#and as usual this discussion just excludes intersex folks

[cyanide-sippy-cup]

Oh for crying out-

Yall I'm so for real right now, if I have to see one more person say something like "a Lesbian can't date a Trans man, it's disrespectful to both identities!" I will lose my goddamn mind.

The problem here is that you are conflating "Lesbian" with "only likes girls" and Trans man with "guy who previously identified as a woman". And these are both true, however there is one very important aspect you forgot while piecing these together.

Sexuality and gender identity are both fluid.

You saw the labels and logically thought "well Lesbians like girls, therefore being interested in a Trans man would be invalidating to his gender identity". But you forgot that key factor. We don't choose who we are attracted to. It's what we've been saying this whole time while the hets tell us to choose straightness.

Nobody ever falls into labels perfectly. If they did, history would be much simpler. But nobody gets to choose the way they feel. This is how these labels were formed to begin with. You think there was always a word for Nonbinary? Nope. But people explored, they learned about themselves and realized they didn't fit the bubbles that were already made.

Hell, I've had a Lesbian friend confess she had feelings for me even while I was a guy. To look her in the eyes and tell her that she's not a Lesbian anymore, that she needs to find a new label because this one isn't for her? That is what's disrespectful to her identity, not her own feelings.

I'm not saying these words don't have meaning, they do. And the distinguishment between them is very important. But like all things, they are still fluid. There is a difference between man and woman but that doesn't stop yours truly from being here.

If the fluidity of these things did not exist, many of the labels you like to force people in would not either. And once we begin adding ridged borders to what dictates who people can be, we become the same as the people who would have us dead.

[nothorses]

Alright I want to ask you this because I have thoughts but you're significantly more well read than me so maybe you'll have better insight and explanation:

I was going on a terf blocking spree, and lots of them are currently dealing with the idea that trans people are trying to say genital attraction isn't real. Now, I have heard this a few times on Tumblr, and I've heard people call it "genital preferences" and similar things, and I've seen the posts about people trying to get others cancelled for not dating them because they're trans. But for the most part I would say this is the minority of trans people?

Most of my experience with these sorts of conversations is from Reddit and not Tumblr, in these discussions people all agreed genital attraction was a real thing. Also, people (generally) agreed that sometimes trans people need to accept someone won't date them because of their genitalia (in reference to their agab genitals), yet some people will and it's not okay to be angry with someone who won't. There was also the idea that if they won't date someone with their agab genitals or after grs then there's an argument for ableism but not necessarily transphobia (although it's sometimes transphobia, not always).

I don't really know how to word the question, but basically do you have any thoughts you're willing to share on this issue? You always seem to have well thought out and historically referenced analysis of issues and provide nuance as needed, so I thought maybe you'd be a good person to ask. Of course if you don't want to answer this that's completely fine as well, it's just I can see the issue a bit from both sides and I just don't think I know enough on this subject to arrive to a conclusion yet personally, I also hope this is worded in a way where you understand what I'm trying to say

I think there’s two sides to this issue- the people making these decisions, and the people impacted by them- and my opinion really differs depending on what side you’re talking about. 

When we’re talking about “genital preference” and the people making these decisions, I honestly have to say that I don’t think this is a Thing the way these folks talk about it. I understand comfort levels with different types of genitalia, I understand having different sexual relationships with different types of genitalia, I understand finding different qualities attractive in different types of genitalia (penis size/hair/labia/etc.). But that isn’t the same as your entire sense of attraction to someone or your entire orientation being based on genitalia.

If you’re uncomfortable with one genital configuration, there are plenty of ways to have sex with someone who has it that do not involve interacting with that genital configuration in ways that make you uncomfortable. If you prefer the role you default to with one genital configuration, you can talk to a partner with a different configuration about how to accommodate that. If you find certain qualities unattractive in someone’s genitals, well, why is that so different from something like hair length?

Ultimately, “genital preference” isn’t about that. It’s just a reason for refusing to consider dating or having sex with certain people- and lo and behold, it just so happens that it’s always trans people that “genital preferences” exclude. (Ask these people if they’d consider trans people who’ve had bottom surgery & watch them scramble.)

