily see their own genitals and they tend to marvel at them and their capabilites long before they come of age sexually. From the time they are toilet trained, males see and hold their dicks every time they pee. Whereas the way female anatomy is arranged, our own genitals remain hidden from our own view. Boys and men can get a good view of their own genitals just by looking down, but girls and women need a mirror or camera to get a corresponding view of ours.

As an example, men tend to have pet names for their genitals, particularly their penises, to speak of them as wondrous entities, and to use terminology in everyday convos meant to constantly draw attention to their dicks and balls. "John Thomas" in Lady Chatterly's Lover was not a one-off. But women generally do not have pet names for our genitals, nor do girls and women customarily go around bragging about the size of our clits or the lengths and strength of our orgasms. There are no female equivalents to such everyday expressions as "suck my dick," "big swinging dick," "you've got some balls," and "pissing contest." The only equivalent between the sexes in this regard is when references to genitals are meant to be negative, as in calling someone a dick or a cxnt as an insult.

Editing to add: when we talk about sexual attraction, particularly today, we are often talking mainly or largely about visual attraction. So we should keep in mind that for most of human history since the time humans first started wearing clothes, a lot of ordinary people didn't usually see the genitals of adults of the opposite sex very often or at all, not even in pictures. In cultures and eras when it was customary to have sex mainly in the dark, under the covers, or furtively in a dark alley whilst still fully clothed, it's probably likely that many girls and women never saw the genitals of the males they had sex with. And depending on when they were born and in what cultures, many women through history were raised to be so prudish and passive about (hetero)sex that they never touched a penis with their hands or mouths.

Prior to the invention of modern methods of image replication, and of course of technologies of imagery like photography, most people saw very little in the way of pictures too.

[ā€“]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I didn't think you were basing your comment on your own experience only. I said I didn't want to speculate about female sexuality based on my experience because I'm used to see myself as the odd one in these matters.

[ā€“]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The only thing that may be seen as borderline gay is that I like dicks, but even so those dicks are on feminine bodies and they just tend to look more feminine than the average penis but yeah, the dick is really the only difference between femboys and women that's actually significant enough for me to acknowledge the arguments against.

LOL. This person - who then goes on absurdly to compare penises to bayonets, making me think fondly of the Beatles song, Happiness is A Warm Gun - is an asshat who is in denial and/or a liar. https://youtu.be/nIR6AAjEg5U

Also, what is "TQ"?

[ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Thanks for the link! It's my first time listening to the beatles. Why did it make you think of that song? Is there a reason? Is it because of the part that says "I need a fix 'cause I'm going down. Down to the pits that I left uptown" and the user comparing penises to bayonets is also going down to the pits?

TQ is abbreviation for "trans and queer". The two letters they added to LGB, and made up "LGBTQ+". Those first few arguments are made by a "trans man", the second few by someone that believes in "gender identity", so I wrote TQ (Q are queers, they believe in 'gender identity' and are where 'queer theory' came from, etc)

[ā€“]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I know what what the T and Q stand for individually, as well as what QT and all the rest mean, coz I think I've been around these topics for a whole lot longer than you, LOL.

What I didn't know, and all I asked you to explain, is what you meant by TQ, which to me always looks like mistyping of QT. I still don't think your acronym is accurate, or consistent with the rest of the acronyms you've cited. It seems to me that the correct acronym for "trans and queer" would be T&Q or TAQ. But thanks for the info.

As for Happiness Is A Warm Gun, you're kidding, right?

It can't possibly be news to you or anyone else that guns and most other weapons males have invented and fetishized during the long course of human history are all phallic symbols. You must know know the word "vagina" means sheath, and that a sheath is a covering for a sword or blade, and that guns are the modern replacement for previous weapons such as swords, spears and arrows.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun, which John Lennon was inspired to write after seeing a headline in the American Rifleman magazine in 1968, is full of sexual innuendo - male heterosexual innuendo. It includes lines in which the male singer brags that a woman called "mother superior" (one of Lennon's pet names for Yoko Ono) "jumped the gun," in other words (finally) had sex with him; a line describing the man's sense of wellbeing and safety when he's holding said woman in his arms and fingering her clitoris; and the momentary bliss and utter invincibility he and other heterosexual men feel after they've shot a wad in sexual congress with a woman (as opposed to in solitary masturbation).

Mother Superior jumped the gun

Mother Superior jumped the gun

Mother Superior jumped the gun

Mother Superior jumped the gun

Mother Superior jumped the gun

Mother Superior jumped the gun

Happiness is a warm gun (bang, bang, shoot, shoot)

Happiness is a warm gun, momma (bang, bang, shoot, shoot)

When I hold you in my arms (ooh, oh, yeah)

And I feel my finger on your trigger (ooh, oh, yeah)

I know nobody can do me no harm (ooh, oh, yeah)

Because

Happiness is a warm gun, yes it is (bang, bang, shoot, shoot)

Happiness is a warm, yes it is, gun (happiness, bang, bang, shoot, shoot)

Well, don't you know that happiness is a warm gun momma?

(Happiness is a warm gun, yeah)

Much of the Beatles' music, especially the early work, is an expression and celebration of the enormous attraction to and often head-over-heels love heterosexual boys and men of their generation felt for girls and women If you want to understand male heterosexuality, I suggest checking out some other Beatles songs, such as these, which I already have on file in a folder listing male love songs about women from the the 1950s through the 90s.

