This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I've moved this page to tranny chaser, which is what they're actually known as. Searching for "tranny chaser" on Google comes up with 26,100 relevant hits. Searching for "transsensual" turns up 646 hits, many of which are not relevant. The former may be somewhat derogatory, but it's the common term; the latter is a neologism that makes no sense whatsoever. Ambi 08:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) -- Hi! I'm the one who wanted to add the term transsensual or transensual to the article. I don't really use the term myself, but I've seen it used many times as a sort of more neutral or politically correct way to say somebody who is attracted to trans people. I've also seen it used a for people who are attracted to FTM people. I believe the word should at least be added to the article.-- Sonjaaa 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem with terms is that they might be connotative or denotative, or that a denotative term might turn into a connotative one, or vice versa, through usage. Words evolve and change, just like people. In this specific case, tranny chaser designs, in our community, a man who is attracted to a pre-op transsexual woman BECAUSE of her male genitalia. PERIOD. A man who is attracted to male genitalia is homosexual, even though they try to deny it. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but that's not what TG women like myself want. I'm satisfied with the lexical juxtaposition "tranny chaser" because we needed something to describe, in an immediate and vivid way, a certain type of men we should be leery of. There are a lot of things to say about this issue, but the most relevant point is that these tranny chasers are in denial and need to see a penis attached to a woman (and that's how tranny chaser perceive us) to deceive themselves into thinking that they are straight. Let's set the record straight. A heterosexual man is someone who might be attracted to us, but who completely ignores our male genitalia and considers them as a de-sexualized part of our body (like the elbow or the wrist) in need of future corrective surgery. A real man doesn't care if our penis is big or small, functional or non functional, because he's not attracted to it. For a tranny chaser, by contrast, the penis is the "conditio sine qua non". This is what "straight" means. "Transsensual" is a kind of euphemism, I don't like this term at all, it's full of hypocrisy. This is such a contradictory situation. First and foremost, people with gender dysphoria like myself are very uncomfortable with their penis and become much more uncomfortable when it becomes the lover's object of attraction. How could tranny chasers possibly say that they are heterosexuals when all they want is to do a "fellatio in ore" and be sodomized? Transsexual women don't transition to screw men's asses, really! The other contradiction is that tranny chasers look for shemales (a very offensive, disgusting term) a mythical figure, a stunning feminine girl with a huge functional penis. And this is a contradiction, indeed, or a mythical figure, first of all because hormone theraphy renders the penis non-functional, and then because what's the use of going through the hell of transition (with surgical procedures, risks etc) if a tranny chaser seeks you for your male part? Another distinguishing trait of tranny chasers is that they suffer from BDD (body dysmorphic disorder). They have a distorted, unrealistic and non-realistic picture of their physical appearence. They are very demanding and exacting when it comes to the beauty of the transsexual woman and want a transsexual woman be more beautiful and more feminine than a genetic female, but they are most often average to ugly aging men, are going bald, are overweight and consider themselves very attractive or handsome. A lot of tranny chasers just don't click with genetic females (obviously, because they have a homosexual orientation) and consider transsexual women as easy, substandard women and want to treat us accordingly. In other words, most tranny chasers are losers refused by genetic women and want us as a substitute. The lead a double life, are married or in a long term relationship with a genetic woman, but look for trannies with huge penis to fulfil their insane obsessions.
Excuse me, you missed my point. BDD is a distortion of your body image, for the worse or for the better. In the case of tranny chasers, they don't think they are ugly when they are handsome, on the contrary, they think they are handsom when they are very ugly, i.e. they have a distorted perception of their physical appearence! That's what BDD is all about! We always read stories about people who suffer from BDD and consider themselves to be more unattractive than what they really are, but we never hear of opposite stories, that is, people who are delusional and consider themselves stunning when they look horrible. This is the typical case of tranny chasers. They look at TS women as substandard women and want to treat us like garbage and think that we will accept anything and we have different standards of beauty. They think that just because we are not genetic women, we will consider them attractive. And it's ridiculous to make the comparison with married men who wish their wives looked more like the girls of the covers of Maxim. Your point doesn't make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.50.246.31 ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 December 2005
Then, let's go back to the etymology of the word "dysmorphophobia". Dys is the prefix which indicates an undesirable state (as in , dysphoria which is the opposite of euphoria), morpho means "shape" (as in "morphology", "morpheme") "phobia" means fear (as in claustrophobia). Dysmorphophobia is a word from greek derivation. Of course, and as I have already put it, words evolve and sometimes terms containing phobia do not really mean "fear" but something else. In fact, homophobia, at the present day, doesn't literally mean that someone is frightened by homosexuals but something else. Here in Europe there are psychotherapists who adopt the term dysmorphophobia to describe people who have a distorted image of themselves, and this might be for the worse or for the better, i.e. not only to describe patients who perceive themselves as unattractive (or tend to magnify a physical flaw, such as people who suffer from anorexia nervosa) but also the opposite. BDD or dysmorphophoby is the umbrella term (hyperonim) which includes other hyponims (such as bigorexia). I'm not making stuff up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.50.246.31 ( talk • contribs) 11:10, 31 December 2005
There are so many assumptions and much ill-considered prejudice in this discussion. A few points: 1. The term transfan, while not as offensive as tranny chaser, is I believe condescending. The terms transoriented man or trans-attracted man are more adequate. Chasers and fans have been described as akin to a player, as used in the heterosexual sense. There is an inferred assumption here that transoriented men are all players, which ignores the fact that many, albeit a comparatively small percentage of us, for various reasons, have happy loving relationships with transwomen. 2. To claim that all transoriented men seek to receive, or even give anal sex is also ignorant of the diversity that exists among us. 3. It is not true that all transoriented men are closet gays, some do in fact consider themselves gay to a degree, though the majority who have though about it believe gays are significantly and categorically different. Part of this is that these men usually feel their partner to be female and use feminine pronouns. They also are usually turned off by most aspects of masculinity that are commonly found attractive to gay males.
There is a website www.transoriented.com which is making an effort to better understand transoriented men. Seeing the near hatred and comparison to pedophiles and scum that is part of the discussion here, it's little wonder transoriented men have been tentative to declare and talk about their orientation publicly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.186.160 ( talk) 12:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC) To the one talking about all transatracted are chasers: I am transgender and choose to be non-op for my personal reasons, also, not all of us have the same reaction to testosterone blockers, so some of us, maybe a minority still can use our lady parts. I do agree that there's a high number of people that just wants us for sex; although I find it a bit disgusting, this still means attraction in my opinion. Also when both parts agree it's ok to have casual. There's some of us that like the idea of having casual, because we are normal people and normal people also enjoy casual. Not to mention there's also people that are exclusively attracted to us in romantical and sexual ways. I have found them and the experience has been comfortable. If we say people that are attracted to us have a fetish, we are saying that we in some sense can be a fetish object, and we are giving the reason to people that say that being attracted to us is sick. I see myself as a human, so being attracted to me I think is not a fetish, is just a natural behavior. And it should be seen as something as normal as being homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. Normalizing it I believe will help us finding healthy and safe relationships with people that respect us.