It’s a transphobic dogwhistle used by cis people to excuse their transphobic dating habits. It’s the “socially acceptable” way of saying they don’t want to deal with their internalized transphobia, that they don’t find trans people “fuckable”. Not to mention the rampant, blatant exclusion of intersex people with conditions affecting their genitals.

Which is why, on the side of those impacted, responses are usually based on the assumption that this is about transphobia.

If someone tells me they don’t want to be with me because they have a “genital preference”, I also, in fact, have zero interest in them. I don’t want to be with someone who’s transphobic, and I don’t want to be with someone who doesn’t see me as a man.

I don’t think it’s safe or healthy for trans people to push that issue with individuals. I also don’t think it’s okay, in any capacity, to force yourself on someone because you (rightfully, in this case) disagree with the reasons behind their rejection. I also think it’s perfectly fair to point out and be upset about the transphobia inherent in the situation.

The closest thing to a legitimate “genital preference” is one founded in trauma, and as I’ve said before, these are intensely personal situations. I believe folks who’s trauma has caused this association between Danger and a certain genital configuration have a lot of healing and growing to do. They should understand that trans people may feel uncomfortable and unsafe around them until then. And they should have their boundaries respected, regardless of the reasons behind them, in the meantime.

[eeee-lye]

Every time I see someone complain about microlabels or neopronouns or any other terms used by aro-spec, ace-spec, m-spec and NB folks, all I hear is the complainer saying this:

People are only allowed to define themselves in ways I like, accept and approve.

That’s it. That’s literally all that’s being said. Oh, there’s usually ableism, racism, cissexism, exorsexism, allosexism and various flavours of hate used as an attempt to justify this, but there is nothing of substance actually being said save one simple declaration: I don’t like it. It’s immature, petty and the direct anthithesis to queer (queer, not LGBT+) culture which is all about giving the middle finger to folks who think they can shove us in ill-fitting boxes in favour of finding or making our own.

No. We can define ourselves however best suits us. What makes people think their opinions are so important I care as to whether or not you like my labels? What makes people think that their ableism and hate used as a veil to justify their dislike used as a weapon to silence people isn’t transparent?

(My objection, in fact, isn’t to your dislike. Dislike away for all I care. My objection is to your using your dislike to deny me access to words that make sense of who I am or deny me the expectation that I can safely discuss and express who I am. My objection is your using your dislike to hate, hurt and exclude.)

You don’t have to understand why happening on the word “polyaffectionate” made my aro arse so happy or why I define myself as aro-ace and panalterous (because gender isn’t a factor for a QPP; it’s not exactly complicated). I’m not requiring you to use these labels for yourself, just as we’re not requiring conservatives to marry same-gender partners; we’re just requiring you to allow those who wish it the right to do so. I’m just requiring you to shut up, get out of my way and let me do me in ways that makes my autistic need to precisely define things content. My labels are mine. You don’t get a say.

Why, yes, it’s exactly the same conservatism, used to silence and keep others from being their happiest, safest, most authentic selves in ways that don’t fit the speaker’s philosophy. “People are only allowed to marry in gender combinations I like and approve” is identical to “people are only allowed to use words I like and approve”. In one, religion and science that denies trans, NB and intersex people is used to justify marriage inequality; in the other, ableism and science that denies trans, NB and intersex people is used to justify denying people the empowerment of self-definition.

Conservative cishets (a-specs are not cishet) cry “children need a mother and father” to justify denying others the right to marriages they personally dislike. Conservative LGBT+ folks cry “but microlabels cause harm to folks who pick the wrong label” or “microlabels are homophobic” or “there’s only two genders” to justify denying others the right to labels and pronouns they personally dislike.

There’s no substance to this, nothing but folks who have been hurt by conservatism trying to be accepted by cishet (a-specs are not cishet) conservatives by wielding conservative arguments against the less-conservatively-acceptable sections of the LGBTQIA+ communities.

I don’t like it so you shouldn’t use it isn’t an argument we should be validating or accepting. It’s not even an argument at all.

(And before anyone comments on how I’m aro-ace and therefore supposedly not queer enough to discuss this or belong to the community because of my mythical and entirely fabricated straight privilege: I’m agender and trans.)