Beatles hits from 1963: And I Love Her" https://youtu.be/5tc0gLSSU1M "All My Loving" https://youtu.be/TSpiwK5fig0 ā€œDo You Want to Know A Secretā€ https://youtu.be/uRQ7ecvU56k ā€œTill There Was Youā€ https://youtu.be/SHAqAO7w8M8 ā€œThis Boyā€ https://youtu.be/VhuU8KDLdO4 ā€œPS I Love Youā€ https://youtu.be/MA5DkiVKSlM ā€œWords of Loveā€ https://youtu.be/r5nARZKS-AY ā€œWhen I Saw Her Standing Thereā€ https://youtu.be/oxwAB3SECtc

Beatles hits from 1964: ā€œI Want to Hold Your Handā€ https://youtu.be/jenWdylTtzs ā€œShe Loves Youā€ https://youtu.be/nGbWU8S3vzs ā€œIā€™m Happy Just to Dance With You" https://youtu.be/B7X1oUfa8uE ā€œIf I Fellā€ https://youtu.be/F_80s6S_7Vw ā€œAnd I Love Herā€ https://youtu.be/5tc0gLSSU1M ā€œCanā€™t Buy Me Loveā€ https://youtu.be/srwxJUXPHvE ā€œTell Me Whyā€ https://youtu.be/GVub1QCUCGc ā€œNo Replyā€ https://youtu.be/YgFo9STa70E ā€œI Feel Fineā€ https://youtu.be/WrAV5EVI4tU

[ā€“]worried19 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think your picture is Buck Angel? Definitely a trans man.

Sexual attraction is not based purely on genitals, but heterosexual attraction includes genitals of the opposite sex as a necessary component. Trans men might be perfectly passing with their clothes on, but underneath those clothes is a vagina and not a penis.

[ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What about homosexual attraction? Is genitalia a necessary component there or is it different?

[ā€“]worried19 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's the same. If you're attracted to and want to interact sexually with genitals of both sexes, that's bisexual.

[ā€“]worried19 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Or what about a man that is only attracted to "feminine" men, but not "masculine" men like the second example?

I think this is the same as a woman who is solely attracted to butch lesbians. She's no less a lesbian because she prefers women with a masculine presentation. Butch women are fully female when it comes to sex.

[ā€“]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (7 children)

Ask yourself this question. What's your sexual orientation? Would you date the sex that you're not attracted to just because of their completely undetectable self-identification?

There is more to sex than genitals. E.g. both men & women have arms, but their arms are different. Every part of the body can easily be sexed, the vast majority of the time.

There is more to being female or male than sex ā€“ socialisation has a huge impact too. Every man is by nature & nurture male, just as every woman is by nature & nurture female. What else is there other than nature & nurture?

If a man is only attracted to women & feminine men then he is is bi-curious. Studies show that men attracted to trans-womxyn are on the bisexual scale (just not fully bisexual) compared to their straight counterparts.

What is "femininity" with regards to attraction though? To some men femininity is the exaggeration of secondary sex characteristics, to others it's neoteny. The former may prefer voluptuous women (non-white guys lol), while the latter prefer East Asian women (white guys for some reason lol, they'd probably prefer 9-14 year olds if it wasn't illegal "dOeS tHaT mAkE tHeM pAEdOpHiLeS?" it makes them sick).

Are you really this confused?

Heterosexuality is a retronym. It hasn't got the integrity that homosexuality has got.

[ā€“]anxietyaccount8 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

So white guys who like Asian women are pedophiles? Seriously? Some of them are definitely creepy, but why the generalization?

It's disturbing to imply that a group of women are just "pedo bait".

[ā€“]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 7 fun5 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 7 fun -  (5 children)

lol I did a pre-emptive response to this predictable reaction already. I seem to have done so in vain. We agree that Western men who find Asian women attractive are not paedophiles, but sick. I already made that clear. Genuine paedophiles are into babies & small children exclusively. People like to throw the word 'paedophile' around in order to shame guys who are into underage girls. These men ought to be shamed, but 'paedophiles' they are not.

It may be "disturbing to imply that a group of women are just pedo-bait", but we've all seen anime, right? From a Western perspective they already look underage, then the Eastern standard is for them to sound & act like children too, so yeah if a Western man's "type" is Asian that's a red flag. Personally, I can't stand weebs of either gender.

[ā€“]anxietyaccount8 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We agree that Western men who find Asian women attractive are not paedophiles, but sick. I already made that clear.

That's not better, but whatever.

[ā€“]SnowAssMan 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

How is it any different from finding underage girls attractive if Asians look underage from a Western perspective?

[ā€“]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

we've all seen anime

Anime hardly counts as "Asian women".

[ā€“]SnowAssMan 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

cute & sexy are the same thing in all those East Asian cultures, is basically what I mean.

load more comments (1 reply)

    [ā€“]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

    Sexual orientation is about sex. I feel like the things that weā€™re attracted to are more than genitals, of course, but genitals are very important. I donā€™t think I could have a relationship with a transman even if I found them very attractive on the surface.

    I donā€™t think you can be monosexual and be okay with different genitals or people of different sexes. That would make you at least bi. I feel like at certain times like the terms become less useful though. Like, by husband certainly considers himself straight even though we are technically in a homosexual relationship. He only ever dated or had sex with females though and began our relationship believing that I was that too. If someone described him as bi, it would probably just be confusing.

    [ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

    But if he was always with females, and is now with a male, isn't he a bisexual that doesn't want to accept he's not "straight"? Is a man that is with a "trans woman" really "straight"? Would it even make sense for a man that was always with females to get into a gay relationship and say he's still "straight"? šŸ™ƒ If not bi, then should we call him a fetishist?