I really don't want to start anything over something this silly, so I'm more than willing to let it go as is. However, I'd like to mention that as best as I've been taught as far as English goes, while "pre-" is technically correct, whether to use the suspensive hyphen here or not is more of a stylistic point. It's a device that's often encouraged to be used very spraringly, and most typically to avoid confusion. [Example: "The right- or left-handed scissors" would be necessary as it would clarify that we're contrasting two different pair and not a single one that works both ways] It would be very difficult to state that any confusion would be created by its abscence in this situation, as one cannot be both pre-operative and non-operative. So I guess with that said, I'll leave it to any future editors to decide if Mr. Hyphen should stay around or not. You know my vote. But as it stands now, Tamara versus myself in Hyphen War '06 won't get us anywhere. :-p -- Zoe 11:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Really, that should be 'nuff said. Transsensual is a horrible misuse of psudolatin. By breaking it down, it seems it would apply more to someone into S&M, B&D, or something.
A Tranny chaser is a man who frequents trans-friendly clubs and internet chats, looking to hook up with transwomen for quick sexual fixes. They are abnormally obsessed with the penis, and with how femenine any given transwoman looks. Straight men may talk about how good looking this or that woman is, but seldom if ever will you hear to straight men discussing which woman is more womanly, nor whether or not it's a shame that their penis doesn't work. These discussions have been had by chasers. Trannychasers display behavior in line with that of Closeted homosexual males, such as a complete denial of their homosexual tendenceis, and an overcompensation of finding 'femininity' attractive, to such ends that most chasers have unusually and unrealisticly high demands of beauty and femininity.
A tranny chasers Modis Operendi is more akin to that of a pedophile than a homosexual male, although the psychological drive is probably more similar to a homosexual male. Most Transwomen, particularly when still in transition, are very much like pubescent women. Thanks to hormone therepy they are often overly-emotional, frustrated, often insecure, and extremely curious about their newfound gender and in exploring their sexual identity with their new gender.
Chasers take advantage of these insecurities and curiosity in much the same way that pedophiles do with young children. In clubs and chats, chaser mentality and behavior towards transwomen is startlingly similar to that of a pedophile trying to groom a child. If you're insulted by this comparasin, do some research on pedophilia and see for yourself. Remember, I'm not saying that chasers are child molestors, just that their behavior towards transwomen is extremely similar to that of a child molestor to a child.
As an aside, neither pedophiles nor tranny chasers like very much being called gay.
A tranny chaser is a man who always insists they are hetero-sexual, with an extremely keen interest in the secondary feminine sexual characteristics, such as hair, smooth skin, and feminine faces, while being attracted sexually to the primary masculine feature of transwomen, that being the penis, and in particular whether or not the penis functions. And, whether or not the transwoman wants to or is willing to use it.
Most if not all of these chasers are always hunting to be with a T-girl who they feel is ideal. Whether it is online or in real life. Chasers are not interested in forming relationships with Transsexuals for the most part, although I've personally encountered three (out of literally thousands) who wanted to have long term relationships, only one of them wanted specifically someone who was either post op, or wanted to be post op in the near future, or only biological women. All of the others wanted only sexual release, and 75% of them were either married or had serious long term relationships with genetic women. Neither the Spouses or girlfriends knew of their lovers interest in transwomen. About 50% of the chasers had actually been with transsexual hookers and escorts, and it seemed about 80% were willing to pay for sex as well, but hadn't for various reasons, usually pride. Every single one of them expected to have sex with a transwomen if they went out to a tranny club, and 90% of those online expected to have sex with a transwoman if they were to meet one for the first time. None of them had such expectations in regards to genetic women, and many even said they had no real interest in genetic woman, and absolutely no interest in a post-operative transsexual. Akinokaze 00:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)The Autumn Wind
I'd like to remind all contributors that Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks and that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 12:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
TGs and Tranny Chasers as Queers; can I suggest another line of thinking on this; that chasers are representatyive of firstly, str8 society's feeling of entitlement to use queers for gratification/sexual release, and secondly to heterosexualize latent homosexuality/bisexuality to protect the patriarchal system, in other words to proivide an outlet for it within a heterosexual context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R jay72 ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The reference to "True Selves" seems a bit conflated. "True Selves" was written by Mildred L. Brown and Chloe Ann Rounsley. Helen Boyd (a pseudonym) wrote "My Husband Betty" and "She's Not the Man I Married".
I don't remember "True Selves" having anything about tranny chasers in it. It seems more like something Helen Boyd would have addressed, but I don't remember that either.
While "True Selves" is a good book I don't know whether I'd objectively describe it as "pathbreaking"
Temblast ( talk) 13:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I really hate the attitude of western transsexuals. They classify everyone who like transsexuals as trannychasers who are after "chicks with dicks". But what about the rest of us who are attracted to post-op transsexuals? This article doesn't mention a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.226.133 ( talk) 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If you are attracted to post-op ts women, then you simply like women. The ones who are penis obsessed, but prefer that it comes attached to transitioning women (so they don't have to admit homosexual desires) are the ones who earn the pejorative term 'tranny chaser.'
This article covers both sexual orientation and affectional orientation. We do not need articles for both. Comments welcome. Jokestress ( talk) 18:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL You kinda forgot another aspect of a lead: It has to be about the topic of the page. Every RS on the page (and every RS in print) is about the SEXUAL aspects.
— James Cantor ( talk) 22:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
C Hunger games catching fire ( talk) 07:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
This article gives undue weight to the notion that attraction to trans people is a paraphilia/fetish. Money's and Blanchard's ideas have been largely discredited, and their methods questioned, and yet their ideas make up the majority of this page. Their POVs should be discussed, certainly, but should not inform the tone of the entire article. It is entirely possible to be attracted to a trans person without fetishizing them, yet this article seems to suggest otherwise.
This article also discusses attraction to trans women and MtF crossdressers almost exclusively, with only brief mentions of people attracted to trans men or non-binary folks. It also only discusses cisgender people who are attracted to trans people, ignoring cases of trans people who are attracted to other trans people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbergja ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
128.189.144.214 ( talk) 08:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Money's and Blanchard's ideas have been largely discredited
— Citation fucking needed...
Incredibly poorly framed, narrow in focus, and biased in core content coverage, this article needs serious work. The title itself betrays an incredible lack of understanding about the subject matter. Believe it or not, but trans people are not some alien other who only attract people who align with a particular niche orientation. Transgender people are a vast and diverse demographic, who can be and usually are just as attractive to the population in general as cisgender people are. It is impossible to even tell if somebody is trans by looking at them on the street unless they inform you as such! Yet, this article persists in fetishizing and othering trans people in much the same manner as do the chasers that it describes, and who most likely were responsible for much of the text. Moreover, why does an article entitled "attraction to transgender people" concern itself almost entirely with people who "chase" trans women, almost entirely neglecting trans men (and non-binary trans people), and discussing cross dressers who are themselves not even trans? This is a poor article in need of significant work and a definite rename. I might suggest "fetishization of trans people" as a good working title to start with. 92.40.249.42 ( talk) 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Conisexual
Coniungere (latin "to combine, to connect"), Sexualis (latin "sexual") A person whose sexual and/or romantic attraction is exclusively directed towards another person combining feminine as well as masculine traits. This includes androgynous and non-operative transgender individuals.
