The Great SSP Canada Cancel Culture & Wokeism Thread

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The game of romance isn't ever a fair one, though. Lots of people have a high rate of rejection due to a variety of factors: obesity, height, ugliness, behavioural ticks, speech impediments, etc.

I agree but I am not arguing that people must accept certain romantic partners. I am saying that having a hidden "dealbreaker" characteristic can make life miserable if you're unable to filter out romantic or sex partners who won't like you before investing a lot of effort in them.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I'm a superficial person. Obesity is also a total deal-breaker for me sexually/romantically. I have a number of other deal-breakers as well. In all cases, this doesn't mean that I don't see the subject-person as less of a woman. I just seem that person as less of a potential sexual/romantic partner.

Where is my cognitive dissonance?

Well I don't know enough about you to say if you're in the cognitive dissonance or hypocrite camp. I am talking about some behaviour I have observed.

If you claimed to believe or felt that fat people were the same as non-fat people in every way but also found them disgusting and undateable then it would be analogous. You'd get bonus points for ranting about fat discrimination on Twitter.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

I agree but I am not arguing that people must accept certain romantic partners. I am saying that having a hidden "dealbreaker" characteristic can make life miserable if you're unable to filter out romantic or sex partners who won't like you before investing a lot of effort in them.

I think we're mostly on the same page.

And I also think that having your genitals not match your outward gender appearance will probably place you in the "hard to find a match" category statistically along with people such as those who are morbidly obese, have facial deformities, etc.

Though it's true that in today's Internet world it's easier to connect with people who have less mainstream tastes (including sexually/romantically) and those who correspond to that, so perhaps one benefit of our era is there are more opportunities for them to find happiness.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

While I understand the point you made earlier about alienating 99% of potential partners if you're too open about that (ie having genitals that don't correspond to the rest of your "look"), I am not sure what the end-game would be there anyway.

To get someone to fall in love with you (or perhaps desire you) so much that they would come to not give a damn about what the plumbing is down below?

Well the end game for gay people is fairly simple. In the past a lot of gay guys had fake dating relationships with women or couldn't explain why they weren't interested and it caused a lot of drama. Now in many settings they can just say they're gay and the drama level is approximately zero. It is a better arrangement, and the notion of a need for privacy of sexual orientation has weakened over time as acceptance has grown.

I also believe that a lot of people, in practice, have narrowed horizons due to the social norms and pressures they are subject to. I can think of another illustration for this phenomenon. Younger kids these days are more likely to describe themselves as pansexual or not think much about "picking" a sexual orientation or coming out. At the other extreme, sexual partners used to be extremely high stakes. Even when people started to accept homosexuality, a lot of them thought of it as a label they had to pick for life, and that any divergence from a pattern of sexual partners was a huge deal. The younger person is probably much more likely to date a trans person and for some it will work out fine.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by someone123

Well I don't know enough about you to say if you're in the cognitive dissonance or hypocrite camp. I am talking about some behaviour I have observed.

If you claimed to believe or felt that fat people were the same as non-fat people in every way but also found them disgusting and undateable then it would be analogous. You'd get bonus points for ranting about fat discrimination on Twitter.

No one (least of all me) is arguing that people-with-penises are the same as people-without-penises in every way (because it is self-evidently untrue).

To put my argument in your fat-person terms:

I don't think that thinness (read: lack of a penis) is a fundamental aspect of being a "woman". I consider a person (fat, thin, or any shape in between) to be a "woman" if that person sincerely and in good faith identifies herself as a "woman". However, as a superficial pig, I am not sexually or romantically attracted to fat women (in most cases, my loss, I'm sure).

[Acajack]

Another ancillary issue to this one is whether it's transphobic/hateful/horrible or not to exclude a trans woman (who has had surgery and whose body is entirely similar to that of a cis woman) as a potential romantic or sexual partner simply because she was born as a male.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

No one (least of all me) is arguing that people-with-penises are the same as people-without-penises in every way (because it is self-evidently untrue).

It would have been surprising for my original argument to be about your beliefs because you're the one you quoted me to start with!

I was arguing in the abstract about a line of reasoning, not accusing a specific person here of holding those beliefs, although part of what I posted was meant to add some nuance to a few posts which I think are simplistic. I mostly think of it as food for thought, not a rant against stuff that offends me. I do not consider the quote button to be a "disagree" button either even though that's often the style on here.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jamincan

If someone specifically identifies their pronouns, use them.