    [ā€“]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

    Maybe. Iā€™m not going to try to convince him though, lol. I donā€™t think in a million years he could have been with a TW with a penis, so I feel like that gives him some straight points at least. I donā€™t go out of my way to remind him I am male though or anything like that and he doesnā€™t think of me that way.

    [ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

    So you're helping deceiving him that he's with a woman? I think he's homophobic. It's like Blaire White's husband. He thinks he's with a "woman", but he's with a man. He just doesn't want to accept he's not "straight". Blaire White doesn't remind him he's in a gay relationship either, he thinks he's a "woman" in a "straight relationships". Your husband too doesn't think of you that way, which means he's deceiving himself. He doesn't want to accept he's with a man. A man that has no penis. A man without a penis is still a man. And a man that is in a relationship with a man without a penis isn't more "straight" or less "gay" just because his partner doesn't have a penis šŸ¤”

    I think it's best to remind him, and burst that bubble. It's worse to help lie to him and make him go to that grave all the while thinking he's "straight" just because his male partner removed his penis, wears dresses, etc.

    [ā€“]worried19 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

    I'm not sure Blaire's fiance thinks of himself as straight.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiFPIfN99N0

    Blaire also hasn't had bottom surgery.

    [ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    Thanks for the link. I watched that video and it bothers me that he keeps calling that "trans woman" he walked on the beach with "she", even after knowing that's a "trans woman". They seem to joke about the fiance being gay, but I don't know if he himself understands he's not "straight" outside of him joking with Blaire. He seems to be like "I dated girls before, and then trans women, it's hard to put my sexuality in a box" type? He doesn't seem to want to say he's bi or gay.

    [ā€“]worried19 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    I'd call him some level of bisexual, but I also think society is too focused on labels and boxes. He is who he is, and Blaire is who she is. We're all human beings at the end of the day.

    [ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    It just doesn't make sense to call a man that has been with men and women anything but gay or bisexual. Bisexual doesn't mean 50/50 attraction, that's a mistake people make. When someone says they are more attracted to one sex than another people think they shouldn't be put in a box, or that labels are useless. There are varying levels of bisexuality though, and Blaire's spouse would be on one of those levels. Either that, or he's gay, and his previously dating women does not count. Blaire himself is a gay man. He has internalized homophobia, and hates being gay, that's the whole reason he thinks he's a "woman in a straight relationship".

    and Blaire is who she is

    He*

    [ā€“]worried19 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    Well, I agree he's bisexual to some degree. As far as Blaire goes, I'm happy to use preferred pronouns for adult transsexuals who are living their lives in good faith. Blaire doesn't pretend that she's not biologically male.

    [ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    "She" refers to someone that is biologically female. It is contradictory to call a biological male "she" just because he feels like a woman. And he's not "living in good faith". He's a homophobe. He's anti-feminist. And he is a trans-medicalist, and trans-medicalists are worse than the ordinary "trans", because these are the ones believing that there is a "female" or "male" brain, that "gender is not a social construct", and that a "trans man" is a "male brain in a female body" or a "trans woman" is a "female brain in a male body" who should get hormones and surgery for their body to match their brain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9WqfBDjRF8&t=191s

    Many GCs worship Blaire. While he accepts he's biologically male, he doesn't spend his day do day reminding himself of that, he thinks he's a "woman in a straight relationship", worse, a man with a "female brain". Why let a homophobe get what he wants?

    I don't think using anyone's preferred pronouns is a good idea. If Blaire understands he's biologically male, he should understand he shall be treated as a biological male, not a woman just because he got surgeries and hormones to look like the most stereotypical form people think a "woman" looks like. A woman is not big boobs, make up, and dresses. And calling Blaire "she" will enforce misogyny.

    [ā€“]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    A man without a penis is still a man

    Yes. As the experience of many men who've lost their dicks, and/or balls, and sometimes their entire lower bodies, due to war injuries, explosions, accidents and disease shows. Hemingway dealt with this topic 100 years ago in a famous novel known worldwide.

    [ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Can you tell me what you think of this comment?: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/7do7/gc_is_sexual_attraction_only_based_on_genitals_or/rtr2

    Screenshot for if it gets deleted: https://imgur.com/uFWmBrw

    It says that sexual attraction can't be purely based on "birth sex" (perhaps they mean "sex assigned at birth") as it would be reductive, and that it should also be based on "apparent gender" (which I think they mean what someone "passes as"). They give an example of a homophobic family. If a girl introduces her "bf", a "trans woman" who "passes as" a woman, to the family without mentioning "bf", and "trans woman", the family would become hostile, as they'd think she's with a woman.

    If a gay man meets a "trans man" that "passes as" a man, and becomes attracted to him, without the "trans man" telling him she's a woman and not a man, he'd think he's attracted to a man. Would this mean sexual attraction is more than sex, or genitals, and has to do with secondary sexual characteristics and what sex someone "passes as" on the outside even if they are not that sex?

    There is more to the comment than what I summarized, so please tell me what you think of those parts as well.

    [ā€“]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Sorry, not gonna try to make sense of that coz it comes off as gibberish to me. But with the exception of pedophiles, sexual attraction is not based on "birth sex" coz most people are not sexually attracted to newborns or young children. Most people are sexually attracted to persons who have reached or been through the puberty of adolescence.

    Also, there is no such thing as "birth sex." There is only sex. The sex of humans is determined at the moment of conception. Scientists have found observable, clear-cut distinct sex differences in the cells of human zygotes at 6/7 days post conception. Scientists have also found that there are distinct sex differences between male and female embryos even before the development of the gonads at circa 7 weeks (in gestational time, which is approx 5 weeks post-conception) and the effects of the sex hormones that follow once the male or female gonads form.