I identify as such without having a fetish (which I think is a very degrading and inaccurate explanation for this type of attraction). Conisexuals can be defined by not being Hetero, nor Homosexual but instead being attracted to non-binary, transgender and androgynous people only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CE:1BE6:A872:9534:D013:113A:26A7 ( talk) 03:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Why does Transvestophilia (i.e. sexual interest in crossdressers) redirect here? Cross-dressing is not the same thing as transgender. Sega31098 ( talk) 08:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
There's some research about the sexual orientation of men who have sex with third genders in Asian and Pacific communities. I was thinking about including some such content in here. Do you think this belongs in this entry? What say you, User:Flyer22 Reborn? Rafe87 ( talk) 00:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Mooeena, 84percent and Mathglot, regarding this, this and this, like I stated (followup note here), the academic book sources actually are WP:MEDRS-compliant. If what the sources are reporting on for this matter is an outdated view, then the sources fall afoul WP:MEDDATE. But even if we look at sources that report this view to be outdated, it is still something we should include in a historical context. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
On a side note: Sexual attraction to trans women and trans men are currently listed at List of paraphilias. Some have tried to remove the entries, but sexologist/psychologist James Cantor has restored the material. See, for example, this edit. So, apparently, it's not outdated to him. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I believe the above discussion is now moot. The 2007 RS was written before the current DSM-5 (in 2013). Under the current systems, the sexual preference for transpeople is a paraphilia, but it is not a paraphilic disorder (unless it causes harm or the kind of distress that makes the person want to come in for therapy to help come out and integrate into his life. — James Cantor ( talk) 01:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
In diff, an editor boldly removed much of the text on attraction to trans men, with the exception of one sentence attributing the visibility of materials for such people to Buck Angel. I restored some of the material, because of the face of it the references cited give more space/time/ WP:WEIGHT to discussing the nature of attraction to vs exclusion of trans men than they do to attributing such attraction to Buck. As the editor has removed everything but Buck again, I'd like to see if that removal/reading of the sources is shared by anyone else (or, more to the point, has consensus or should be undone). -sche ( talk) 21:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand Crossroads1's concerns and have expressed my concerns before about the section as well, since the biology of sexual orientation is sex-based rather than based on sexual attraction to a gender identity. So Jaime Woo saying cisgender gay men often show a "fundamental resistance to accept trans men as partners" and that "the problem" is partly because cisgender gay men are invested in sexual orientation without including gender identity? Well, yeah. That is "the problem." By "can't control their sexual attraction," Crossroads1 obviously means that a cisgender gay man can't make himself sexually attracted to a person who is absent of male secondary sexual characteristics or doesn't have the genitals that are important to that cisgender gay man's ability to become sexually aroused. Genitals may not matter to some people, but they matter to many people, and this has been especially shown when it comes to gay men, which is why the section talks about "the privileged role of the penis" with regard cisgender gay men. All that stated, it's good to see that the section has been trimmed. And since what is there is a social commentary view that exists, it seems okay to have material on it in this article. The section is the "Social aspects" section. It's not a section about science. As also suggested, more trimming can be had.
The section should also include some criticism of the viewpoint, such as Andrew Sullivan stating the following in the 2019 "The Nature of Sex" source, from New York/ Intelligencer, "If you abandon biology in the matter of sex and gender altogether, you may help trans people live fuller, less conflicted lives; but you also undermine the very meaning of homosexuality. If you follow the current ideology of gender as entirely fluid, you actually subvert and undermine core arguments in defense of gay rights. 'A gay man loves and desires other men, and a lesbian desires and loves other women,' explains Sky Gilbert, a drag queen. 'This defines the existential state of being gay. If there is no such thing as 'male' or 'female,' the entire self-definition of gay identity, which we have spent generations seeking to validate and protect from bigots, collapses.' Contemporary transgender ideology is not a complement to gay rights; in some ways it is in active opposition to them. And the truth is that many lesbians and gay men are quite attached to the concept of sex as a natural, biological, material thing. Yes, we are very well aware that sex can be expressed in many different ways. A drag queen and a rugby player are both biologically men, with different expressions of gender. Indeed, a drag queen can also be a rugby player and express his gender identity in a variety of ways, depending on time and place. But he is still a man. And gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex. We are men and attracted to other men. If the concept of a man is deconstructed, so that someone without a penis is a man, then homosexuality itself is deconstructed. Transgender people pose no threat to us, and the vast majority of gay men and lesbians wholeheartedly support protections for transgender people. But transgenderist ideology — including postmodern conceptions of sex and gender — is indeed a threat to homosexuality, because it is a threat to biological sex as a concept. And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it's all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not? There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The saga continues. I have removed the word "meanwhile" because the stuff with Buck Angel did not happen during the 2015 study in the preceding paragraph. "In recent years" was removed due to being vague. The word "however" was taken out since Sullivan does not contradict Green directly; gay men partnered with trans men are a subset of gay men, and it is not reasonable or proper to expect all gay men to like any particular sort of body.
It is definitely improper to refer to Sullivan as conservative. First, his politics do not matter at all; second, he really isn't conservative; third, putting it could be construed as an attempt to discredit him to liberals.
I changed "arguing" to "on the basis", because sexual orientation is based on sex, or more accurately, sex characteristics. All the literature on measuring men's sexual orientation uses stimuli of male vs. female bodies, not people's gender identities. So, that is not just Sullivan's idea. Still, some gay men are attracted to trans men, etc., so more is involved than just biological sex assigned at birth (the secondary sex characteristics play that role - if Buck Angel looked like Scarlett Johansson, he would have hardly any gay fans). That is why I am open to putting "on the basis that" instead of "because". -Crossroads- ( talk) 04:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
sexual orientation is based on biological sex, not gender identityis not a sentence that should be presented in Wikipedia's own voice. If nothing else it's confusing. To you, the term "biological sex" encompasses secondary sexual characteristics, but many people would instead consider it just a synonym for sex assigned at birth (see how this Planned Parenthood page talks about the term.) WanderingWanda ( talk) 08:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the Andrew Sullivan opinion piece that is being discussed above, there are two questions: 1. Is including the article DUE or UNDUE per WP:UNDUE? 2. If it is included, how should we encapsulate it?
Regarding point 1, I don't really have an opinion, but do think we have to begin by acknowledging what the article is: a pro-
TERF and
anti-trans piece. Let's call a spade a spade. The article praises members of the anti-
trans rights organization the
Women's Liberation Front as having courage
and plenty of it
. It criticizes the
Equality Act (United States)'s protections for transgender people. It's an article that I've seen shared and praised in anti-trans internet hangouts like r/GenderCritical and
Mumsnet. Etc. I'm not saying all this to argue against its inclusion. As I've said, I don't have a strong opinion there. I just think we need to plainly acknowledge the sort of article that it is.
Regarding point 2, I don't think our article currently does a good job summarizing Andrew Sullivan's viewpoint. Currently the article says Andrew Sullivan has criticized the idea that gay men should automatically be attracted to trans men
. Where is that word "automatically" coming from? Is it meant to imply that Sullivan thinks there are times when a cisgender gay man could be attracted to a trans man? I don't see any evidence that this is his view. One of his points seems to be that it is literally impossible for a man to be both gay and attracted to a trans man, by definition, saying It is close to definitional
for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man
. And regarding the word biological sex
, I've already explained how muddled that word makes things, because it means different things to different people. To some,
Buck Angel clearly has lots of male "biological sex" characteristics. But others say "biological sex" and mean simply "sex assigned at birth", and those people would say that Buck Angel's "biological sex" is female. When Andrew Sullivan says "biological sex" he seems to mean "sex assigned at birth", although it's hard to say for 100% sure. For this reason we should not include the word, unless we are quoting Sullivan directly.
