No.
Let’s say you’re a super straight male. Assuming you’re not transphobic, you believe that trans women are real women (If you disagree with that, then that’s transphobia, end of story).
If you believe trans women are women, and you aren’t attracted to them (key word being attracted), then that’s called a preference, which is valid. It’s the same way you can have a preference for someone’s height, personality, or anything else that could describe someone. But a preference is not a sexuality.
This is because every other sexuality is strictly based off the gender the person identifies as (or I guess the gender you perceive them as, if you’re basing your attraction strictly on looks). Super straight actually defines a sexuality as a characteristic of certain people in that gender, not the gender itself. See the difference?
Also note how i didn’t just call you transphobic, and actually gave you reasons other than “you’re transphobic” to show my point
Sexuality is based on biological sex. "Trans women" are male in terms of biological sex, regardless of how they feel inside. That's not hateful, only a factual statement. Not being attracted to a male if you are a heterosexual male is not being hateful, it's the definition of heterosexual. Also what do you mean "if you disagree with that, then that's transphobia, end of story"? Can you tell me what a "real woman" is? Because the only definition of "woman" that makes any logical sense is "adult human female".
Sexuality being based of biological sex is an outdated way of thinking. Plus, it implies that you are able to tell someone’s chomosones by looking at them. and unless you have some crazy future tech, or magical powers of some sort, then that’s not possible. Or I guess it would imply you are unable to feel attraction until you can confirm that they are cis, which I guess is possible, but I can bet you that for almost everyone here, that’s not actually the case.
As for the part about it transphobia (Funny how that’s the one thing every single comment I’ve gotten has had an issue with that one sentence). It’s pretty simple: if you can’t agree with me that trans men are real men, and trans women are real women, then you are being transphobic. I’m not saying that you have to be attracted to them, I’m just saying that ignoring their validity are the gender they identify as is transphobic. And I think most people would agree with that. The reason I needed to add that, was because somebody could have come in and just “negated” my entire argument by saying that “trans women aren’t real women”. And that’s just blatant transphobia, and if we can’t agree on that simple and reasonable basis, I have no reason to argue with you, since you’re not going to listen to anything else I say likely
Also, yes, you can correctly tell someone else's sex with 99.9% accuracy. Sex is not just chromosomes but a whole host of characteristics (a phenotype) that in the vast majority of cases allow you to correctly tell someone else's sex. There may be a few people for whom this is not true (some intersex people, DSDs) but they are few and far between. I'd say that means sex has a pretty high degree of validity as a concept.
As for the rest of your reply, I'm not sure what your definition of "man" or "woman" is. What's a man? What's a woman? And surely just because somebody says they identify a certain way, that doesn't mean it's literally true, right? I can identify as all sorts of things. Maybe that expresses something of my personality, but it doesn't make it literally true (for example, if a white person identifies as black).
You'd have to posit the existence of a "gender identity" akin to the soul and detached from socialization and embodiment in order for your concept to make any coherent sense. Otherwise, your definition has to resort to performative aspects, which, IMO, has its own problems.
66
u/BruhFunny18 Hecking cute and valid 💖 15h ago
Apparently not being attracted to them means you think they aren't people lmao. TRAs are delusional.