    The sex of human fetuses can be determined by sonogram with 100% accuracy at 70 days post conception (circa 12 weeks in gestational time). Sex can also be determined at 8-9 weeks gestational age (6-7 weeks post conception) via genetic testing of placental tissue obtained via CVS and of blood taken from a pregnant woman in a standard blood draw via the NIPT.

    The ability to determine fetal sex is not new. Amniocentesis was developed in the 1950s and 60s, and has been widely used when indicated since the early 70s. Fetal sonograms have been in use since 1972. I had CVS at 8 weeks 30 years ago.

    In my view, people who use term "birth sex" are basically waving a big red flag that shows they have never carried a pregnancy or been closely involved with a pregnancy. It's a term that totally overlooks the "lived experience" of hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of women, and their partners, who have been pregnant since the era of in utero genetic testing and customary fetal scanning began in the 1970s.

    IMO, using the term "birth sex" is also actually very cruel, and potentially re-traumatizing, to many of the millions of women who've miscarried fetuses whose sex was already known due to in-utero testing or coz genetic testing of the fetal remains was carried out after the miscarriage.

    [ā€“]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    I mean, I donā€™t think Iā€™m deceiving him. He knows about my history. He can ask me anything and I will tell him. He even knows the name my parents gave me as baby. He doesnā€™t really like talking about that stuff though and I donā€™t really either. I wouldnā€™t want him to see me as a man and itā€™s not how I usually think of myself or how people see me in the world. I could understand why some people might be upset about it though or feel like itā€™s not honest. Itā€™s complicated. I just feel like sometimes labels can get confusing.

    [ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Why are you here when you believe in the "gender identity" ideology? You think you're a woman, but then you know you're a man, but then you don't want people to think of you as the man you are, so you don't say anything to your husband about you being a man, and you let people assume you are a woman eventhough you are not. That is dishonest, it is deception. If I met you, couldn't tell you're a man, used "she", and you didn't correct me that you're a man, I'd feel deceived. But whatever. I don't think labels are confusing. You TQs always make them seem confusing. A man is in a relationship with a man? He's either gay or bi, doesn't matter if the guy has a penis or not, or thinks he's a woman. It's really simple.

    [ā€“]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    I think it's best to remind him, and burst that bubble. It's worse to help lie to him and make him go to that grave all the while thinking he's "straight" just because his male partner removed his penis, wears dresses, etc.

    I feel like heā€™s fully aware of our situation. He just sees me how he sees me and likewise with himself. I donā€™t think I can ā€œburst that bubble.ā€ Iā€™m just me and am not trying to support any type of lie. We totally arenā€™t homophobic either.

    [ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    If he's aware of your situation, it makes no sense for him to think of you as a woman, or not think of you as a man. But you said you don't want him or others to think of you as the man you are, which means you are supporting a lie: https://imgur.com/YDd1Hah

    I wouldn't want him to see me as a man, and it's not how I usually think of myself or how people see me in the world

    You not only don't want your husband to realize you are a man, but also made other people think you're a woman. You want people to either believe a lie or lie to you even if they know the truth.

    You both are homophobic, not in a "gay is eww" way conservatives directly tell us. In a TQ way of "I don't want to be seen as a man" which means you want to erase yourself and your identity as a man in a gay relationship and want to be seen as a "woman in a straight relationship". Your husband also tries to lie to himself that he's not with a man, but a woman, and supposedly is in a "straight relationship". This is homophobic.

    [ā€“]anxietyaccount8 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    More and more people turn out are attracted to secondary sexual characteristics, "femininity", and "masculinity", rather than genitals.

    Yeah, so what? Different people like different things. There are still those that care more about their physical body than gender presentation. I am only attracted to men, not "masculine people". They don't even have to be really masculine as long as they're male.

    He says because he is only attracted to "feminine" men, and not "masculine" men, he is "straight".

    Well, he is wrong in some ways, although, there's tons of "straight-passing" men just like him...

    It may not seem like "normal" bisexuality to only like a specific gender presentation, but in fact I would still consider it a type of bisexuality, as do other radfems. Many men (there's a LOT of them) are specifically attracted to feminine people, regardless of if they are male or female. A transwoman would be a perfectly fine partner for them. But, not gonna lie, this specific preference creeps me out. I think it speaks to the phallocentrism of many men, that they don't care if they're literally fucking a male person, as long as they get to top somebody. Yet they still call themselves straight.

    Is there such a thing as a "feminine" or "masculine" penis?

    No.

    There's some other men, who have a particular kink for BDSM scenarios, or being dominated, no matter who is doing it to them. In a way, I don't think they can always neatly be categorized as hetero/homo/bi.

    [ā€“]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I think it speaks to the phallocentrism of many men, that they don't care if they're literally fucking a male person, as long as they get to top somebody. Yet they still call themselves straight.

    Don't a lot of them want to have trans women top them? I thought that was a huge part of the attraction.

    [ā€“]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I think it speaks to the phallocentrism of many men, that they don't care if they're literally fucking a male person, as long as they get to top somebody.

    For a lot of males, it's even worse: they will stick their dicks in anything. Farm animals, the family dog, a ham sandwich, a jar of mayo or jam, a vacuum cleaner hose, a hole in the wall...

    [ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    No

    Why?

    There's some other men, who have a particular kink for BDSM scenarios, or being dominated, no matter who is doing it to them. In a way, I don't think they can always neatly be categorized as hetero/homo/bi.