All that being said, here is my new proposed wording:
WanderingWanda (
talk)
20:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Conservative gay commentator Andrew Sullivan is critical of the view that a man could be both gay and attracted to a trans man, saying "It is close to definitional" that a gay man wouldn't be, and that "gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex".
You were quick to paint the Sullivan source with the "TERF" brushIs this like eating before swimming? Do I have to wait 30 minutes before calling an article TERFy? Anyway, the article is largely in praise of, and defense of, a group Sullivan himself calls "TERFs". He calls them courageous, and backs up their arguments against the Equality Act, etc. I'm not sure with what other brush to paint it. WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
sure, I can expand the section with scholarly sources on cisgender gay men's acceptance of transgender men as romantic/sexual partners; I'm guessing some here will not like that, however, considering it's not as positive as they would like it to be.Some here? Who exactly? I wouldn't have a problem with reliably sourced and appropriately weighted information about what percentage of cis people would consider dating trans people or whatever. Be my guest. If you'll look through the article's recent history, I think you'll find that while there is one editor who has been aggressively removing content they don't like from the article, it hasn't been me. WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
you stated, "I identify as queer and have been in a long term relationship with a trans man."You bringing up my sexuality or my relationships as some sort of gotcha is profoundly inappropriate. WanderingWanda ( talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Sighs.C'mon, Flyer. You know exactly how over-the-top, how disruptive, and how toxic you're being. I made a couple of good faith efforts to improve a single paragraph in a single article, and you've responded with a tirade. You've accused me of advocacy. You've insinuated I'm not fit to edit this article because of my identity and whom I've dated. You've dragged a months-old RfC into the conversation for no good reason, again. Etc. (If you don't like how that RfC turned out, incidentally, you should have voted in it while you had the chance!)
trying to throw some weight around, and yet you, yourself defend your own editing and, yes, your own WP:ADVOCACY, on transgender topics by bringing up, over and over again, the fact that you're friends with trans people. (For example, here and here.)
that Flyer22 has trans-exclusive feminist sympathies.When you argued that it was a bad thing for the Transgender talk page to be notified of the Non-binary gender move discussion, saying it would
just bring in more and more LGBT editors, one editor said
I do find Flyer22's focus on the identity of the editors to be offensive, and another editor agreed, saying
that Flyer22's focus on the identities (and assumed resulting opinions) of editors to be offensive, and counterproductive.And I said,
I thought their post above was both ill-considered and hurtful....imagine someone saying "don't do that, it will just bring in more and more woman editors" or "don't post a message there, it will just bring in more black editors".
it was fair to point out that you also have a tendency to dish out walls of text, like this latest rant of yours.
Whatever you were trying to accomplish by your long, WP:Not a forum post was also misguided. You not being welcomed on my talk page does not mean you get to use the article's talk page to air your grievances with me.
An important point regarding this: it would be extremely undue NOT to include [the Sullivan article]. In one study 87.5% of people would not date transgender people
. Looking over
WP:NPOV, this is explicitly not how we're supposed to determine weight: in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
It's understandable that none of us newbies caught the error until now (Crossroads1 has around 1000 edits, I have around 2000, and Newimpartial has around 4000), but I'm surprised the old-timer among us didn't catch it! –
WanderingWanda (
talk)
14:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.I have noticed a tendency among several editors to assume that just some opinionated sources (the ones they like) are legitimate, and the rest are wrong because they say so. Regarding all the RS on this subject, a mountain of scientific sources are clear that attraction is not a choice and is only weakly influenced by culture, and that only some people are attracted to transgender bodies. Neither professional and scientific researchers nor society as a whole accept the idea that attraction to transgender people is something that everyone can or should have. To suggest otherwise is WP:FRINGE. And so is the idea that it is okay to pressure or guilt people to have certain attractions. Couching it in woke-speak doesn't make it better. -Crossroads- ( talk) 16:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
in an ideal world, we would indeed have two sections, one for studies and one for anecdotes/opinions. If possible, each of these sections would include a representative sampling of what is available concerning both attraction to Trans women and attraction to Trans men.Sounds like a good idea to me. WanderingWanda ( talk) 21:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The core disagreement, it seems to me, is whether a trans woman is right to say that she has always been a woman, was born female, and is indistinguishable from and interchangeable with biological women. That’s the current claim reflected in the Equality Act. But is it true that when Caitlyn Jenner was in the 1976 Olympics men’s decathlon, she was competing as a woman, indistinguishable from any other woman? Contemporary orthodoxy insists that she was indeed competing as a woman, and erases any distinction between a trans woman and a woman.And this is not a strawman, as this video makes clear. I see this as a clear instance of the motte and bailey fallacy; you're criticizing Sullivan for saying that gay men are not attracted to Buck Angel, but he's really saying gay men are not attracted to Scarlett Johansson.
you're criticizing Sullivan for saying that gay men are not attracted to Buck Angel, but he's really saying gay men are not attracted to Scarlett Johansson.He doesn't say anything about Buck Angel or Scarlett Johansson. What he does say is:
gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex.Not "our own biological secondary sex characteristics", but "our own biological sex", singular. If Andrew Sullivan understands that hormones and surgery can both drastically change the physical appearance of a trans person, he doesn't talk about that or acknowledge it.
Right now, the article's social views section has 3 references representing that 10-15% of gay men, and 1 representing the 85+%. I think the undue weight is pretty clear.WP:DUE weight is based on what reliable sources focus on, not on opinion surveys. WanderingWanda ( talk) 02:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
This study
[1] was previously characterized in this page as referring to trans women. However, if you look at the abstract for this study it says it's about "gynandromorphs" or "sh*males", so I changed the wording to "gender-ambiguous people". Crossroads reverted me with the reason From first paragraph of study: "Natal males who have become GAMs by acquiring female-typical physical characteristics such as breasts through surgery or feminizing hormone therapy while retaining a penis are sometimes referred to simply as transgender women...or transwomen". Proposed replacement is pointlessly vague.
I reverted back with the reason That "while retaining a penis is important": while some of the people talked about are certainly trans women, it's not reasonable to characterize the entire group as "trans women", nor are all trans women what the study would call "GAMs". Let's take this to the talk page if you wanna discuss further
. I'm preemptively taking this to the talk page since I also want other people's opinions: does this study refer to trans women or to a variety of gender-ambiguous people of which some are trans women with penises?
