Opinion The Last Word on “Genital Preference” - Suck my cock bigot.


The Last Word on “Genital Preference”

2020-07-07

Alyssa Gonzalez

It’s one of the last retreats and first rejoinders of people whose support of the transgender community isn’t rock-solid. It’s the base of operations of people who don’t oppose our existence but nevertheless find us grotesque and confusing. It’s tiresome, it’s exhausting, and it makes more of us more likely to date each other than our shared experiences and social spaces already did. We have to warn each other that our relationships might end if we transition, partly because of this specter.

The argument from “genital preference” simply will not go away, and that’s because its framing is tangled and often dishonest.

As a trans lesbian who herself finds one genital configuration more aesthetically and sexually desirable than the other, I come at this topic from a distinct perspective. And the most important thing I have to offer here is this point:

It is not the preference that is a problem, it’s how that leads a person to treat their prospective partners.


There are several classic scenarios that are unambiguously bigoted. Some people dismiss trans people as possible partners out of hand because of presumed or actual mismatch between their genitals and the ones they would prefer interacting with. Some regard trans people as a lesser tier of their gender, or think of us as “more compatible with bisexuality/pansexuality” because “you have to be attracted to both binary genders or not have gender as part of your attraction process or something” to tolerate such deviant bodies as ours. Some people have attraction focused strongly on one binary gender but figure they might make an exception for a trans person on the other side of the binary because “the genitals match,” or figure a nonbinary person is “close enough” to whatever gender one reads their genitals as having and not treating their nonbinary status as a meaningful part of them because of that. All of these scenarios are hurtful for a trans person to encounter, and they often provide cover for chasers who fetishize us without seeing us as people or truly recognizing us as the gender we say we are. A lot of the people who harp on about “genital preference” do so to maintain in the public discourse that people like me are “man-adjacent” or worse, to similarly negate the maleness claimed by trans men, and to deny that nonbinary people can exist at all or that intersex categories are meaningful. This often includes TERFs who claim that having been sexually assaulted by men at some point means that trans women with their original equipment simply existing in the same room as them is triggering, despite almost everything about most transfeminine penises being surprisingly different from cismasculine penises, as part of this same enforced alignment between trans women and cis men.

Discourse against genital preference is fundamentally about this pattern, and the ways that it writes trans people who have not (or not yet) had bottom surgery out of any sexual desirability that isn’t totally fetishizing. This pattern is one that needs to be challenged, and not just because of its bigoted premises. A lot of people are a lot more compatible with variant genitals than they think they are and leaving “preference” as an easy out means they never feel that giving folks like us a chance is something they could, let alone should, do. Maintaining “genital preference” in its current privileged position in people’s minds also routinely leads to trans women in particular being dismissed before anyone even finds out what genitals we have, because of the presumption that we probably don’t have the “right” ones for the gynophilic men and women who are nevertheless routinely attracted to us.

What would be wonderful is if people who claim an avowed preference for one genital configuration reacted to learning of the “wrong” one in someone they desire by discussing that limitation with their prospective partners in open, non-dismissive terms. There is a good chance that a trans person with variant genitals doesn’t really want their partner interacting with those genitals anyway, for one thing. Or it might lead to important conversations about how that person has some lingering biases about how genitals relate to gender that they need to challenge. Something I have both lived and seen firsthand is that desiring and loving a person with variant genitals can itself be a prod toward re-evaluating one’s preferences and becoming open to experiences one did not previously imagine they could want…but that can happen ONLY if people do not dismiss each other out of hand because of “genital preference.”

People who point out the harms of unchallenged “genital preference” are not demanding that every single person have precisely equal attraction to all conceivable genital configurations. They are most especially not arguing that any specific person who declines their specific advances is a bigot for so rejecting them. Those strawmen are sickening even when they are not getting me booted from online groups when this topic arises, and only bad actors could claim them seriously. The arguments around this topic are and have always been more nuanced. People challenging the idea of “genital preference” want this whole conversation to be more open and honest and trans-affirming. They want this conversation to recognize that “preference” should not be a euphemism for “dealbreaker,” that the reasons behind so-called “preferences” matter, and that most of them are not as rock-solid as they seem. They want the insidious parallel between “genital preference” and people who refuse to consider partners of minority racial or ethnic backgrounds recognized and understood. They want it recognized that, much like social ideals of beauty are influenced by popular art, that genital preferences are not as set in stone as people imagine, and people can surprise themselves with their flexibility.

Most of all, we want the idea of “genital preference” to stop being a convenient dodge for people who think their anti-trans sentiments should be respected alongside their appreciation for ladies who birdwatch or whatever.
 
