Culture What’s Wrong With the ‘No Trans’ Dating Preference Debate - Another day, another mention of Kiwi Farms in news

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/neq9zx/whats-wrong-with-the-no-trans-dating-preference-debate

What’s Wrong With the ‘No Trans’ Dating Preference Debate
Everyone is entitled to their sexual preferences, but we should be able to talk about how societal values affect them.

Abigail Curlew

Feb 23 2018, 7:30pm



OK, let’s talk about “no trans” dating preferences, a recent fixation in sexual politics that often ends up in transphobic and abusive conversations.

Take, for example, a recent video by LGBTQ commentators Arielle Scarcella and Blaire White, which argued that lesbians were not transphobic if they were only attracted to cisgender women.

Trans feminists and YouTube personalities, such as Riley J. Dennis and Contrapoints, have been arguing for some time that a lack of sexual attraction to trans folks is, to some degree, shaped by societal prejudices and stereotypes. As a PhD student in sociology and a trans feminist, I am concerned how the debate has misrepresented trans critics and led to attacks on trans feminists and activists.

The attraction debate has been popping up on-and-off over the last few years, but seems to have been kicked off by a video posted by Dennis called “Your dating ‘preferences’ are discriminatory” which explored how social inequalities and oppression shape our attractiveness to marginalized peoples.

Dennis concludes in her video, “Because these dating preferences are ultimately harmful to people who don’t fit into your box of what a conventionally attractive person looks like, it makes people feel isolated, alone, and unwanted to hear that they are universally unattractive to people.” Dennis urges her viewers to critically reflect on the stereotypes that shape their preconceived attractions to others.

But Scarcella and White twisted the terms of this argument to read as an assault on the rights of lesbians and cis-women, an attack on the lesbian community by “SJW” authoritarians. This isn’t entirely surprising as Blaire White’s YouTube channel routinely resorts to offensive conservative arguments that belittle and misrepresent the feminist community.

Scarcella claims “being gay is transphobic.” But their hot take has a selective hearing problem: it cherry picks controversial lines from trans feminists and ignores the important context that frames the entire argument.

This video struck a nerve in far-right circles, which led to a harassment campaign against Riley carried out by an angry cyber-mob of thousands of users systematically downvoting her videos and sending her hurtful content, comments, and venomous response videos. For instance, her video mentioned above has two thousand likes and fifty thousand dislikes followed by an endless stream of abusive comments, many of them misgendering Riley.

Many of the critiques of Riley’s arguments alleged that her video accused cisgender folks of having sexual identities that were transphobic. Such an argument would understandably irritate a lot of people. Critics argued that Riley was attempting to coerce straight men and lesbian women into having sexual attractions to trans women.

Of course, this is not what Riley was arguing.

This debate has riled trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), which has heightened the already intense transphobic harassment practiced over online spaces like YouTube and Twitter. TERFs, for those of you who don’t know, are radical feminists who accuse trans women of being “men in dresses” trying to infiltrate women’s spaces for god knows what reasons. Many of these TERFs already go out of their way to harass, intimidate, and dehumanize trans women, especially those women in publicly-facing positions. As any woman and feminist killjoy could likely tell you, gendered online abuse and harassment is not only highly prevalent and commonplace, but very damaging and traumatizing.

It is especially dangerous for trans women who speak out against transphobia and abuse. The last time I wrote an article about transphobia, I was featured on Kiwifarms (a troll website dedicated to abusing, harassing, and embarrassing transgender folks and those who suffer from mental health issues). A group of aggrieved trolls dug up my Internet history, misgendered me, threatened me, and lamented that me and people like me should not exist.

Scarcella and White argue that sexuality is defined entirely by biological factors, which implies that it is entirely static. They propose that sexuality and gender are not at all influenced by “society,” despite the commonly-accepted fact that homophobia and transphobia are culturally-motivated belief systems.

In her video, Riley asserts, “we know that sexual orientations are more innate than learned.” And she goes on to assert that the ways people talk about their dating preferences are most assuredly shaped by societal prejudice. For instance, when someone expresses disgust towards a trans woman that they mistook for a cis woman—that is transphobia. In fact, that is the very definition of transphobia; the irrational fear of transgender folks.