Loki (
talk)
21:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Characterizing men with sexual interest in transgender women. The first paragraph again emphasizes this, saying the individuals
are sometimes referred to simply as transgender women...or transwomen. As an example, you changed
Of men attracted to trans womento
Of men attracted to gender-ambiguous people. That phrase is so vague, it is useless. You claimed that
while some of the people talked about are certainly trans women, it's not reasonable to characterize the entire group as "trans women"; this is a synthesized conclusion, especially since these individuals
acquir[ed] female-typical physical characteristics such as breasts through surgery or feminizing hormone therapy- why else do this if they are not trans women? Lastly, you said
nor are all trans women what the study would call "GAMs"- this is irrelevant, since most trans women do have penises [2], and this article is not about attraction to people who are indistinguishable from cisgender. Since (1) the proposed alternative is useless, (2) the old term was used multiple times in the study, and (3) the change seems to be motivated by an original-research definition of trans women, the text should be changed back. -Crossroads- ( talk) 22:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
__
References
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I've moved this page to tranny chaser, which is what they're actually known as. Searching for "tranny chaser" on Google comes up with 26,100 relevant hits. Searching for "transsensual" turns up 646 hits, many of which are not relevant. The former may be somewhat derogatory, but it's the common term; the latter is a neologism that makes no sense whatsoever. Ambi 08:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) -- Hi! I'm the one who wanted to add the term transsensual or transensual to the article. I don't really use the term myself, but I've seen it used many times as a sort of more neutral or politically correct way to say somebody who is attracted to trans people. I've also seen it used a for people who are attracted to FTM people. I believe the word should at least be added to the article.-- Sonjaaa 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem with terms is that they might be connotative or denotative, or that a denotative term might turn into a connotative one, or vice versa, through usage. Words evolve and change, just like people. In this specific case, tranny chaser designs, in our community, a man who is attracted to a pre-op transsexual woman BECAUSE of her male genitalia. PERIOD. A man who is attracted to male genitalia is homosexual, even though they try to deny it. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but that's not what TG women like myself want. I'm satisfied with the lexical juxtaposition "tranny chaser" because we needed something to describe, in an immediate and vivid way, a certain type of men we should be leery of. There are a lot of things to say about this issue, but the most relevant point is that these tranny chasers are in denial and need to see a penis attached to a woman (and that's how tranny chaser perceive us) to deceive themselves into thinking that they are straight. Let's set the record straight. A heterosexual man is someone who might be attracted to us, but who completely ignores our male genitalia and considers them as a de-sexualized part of our body (like the elbow or the wrist) in need of future corrective surgery. A real man doesn't care if our penis is big or small, functional or non functional, because he's not attracted to it. For a tranny chaser, by contrast, the penis is the "conditio sine qua non". This is what "straight" means. "Transsensual" is a kind of euphemism, I don't like this term at all, it's full of hypocrisy. This is such a contradictory situation. First and foremost, people with gender dysphoria like myself are very uncomfortable with their penis and become much more uncomfortable when it becomes the lover's object of attraction. How could tranny chasers possibly say that they are heterosexuals when all they want is to do a "fellatio in ore" and be sodomized? Transsexual women don't transition to screw men's asses, really! The other contradiction is that tranny chasers look for shemales (a very offensive, disgusting term) a mythical figure, a stunning feminine girl with a huge functional penis. And this is a contradiction, indeed, or a mythical figure, first of all because hormone theraphy renders the penis non-functional, and then because what's the use of going through the hell of transition (with surgical procedures, risks etc) if a tranny chaser seeks you for your male part? Another distinguishing trait of tranny chasers is that they suffer from BDD (body dysmorphic disorder). They have a distorted, unrealistic and non-realistic picture of their physical appearence. They are very demanding and exacting when it comes to the beauty of the transsexual woman and want a transsexual woman be more beautiful and more feminine than a genetic female, but they are most often average to ugly aging men, are going bald, are overweight and consider themselves very attractive or handsome. A lot of tranny chasers just don't click with genetic females (obviously, because they have a homosexual orientation) and consider transsexual women as easy, substandard women and want to treat us accordingly. In other words, most tranny chasers are losers refused by genetic women and want us as a substitute. The lead a double life, are married or in a long term relationship with a genetic woman, but look for trannies with huge penis to fulfil their insane obsessions.
Excuse me, you missed my point. BDD is a distortion of your body image, for the worse or for the better. In the case of tranny chasers, they don't think they are ugly when they are handsome, on the contrary, they think they are handsom when they are very ugly, i.e. they have a distorted perception of their physical appearence! That's what BDD is all about! We always read stories about people who suffer from BDD and consider themselves to be more unattractive than what they really are, but we never hear of opposite stories, that is, people who are delusional and consider themselves stunning when they look horrible. This is the typical case of tranny chasers. They look at TS women as substandard women and want to treat us like garbage and think that we will accept anything and we have different standards of beauty. They think that just because we are not genetic women, we will consider them attractive. And it's ridiculous to make the comparison with married men who wish their wives looked more like the girls of the covers of Maxim. Your point doesn't make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.50.246.31 ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 December 2005
Then, let's go back to the etymology of the word "dysmorphophobia". Dys is the prefix which indicates an undesirable state (as in , dysphoria which is the opposite of euphoria), morpho means "shape" (as in "morphology", "morpheme") "phobia" means fear (as in claustrophobia). Dysmorphophobia is a word from greek derivation. Of course, and as I have already put it, words evolve and sometimes terms containing phobia do not really mean "fear" but something else. In fact, homophobia, at the present day, doesn't literally mean that someone is frightened by homosexuals but something else. Here in Europe there are psychotherapists who adopt the term dysmorphophobia to describe people who have a distorted image of themselves, and this might be for the worse or for the better, i.e. not only to describe patients who perceive themselves as unattractive (or tend to magnify a physical flaw, such as people who suffer from anorexia nervosa) but also the opposite. BDD or dysmorphophoby is the umbrella term (hyperonim) which includes other hyponims (such as bigorexia). I'm not making stuff up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.50.246.31 ( talk • contribs) 11:10, 31 December 2005
There are so many assumptions and much ill-considered prejudice in this discussion. A few points: 1. The term transfan, while not as offensive as tranny chaser, is I believe condescending. The terms transoriented man or trans-attracted man are more adequate. Chasers and fans have been described as akin to a player, as used in the heterosexual sense. There is an inferred assumption here that transoriented men are all players, which ignores the fact that many, albeit a comparatively small percentage of us, for various reasons, have happy loving relationships with transwomen. 2. To claim that all transoriented men seek to receive, or even give anal sex is also ignorant of the diversity that exists among us. 3. It is not true that all transoriented men are closet gays, some do in fact consider themselves gay to a degree, though the majority who have though about it believe gays are significantly and categorically different. Part of this is that these men usually feel their partner to be female and use feminine pronouns. They also are usually turned off by most aspects of masculinity that are commonly found attractive to gay males.
There is a website www.transoriented.com which is making an effort to better understand transoriented men. Seeing the near hatred and comparison to pedophiles and scum that is part of the discussion here, it's little wonder transoriented men have been tentative to declare and talk about their orientation publicly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.186.160 ( talk) 12:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC) To the one talking about all transatracted are chasers: I am transgender and choose to be non-op for my personal reasons, also, not all of us have the same reaction to testosterone blockers, so some of us, maybe a minority still can use our lady parts. I do agree that there's a high number of people that just wants us for sex; although I find it a bit disgusting, this still means attraction in my opinion. Also when both parts agree it's ok to have casual. There's some of us that like the idea of having casual, because we are normal people and normal people also enjoy casual. Not to mention there's also people that are exclusively attracted to us in romantical and sexual ways. I have found them and the experience has been comfortable. If we say people that are attracted to us have a fetish, we are saying that we in some sense can be a fetish object, and we are giving the reason to people that say that being attracted to us is sick. I see myself as a human, so being attracted to me I think is not a fetish, is just a natural behavior. And it should be seen as something as normal as being homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. Normalizing it I believe will help us finding healthy and safe relationships with people that respect us.