If a lesbian doesn't want a hard erect "cis" penis, she's not going to want a flaccid atrophied "trans" penis; just like if a vegetarian doesn't want a perfectly cooked filet mignon, she's not going to want a rancid can of opened spam from the back of a gas station refrigerator. If she was willing to compromise on the penis, she might as well compromise more and get one that's attached to a guy she could in theory like rather than settle for one that doesn't even work attached to a "girl" who is a disfunctional narcissistic parasite with no respect for boundaries.

But she won't compromise for either.

Because she is a lesbian.
 
If you can learn to like the girl dick, then no one is "born that way" and conversion therapy is back on the table. Also, if you can learn to be attracted to the "wrong genital configuration", then troons also have the capacity to learn to live with the body they have. So, they won't need GRS anymore, I guess.

This is like letting a schizo write an article on why you should definitely listen to the voices in your head. Crazy man writes something crazy. So stunning and brave!
 
If your genitals don't match my preference, you're not a prospective partner.

Yeah these people being coomers, I guess, seem to think that every human encounter starts from an assumption that sex is gonna be had and to get out of that you have to have a reason. I suppose this is just...indicative of how indiscriminate they are? If I encounter anyone outside my parameters, their existence as a sexual being doesn’t even register to me. True I am married so this is everyone except my husband, but prior to that...if you weren’t male, age appropriate, and attractive to me physically and otherwise, you might as well be my grampa or another girl. You just wouldn’t even occur to me. And I think this is pretty much normal. Parameters are all that vary between people, as we see even with this transbian sex pest. He has parameters. Somehow troons always do. Standards for me but not for thee.
 
Last edited:
It's not even a gender identity thing.

Troons make even the most desperate go: "You know what? That time I got a Winger tattoo is less of a fuck-up than what I'm about to embark upon. I'd better stop."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Screw Danlon
Too many cocks, just too many fucking cocks...

I wish more people would do more with their lives than spend half of it searching for holes to stick their cock in, and trying to justify in every way imaginable why said cock should go into said hole.
 
I'd like to see the author get hit up by a 6'5" leather bear and have to not deny him due to "genital preference".
I wish more people would do more with their lives than spend half of it searching for holes to stick their cock in, and trying to justify in every way imaginable why said cock should go into said hole.
I'm pretty sure a famous philosopher said something like that once. Something about acquiring currency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Bung
"They want the insidious parallel between “genital preference” and people who refuse to consider partners of minority racial or ethnic backgrounds recognized and understood."

Yeah, about this. I don't think you're going to get somebody to suck your girlcock by saying if they don't they're as bad as racists. Anyway, not wanting to date black people doesn't automatically make them racist, it depends on the reason. "I'm not attracted to the facial features black people typically have" is not racist. "Black people are lazy and I'm not attracted to lazy people" is racist.
 
This comes off as so painfully autistic.

There's a sad effort to apply logic to something that is not only not logical, but people are just gonna think you're a gross and pathetic incel if you approach it like this.

It seems about one degree removed from a 15-year-old thinking that Stacy goes out with Chad because Chad drives a Camaro, so if he himself were to get a Camaro, then Stacy would go out with him, too.

Or, in this case, thinking that Stacy goes out with Chad because Chad has a big dick and therefore Stacy is a bigot who needs to get over her genital preferences and suck his flaccid lady peen.
 
"I"M A RAPIST LET ME BE A RAPIST THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING A RAPIST"

YOU. ARE. NOT. ENTITLED. TO. SEX.
We spent the last 10 years or so being told to shit on boys who found themselves being taken advantage of by girls or otherwise needlessly spinning their wheels, denying the base reality of the circumstances about which they complained while maligning them as feeling entitled to sex, whether or not they wanted that (and normally, that wasn't their first goal). Now, to deny the request of sex from a willing victim of complex sexual mutilation is at least as bad as hating others because of the color of their skin.
 
Why is it always the alphabet people that cannot accept themselves the ones that expect everyone else to accept them for whatever bullshit they decide to be that day/week/month/year?

I stopped playing "make believe" when I was 8 because that was for "babies". I can't imagine being mentally that of a toddler and expect everyone to play and know your rules, then being pissed at people for not knowing your rules, and your brain damage.
 
Why is it always the alphabet people that cannot accept themselves the ones that expect everyone else to accept them for whatever bullshit they decide to be that day/week/month/year?
Because nothing is ever their fault and “everyone is valid” and deserves a participation award just for trying. So if they can’t love themselves, everyone else has to love them to make up for it.
 
Back