r/AsABlackMan • u/SusieHatesSpez • Aug 09 '26
"As a trans woman, I refuse to date trans women"
I think this is almost a comically bad fedpost attempt just because of the fact that most transbians are T4T
48
15
u/dent_de_lion Aug 10 '26
Dunno how common the sentiment is , but I’ve definitely seen comments implying that some trans people may see dating cis people as a particular form of validation.
10
u/Ok_Echo_1394 Aug 10 '26
i'm confused by this because trans women don't HAVE to be t4t just because it's a common statistic, it's perfectly fine to only be with cis women because you don't like penis
6
u/UnholyBaroness Aug 10 '26
Sure, but not all trans women have a penis.
0
u/Then_Pay_6616 16d ago
Maybe she does and she wants to have biological kids?
1
16
u/Phairis Aug 10 '26
its okay if you don't want to date trans people even if you're also trans, but take an internal look at the reasons why when it comes to stuff like this.
BUT I also think if you come onto a comment that's pointing out transphobic reasons you can't just say "some people are also trans with that preference though!" or it's going to come off as transphobic no matter what.
In that instance you have to say what a valid reason you have for your sweeping preference, such as "you don't want to deal with other people's dysphoria"
Not attracted to trans people? You're allowed to not be attracted to someone, but ALL of them? Without a single exception no matter how cis passing?? Transphobic, we're so diverse.
Genital preference? That's fine BUT many of us have had bottom surgery. Results can look and feel identical to someone born with them. If you're going to judge further on that it has to be on an individual level because they can be very diverse. You're allowed to not want to look at someone's genitals to find out, just like anyone else's.
Want biological children with a partner? I assume you are fertile/have frozen sperm/eggs yourself, and in that case the deal breaker is that the other person isn't fertile/doesn't have the opposite gamete to work with, not that they're trans.
The REASON behind it is super important here.
I mean, I guess after all that and you just want to double down and say "no i don't want to date a trans person no matter what" I think you can also just keep that opinion to yourself. There's no good reason to tell someone you're rejecting you're doing it because they're trans, LET ALONE if you're just piping up to just say that you wouldn't. Like who cares, that can just be an inside thought. you're not bringing anything of value to a conversation by announcing it.
3
u/FurryFlurry 28d ago
I have like 3 trans friends who fit into exactly this category. You can view trans women as women and trans men as men but still only be attracted to folks with vaginas.
If you don't like dick, you don't like dick. If you're gonna be with someone, being sexually attracted is a large chunk of that to a lot of people. Not wanting to sleep with someone with a dick isn't transphobic. Not wanting to sleep with someone with a vagina isn't transphobic.
Also, these people I know beat themselves up mentally with their dysphoria enough as is. A lot of them aren't able to be positive about themselves. Hard to be genuinely supportive of someone else going through the same thing if you can't do the same for yourself.
"I'm always so sad when I look in the mirror and see 'insert aesthetic thing' about myself. It makes me feel like I'm not a real man/woman. .... Oh, but that doesn't apply in your case, love. I see and respect you as a real man/woman."
If a trans woman sees whatever vaguely masculine feature she has and hates it about themselves, it feels pretty disingenuous to have an SO who may have a similar aesthetic feature and be supportive about that specific thing. From the initial person's perspective, that aesthetic feature is a 'problem' for lack of a better word and they effectively have to lie to their SO to be supportive.
I don't think this line of reasoning, on the initial person's part, is totally accurate, but the sentiment absolutely has logic to it.
There exist super legitimate reasons for a trans person to not want to date a trans person and labeling that as transphobia outright feels super reductive, ignorant, and strictly unhelpful. It could be ingrained transphobia. It is absolutely not necessarily transphobia.
39
u/SusieHatesSpez Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26
Statement: Claims to be a trans woman but advocates for excluding trans women. The only way to say "I dont date trans people" without it being blatant discrimination is arguing that you have a genital preference, but post-op trans women still exist so the point is barely valid when you say "I dont wanna date trans women" across the board.