    If a man wants to be dominated by anyone, be it a man or a woman, doesn't it mean he's bisexual? Or if he wants to be dominated by one sex more than the other, but still wants to be dominated by both, wouldn't he still count as bisexual? If he's not gay, or bi, what is he? šŸ¤”

    [ā€“]anxietyaccount8 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    A penis can't be feminine. It just...the word "feminine" is used to describe womanly things. It just doesn't feel right, to say that because a penis is smaller or "cute" (LOL) that makes it "feminine".

    If a man wants to be dominated by anyone, be it a man or a woman, doesn't it mean he's bisexual?

    Yes, technically, but my point was that for some men, they seem to have specific kinks that overshadow their orientation. But I have trouble understanding it. So maybe I shouldn't have said that, I know it's kind of confusing.

    [ā€“]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    If a man wants to be dominated by anyone, be it a man or a woman, doesn't it mean he's bisexual?

    Why should he be?

    [ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Because he would do things with both sexes, and bisexuals do things with both sexes too? What else would he be besides bisexual?

    [ā€“]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Oh, sorry, I thought you meant that wanting to be dominated made him bisexual.

    [ā€“]Not_a_celebrity[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Oh, no, sorry for the misunderstanding :))

    [ā€“]strictly 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The TQs argue that sexual attraction is more than genitals, or has absolutely nothing to do with genitals.

    I need find the body/face to be attractive overall but the person having a vagina is fundamental, a requirement.

    are the men she dated gay though?

    Homosexuals are exclusively same-sex attracted. So, are these men sexually attracted to her? If yes then no, they are evidently not homosexual as they experience heterosexual attractions. If they are not attracted to her, then maybe she has managed to coerce some homosexual men into dating her out of guilt.

    otherwise lesbians would have no issue dating this "trans man" because she has a vagina

    Some lesbians have no issue dating female trans people. According the woman-identifying male Julia Serrano ā€œthe very few ads [in the w4w section in craiglist] that mention being open to trans are specifically looking for trans men or tranny bois, not trans women.ā€ The male Julia Serrano sees this as a big problem, that females taking testosterone are more popular among lesbians than bepenised males like Julia Serano, and calls lesbians ā€œhypocritesā€ for being same-sex attracted instead of gender identity attracted. Itā€™s worth noting though that very few lesbians find all women attractive, so a vagina can be a requirement without it being the only requirement.

    If that's a "trans man", she "passes" so well?? It's insane ... Where are the scars on her body? Shouldn't there be scars left from the removal of her breast tissue??

    The scars are fully visible in the linked picture. Buck Angel looks female naked and doesnā€™t look particularly manly with clothes on either.

    These same men that date "trans women" would never date a "cis" man.

    Many of these men are openly bisexual and have no problem with dating ordinary men too.

    More and more people turn out are attracted to secondary sexual characteristics, "femininity", and "masculinity", rather than genitals.

    Yes, thatā€™s called bisexuality or pansexuality.

    Most people don't see someone and immediately think "they'd better have _____ genitals",

    If I see someone who looks a woman I assume they have a vagina and my potential attraction would be built on the assumption of a vagina. If that assumption isnā€™t true then my attraction disappear as I realize the target of my attraction was a creation of my imagination and doesnā€™t actually exist.

    Why isn't he attracted to "cis" men if he's bi?

    Most people have preferences within their sexual orientation and narrow preferences are not unheard of. Having a very narrow male type doesnā€™t make a man straight. Having a very narrow male type makes a man bisexual if he is into females too, or gay if he is exclusively attracted to these males. A straight man is someone who is exclusively attracted to females.

    [ā€“]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    If people want to argue that a sexual orientation is based in getting turned on from the colour pink or a type of underwear one wears or how much body hair someone has, then they're free to make up their own words for that. Redefining oppressed groups' language because you desperately want to be included despite not fitting the description is where we get a problem. I don't believe that a sexual orientation is inborn, but I do believe that the people who have been persecuted for it deserve to keep this word that they have made for themselves.

    [ā€“]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I don't believe that a sexual orientation is inborn

    Why not? Just curious. I feel like it is or it happens early enough it might as well be.

    [ā€“]adungitit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The enormous rise in non-heterosexual sexualities among young people (the notion that all these people simply didn't know they were getting turned on by the same sex throughout their lives is laughable), historic precedent (bisexuality being the norm in certain societies, usually with male partners being seen in a far better light that any woman) and the fact that sexuality based specifically in an attraction to bodies of a certain sex seems rare. Most male heterosexuality is just a fetish for a specific kind of gender presentation, and in women seems more a result of sheer momentum or a response to male sexual demands. Heterosexual women tend either to be feminine, submissive and into "manly men", or to have a fairly subdued, egalitarian sexuality where they're still expected to be subservient to men (hence the lack of enthusiasm, egalitarianism being the best a woman in a straight relationship might hope for, and it still being all about men), but gay men have a trashier, more immature attraction to men based on their masculine upbringing and fetishisation of said masculinity and the patriarchy. They regularly imitate and fetishise heterosexual misogyny. Sexuality also shows stark differences depending on what communities the person is exposed to and what's normal in them. They also fetishise the masculine recklessness involved in their sexual encounters, leading to massive issues with STDs and other irresponsible behaviour in the gay community (which the gay community itself encourages). Attraction devoid of male narcissism, one-sidedness and femininity that lesbians and submissive gay men have seems completely nonexistent in heterosexual men.