I really don't want to start anything over something this silly, so I'm more than willing to let it go as is. However, I'd like to mention that as best as I've been taught as far as English goes, while "pre-" is technically correct, whether to use the suspensive hyphen here or not is more of a stylistic point. It's a device that's often encouraged to be used very spraringly, and most typically to avoid confusion. [Example: "The right- or left-handed scissors" would be necessary as it would clarify that we're contrasting two different pair and not a single one that works both ways] It would be very difficult to state that any confusion would be created by its abscence in this situation, as one cannot be both pre-operative and non-operative. So I guess with that said, I'll leave it to any future editors to decide if Mr. Hyphen should stay around or not. You know my vote. But as it stands now, Tamara versus myself in Hyphen War '06 won't get us anywhere. :-p -- Zoe 11:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Really, that should be 'nuff said. Transsensual is a horrible misuse of psudolatin. By breaking it down, it seems it would apply more to someone into S&M, B&D, or something.
A Tranny chaser is a man who frequents trans-friendly clubs and internet chats, looking to hook up with transwomen for quick sexual fixes. They are abnormally obsessed with the penis, and with how femenine any given transwoman looks. Straight men may talk about how good looking this or that woman is, but seldom if ever will you hear to straight men discussing which woman is more womanly, nor whether or not it's a shame that their penis doesn't work. These discussions have been had by chasers. Trannychasers display behavior in line with that of Closeted homosexual males, such as a complete denial of their homosexual tendenceis, and an overcompensation of finding 'femininity' attractive, to such ends that most chasers have unusually and unrealisticly high demands of beauty and femininity.
A tranny chasers Modis Operendi is more akin to that of a pedophile than a homosexual male, although the psychological drive is probably more similar to a homosexual male. Most Transwomen, particularly when still in transition, are very much like pubescent women. Thanks to hormone therepy they are often overly-emotional, frustrated, often insecure, and extremely curious about their newfound gender and in exploring their sexual identity with their new gender.
Chasers take advantage of these insecurities and curiosity in much the same way that pedophiles do with young children. In clubs and chats, chaser mentality and behavior towards transwomen is startlingly similar to that of a pedophile trying to groom a child. If you're insulted by this comparasin, do some research on pedophilia and see for yourself. Remember, I'm not saying that chasers are child molestors, just that their behavior towards transwomen is extremely similar to that of a child molestor to a child.
As an aside, neither pedophiles nor tranny chasers like very much being called gay.
A tranny chaser is a man who always insists they are hetero-sexual, with an extremely keen interest in the secondary feminine sexual characteristics, such as hair, smooth skin, and feminine faces, while being attracted sexually to the primary masculine feature of transwomen, that being the penis, and in particular whether or not the penis functions. And, whether or not the transwoman wants to or is willing to use it.
Most if not all of these chasers are always hunting to be with a T-girl who they feel is ideal. Whether it is online or in real life. Chasers are not interested in forming relationships with Transsexuals for the most part, although I've personally encountered three (out of literally thousands) who wanted to have long term relationships, only one of them wanted specifically someone who was either post op, or wanted to be post op in the near future, or only biological women. All of the others wanted only sexual release, and 75% of them were either married or had serious long term relationships with genetic women. Neither the Spouses or girlfriends knew of their lovers interest in transwomen. About 50% of the chasers had actually been with transsexual hookers and escorts, and it seemed about 80% were willing to pay for sex as well, but hadn't for various reasons, usually pride. Every single one of them expected to have sex with a transwomen if they went out to a tranny club, and 90% of those online expected to have sex with a transwoman if they were to meet one for the first time. None of them had such expectations in regards to genetic women, and many even said they had no real interest in genetic woman, and absolutely no interest in a post-operative transsexual. Akinokaze 00:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)The Autumn Wind
I'd like to remind all contributors that Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks and that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This page has been
transwikied to
Wiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here ( logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. |
-- CopyToWiktionaryBot 12:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
TGs and Tranny Chasers as Queers; can I suggest another line of thinking on this; that chasers are representatyive of firstly, str8 society's feeling of entitlement to use queers for gratification/sexual release, and secondly to heterosexualize latent homosexuality/bisexuality to protect the patriarchal system, in other words to proivide an outlet for it within a heterosexual context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R jay72 ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The reference to "True Selves" seems a bit conflated. "True Selves" was written by Mildred L. Brown and Chloe Ann Rounsley. Helen Boyd (a pseudonym) wrote "My Husband Betty" and "She's Not the Man I Married".
I don't remember "True Selves" having anything about tranny chasers in it. It seems more like something Helen Boyd would have addressed, but I don't remember that either.
While "True Selves" is a good book I don't know whether I'd objectively describe it as "pathbreaking"
Temblast ( talk) 13:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I really hate the attitude of western transsexuals. They classify everyone who like transsexuals as trannychasers who are after "chicks with dicks". But what about the rest of us who are attracted to post-op transsexuals? This article doesn't mention a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.226.133 ( talk) 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
If you are attracted to post-op ts women, then you simply like women. The ones who are penis obsessed, but prefer that it comes attached to transitioning women (so they don't have to admit homosexual desires) are the ones who earn the pejorative term 'tranny chaser.'
This article covers both sexual orientation and affectional orientation. We do not need articles for both. Comments welcome. Jokestress ( talk) 18:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL You kinda forgot another aspect of a lead: It has to be about the topic of the page. Every RS on the page (and every RS in print) is about the SEXUAL aspects.
— James Cantor ( talk) 22:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
C Hunger games catching fire ( talk) 07:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
This article gives undue weight to the notion that attraction to trans people is a paraphilia/fetish. Money's and Blanchard's ideas have been largely discredited, and their methods questioned, and yet their ideas make up the majority of this page. Their POVs should be discussed, certainly, but should not inform the tone of the entire article. It is entirely possible to be attracted to a trans person without fetishizing them, yet this article seems to suggest otherwise.
This article also discusses attraction to trans women and MtF crossdressers almost exclusively, with only brief mentions of people attracted to trans men or non-binary folks. It also only discusses cisgender people who are attracted to trans people, ignoring cases of trans people who are attracted to other trans people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbergja ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
128.189.144.214 ( talk) 08:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Money's and Blanchard's ideas have been largely discredited
— Citation fucking needed...
Incredibly poorly framed, narrow in focus, and biased in core content coverage, this article needs serious work. The title itself betrays an incredible lack of understanding about the subject matter. Believe it or not, but trans people are not some alien other who only attract people who align with a particular niche orientation. Transgender people are a vast and diverse demographic, who can be and usually are just as attractive to the population in general as cisgender people are. It is impossible to even tell if somebody is trans by looking at them on the street unless they inform you as such! Yet, this article persists in fetishizing and othering trans people in much the same manner as do the chasers that it describes, and who most likely were responsible for much of the text. Moreover, why does an article entitled "attraction to transgender people" concern itself almost entirely with people who "chase" trans women, almost entirely neglecting trans men (and non-binary trans people), and discussing cross dressers who are themselves not even trans? This is a poor article in need of significant work and a definite rename. I might suggest "fetishization of trans people" as a good working title to start with. 92.40.249.42 ( talk) 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Conisexual
Coniungere (latin "to combine, to connect"), Sexualis (latin "sexual") A person whose sexual and/or romantic attraction is exclusively directed towards another person combining feminine as well as masculine traits. This includes androgynous and non-operative transgender individuals.