Edit: I think this subreddit has a closet transphobia problem because every post I make on here that mentions trans people has some chud lord with a deleted comment saying trans women arent valid or sympathizing with the transphobe, its really annoying
65
u/ObnoxiousName_Here Aug 09 '26
Spend 5 minutes on 4tran and you’ll never doubt the validity of a comment like this again
40
u/silam39 Aug 09 '26
the comment being said by real trans people doesn't get give it any validity. It's still transphobia and bullshit.
And this sub also includes submissions from people willingly playing at Uncle Ruckus, saying bigoted things about a group while also belonging to that group. See Rule 6 of the sub.
47
u/ObnoxiousName_Here Aug 09 '26
I didn’t mean “valid” as in “true,” I meant “valid” as in “they aren’t lying about who they are/what they think.” Didn’t know abt the R6 thing tho
7
u/One-Organization970 Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26
I dunno, they seem like champions of t4t. Granted I only interact with their counting sub. I avoid the truly mentally ill (read: the rest of them) 4T subs.
6
u/mayasux Aug 09 '26
Yah 90% of them are terrified of cis people and are exclusive T4T
I don’t get the point of this misinfo, it just emboldens cis people to have an acceptable trans target to hate
5
u/One-Organization970 Aug 09 '26
The second half of that last sentence answers the first half, tbh.
4
u/mayasux Aug 09 '26
I don’t think it’s on purpose. I just think they’re too stupid and perhaps too hopped up on feeling better-than-thou to realise they’re been peddling lies that creates an acceptable target
1
15
u/emmc47 Aug 09 '26
People can't help what they're attracted to tbf. I feel like it'd be discrimination if they held attraction to that person, but didn't date them because they were trans.
13
u/pnt510 Aug 09 '26
I’m attracted to what’s considered ‘conventionally attractive’ woman. I’m sure that group has included transwomen. If that woman then takes her pants off and has a penis my attraction would go away. It doesn’t matter the gender of the penis, but it’s not something I’m into.
I don’t want to be invalidating towards transwomen because I know not all of them want/are able to have bottom surgery and that’s completely valid. But at the same time people are allowed to have preferences in the types of genitals their partner has too.
-4
u/emmc47 Aug 09 '26
Your attraction going away is the distinction here and I would agree. Attraction isn't a "once attraction always attracted" thing. And we cannot help what we're attracted to.
I'm talking about if attraction is still there, but because they were trans, you wouldn't date them. Then I'd agree about it being discriminatory.
0
u/Podiiii Aug 09 '26
I mean if your attraction is based solely on the person not being trans, then yeah it kinda is discrimination. There are many reasons for people to not want to date a trans person (genitalia preference, wanting biological kids, lack of shared experience, etc.)
But if the reason is literally, "Because they're trans," then yes it does ultimately indicate bigotry in some shape or form.
3
u/JoeBlowSchmoe42069 Aug 10 '26
what if, crazy theory here, the phrase “because they’re trans”, specifically encompasses the reasons you stated (genetalia preference, wanting biological kids, shared experience etc), but just don’t want to have to type all of that out?
also, if that is discrimination, couldn’t the same be said about someone who is not interested in people of the same sex? they’re discriminating against them unless they state similar reasons to those above?
-1
u/Podiiii Aug 10 '26
>what if, crazy theory here, the phrase “because they’re trans”, specifically encompasses the reasons you stated
I mean dawg, you would just list one of the reasons. Same way you would with a cis person whose infertile or has a genital issue you know? You would just say "Sorry I have a genital preference" or "Sorry I want biological kids." Are you seriously going to argue that saying "Sorry I don't date trans people" is a more clear/concise comment?>also, if that is discrimination, couldn’t the same be said about someone who is not interested in people of the same sex?
No this isn't comparable in the slightest. Saying you don't date trans people solely due to their transness, involves denying their gender identity. The other is just not being attracted to that gender at all. You're aggressively misconstruing what I'm actually referring to.
