Psychology Today: People Refusing To Date Transgenders Is ‘Dehumanizing’

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So it appears as though "Psychology Today" is saying this, but instead it's the daily wire...which by any measure is less reputable and more biased.

It is spinning a study that is innocently looking at health effects for a certain demographic, like those of age, race, income, ect,

It's like saying that since race can play a factor in which blood pressure medication works best, well that's literally racist and there needs to be social change.

a reply to: ghaleon12
No, the abstract from the study itself is "problematic"
journals.sagepub.com...

However, even among those willing to date trans persons, a pattern of masculine privileging and transfeminine exclusion appeared, such that participants were disproportionately willing to date trans men, but not trans women, even if doing so was counter to their self-identified sexual and gender identity (e.g., a lesbian dating a trans man but not a trans woman). The results are discussed within the context of the implications for trans persons seeking romantic relationships and the pervasiveness of cisgenderism and transmisogyny.

always going on about their soggy knees. I tell you what.

a reply to: continuousThunder

Did you really just equate transgendered people to blondes or Asians?

Yeah no one is being forced yet, just the buzz words getting lined up to make us "normal" people feel terrible. I wonder how long before someone will make a law?

When I say normal people I mean people that have preferences like enjoying a blonde woman over a brunette woman. Or liking a specific ethnicity. Things that are born a specific way, not drugged and then sliced and diced into something that represents the idea of my desires.

That's called deception. Maybe you should slow down and relook this whole thing from an objective stand point?

a reply to: DustybudzZ

Yes. A male is a male, a female is a female....I just don't get this cross gender bull#. Yeah ok,if that's your thing,be happy,don't force the idea/illness/trend on youth ffs. A woman with a penis is not attractive to alot of people,and let's face it,a guy with a vagina doesn't biologically exist...unless you add surgery

originally posted by: continuousThunder
okay, let's take this extremely slowly. let me know if you get lost and need me to explain again.

Let's do this.

it is dehumanising to declare that you wouldn't date an entire class of people.
that's a simple fact - you're treating people as an identical mass that you can just cast aside in one go.
that's pretty much the definition of dehumanising there.

I am not attracted to penises. My best friend since first grade is a male (as am I), I have not dehumanized him in any way by not wanting to date him.

Dating is about the connection between two individuals. You meet and you hit it off for various reasons, generally similar interests or views on the world.
it's like saying you wouldn't date an asian, or a blonde. There are a LOT of people in those subsets and they're all extremely different and going "nah blondes don't do it for me" is extremely reductionist and rude.

No it's recognizing we have types we are attracted to. Most people I know have types they are attracted to. Sometimes they date or even partner/marry outside of those types. But that dosn't stop their biology from still finding certain individuals more attractive than others.

Only with trans people it's on a whole extra level because there are SO MANY trans people you'd never even know are trans unless they told you. So to just decide that you won't date any of these people, en masse - yeah that's dehumanising in action right there.

So many? Please cite any source suggesting they are more than 5% of any given population.

But don't worry, you're not being forced to date trans people. trans people already suffer enough in this world.

We are not being forced to date anyone. Just as I have never been forced to date my best friend. Nor have I been forced to date the many men that have come on to me over the years. And the many women I have flirted with, to learn they are not interested in penises have not been forced to date me.

Your argument falls apart with just a casual read, and basic life experiences.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So? Who cares? I was bashed by a ''phD in gender studies college teacher'' 5'4'' 200 pounds woman because I'm not interested in dating women who are over the 110lbs to 130lbs mark(depends on how tall they are).

Apparently ''real women'' have curves, and by curves they don't mean a nice butt or boobs, but a distended stomach that makes them look like they're 9 months pregnant, and 3 chins, and these women who make the average female population of the Country I moved to are anorexic . According to the average American woman.