Wait a minute, even if someone specifically wants me to use the pronoun "him" to refer to him, I should still use "them"?

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Another ancillary issue to this one is whether it's transphobic/hateful/horrible or not to exclude a trans woman (who has had surgery and whose body is entirely similar to that of a cis woman) as a potential romantic or sexual partner simply because she was born as a male.

No more than it is sexist for me to be attracted to men and not women.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jamincan

No more than it is sexist for me to be attracted to men and not women.

This sidesteps the fundamental issue though which is that trans women should be considered 100% women.

It's not really a question of preferring women or men.

It's viewing a trans woman as a lesser woman or a fake woman. Questioning whether their status as a woman is actually real.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Gender is primarily a social category. So not having it recognized in society substantially diminishes it.

Sure, but you aren't alone in society. If to re-use your example you self-identify as an attack helicopter and nearly all others members of society disagree with your view there, you will observe they generally will not be treating you as one, and that state of affairs can't be reasonably considered strictly their fault.

In the specific case discussed, if you're a hetero trans man with a vagina, you ARE "diminished" as a potential partner to the demographic you'll be trying to date/bang (namely, hetero women a.k.a. women who like cock).

It's okay, but it's not fair to say it's the fault of everyone else only, it's yours too. Deal with it. You can't expect society to change for you.

The analogy with obesity is apt, here. If you're morbidly obese, you don't get to blame everyone who is sexually turned off by that. It's not their fault - they don't choose what they're attracted to. I'd say, rather, it's mostly yours.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Another ancillary issue to this one is whether it's transphobic/hateful/horrible or not to exclude a trans woman (who has had surgery and whose body is entirely similar to that of a cis woman) as a potential romantic or sexual partner simply because she was born as a male.

If you're a hetero man who's looking for a life partner to have biological children with... it's okay to "discriminate", right?

[JHikka]

Logging on and seeing this thread exists.

[Acajack]

We've discussed this before, but sexual/romantic partners are or will really be the last frontier of discrimination.

Obviously it's really hard to prove anything when it comes to this, though some will try and put some tenets out there I am sure.

The whole idea of saphosexualism is one example of an attempt to divorce attraction from what a person looks like and focus it on their personality, soul, intelligence, etc. The inner person.

Also, regarding a hetero dude not wanting to date Bianca who used to be called Serge, of course no one will ever know that you're being (allegedly) transphobic if you are smart enough to keep that to yourself.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Logging on and seeing this thread exists.

We were all waiting for you.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This sidesteps the fundamental issue though which is that trans women should be considered 100% women.

It's not really a question of preferring women or men.

It's viewing a trans woman as a lesser woman or a fake woman. Questioning whether their status as a woman is actually real.

It's not different at all. Attraction is a personal thing that has absolutely no bearing on whether I treat someone with respect and dignity. Genuinely, is there anyone who argues otherwise?

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We were all waiting for you.

As it turns out I can't spend every waking moment enjoying my time with everyone here.

I'm breaking regulations as set out by my local health authority by being within six feet of this thread, so if you'll excuse me.

[MolsonExport]

I think the thread should be re titled "The Great Canadian Slippery Slope and Fearmongering Thereof" Thread.

[matt602]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We've discussed this before, but sexual/romantic partners are or will really be the last frontier of discrimination.

Obviously it's really hard to prove anything when it comes to this, though some will try and put some tenets out there I am sure.

The whole idea of saphosexualism is one example of an attempt to divorce attraction from what a person looks like and focus it on their personality, soul, intelligence, etc. The inner person.

Also, regarding a hetero dude not wanting to date Bianca who used to be called Serge, of course no one will ever know that you're being (allegedly) transphobic if you are smart enough to keep that to yourself.

The keyboard doesn't work like a typewriter, you don't have to return the carriage after each sentence.

I'll do it cause it seems fun though, figured this reply would fit into the uselessness of this thread.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

This sidesteps the fundamental issue though which is that trans women should be considered 100% women.

It's not really a question of preferring women or men.

It's viewing a trans woman as a lesser woman or a fake woman. Questioning whether their status as a woman is actually real.

As has been discussed already, it is in fact possible (even common) for a man to not be sexually attracted to a person who he considers to be 100% a woman.