Many trans feminists, including myself, would argue that this sense of disgust isn’t a given in our predetermined sexual identities; it is a flexible frame of mind that can be changed through critical self-reflection. There are plenty of people, including heterosexual men and lesbian women, who might find themselves surprisingly attracted to a trans woman. That is very different than saying that if you’re not attracted to trans women you are transphobic.

Let me repeat: I am not saying that it is imperative to be attracted to trans women. I am arguing that your attraction is shaped by preconceived notions and stereotypes of transgender folks. So, no, I am not shaming you because of your sexual orientation. I am merely asking you to critically reflect on the factors that might shape your attractions.

For me, these arguments feel super reductive. Sexuality and gender are complicated identity categories that sit on a shifting identity continuum. The social scientific canon has an abundance of research on these topics, starting with the famous Kinsey scale that reveals the diversity and flux of sexual identities. For many sociologists such categories are culturally constructed and historically situated. This doesn’t mean that you have individual control or agency over your sexuality or gender, but that the meanings and perceptions that inform our sexuality and gender are relative to your culture and history. This also doesn’t mean there’s no biological influence, but how we interpret our biological impulses do not exist in a vacuum empty of ideological takes on the world.

Much of the work towards queer liberation in the past few decades have been literally engaged in re-shaping public perceptions of LGBTQ folks from a perceived medical and psychological illness to a legitimate, normal, and natural continuum of sexualities and genders.

Sexuality and gender aren’t simply something that comes from some biological imperative. They are phenomena that are developed through a messy brew of social, cultural, historical, and psychological factors. They can also prove to be lightly malleable if we try to dig into the foundations of how those oppressive structures influence the ways we see and understand the world.

It is essential that YouTube personalities like Scarcella and White who are engaging in sexual and gender politics critically interrogate the nasty effects of their reach and influence. They might get thousands of views, but there are trans women who need to deal with the fallout of their wide breadth of influence. We get shit on enough as it is, and we don’t need our arguments grossly misinterpreted so that you can make a few dollars on advertising.

Follow Abigail on Twitter.
They can't keep getting away with this!
 
It's not really about dating - it's about identity validation. Dating is just a way for troons to get their identities confirmed. Other people are just things to be used in the endless quest for gender validation.

Why do you think are they so salty when people don't want to date them? Because they aren't getting validated. "Chasers" won't do it since they are only attracted to the trans aspect. No it has to be normal people.
 
Last edited:
Preference is not a phobia.

Indifference to those who don't meet your preference criteria is not bigotry

People have favorite colors, favorite flavors and favorite sexual partners

GET OVER IT.

The crowd raised in the "Everyone gets a trophy" era really doesn't understand this, do they? That people can look at you and say "no thanks" and that's exactly what they mean, "no thanks" not "DIE IN A TRUMP CAMP YOU CRAZY SUBHUMAN!" Just like how voting blocs can say "We want livable wages" and mean it , not mean "Kill all the darkies"
 
Once again this is not transphobia, this is trans consequence. If you want to identify as something you're not for the rest of your life, you do you, but you're not entitled to having other people affirm your delusions and certainly not to the extent of being intimate with you. This is just proof that ~affirming trans identities~ doesn't do them much good.

This has been a topic for years and every single time, the troon argument goes like this: ''No one is saying you have to date a tranny, it's just that if you don't you're a bigot and you should reevaluate why!'' and everyone can see right through it.
 
Besides, what about trans people who don't want to date other trans people, or those who would be willing to date a trans person, but only if they're post-op? Or even someone who's trans and only feels comfortable dating someone else who's trans, just because they might have more in common?

There are a myriad of reasons a person might not want to date a "type" of people. (Whatever they may be) I honestly don't think I could date a trans dude. Not because I don't think he's a real dude, just for various reasons. When it comes to dating and stuff, people really don't choose what they're attracted to. As long as you're not a dick about it, then I don't think people have the right to question that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Pickle Inspector
Oh, not trans people but "trans folks".
Seriously, anybody who describes themselves as such should be tried for crimes against good taste

Oh it's actually worse now. Now it's trans "folx" because "folks" still wasn't gender neutral enough or some shit.

Also, I've posted this in the Sophie Labelle thread, but it works here too. It's an ever-growing collection of troon threats and hate aimed at lesbians who won't take the girldick.

https://terfisaslur.com

I can't stand radfems, but really, these women's only crime is not loving the cock.
 