Yeah, they complain about a man not wanting to date overweight(small scale obese people) but if you say something about women wanting men who are 6 feet and above, they throw a tantrum and start claiming women want tall men because of biology. Well guess what, men wanting to mate with women instead of doing it with bipedal whales are also following their genetic imperative.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dear transpeople:
You have to accept who you are. You have the freedom of expression, dress as you like, act freely and I hope honestly as you feel, do behind closed doors whatever you like with every adult who agrees to do so, live however you choose.
But that operation is mutilation.
You are totally wonderful and unique like everybody else. Don't do that to yourself. You are not sick are you? I believe everybody else with the determination to exchange a perfectly functional arm with a stick made out of flesh and skin would be rightfully considered crazy, right?
Discover your own identity and don't try to become what you are not. Be who you are with pride. Your body is your temple.


@OP: And that just shows how much psychology is pure bs. Everybody knows your sexual preferences are expressions of psychological needs. And that changes over time. Except of course genetic predisposition (which nobody can argue against) and your imprint. Nobody decides what they're attracted to, if that's true for the homosexuals it also has to be true for everybody.
And being attracted to transpeople is probably not even that rare. A minority sure, but not nobody. That's just something everybody has to accept, nobody is everybody's type.
And the extreme reactions they get from hetero cis whatever people is because they catch people completely off guard with what is effectively a masquerade, betrayal, what you see is not what you get.
If psychology would be good for anything besides poisoning people they could maybe see how it is important for the wellbeing of society and everybody in it to help transgender be okay with their own identity including their biological reality. Western hijra, or some very own and niché in society where they can be themselves amongst everybody else and nobody gets killed anymore because of their visual perception.

a reply to: CthruU

Nah. Slow down.

Why do they keep ramming this ridiculous acceptance down our throats? , Aren't we (the procreators) entitled to have our own choices and freedoms without predujice.? - you know exactly what the LGBT community is striving for in theory.

You're acting in an outraged manner claiming they don't have the right to tell you what to do, but you're the one implying that the LGBT community has an agenda for the heterosexual population behind their motives and actions and behaviors.

Nah bruh they don't. I've met many homosexual and bisexual male models, and the only thing they want is to bang you, if you're good enough for them. Other than that they're happy to live their lives without bothering anyone.

Their different, they've spent a lifetime in the knowledge their different and the only thing that is "DEHUMANIZING " is that their inability or refusal to breed and ensure continuity of humanity is only contributing to the demise/extinction of the human race.

Full-stop right there. See, the issue here is this fantastical belief the individual man has that if he doesn't breed, the human species will go extinct. It won't. There are nearly 8 billion human beings living on planet earth at the moment and we'll go past the 8 billion mark before 2050.

As im saying that i realise maybe that's why their pushing so hard - maybe their is a agenda to help wipe out humanity through a lack of babies over time.

No, what they seek to do is to create a world where the people who live in it are healthy, strong, attractive, and have enough food, enough clean air, and access to high quality doctors, so that Mankind can lead happy, constructive lives.

It's time we concentrate on quality over quantity. Limit the access to reproduction to men who look like Henry Cavill, like Brad Pitt, to men who have the physical prowess and talent of a greek god(Cristiano Ronaldo, David Beckham) and also let only women who are tall, beautiful, young and thin breed - and I guarantee you.

That the average human being will look like Apollo or Heracles not even a few generations into this.

I am surrounded by catwalk fashion male models and women. The most beautiful women and men walk about me, and my only wish is for everyone to know the face of true beauty. Let us make the Human Species gorgeous beyond belief.

It's time for short men, it's time for bald men, for ugly men, for plain-looking men, for overweight men, and for women who are the same as these men to STOP believing they have the right to breed.

a reply to: Ligyron

Eugenics.

I like where you’re going.

a reply to: continuousThunder
They are not human. They are #ed up. Nature doesn't make mistakes like this.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

Not eugenics, bro. Eugenics is laden with negative connotations.

Eugenics is a term created by a conservative civilization, a civilization that lives within every man on earth, men who know they are not good enough for physically attractive women, and thus force women to mate with them, either by applying religious brutality(Sharia Law Muslim Countries and Muslim nations in general) and forcing women into taking part in arranged marriages.