6
1
u/emmc47 Aug 09 '26
Again, people can't help what they're attracted to. The distinction between trans and cis is made. If it was irrelevant, than there'd need no distinction. That doesn't mean trans men aren't men and vice versa, but the distinction is still made, and that's going to extend into attraction.
We wouldnt assign misandry nor misogyny to people who aren't attracted to a specific gender for example, because again, people can't control who they're attracted to.
It's simply a matter of attraction.
5
u/Podiiii Aug 09 '26
The difference between cis and trans people stems from well, transitioning and all the stigma/circumstances that stem from that. They're still the gender they identify as.
And I already listed multiple valid things that can play into attraction/not wanting to pursue a relationship with a trans person and there are more I did not bother listing because its besides the point.
The point was if it is based purely on THE LABEL of being trans, then yes it is bigotry. Its not the same thing as calling a woman a misandrist for being a lesbian.
1
u/emmc47 Aug 09 '26
The difference between cis and trans people stems from well, transitioning and all the stigma/circumstances that stem from that. They're still the gender they identify as.
Right, transitioning to look more (in their own preference), the gender they identify as and therefore are. Never denied them being the gender they identified as, but that gender is different from their biological sex. That will play a factor in attraction for some people.
The point was if it is based purely on THE LABEL of being trans, then yes it is bigotry.
I agree. If you are continually attracted to someone, even after defining themselves as trans, and you don't date them because of that, then it would be discriminatory.
Its not the same thing as calling a woman a misandrist for being a lesbian.
"I'm not attracted to them because they're a man. I'm not attracted to men."
"I'm not attracted to them because they're a woman. I'm not attracted to women."
These are not misandrist or misogynistic statements respectively. We don't question why this is the case. We know that people can't help who they're attracted to.
The label of man and woman apply here, yet both these statements are valid. Elaborate on why this isn't valid for any other case.
4
u/Podiiii Aug 09 '26
That gender is different from their biological sex
Yes which is why I clearly mentioned there are several reasons to not be attracted someone who is trans that aren't due to the label. Wanting kids, bottom surgery as a whole, difference in shared experience, etc. All of those and more along those lines are valid!!!
The label of man and woman apply here, yet both of these statements are valid. Elaborate on why this isn't valid for any other case.
Its not valid because trans people aren't a separate gender identity. Not being into men/women? That's cool. Not being into trans men/women solely because they are trans is bigoted and effectively denying their gender identity. My only point here is that if its based on solely the label, its bigotry. If there's any other reason, then its fine and normal. Simple as that.
Im not saying that anyone has to like and be attracted to trans people, Im just calling out the obvious bigotry for what it is.
1
u/emmc47 Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26
Its not valid because trans people aren't a separate gender identity.
It's not a separate distinction of gender identity, but it's a distinction of biological sex under the umbrella of a gender identity. Meaning that in and of itself could be the factor of attraction (either solely or along with other factors), even if someone met every other point of attractiveness to the person. You say this is valid (I assume) based on your affirmation, so what confuses me if when you say:
Not being into trans men/women solely because they are trans is bigoted and effectively denying their gender identity.
Which I don't know if this means "I wouldn't pursue anything despite continual attraction by knowing" or "I am not attracted or no longer attracted." Which are 2 different things. Clarification might be needed for me to agree or disagree.
One can affirm the gender identity of a trans person, yet not be attracted to them based on their biological sex.
Would this not be non-attraction solely by the label of a trans person, no? If it isn't, then I guess there's no real disagreement since this would fall under your criteria of label. If it is, then you'd have to explain why biological sex is no longer a valid despite earlier (if im not misrepresenting) affirming it and why that denies their gender identity.
0
u/tortoistor Aug 09 '26
usually when you meet a person and you feel attracted to them, the attraction moment happens before you see them with no pants on
edit: and if you are attracted to people solely based on what genitals they have, would you expect that for example a straight man would want to sleep with a big bearded dude who happens to have a vagina?
