Having skimmed the last bunch of posts, there are a couple of things I'd like to add.
For one, there is this characterization of a "heterosexual man" as if all share the same traits, feelings, and proclivities. Sexuality and preference isn't always so clear, black and white, or binary. Perhaps the first clear elucidation of this--which while appearing simple compared to today's views, still works and illustrates the point--is the "Kinsey Scale," which is from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). The point being, sexual preference exists on a spectrum, not a binary.
Furthermore, not all heterosexual men are alike in terms of their feelings about sex with other men, or trans people. Some heterosexual men have no desire for other men, but also less disgust than is implied by some of the comments above. Even exclusively heterosexual people (a Kinsey 0) may vary to the degree to which they are repulsed by homosexuality. Or someone who has a "tinge of bisexuality" (a Kinsey 1) could still only ever have sex with the opposite gender, but be open to a homosexual experience, in the right context.
Exactly. My point is that I don't think all of those men were so "surprised." Some of them could well have been into it
And of course Kinsey only offers one axis, and a relatively simple view of sexuality. There are countless possible variations, and every individual is different. You could be the gayest man on Earth but still be attracted to Barbra Streisand;
No, gay men love Barbra for other reasons.
or you could be exclusively heterosexual, but meet that one dude who gives you a completely unexpected "broner." And this doesn't even get into kinks, fetishes, etc, not to mention gloryholes ;-).
Upon being introduced to a gay friend, by another gay friend, when it came up, and I said I was straight, he said, "Honey, there's a kink in everybody."
As far as the gender status of trans people, I sort of split the difference between the camps above. I don't agree with, to quote Kieran, the "radical left's" view that anyone who wants to be a woman is a woman, but also have no issue with trans women identifying as trans women. But that's where I differ from the left: I think a trans woman is a trans woman - not in the same category as biological woman, and thus I think the "trans" part should be included in terms of identification.
I also have no issue with trans people being trans. I mean, viva la difference. I don't have a problem with them trying to pass, as long as they aren't deceitful (e.g. in sexual encounters). But where I find this issue becoming a concern are in context where trans women, or policies around trans women, are either A) Involving dishonesty and/or sexual deceit, and B) Taking self-determination away from biological women.
I don't know what it means to take "self-determination away from biological women." Please explain.
As an example of the latter, let's take what might seem like one of the milder elements of the overall topic: bathrooms.The "radical left" might say, "Who cares about bathrooms? Let anyone use whatever bathroom they want - especially someone who identifies as a woman, regardless of whether she has a penis or not." In an ideal world where we have no hang-ups and where no one has ever been sexually abused, I would tend to agree with her and say that all bathrooms should just be co-ed (even if I tend to prefer not dropping a deuce with a woman in the stall next-door
).
This is not self-determination, for women, though I agree with decent co-ed bathrooms. For the record, your above is why women do not like to share bathrooms with men. Not because we're afraid of them or that assault in bathrooms is common. It's because men's bathrooms are gross. You pee all over the room, and you "drop a deuce" in them. Women do not poop in public bathrooms. Period. End of story. And speaking of periods, we have them, and deal with them, but don't leave the place looking like an abattoir. Men's bathroom reek of urine, are genuinely filthy, and lots of dodgy sex goes on in them. No wonder you guys are nervous. But please go into a woman's bathroom. They generally smell of lavender, or nothing, no one has sex in them, and usually the worst thing that happens to us is when the toilet paper has run out. Even then, there is a collegiality, and women hand each other kleenex under the stalls.
But quite a number of women don't feel this way, and feel that a space of safety and privacy is being invaded by biological men. I mean, some statistics show that over 40% of all women have been sexually assaulted in some form or fashion, and as many as one-in-six women in the US have been raped (including attempted rape) - an astonishing figure. And most of those crimes are committed by men. Biologically male trans women are not exempt from "hypothetical rapist" status.
Someone else has already questioned this stat. I would say that 60-80% have been misused/abused in some fashion, especially in the workplace, by which I mean being undermined, threatened, and loss of work. I don't know what the official static is for assault or rape, which is very different. Though I do believe that it has been historically under-reported.
So for me, when some (many) women express hesitation about biological men/trans women sharing their bathrooms (or prisons), I don't write them off as being hung-up or transphobic or "Karens."
How many women have expressed this anxiety, compared to men? To me, it seems to be a pretty male obsession.
So this is a weird element of the trans issue: it isn't simply about trans activists vs. conservative Christians, it is also trans activists vs. gay activists, and trans activists vs. feminists (aka, the pejorative "TERFs"). This is where I think the more extreme trans activists are harming their own cause: Whether it is accusing men who won't date trans women as being "transphobic," or insisting that formerly women-only spaces are now open to biological men, or trans women participating in women's sports, etc. It isn't simply advocating for equal treatment; it is taking something away from others, be it a sense of safety and privacy, or self-determination and preference around sexuality, etc.
So I empathize with those women who are concerned about trans women (biological men) in women's bathrooms, even if it isn't an issue 99.9% of the time. And I even empathize with the view among some gay people that children are being "groomed" away from "traditional homosexuality," but transition as part of a cultural fad. I also empathize with the hypothetical heterosexual men who feel deceived by a trans woman.
I think you're right when you say that women being concerned about trans women in the bathrooms is not the issue 99.9% of the time. It's not an issue for women...only for nervous straight men.
And I have never heard of one incidence of a straight guy refusing to date a trans woman and being called "transphobic." I think you already said you made that up. It's more been people like JK Rowling, for the things that they say, not what they do, or don't, who get called "transphobic."