Economic reasons that force women to date, marry, and mate with men who are unattractive(the average height for Spanish men is 5'8'', and if you have a job, any job in Greece, you can easily smash women who look like Victoria's secret models) and women who have to lower their standards, like the many beautiful and fit women I met in college who were dating completely average men(5'8'' 140lbs at 10% body fat) because better-looking guys could easily pump and dump them, and weren't interested in relationships.

I'm thinking about a world where Achilles is no longer the most beautiful of all the Greeks. When he's just a plain-looking man. Because Mankind has finally become free. Free to mate with the best that there is!

a reply to: Saibotkram1988

Bro, lean back for a bit.

The average man or woman in the US is no longer just overweight, but can now be classified as just shy of being obese.

The average woman in the US was 170.6 pounds and 5 feet 3 inches tall and the average man was 197.9 pounds and 5 feet 7 inches tall in 2016, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.

That’s an average weight gain of 6.8 pounds for women and 8.5 pounds for men in the last 18 years or so. In 2000, the average woman weighed 163.8 pounds and was 5 feet 3 inches tall, and the average man weighed 189.4 pounds and was 5 feet 7 inches in height.

www.buzzfeednews.com...

If nature doesn't make mistakes how come the majority of the people are branching out and forming a new subspecies, what I like to call the Homo Obesus?

Lets brake down the word transgender shall we?

Trans: short for transformation
Gender: man or woman

So transgender is a "transformed" man or woman (gender) NOT a real natural gender because there is only 2 real genders (man) or (woman) you are either born a man or woman just because you "transform" the parts that make you a man or woman on the outside your still either a man or woman

Lezbein: not a gender, it's a preference

Bi: not a gender, it's a preference

Gay: not a gender, it's preference

I don't care what anyone calls themselves or what they think they are
but the problem is when you try to push it down me, my family's, and my kid's throats and say we are wrong for not wanting to date a transgender. and try to teach my kids this BS nonsense hell no

I mean the funny part is this is just as bad as if someone said that transgender people are wrong for the way they are I mean come on it make no since right? Lol wow

originally posted by: continuousThunder
okay, let's take this extremely slowly. let me know if you get lost and need me to explain again.

it is dehumanising to declare that you wouldn't date an entire class of people.
that's a simple fact - you're treating people as an identical mass that you can just cast aside in one go.
that's pretty much the definition of dehumanising there.
Dating is about the connection between two individuals. You meet and you hit it off for various reasons, generally similar interests or views on the world.
it's like saying you wouldn't date an asian, or a blonde. There are a LOT of people in those subsets and they're all extremely different and going "nah blondes don't do it for me" is extremely reductionist and rude.
Only with trans people it's on a whole extra level because there are SO MANY trans people you'd never even know are trans unless they told you. So to just decide that you won't date any of these people, en masse - yeah that's dehumanising in action right there.

But don't worry, you're not being forced to date trans people. trans people already suffer enough in this world.

You are chatting absolute crap. So are straight people dehumanised by the gays are they?

a reply to: Ligyron

subspecies

???

a reply to: DustybudzZ

In biological classification, the term subspecies refers to one of two or more populations of a species living in different subdivisions of the species' range and varying from one another by morphological characteristics.[2][3] A single subspecies cannot be recognized independently: a species is either recognized as having no subspecies at all or at least two, including any that are extinct. The term is abbreviated subsp. in botany and bacteriology, ssp. in zoology. The plural is the same as the singular: subspecies.

en.wikipedia.org...

The average American male is nearly 200lbs at 30% body fat.

(CNN)America is struggling with an obesity epidemic, and a new government report says that the population is only getting heavier.

The average weight of American men in 2015-16 was 197.9 pounds; for women, it was 170.6 pounds. This is up from 189.4 pounds and 163.8 pounds, respectively, in 1999-2000.

Americans' average BMI "is now almost 30 which is the cutoff for obesity," Ogden noted. According to the CDC, a normal or healthy BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9. A BMI of 25 to 29.9 is considered overweight.

edition.cnn.com...