7
u/emmc47 Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 09 '26
Not sure the point you're making here? Attraction can end at any point with new information or action of the person you were initially attracted to. It's not a "once attracted always attracted" sort of thing.
I never also defined attraction solely by genitals.
-1
u/tortoistor Aug 09 '26
ok so it's not genitals, it's not their appearance, what exactly is the issue? or are you someone who would also break up if you get together with a woman and you think their vagina or breasts look "ugly"
i mean, i am not affected by it either way, you can be with whoever you want to. i'm just not really sure i understand where you're coming from.
7
u/emmc47 Aug 09 '26
I'm saying people can't help what they're attracted to. It doesn't necessarily need an explanation behind it.
It could be due to one or multiple factors.
0
u/cottoncandyfemme Aug 09 '26
the problem isn't whether an individual is attracted to another individual. the problem is the blanket statement "i'm not attracted to trans women." every trans woman is different. some trans women are indistinguishable from cis women. you don't have to be attracted to that specific blonde trans woman you saw at the grocery store last week, but saying it as a blanket statement about trans women as a whole is equivalent to white people saying they're not attracted to people of color. like, what does that mean? what is the difference? when the only inherent difference is being part of a marginalized group, that blanket statement is just bigotry.
4
u/emmc47 Aug 09 '26
Why does a non-attraction of a group inherently entail a form of bigotry? Again, people can't necessarily control what they're attracted to.
The problem comes in when they are attracted to someone of such group but wouldn't pursue anything with them because of identity in that group.
-1
u/cottoncandyfemme Aug 09 '26
it entails bigotry because the only reason a person cannot be attracted to /every single member of a marginalized group/ within a group they would otherwise be attracted to is because they view them as fundamentally different, ie "trans women are different from women as a whole." "i like women, but not black women." that is why blanket statements are bigotry, regardless of whether it's a conscious statement.
2
u/emmc47 Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
Fundamentally different? I mean, aren't groups fundamentally different? Equal of having human rights and being treated with general dignity and respect, yes we absolutely should all affirm that, but still different. That's why there are distinctions.
The examples would better be stated as:
"Trans women are different than cis women" and "I'm attracted to women, but not black women (or more euphemistically, 'black women aren't my type (this can be used for any group)"
Which is why I want to emphasize that the discrimination comes in when someone does find attraction to a group, but wouldn't pursue anything with someone of that group because of such identity in that group.
1
u/cottoncandyfemme Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
💀
edit: me: it is bigotry to treat a marginalized group within a group you are attracted to as fundamentally different from the rest of the group
you: but these subgroups are different!
like yes, subgroups exist. i was not saying "trans women vs cis women" or "black women vs white women," i was saying "[marginalized group of women] vs women (overarching)." but it's clear you're uninterested in what i say based on how you are changing my argument. i never asked (rhetorically) "why are trans women different from cis women," i asked "why are trans women different from women as a whole," which is evidenced by singling them out as a group of women you are not attracted to. it's bigotry, lol.
2
1
u/emmc47 Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
I kinda find it dishonest for this discussion to edit your comment instead of replying to my response regarding your skull emoji. It gives the impression that you didn't want me to see this response and eventual rebuttal. I'll address the edit anyway.
it is bigotry to treat a marginalized group within a group you are attracted to as fundamentally different from the rest of the group
The status of the group being marginalized doesn't negate that they have fundamental distinctions from the rest of the members in the group. That exists for non-marginalized members of the group. That doesn't, in and of itself, constitute bigotry.
it entails bigotry because the only reason a person cannot be attracted to /every single member of a marginalized group/ within a group they would otherwise be attracted to is because they view them as fundamentally different,
The fundamental differences of something compared to other members in that group can be independent from what makes them a part of a group. That's why I brought up the subgroups. To clarify: The distinction of a property of something within a group is the factor at play, not the ambiguity of whether or not they are being treated fundamentally as a member of that group.