Since fucking when did it become a hate crime to state "I am not attracted to penises and would not want to be in sexual congress with one that is not my own regardless of who or what it is attached to."
It's like people who spent their youth learning about supreme court cases, and then growing up thinking that human relationships should have a similar system.
 
It's like people who spent their youth learning about supreme court cases, and then growing up thinking that human relationships should have a similar system.
"The applicant henceforth referred to as Party A upon signing all consent and release forms shall have the right to commence sexual intercourse with the provider henceforth referred to as Party B upon agreement that neither party are obliged to disclose genital layout or preference before the act is commenced. Failure by Party A to perform intercourse in the event that genitalia is deemed non preferential shall be considered a breach of contract by Party A. Both parties agree to abide by the laws of consistent consent as agreed by 'SJW vs Logic (2017)'. Per Thrust release forms must be signed and witnessed before each action defined as 'thrusting' as laid out in 'The Federal Record of Sexual Terminology and Activity'. Failure to lodge these forms with the local office of Sexual Policing within 48 hours is considered a federal offence. Should Party A achieve orgasm prior to Party B, Party A will assist Party B to complete or be in breach of the Orgasm Regulations 2018. An Orgasm completion form signed by both parties must be lodged along with Per Thrust Releases. Party B reserves the right to withdraw consent at any time without informing Party A thereby automatically defining Party A as a rapist who must report to their local police within 24 hours of the rape being committed."
 
Oh it's actually worse now. Now it's trans "folx" because "folks" still wasn't gender neutral enough or some shit.

Also, I've posted this in the Sophie Labelle thread, but it works here too. It's an ever-growing collection of troon threats and hate aimed at lesbians who won't take the girldick.

https://terfisaslur.com

I can't stand radfems, but really, these women's only crime is not loving the cock.

What's totally wrong about this is that folks literally means people. It's one of the most inclusive words ever because it literally means everyone who is human. But I guess that's just not inclusive enough for the current year. So we need a new neo-spelling to protect sensitive fee fees.:roll:

It's another case of history repeating itself. Where insecure men threaten lesbians because lesbians aren't interested in dick. It's just more proof that troons aren't true and honest women no matter how they try to slice it. They don't support the sexual agency of their supposed lesbian sisters. Because they literally think that their male sexual organ becomes female once they troon out. It doesn't work like that. It defies logic and basic biology. Your body parts don't "identify" as something else because you do. And lesbians don't automatically crave your cock because you put on a dress and a wig and call yourself Cindy.

What's next? Peoplex? Humynx? Gotta get rid of the "men" part because it's not inclusive enough. It can only get worse before it gets better. And yeah, I know the "better" part is :optimistic:.

Since fucking when did it become a hate crime to state "I am not attracted to penises and would not want to be in sexual congress with one that is not my own regardless of who or what it is attached to."

Since the current year. The amount of crybullying over it is really pathetic though. And the backlash is satisfying. It's just unfortunate that there are a bunch of female SJWs who instead of protecting women choose to side with troons because they are higher on the progressive stack. For all the anti-rape and toxic masculinity talk SJWs go on about they let this slip through because troons are currently and very unfairly bulletproof.:\
 
As I said before, Riley seems not to see the difference between, "eeeeww, tranny cooties!!!" and "Hey, I don't think this could work for me, can we still be friends?"

lol nobody wants to be friends with trannies. It would be like being friends with a vegan. They would never shut up about it.

Eh. Prison gay is a thing.
It is, but not for everyone in prison. Which is the point.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Slur Slurry
A productive solution to this problem: Creating websites that are tailored to trans people and people who are fine with dating trans people. Also, making it easier to find people who will date trans people on mainstream dating sites.

Tumblr? jokes apart, is never going to work, those maniac have insanely high demands and no one in their right mind want to tolerate them unless they can get something of value (like pitybux), even in the remote chance you make it work is going to be full of drama because as the Sisterwood board can confirm Troons are magnets for it

I found very funny this kind of "journalism" is just "this person made a video in jewtube about how hating trans is bad, then this other person made another video about blahblahblah", are news site in america worst than a school bathroom wall now?
 
Back