Transphobia Busting #2: I wouldn't date a trans person

Feeling's mutual, buddy.  From Assigned Male Comics.

The Cotton Ceiling is a fuckin' minefield.  Bearing that in mind, I want to get a few action items ticked off right away.  First and foremost, just so we're 100% clear, NOBODY IS EVER REQUIRED TO DATE OR FUCK ANYONE THEY DON'T WANT TO DATE OR FUCK.  MOREOVER, NOBODY SHOULD EVER PRESSURE ANYONE ELSE INTO DATING OR SEX:  RELENTING IS NOT CONSENTING.  OK, is that good enough?  Does anybody not understand that?

All right, Action Item Two is a common TERF-spread misconception that the Cotton Ceiling is about getting into cis women's panties, as though the titular "cotton" is a barrier we wish to penetrate.  In fact, the Cotton Ceiling is the phenomenon of assumptions about what's in our panties being used to relegate us to second-class human status.  In other words, it's about us, not about you.

Action Item Three is to assuage any worries that I will be tossing the horrible label of transphobia about will ye, nil ye.  Behold, a measured qualifier to hedge against reckless abandon:

The Following Statements Are Not Transphobic:

1. "I've never thought about dating trans folks.  I don't know if I would or not."
2. "All the trans people I've knowingly met have not been people I would date."
3. "All the trans people I have knowingly seen have looked unattractive to me."
4. "I have past trauma with [anatomical feature], and wouldn't date anyone who has one."
5. "I really care about [sex act] that requires [anatomical feature], and wouldn't date anyone who doesn't have one."
6. "I mean, maybe I'd date a trans person?  I dunno.  They'd prolly have to be real special."

I think that covers all the non-transphobic things a person could confuse with the statement in the panel above.  Importantly, "I just wouldn't date one" is a categorical judgment based necessarily on limited information - the speaker is literally judging people they have never met, in advance of meeting them, based on incomplete information.  That's textbook prejudice, and because it's prejudice against trans people, it's transphobia.

This prejudice is not present in any of the above five statements:  1 is a non-judgment, 2 and 3 are judgments based on the speaker's actual experience, 4 and 5 don't map onto transness (because transness is identity, not anatomy), and 6 is questioning but still open-minded.  All good!  So with that preamble out of the way, let's get on to the proper topic of this evening's symposium.  First up:

You Are Allowed to Be Transphobic, And

Transphobia Doesn't Make You a Bad Person

This might sound weird, but it's no different than saying you're allowed to be mean:  it's not a good choice (not everything you're allowed to do is a good choice to make, like eating wood chips), but it's also not an indelible stain on your character.  The fact is, every single person is a complicated mix of things both good and bad, and no single one of those things is sufficient to pass judgment on a person as a whole (unless it's Hitler, you can always judge Hitler).  We are all morally grey and problematic; there is no getting through life with clean hands.  People have blind spots and bad traits, we make mistakes, and that's part of being human:  it's how we deal with those mistakes, blind spots, and bad traits that matters.  Do you stay the course, come Hell or high water, because changing your mind is weakness and admitting mistakes is for losers?  Or do you look around, listen to others, check for understanding, and question yourself, because there's always more to learn and more work to do?  (Pro Tip:  You should pick Option 2.)  Moreover, this work never ends:  we're never "cured" of our problems in the same sense as wounds or diseases, we are never pure or innocent, we can always backslide into problematic behaviors (in fact, we do - the only choice we have is to recognize it or not).  The price of social justice is eternal vigilance, and sometimes we screw up, so the best thing is to admit it, make amends if appropriate, and get back to fighting the good fight.  (This is partly paraphrased & adapted from Being Lovingly, Knowingly Ignorant:  White Feminism and Women of Color by Mariana Ortega.  Not the Hitler thing, the bit about the work never ending, needing to always look, listen, check, & question - which is a bit she got from Marilyn Frye.)

I try to make a habit of this:  admitting when I'm wrong, apologizing, and then getting back to my life.  I recently called out what I thought was problematic behavior on Faceborg, and through discussion (after doubling down, no less), I found that I had been mistaken.  I was angry and frustrated about it, but I took a deep breath and collected my thoughts, then said, "On second thought, you're right, I'm wrong, we agree... My apologies.  Thanks for calling me out.  Carry on."  In the moment, this is psychologically painful (especially when other people don't do it too 'cuz they picked Option One) - but over time, you get a reputation as an honest person who admits to mistakes and is dedicated to truth, not just your own opinions or in-group.  Philhellenes points this out in the first three minutes of this video.  Being wrong, in the moment, means admitting defeat; but over time, it means becoming a better and better person.

And anyway, remember that this still doesn't mean you have to date or fuck anyone in particular, which was always true and will always be so - not the least of which because...

You Are Not Attracted to All People,

And That's Totally Fine.

If you're a straight man or gay woman, then you're attracted to women - but not all women.  If you're a straight woman or gay man, then you're attracted to men - but not all men.  If you're bi or pan, then you're attracted to multiple/all genders, but not all people of those genders.  Aces aren't sexually attracted to anyone, and aros aren't romantically attracted to anyone.  Gender-based attraction is a thing, the Kinsey scale works, and it's just a fact about us humans.

If you're attracted to women, then while that doesn't mean "all women," it absolutely does mean "some cis women and some trans women" because trans women are women (and mutatis mutandis for other orientations).  Not every trans woman will turn you on, fuckin' duh, but not every cis woman turns you on, either.  Sometimes this attraction will make you uncomfortable, and that's fine.  Acculturation is powerful gumbo, and we often have hangups that get in the way of being our authentic selves - trans people know this especially well, because internalized transphobia is a thing.  But more importantly, you'll sometimes be attracted to trans people without experiencing any discomfort at all, because...