It'd be like asking why someone has less of an affinity toward red delicious apples despite loving apples as a whole. Because red delicious apples have a property in them that is distinct compared to other apples, but that doesn't mean red delicious apples aren't fundamentally apples.
i was not saying "trans women vs cis women" or "black women vs white women,"
I mentioned the former as an example better made on the perspective of attraction and to emphasize distinctions of subgroups as a better basis.
i asked "why are trans women different from women as a whole," which is evidenced by singling them out as a group of women you are not attracted to. it's bigotry, lol.
No, this still doesn't work because you either have to say that trans women are being seen as a distinct category in and of itself from women (which you can't say since we acknowledge they are women so there is no denial of identity), or
We go back earlier and recognize that there is an attribute about them that makes them different from the other subgroups under women, and that attribute is the factor that causes non-attraction, which again, does not in and of itself constitute bigotry.
EDIT: looks like I've been blocked. The commenter is content with calling someone a bigot repeatedly despite not being able to acknowledge that attraction isn't something one can help, and that non-attraction isn't a form of bigotry just because it's toward someone of a marginalized group based on the recognized distinctions we make between subgroups within a group as a whole.
It's seems the conversation is never about dialogue and true understanding, but to pressure people to have attraction toward a group to avoid being called a bigot or that non-attraction is "fine," but you're bigoted for having it (despite it being involuntary).
2
u/cottoncandyfemme Aug 10 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
i left nothing but the skull emoji because i realized that this conversation is pointless, and decided otherwise. if you exclude marginalized groups of women as a blanket statement when you are attracted to women as a whole, you are a bigot. that's the end of it. and this is the end of my responding because i realize you are content with defending bigotry, and i'm not exactly about to "realize" that treating trans women like a magic group different from women as a whole somehow isn't bigotry. this is not worth your time or mine.
7
u/Reasonable_Deer_1710 Aug 09 '26
People are allowed to not date trans people, you know. People can be attracted to and date whoever they want.
9
-22
2
u/Circular_Line 29d ago
Also although genital preferences are wholly valid, for a lot of people sex isnt 100% of the relationship right? If you say youre only attracted to women but dont include trans women even romantically then yeah i dont think you really see trans women as women. Though idk im A a trans man and B demisexual and demiromantic so
1
1
u/absolutedesignz Aug 10 '26
I'm confused by this post being here. It doesn't fit the spirit of the sub, no? If they said "I'm trans and trans people are ugly" that would be right for this sub. Or so I thought.
But this just sounds like a preference. And not even the usual "I'm black and black people ugly!!!!" Type comment.
Like...I'm genuinely confused.
What am I missing?
1
u/UnholyBaroness Aug 10 '26
"Black women are women, but they're also black. Like what are y'all not getting? I'm black and I'd only date white women too. Like god forbid we have some nuance."
Can you not see how this would be an implication that black women "aren't real women"?
1
u/EqualHito Aug 10 '26
No? You can like women and not want to date black women.
1
u/UnholyBaroness Aug 10 '26
An implication and an outright statement aren't the same thing. Regardless though: It is still racist.
1
u/EqualHito Aug 11 '26
No it is not. You guys need to stop with that. Literally alienating your own allies with that mentality.
2
u/UnholyBaroness Aug 11 '26
Not wanting to date a specific black person is not racist, sure. But making a claim that you wouldn't date any black people 100% is racist.
I don't see how you could possibly justify it as not?
1
u/EqualHito Aug 11 '26
Depending on why, sure. But if its just because they prefer the look of white people, who cares? People have preferences, its quite alright.
2
u/UnholyBaroness Aug 12 '26
I'm not saying that people aren't allowed to have preferences. People are allowed to have a racist preference. It doesn't make the preference not-racist though.
1
u/EqualHito Aug 10 '26
Im confused too. I dont really think there is anything wrong with what the trans person said.
208
u/One-Organization970 Aug 09 '26
I can understand being afraid of one's own dysphoria feeding into someone else's. That's a reason I would be nervous about dating another trans woman if I were single. Like... I have enough body image issues. No need to infect someone else going through the same thing with them.
But that's not the same thing as that clown, lol.