I'm 180lbs at 10% without going to the gym ever once or doing any physical exercise. When you look at my fellow American man you see a guy who looks like he's 9 months pregnant. When you look at me you ask yourself if I play professional soccer.

Homo Obesus.

The Obese man.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

The guy who can walk down a flight of stairs without having a heart attack.

Therefore, the majority of men in America/Canada/Mexico/Great Britain belong to one subspecies, and I to another.

originally posted by: Saibotkram1988
a reply to: continuousThunder
They are not human. They are . . . up. Nature doesn't make mistakes like this.

Mistakes or not. Obviously they exist. Your premise is incorrect.
Mods, as you will censor the parent quote, please allow me to use the censored quote.

Nature allows for tonnes of mistakes. Siamese twins would be an easy one to come to mind.

a reply to: Ligyron

You sir, are not presenting an argument worth discussing at this time, and in this thread.
But please continue as to how obesity has anything to do with psychology.

originally posted by: Ligyron
a reply to: DustybudzZ

In biological classification, the term subspecies refers to one of two or more populations of a species living in different subdivisions of the species' range and varying from one another by morphological characteristics.[2][3] A single subspecies cannot be recognized independently: a species is either recognized as having no subspecies at all or at least two, including any that are extinct. The term is abbreviated subsp. in botany and bacteriology, ssp. in zoology. The plural is the same as the singular: subspecies.

en.wikipedia.org...

The average American male is nearly 200lbs at 30% body fat.

(CNN)America is struggling with an obesity epidemic, and a new government report says that the population is only getting heavier.

The average weight of American men in 2015-16 was 197.9 pounds; for women, it was 170.6 pounds. This is up from 189.4 pounds and 163.8 pounds, respectively, in 1999-2000.

Americans' average BMI "is now almost 30 which is the cutoff for obesity," Ogden noted. According to the CDC, a normal or healthy BMI is between 18.5 and 24.9. A BMI of 25 to 29.9 is considered overweight.

edition.cnn.com...

I'm 180lbs at 10% without going to the gym ever once or doing any physical exercise. When you look at my fellow American man you see a guy who looks like he's 9 months pregnant. When you look at me you ask yourself if I play professional soccer.

Homo Obesus.

The Obese man.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

The guy who can walk down a flight of stairs without having a heart attack.

Therefore, the majority of men in America/Canada/Mexico/Great Britain belong to one subspecies, and I to another.

Lol I know what subspecies means, but thank you for the definition and explanation...

Lmfao

but I don't necessarily think thats what the definition means and would not fit for what your trying to say

Being fat is not a subspecies

Human taxonomy is the classification of the human species (systematic name Homo sapiens, Latin: "knowing man") within zoological taxonomy. The systematic genus, Homo, is designed to include both anatomically modern humans and extinct varieties of archaic humans. Current humans have been designated as subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, differentiated from the direct ancestor, Homo sapiens idaltu.

At least a dozen species of Homo other than Homo sapiens have been proposed, with varying degrees of consensus. Homo erectusis widely recognized as the species directly ancestral to Homo sapiens. Most other proposed species are proposed as alternatively belonging to either Homo erectusor Homo sapiens as a subspecies. This concerns Homo ergaster in particular.[13] One proposal divides Homo erectus into an African and an Asian variety; the African is Homo ergaster, and the Asian is Homo erectus sensu stricto. (Inclusion of Homo ergaster with Asian Homo erectus is Homo erectus sensu lato.)[14]There appears to be a recent trend, with the availability of ever more difficult-to-classify fossils such as the Dmanisi skulls (2013) or Homo naledi fossils (2015) to subsume all archaic varieties under Homo erectus.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: Saibotkram1988
a reply to: continuousThunder
They are not human. They are . . . up. Nature doesn't make mistakes like this.

Mistakes or not. Obviously they exist. Your premise is incorrect.
Mods, as you will censor the parent quote, please allow me to use the censored quote.

Nature allows for tonnes of mistakes. Siamese twins would be an easy one to come to mind.

Lol why would Siamese twins be considered a mistake?