    There is absolutely no reason why homosexuality would be inborn. It simply wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint (And don't give me the laughable "gay men evolved to be uncles who could help with childrearing"). As for heterosexuality, it would make sense, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to me that the male obsessively hierarchical and narcissistic mentality ends up with them hyperfixating on whatever concept seems appealing to that worldview at the moment, sometimes to the point of fetishisation (which is also influenced by sexual norms, i.e. patriarchal ideas of big manly men being the aggressors over smaller feminine people). Most men are absolutely empathically stunted, so their sexuality relies on objectification and hierarchical ideas, which are extremely reliant on outside influence. Women on the other hand are saddled with too much empathy, so their sexuality tends to be a response to male trends, but also subdued because it's ultimately based in maximising male pleasure to the detriment of female pleasure, as well as reliant on abusive misogynistic norms that women have to suffer but also be gaslit into thinking of as normal and playful. My exposure to lesbian sexuality is limited, but pretty much all people so far who I have seen are able to have an attraction to women as human beings, rather than some male gaze idea of women, have been lesbians (don't get me started on bi women, lol). Human sexuality is simply far too malleable and prone to influence, for better and for worse, to be able to make statements such as "this and that is inborn". The internet especially shows just how easy it is to change people's sexuality if you just drag them into communities deep enough.

    There are people who can tell you they developed all kinds of fetishes fairly young. There are people who claim to have been attracted to BDSM since forever (and yet BDSM has seen a huge rise after 50 Shades of Gray among women hmmm, funny how delayed and reliant on societal influence these genes are). The notion that a fetish for, say, diapers would be inborn is simply impossible, no matter how strongly a person might feel that it is. Certain fixations appearing fairly young when the child is most easily influenced by the world around it doesn't mean they're inborn. It's easy as an adult to point at it and try to justify one's identity through it, but reality is usually more complex than that. Ofc you can interpret these things differently. I myself have so far been very unconvinced with alternate explanations, and they ultimately end up failing to explain the extreme variety in what sexuality was the norm throughout history. Did the people of antiquity just happen to have ludicrously high percentages of "the gay gene"? Or was 99% of heterosexuals really unaware that they're sexually attracted to the same sex? ofc these numbers are a thing of the past, and non-heterosexuality is going to keep rising with each new generation.

    [ā€“]Taln_Reich 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (118 children)

    Not GC, but since I wanted to write a post here somewhat similar in topic, I'm going to chime in anyway:

    1.) "Defining sexual orientation purely based on birth sex" vs. "Defining sexual orientation purely based on gender identity":

    In my view, both these approaches are deeply flawed due to being overly reductive. If we were to define sexual orientation purely based on "Gender identity", then there wouldn't be any such thing as "Heterosexual" or "Homosexual", since before medical transitioning "Gender identity" is a purely internal to the person having this gender identity, and therefore imperceptible to the person feeling or not feeling the attraction. And basing sexual orientation on a imperceptible factor is obvious nonsense. But defining sexual orientation purely based on birth sex doesn't make sense either, since if we were to assume a well passing post-bottom-surgery (I'm getting later to this particular point) transgender person the birth sex (instead of the gender identity) wouldn't be perceptible to the person feeling or not feeling the attraction either and therefore also be nonsensical. Also, a practical dimension to this: imagine some homophobic couples daughter came home with a pasing trans women as her partner. You really think this couple would take birth sex based auguments toward their daughters hetrosexuality?

    Now, how to make sense of this? Well, it might make sense to essentially have a category along the lines of "apparent gender", that, in contrast to birth sex or gender identity is mutable and describes as what sex/gender the body of the transgender person appears to be to the observer. And then consider sexual orientation of said observer as being tied to what "apparent gender" said observer prefers.

    2.) "genital preferences" as a sub component of sexual orientation

    Now, I think it might make sense to split sexual orientation into components, broadly along the lines of primary and secondary sexual characteristics. As in, I have clearly seen some people who express that they don't particulary care about the genitals but absoloutly requiere secondary sexual characteristics in line with their sexual orienation but there are also a lot of people who do requiere both primary and secondary sexual characteristics to align with their sexual orienation (and this is not limited to a general exclusion of transgender people - at least when one talks about transgender women, as apparently vaginaplasty still has a serious lead onm phalloplasty ), in fact at a different point in this discussion a transgender women does report that her male (heterosexual IDing) husband clearly falls into the latter category. And I have also seen people who ID as bisexual who express, that they find that contrasting primary and secondary sexual characteristics are a deal breaker for them (if sexual orientation was solely based on genitals, that wouldn't make any sense).

    So, my solution is, to consider "genital preferences" a component of sexual orientation, with (for clarity of communication) or qualifier for this component being added to the sexual orientation. So far I've come up with the provisional labels of "CGP" ("Congurent Genital Preference" - requiering that secondary characteristics and primary ones are in allignment, e.g. men must have penisses and women must have vaginas), "NGP" ("No Genital Preference" - no requierement for secondary and primary sexual characteristics to align, e.g. pre-button-surgery transgender people of the correct gender are ok) and "IGP" ("Incongurent Genital Preference" - requierment for secondary and primary sexual characteristics to be at odds. This is primarily to weirdo-proof this system) (Note: these labels may need some workshopping. If someone has good proposals, I'm listening). So a bisexual woman who needs her men to have a penis and her women to have vaginas would be a CGP-Bisexual, while a man who is open to women with vaginas and pre-op trans women would be a NGP-Heterosexual.

    On the other hand, I can also see an argument being made for "NGP" essentially being kind of bisexual, as I will elaborate in 3.)