I identify as such without having a fetish (which I think is a very degrading and inaccurate explanation for this type of attraction). Conisexuals can be defined by not being Hetero, nor Homosexual but instead being attracted to non-binary, transgender and androgynous people only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CE:1BE6:A872:9534:D013:113A:26A7 ( talk) 03:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Why does Transvestophilia (i.e. sexual interest in crossdressers) redirect here? Cross-dressing is not the same thing as transgender. Sega31098 ( talk) 08:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
There's some research about the sexual orientation of men who have sex with third genders in Asian and Pacific communities. I was thinking about including some such content in here. Do you think this belongs in this entry? What say you, User:Flyer22 Reborn? Rafe87 ( talk) 00:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Mooeena, 84percent and Mathglot, regarding this, this and this, like I stated (followup note here), the academic book sources actually are WP:MEDRS-compliant. If what the sources are reporting on for this matter is an outdated view, then the sources fall afoul WP:MEDDATE. But even if we look at sources that report this view to be outdated, it is still something we should include in a historical context. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
On a side note: Sexual attraction to trans women and trans men are currently listed at List of paraphilias. Some have tried to remove the entries, but sexologist/psychologist James Cantor has restored the material. See, for example, this edit. So, apparently, it's not outdated to him. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I believe the above discussion is now moot. The 2007 RS was written before the current DSM-5 (in 2013). Under the current systems, the sexual preference for transpeople is a paraphilia, but it is not a paraphilic disorder (unless it causes harm or the kind of distress that makes the person want to come in for therapy to help come out and integrate into his life. — James Cantor ( talk) 01:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
In diff, an editor boldly removed much of the text on attraction to trans men, with the exception of one sentence attributing the visibility of materials for such people to Buck Angel. I restored some of the material, because of the face of it the references cited give more space/time/ WP:WEIGHT to discussing the nature of attraction to vs exclusion of trans men than they do to attributing such attraction to Buck. As the editor has removed everything but Buck again, I'd like to see if that removal/reading of the sources is shared by anyone else (or, more to the point, has consensus or should be undone). -sche ( talk) 21:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand Crossroads1's concerns and have expressed my concerns before about the section as well, since the biology of sexual orientation is sex-based rather than based on sexual attraction to a gender identity. So Jaime Woo saying cisgender gay men often show a "fundamental resistance to accept trans men as partners" and that "the problem" is partly because cisgender gay men are invested in sexual orientation without including gender identity? Well, yeah. That is "the problem." By "can't control their sexual attraction," Crossroads1 obviously means that a cisgender gay man can't make himself sexually attracted to a person who is absent of male secondary sexual characteristics or doesn't have the genitals that are important to that cisgender gay man's ability to become sexually aroused. Genitals may not matter to some people, but they matter to many people, and this has been especially shown when it comes to gay men, which is why the section talks about "the privileged role of the penis" with regard cisgender gay men. All that stated, it's good to see that the section has been trimmed. And since what is there is a social commentary view that exists, it seems okay to have material on it in this article. The section is the "Social aspects" section. It's not a section about science. As also suggested, more trimming can be had.
The section should also include some criticism of the viewpoint, such as Andrew Sullivan stating the following in the 2019 "The Nature of Sex" source, from New York/ Intelligencer, "If you abandon biology in the matter of sex and gender altogether, you may help trans people live fuller, less conflicted lives; but you also undermine the very meaning of homosexuality. If you follow the current ideology of gender as entirely fluid, you actually subvert and undermine core arguments in defense of gay rights. 'A gay man loves and desires other men, and a lesbian desires and loves other women,' explains Sky Gilbert, a drag queen. 'This defines the existential state of being gay. If there is no such thing as 'male' or 'female,' the entire self-definition of gay identity, which we have spent generations seeking to validate and protect from bigots, collapses.' Contemporary transgender ideology is not a complement to gay rights; in some ways it is in active opposition to them. And the truth is that many lesbians and gay men are quite attached to the concept of sex as a natural, biological, material thing. Yes, we are very well aware that sex can be expressed in many different ways. A drag queen and a rugby player are both biologically men, with different expressions of gender. Indeed, a drag queen can also be a rugby player and express his gender identity in a variety of ways, depending on time and place. But he is still a man. And gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex. We are men and attracted to other men. If the concept of a man is deconstructed, so that someone without a penis is a man, then homosexuality itself is deconstructed. Transgender people pose no threat to us, and the vast majority of gay men and lesbians wholeheartedly support protections for transgender people. But transgenderist ideology — including postmodern conceptions of sex and gender — is indeed a threat to homosexuality, because it is a threat to biological sex as a concept. And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it's all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not? There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated." Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The saga continues. I have removed the word "meanwhile" because the stuff with Buck Angel did not happen during the 2015 study in the preceding paragraph. "In recent years" was removed due to being vague. The word "however" was taken out since Sullivan does not contradict Green directly; gay men partnered with trans men are a subset of gay men, and it is not reasonable or proper to expect all gay men to like any particular sort of body.
It is definitely improper to refer to Sullivan as conservative. First, his politics do not matter at all; second, he really isn't conservative; third, putting it could be construed as an attempt to discredit him to liberals.
I changed "arguing" to "on the basis", because sexual orientation is based on sex, or more accurately, sex characteristics. All the literature on measuring men's sexual orientation uses stimuli of male vs. female bodies, not people's gender identities. So, that is not just Sullivan's idea. Still, some gay men are attracted to trans men, etc., so more is involved than just biological sex assigned at birth (the secondary sex characteristics play that role - if Buck Angel looked like Scarlett Johansson, he would have hardly any gay fans). That is why I am open to putting "on the basis that" instead of "because". -Crossroads- ( talk) 04:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
sexual orientation is based on biological sex, not gender identityis not a sentence that should be presented in Wikipedia's own voice. If nothing else it's confusing. To you, the term "biological sex" encompasses secondary sexual characteristics, but many people would instead consider it just a synonym for sex assigned at birth (see how this Planned Parenthood page talks about the term.) WanderingWanda ( talk) 08:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the Andrew Sullivan opinion piece that is being discussed above, there are two questions: 1. Is including the article DUE or UNDUE per WP:UNDUE? 2. If it is included, how should we encapsulate it?
Regarding point 1, I don't really have an opinion, but do think we have to begin by acknowledging what the article is: a pro-
TERF and
anti-trans piece. Let's call a spade a spade. The article praises members of the anti-
trans rights organization the
Women's Liberation Front as having courage
and plenty of it
. It criticizes the
Equality Act (United States)'s protections for transgender people. It's an article that I've seen shared and praised in anti-trans internet hangouts like r/GenderCritical and
Mumsnet. Etc. I'm not saying all this to argue against its inclusion. As I've said, I don't have a strong opinion there. I just think we need to plainly acknowledge the sort of article that it is.
Regarding point 2, I don't think our article currently does a good job summarizing Andrew Sullivan's viewpoint. Currently the article says Andrew Sullivan has criticized the idea that gay men should automatically be attracted to trans men
. Where is that word "automatically" coming from? Is it meant to imply that Sullivan thinks there are times when a cisgender gay man could be attracted to a trans man? I don't see any evidence that this is his view. One of his points seems to be that it is literally impossible for a man to be both gay and attracted to a trans man, by definition, saying It is close to definitional
for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man
. And regarding the word biological sex
, I've already explained how muddled that word makes things, because it means different things to different people. To some,
Buck Angel clearly has lots of male "biological sex" characteristics. But others say "biological sex" and mean simply "sex assigned at birth", and those people would say that Buck Angel's "biological sex" is female. When Andrew Sullivan says "biological sex" he seems to mean "sex assigned at birth", although it's hard to say for 100% sure. For this reason we should not include the word, unless we are quoting Sullivan directly.