You Don't Know Who's Trans

You may have clocked some trans folks in the past (definition 2, not definition 4 - I hope!).  OK.  But if you live in or near an urban area, then you certainly haven't clocked everyone you've run into who's trans, and it's almost a certainty that you've clocked some by mistake as well.  In other words, your transdar has false negatives and false positives, but since these mistakes almost never get corrected, you don't know how wrong your transdar is.  The thing is, when you see an unattractive person who you presume is cis, you kinda write it off; when you see an unattractive person who is visibly trans, you clock 'em; but when you see an attractive trans person, they probably pass, so you assume they're cis.  You probably won't ever get corrected on the matter - maybe not even during sexy times.

All the "surefire" ways of clocking trans folks are myths, because gender confirmation surgeries are a thing.  It is entirely possible for you to meet and date a trans person and never find out they are trans, because any externally visible trait a trans person has, a cis person might also have:  some cis men get phalloplasty for various reasons, some cis women get vaginoplasty for various reasons, all kinds of people have all kinds of scars for surgical and non-surgical reasons, and gender variance is all over the goddamn board.  The only way to tell for sure that someone is trans is if they tell you (which they may not), or if you access their medical records (which you don't have a right to do).  Which brings us to our next point...

Reproductive Concerns Are Valid,

but They Don't Operate on Transness

You may say, "I don't have a problem with trans people, but I wouldn't date one because I want to have kids and trans folks are sterile."  (Persnickety clarification:  some trans folks are fertile, but not in the way straight folks want them to be for reproductive purposes, so I'm just leaving it at that.)

It's completely valid to want kids, and this absolutely does filter out trans folks.  However, in the first place, some cis people will also be filtered out by this (women who've had hysterectomies or tubal ligations, men who've had orchiectomies or vasectomies, etc.); and in the second place, concerns about reproduction are the basis for this, not concerns about transness.  If you want to avoid being transphobic, you can say, "I don't want to date infertile people because I want to have kids."  That's fine (actually, it's a whole other issue I don't want to address here, but it's not transphobic to say this).  So to have a dating preference based on fertility, and then say your preference is about transness, is both inaccurate and transphobic.  Related:  if your dating preference is actually about transness, then it's transphobic, and to pretend it's about fertility is also inaccurate and disingenuous.  Also related:

Anatomical Concerns Are Also Valid,

but They Don't Operate on Transness

This is similar to the last point, but importantly distinct.  Your sexual attraction may be strongly linked to particular acts or anatomy - and that's fine.  However, knowing that someone is trans doesn't tell you anything about their anatomy - it means exactly and only that their identity does not match their assigned gender.  This means that, for whatever reason, they were assigned one way and then said, "No wait, that's wrong, let's change it" - but you don't know why they were assigned that way, or if it was changed by doctors before the person in question took matters into their own hands, or even why this person disagrees with the doctor's assessment.  The simple fact is, transness per se has nothing to do with anatomy and everything to do with gender assignment vs. gender identity - all the other stuff is incidental and highly variable.

There is the "common narrative," sure, but this is a stereotype, and to judge all people in a group based on a stereotype is, once again, prejudice.  However, it's understandable that a lot of people buy into this stereotype, because...

Society Is Transphobic, and That Rubs Off On Us

There are so many problematic ideas that society programs into us, often without our knowledge.  This is especially true with regard to masculinity:  boys are told from such a young age that they have to be this or that way, and if they don't then they're a shameful failure.  This is toxic masculinity, and it's what feminists mean when they say that kyriarchy is bad for men even as it benefits them:  men who fit (or can effectively pretend to fit) the cis-het-masc mold are privileged and rewarded in ways that women don't have access to (unless they can pass as men, either through crossdressing or through being trans).  But that mold sucks, and pretending to fit it when you really don't is highly stressful, because you have to project a false identity and live a lie.  Part of that mold is that "real men only fuck the hottest of women," and a bunch of transphobic and homophobic nonsense is thrown in on top:  "A trans 'woman' is just a man in a dress, and a man in a dress can never be a real woman, so if you're attracted to a trans 'woman' then you're really just gay, and that makes you a shameful failure of a 'man'."

FUCK.  THAT.  SHIT.

Let's take it by the numbers:

1. "Real men only fuck the hottest of women."  No, real men are attracted to all kinds of people, and they care about consent and personality and a bunch of other things, too; and hotness is in the eye of the beholder, besides.
2. "A trans 'woman' is just a man in a dress."  No, a trans woman is a woman, no matter what she's wearing at a given moment.
3. "A man in a dress can never be a real woman."  True, a man is a man no matter what he's wearing.  Men are allowed to wear dresses if they want, it doesn't make them women.  Identifying as a woman is what makes one a woman, because identity is the one and only thing all women have in common (it's even the only thing all cis women have in common).
4. "If a man is attracted to a trans 'woman' then he's really just gay."  No, trans women are women, so men who are attracted to cis women & trans women (but not cis men or trans men) are straight.
5. "A gay man is a shameful failure of a 'man'."  No, being gay is just fine.  Plenty of men are gay, and it's not a problem at all.

When the above statements are internalized, they can easily lead straight men to think they shouldn't be attracted to trans women because it makes them gay.  Dismantling these statements won't make a straight man attracted to all trans women, or even mean that he actually ever dates a trans woman; it just means he won't reject trans women out of hand, without meeting them, just because they're trans.  Transphobia:  dismantled!

And that's... really it!  The actual problematic part of all this is the underlying assumption that trans people are categorically unfuckable and/or not worth dating, and that's a prejudiced thing to think about any group of people.