    3.) pushing the blurred line:

    This is the point I'm still working on. Fundamentally, genitals are a nice, clear line that can be drawn (after all, even among people with intersex conditions actual ambigious genitals are an absoloute rarity, meaning everyone around you most likely has either a penis or a vagina and not soemthing in between), so if we discard this line (as suggested by 2.)), well, where is the line then? If we were to ask a NGP-Heterosexual man/ NGP-Lesbian wether they would be okay with a trans women at stage X of her transition, we could push the line further and further (as now there aren't any real hard lines that oculd be drawn), until they would have to consider whether there might be a pre-everything transgender women that is feminine enough that they would accept her as their partner. But if they consider this (and not doing so would requiere drawing the line on a pretty arbitary point), well, what is the perceptible difference towards a very feminine man? There isn't one (and I have already said what I think about imperceptible factors in this question). But if the heterosexual IDing man/Lesbian IDing woman include what is indisputable a man in their consideration, well, wouldn't that clearly be bisexuality (was planning on asking thsi question on r/asktransgender)? E.g. going against the core finding of point 2.).

    This is where I'm currently still trying to work things out.

    If you read this lengthy response, I thank you. If you didn't, please give it a shot.

    [ā€“]BiologyIsReal 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    There is a big problem with your proposed system. "SRS" is a very recent development in terms of human history. We didn't evolve to feel attracted to people with an artificial mix of female and male characteristics, which it would explain, I think, why many bisexual people don't like this either. Besides, you seem to be overstimating how good the results of these surgeries actually are. The fact is "neovaginas" and "neopenises" are nothing like actual vaginas and penises.

    [ā€“]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    There is a big problem with your proposed system. "SRS" is a very recent development in terms of human history. We didn't evolve to feel attracted to people with an artificial mix of female and male characteristics, which it would explain, I think, why many bisexual people don't like this either.

    which is preciesly why I advocated the introduction labeling that clarifies whether someone is okay with this artifical mixture of sexual characteristics or not.

    Besides, you seem to be overstimating how good the results of these surgeries actually are. The fact is "neovaginas" and "neopenises" are nothing like actual vaginas and penises.

    well, I don't have enough personal experience in the matter (as in: comparing the results in person), so I only have pictures and personal reports of people who had the opportunity to go on.

    So for neovaginas, sure, there are the trainwrecks (no linking to neovaginadisasters neessary), but I have definetly seen one that look good, and the personal reports I've seen on reddit ( https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/7qqu4h/how_realistic_is_a_srs_neovagina_honestly/ , https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/buz425/can_a_neovagina_stealth_as_a_real_vagina/ , https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/up542/how_real_does_a_postop_vagina_look_and_feel/) don't seem all that negative. There definetly is a component of skill of the surgon and luck at play.

    For phalloplasties, I have even less to go on, but so far I don't think I have seen good results there. But that just might be my limited knowledge, and I don't want to make an absoloute claim on that.

    [ā€“]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

    So for neovaginas, sure, there are the trainwrecks (no linking to neovaginadisasters neessary), but I have definetly seen one that look good,

    Where, pray tell, did you see a neovagina?

    The vagina is an internal organ. The only people who see vaginas are gynecologists. I'm old, but in all my life I've never seen my own vagina or that of any other girl or woman. I've had children come out of my vagina, but they didn't see it coz babies are born with their eyes closed. I also had my uterus removed vaginally, but still never saw my vagina or anyone else's.

    Also, what does it matter that you claim you've seen a surgically constructed "neovagina" in a male that "looks good" anyways? A vagina is a unique female organ that is not about its looks. A vagina has myriad functions. It's a self-cleaning muscular tube with its own unique flora that serves as the passageway for the removal of the sloughed off uterine lining during menstruation, and as the birth canal that women use to give birth to new human beings. It's not merely a hole to be fucked.

    The "neovaginas" males get surgically created out of their male genitals and skin taken from other parts of their male bodies are nothing like actual vaginas. And vaginas are not a fashion accessories that men distressed about their sex can go out and purchase, then flaunt to feel better about themselves.

    [ā€“]strictly 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    the birth sex (instead of the gender identity) wouldn't be perceptible to the person feeling or not feeling the attraction either and therefore also be nonsensical.

    Even if we pretended birth sex could be ā€œundetectableā€ it still wouldnā€™t make it nonsensical to desire someone of the correct birth sex. We consider many things we canā€™t see as important in attraction. A straight woman could meet a good looking man, find out itā€™s her father and lose all attraction even if she canā€™t see these unattractive shared genes without a microscope. Maybe far into the future parents can change their genes so they become genetically unrelated to their children. Most children would probably still perceive their parents as unattractive due to their parent origin. To me origin matters, even if we could create man-made females I would still only be attracted to natural females. Even a historical difference can make a difference in attraction.

    You really think this couple would take birth sex based auguments toward their daughters hetrosexuality?

    I was raised by homophobic religious parents. Had I hypothetically introduced a woman-identifying male as my romantic partner to my parents then yes, my parents would take my male partner's sex as evidence of male heterosexual attraction. They probably wouldnā€™t want me to have a trans partner either but it would be a different type of disapproval as they wouldn't see anything sinfully homosexual about it.

    "apparent gender", that, in contrast to birth sex or gender identity is mutable and describes as what sex/gender the body of the transgender person appears to be to the observer

    Blair White looks male to me as my knowledge of how males can look like has been updated with this male look. I canā€™t think of someone I know is male as being female when my brain knows thatā€™s counterfactual. My brain categorizes known males as male and known females as female automatically. The only trans people I would continuously mistakenly perceive as being of the opposite sex are trans people who would stay in stealth forever as I wouldnā€™t know any better (otherwise my brain would correct itself and update the perception).

    apparently vaginaplasty still has a serious lead onm phalloplasty

    Penis inversion has no lead on phalloplasty. The result of the penis inversion is just easier to hide visually on photos as more of it is on the inside. Penises are also depicted culturally more often than vaginas making people overall less familiar with vaginas than penises and if someone doesnā€™t know how a vagina is supposed to look/feel like then they wonā€™t be able to tell the difference.