All that being said, here is my new proposed wording:
WanderingWanda (
talk)
20:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Conservative gay commentator Andrew Sullivan is critical of the view that a man could be both gay and attracted to a trans man, saying "It is close to definitional" that a gay man wouldn't be, and that "gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex".
You were quick to paint the Sullivan source with the "TERF" brushIs this like eating before swimming? Do I have to wait 30 minutes before calling an article TERFy? Anyway, the article is largely in praise of, and defense of, a group Sullivan himself calls "TERFs". He calls them courageous, and backs up their arguments against the Equality Act, etc. I'm not sure with what other brush to paint it. WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
sure, I can expand the section with scholarly sources on cisgender gay men's acceptance of transgender men as romantic/sexual partners; I'm guessing some here will not like that, however, considering it's not as positive as they would like it to be.Some here? Who exactly? I wouldn't have a problem with reliably sourced and appropriately weighted information about what percentage of cis people would consider dating trans people or whatever. Be my guest. If you'll look through the article's recent history, I think you'll find that while there is one editor who has been aggressively removing content they don't like from the article, it hasn't been me. WanderingWanda ( talk) 05:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
you stated, "I identify as queer and have been in a long term relationship with a trans man."You bringing up my sexuality or my relationships as some sort of gotcha is profoundly inappropriate. WanderingWanda ( talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Sighs.C'mon, Flyer. You know exactly how over-the-top, how disruptive, and how toxic you're being. I made a couple of good faith efforts to improve a single paragraph in a single article, and you've responded with a tirade. You've accused me of advocacy. You've insinuated I'm not fit to edit this article because of my identity and whom I've dated. You've dragged a months-old RfC into the conversation for no good reason, again. Etc. (If you don't like how that RfC turned out, incidentally, you should have voted in it while you had the chance!)
trying to throw some weight around, and yet you, yourself defend your own editing and, yes, your own WP:ADVOCACY, on transgender topics by bringing up, over and over again, the fact that you're friends with trans people. (For example, here and here.)
that Flyer22 has trans-exclusive feminist sympathies.When you argued that it was a bad thing for the Transgender talk page to be notified of the Non-binary gender move discussion, saying it would
just bring in more and more LGBT editors, one editor said
I do find Flyer22's focus on the identity of the editors to be offensive, and another editor agreed, saying
that Flyer22's focus on the identities (and assumed resulting opinions) of editors to be offensive, and counterproductive.And I said,
I thought their post above was both ill-considered and hurtful....imagine someone saying "don't do that, it will just bring in more and more woman editors" or "don't post a message there, it will just bring in more black editors".
it was fair to point out that you also have a tendency to dish out walls of text, like this latest rant of yours.
Whatever you were trying to accomplish by your long, WP:Not a forum post was also misguided. You not being welcomed on my talk page does not mean you get to use the article's talk page to air your grievances with me.
An important point regarding this: it would be extremely undue NOT to include [the Sullivan article]. In one study 87.5% of people would not date transgender people
. Looking over
WP:NPOV, this is explicitly not how we're supposed to determine weight: in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
It's understandable that none of us newbies caught the error until now (Crossroads1 has around 1000 edits, I have around 2000, and Newimpartial has around 4000), but I'm surprised the old-timer among us didn't catch it! –
WanderingWanda (
talk)
14:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.I have noticed a tendency among several editors to assume that just some opinionated sources (the ones they like) are legitimate, and the rest are wrong because they say so. Regarding all the RS on this subject, a mountain of scientific sources are clear that attraction is not a choice and is only weakly influenced by culture, and that only some people are attracted to transgender bodies. Neither professional and scientific researchers nor society as a whole accept the idea that attraction to transgender people is something that everyone can or should have. To suggest otherwise is WP:FRINGE. And so is the idea that it is okay to pressure or guilt people to have certain attractions. Couching it in woke-speak doesn't make it better. -Crossroads- ( talk) 16:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
in an ideal world, we would indeed have two sections, one for studies and one for anecdotes/opinions. If possible, each of these sections would include a representative sampling of what is available concerning both attraction to Trans women and attraction to Trans men.Sounds like a good idea to me. WanderingWanda ( talk) 21:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The core disagreement, it seems to me, is whether a trans woman is right to say that she has always been a woman, was born female, and is indistinguishable from and interchangeable with biological women. That’s the current claim reflected in the Equality Act. But is it true that when Caitlyn Jenner was in the 1976 Olympics men’s decathlon, she was competing as a woman, indistinguishable from any other woman? Contemporary orthodoxy insists that she was indeed competing as a woman, and erases any distinction between a trans woman and a woman.And this is not a strawman, as this video makes clear. I see this as a clear instance of the motte and bailey fallacy; you're criticizing Sullivan for saying that gay men are not attracted to Buck Angel, but he's really saying gay men are not attracted to Scarlett Johansson.
you're criticizing Sullivan for saying that gay men are not attracted to Buck Angel, but he's really saying gay men are not attracted to Scarlett Johansson.He doesn't say anything about Buck Angel or Scarlett Johansson. What he does say is:
gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex.Not "our own biological secondary sex characteristics", but "our own biological sex", singular. If Andrew Sullivan understands that hormones and surgery can both drastically change the physical appearance of a trans person, he doesn't talk about that or acknowledge it.
Right now, the article's social views section has 3 references representing that 10-15% of gay men, and 1 representing the 85+%. I think the undue weight is pretty clear.WP:DUE weight is based on what reliable sources focus on, not on opinion surveys. WanderingWanda ( talk) 02:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
This study
[1] was previously characterized in this page as referring to trans women. However, if you look at the abstract for this study it says it's about "gynandromorphs" or "sh*males", so I changed the wording to "gender-ambiguous people". Crossroads reverted me with the reason From first paragraph of study: "Natal males who have become GAMs by acquiring female-typical physical characteristics such as breasts through surgery or feminizing hormone therapy while retaining a penis are sometimes referred to simply as transgender women...or transwomen". Proposed replacement is pointlessly vague.
I reverted back with the reason That "while retaining a penis is important": while some of the people talked about are certainly trans women, it's not reasonable to characterize the entire group as "trans women", nor are all trans women what the study would call "GAMs". Let's take this to the talk page if you wanna discuss further
. I'm preemptively taking this to the talk page since I also want other people's opinions: does this study refer to trans women or to a variety of gender-ambiguous people of which some are trans women with penises?
Loki (
talk)
21:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Characterizing men with sexual interest in transgender women. The first paragraph again emphasizes this, saying the individuals
are sometimes referred to simply as transgender women...or transwomen. As an example, you changed
Of men attracted to trans womento
Of men attracted to gender-ambiguous people. That phrase is so vague, it is useless. You claimed that
while some of the people talked about are certainly trans women, it's not reasonable to characterize the entire group as "trans women"; this is a synthesized conclusion, especially since these individuals
acquir[ed] female-typical physical characteristics such as breasts through surgery or feminizing hormone therapy- why else do this if they are not trans women? Lastly, you said
nor are all trans women what the study would call "GAMs"- this is irrelevant, since most trans women do have penises [2], and this article is not about attraction to people who are indistinguishable from cisgender. Since (1) the proposed alternative is useless, (2) the old term was used multiple times in the study, and (3) the change seems to be motivated by an original-research definition of trans women, the text should be changed back. -Crossroads- ( talk) 22:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
__
References