    [ā€“]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Even if we pretended birth sex could be ā€œundetectableā€ it still wouldnā€™t make it nonsensical to desire someone of the correct birth sex. We consider many things we canā€™t see as important in attraction. A straight woman could meet a good looking man, find out itā€™s her father and lose all attraction even if she canā€™t see these unattractive shared genes without a microscope. Maybe far into the future parents can change their genes so they become genetically unrelated to their children. Most children would probably still perceive their parents as unattractive due to their parent origin. To me origin matters, even if we could create man-made females I would still only be attracted to natural females. Even a historical difference can make a difference in attraction.

    people are free to apply whatever criteria for partner selection they want. But I do consider conceptualizing sexual orientation as being based on imperceptible things to be nonsensical.

    I was raised by homophobic religious parents. Had I hypothetically introduced a woman-identifying male as my romantic partner to my parents then yes, my parents would take my male partner's sex as evidence of male heterosexual attraction. They probably wouldnā€™t want me to have a trans partner either but it would be a different type of disapproval as they wouldn't see anything sinfully homosexual about it.

    I highly doubt that. They would clearly notice that your partner is female in external appearance and, since people are usually at least initially attracted based on external appearance, conclude that you were attracted to said appearance. So, it seems rather doubtfull to me, that they would look at your (hypothetical partner) who as far as they can see looks like a woman and conclude that you are attracted to men, just because you told them that said partner was born male.

    Blair White looks male to me as my knowledge of how males can look like has been updated with this male look. I canā€™t think of someone I know is male as being female when my brain knows thatā€™s counterfactual. My brain categorizes known males as male and known females as female automatically. The only trans people I would continuously mistakenly perceive as being of the opposite sex are trans people who would stay in stealth forever as I wouldnā€™t know any better (otherwise my brain would correct itself and update the perception).

    so your perception of someone is entirely shaped by your presumptions. So if I told you that the person in this picture https://preview.redd.it/g27ibqc27kh61.jpg?width=1288&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12dfd09d03d584f8e6e75188171ce622613dec39 was male, you would be unable to perceive said person as female, right?

    [ā€“]strictly 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I do consider conceptualizing sexual orientation as being based on imperceptible things to be nonsensical.

    Thatā€™s still being judgmental of other people's sexual orientations, to call their attraction patterns nonsensical.

    I highly doubt that.

    lol, I am the one who knows them. They were the ones who taught me men are adult human males and women are adult human females and that sex is immutable. If I would date male people they would of course conclude I am attracted to male people as I donā€™t date people Iā€™m not attracted to. In your hypothetical scenario this male wouldnā€™t be in stealth so there would be no reason for my parents to counterfactually perceive this male as ā€œfemaleā€ so they wouldnā€™t (unless your hypothetical scenario would include my parents getting brain transplants from people who believe in sex change). They would just conclude my type in males is estrogenized.

    so your perception of someone is entirely shaped by your presumptions.

    Yes, if I think someone is male I perceive them as male and there is no reason think of someone I know is male as not being male.

    So if I told you that the person in this picture https://preview.redd.it/g27ibqc27kh61.jpg?width=1288&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12dfd09d03d584f8e6e75188171ce622613dec39 JPG was male, you would be unable to perceive said person as female, right?

    Here you make an erroneous assumption I would see you as a trustworthy source of who is male or female.

    [ā€“]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    lol, I am the one who knows them. They were the ones who taught me men are adult human males and women are adult human females and that sex is immutable. If I would date male people they would of course conclude I am attracted to male people as I donā€™t date people Iā€™m not attracted to. In your hypothetical scenario this male wouldnā€™t be in stealth so there would be no reason for my parents to counterfactually perceive this male as ā€œfemaleā€ so they wouldnā€™t (unless your hypothetical scenario would include my parents getting brain transplants from people who believe in sex change). They would just conclude my type in males is estrogenized.

    1.) so estrogenized that the type of "male" you are into looks like a female?

    2.) I think I find the reports of people who were in that situation playing out more credible than how you imagine that situation playing out.

    3.) what if the transgender women were stealth towards you? If she looked like an attractive woman, and you wouldn't know that she was born male, would you be attracted toward her or would you magically know that she were male and therefore not be attracted? (as in: if I take your knowledge about the birth sex as part of your evaluation of the apparent gender, would sexual orientation then be based on "appartent gender" ?)

    So if I told you that the person in this picture https://preview.redd.it/g27ibqc27kh61.jpg?width=1288&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12dfd09d03d584f8e6e75188171ce622613dec39 JPG JPG was male, you would be unable to perceive said person as female, right?

    Here you make an erroneous assumption I would see you as a trustworthy source of who is male or female.

    please state whether you perceive the person in the picture I linked as male or female.

    Yes, if I think someone is male I perceive them as male and there is no reason think of someone I know is male as not being male.

    and of what percentage of people you see every day do you know with certainty of what their birth sex is? Do you ask everyone or do you assume based on external appearance?

    [ā€“][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    The movie the matrix pretty much shows that what people are experiencing is more important than the actual underlying reality. Thus I would say that people are attracted to perceived sex characteristics rather than any biological or even non-biological reality that underlies those perceived traits.