nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Are transexual women attractive to hetero men?

Redpatio

It's a very general question of course but think it could prompt and interesting discussion.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

TomSweeney

The majority wouldn't be, I certainly wouldn't. I like women to have an XX chromosome.
But this makes me "transphobic" apparently.

edit Blair White .... wow ....

PlaneSpeeking

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dont think anyone is denying that there is a spectrum of sexualty. Its P1's asserion that nobody is 100% straight that people take issue with.

As with all these things, its easier to understand why people are annoyed by the suggestion when you flip it on its head. If someone were to say that they dont think that anyone could really be 100% gay, people would rightly find it offensive.

The rule which we have all implictly agreed on, as a society, is that you shouldnt doubt other peoples stated sexuality.

Some people are resolutely 100% gay or straight and that's cool. I know lads who wouldn't so much as look at a woman and one who has been with his now hubby for nearly 30 years - every time Nigella Lawson sucks her fingers he needs a lie down!

We're all different and as long as we don't hurt anyone deliberately, sleep with whoever you want!!

enfant terrible

Check out 13 minutes into this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsM494LcvMQ&t=853s

johnnyskeleton

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Have to agree with P1 here. Everyone is on the spectrum it's why were seeing it manifest itself in the younger generation with more bi/pan-sexual people. Older generations, including mine, had a huge element of social condidtioning convincing them they were 100% straight or latterly 100% gay. People can move on spectrum ans there's not only one spectrum. Frankly everyone is different and it's whatever you're comfortable with. If you're 100% straight then good on you, however the need to assert that, quite forcefully by some would lead me to question how much is nature and how much is nurture.

I dont think anyone is denying that there is a spectrum of sexualty. Its P1's asserion that nobody is 100% straight that people take issue with.

As with all these things, its easier to understand why people are annoyed by the suggestion when you flip it on its head. If someone were to say that they dont think that anyone could really be 100% gay, people would rightly find it offensive.

The rule which we have all implictly agreed on, as a society, is that you respect other peoples stated sexuality.

PlaneSpeeking

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Have to agree with P1 here. Everyone is on the spectrum it's why were seeing it manifest itself in the younger generation with more bi/pan-sexual people. Older generations, including mine, had a huge element of social condidtioning convincing them they were 100% straight or latterly 100% gay. People can move on spectrum ans there's not only one spectrum. Frankly everyone is different and it's whatever you're comfortable with. If you're 100% straight then good on you, however the need to assert that, quite forcefully by some would lead me to question how much is nature and how much is nurture.

My percentage ranges from 87% straight to 110% - depending on whether I'm watching a Shakira video or Jamie Dornan in The Fall.

We are what we are.

PlaneSpeeking

I don't see why not. Ever see that Candice Caine who's a mate of Caitlin Jenner's ? I know a few blokes would be after fancying her! I'm a straight woman but say Chaz Bone wouldn't do it for me but there's a male model called Laith Ashley, born female and he certainly would!

What gets insane is what a mate of mine was told not long back. He's gay, so is his husband (tends to work out that way!!) and so neither are looking for anyone else but were asked would they date a transgender man.

My mate goes "guy who used to be a woman ? If he's had all his surgeries etc, and I fancied him - why not ?"

Turns out they were asking about a physical woman who "identified" as a trans man. The exact question was "say Angelina Jolie says she's a man". Mate goes "well no, cos I don't fancy the boobs and curvy bits - kind of a preference when you're gay!!"

Got called a bigot and friend won't now speak to him - because a gay man would not sleep with a physical woman!! That's how mad we're getting!!!

suicide_circus

as surgical manipulation gets more advanced it's gonna get harder to tell who is or isn't particularly in people whose form was already more feminine in the traditional sense.

Samuel T. Cogley

Have to agree with P1 here. Everyone is on the spectrum it's why were seeing it manifest itself in the younger generation with more bi/pan-sexual people. Older generations, including mine, had a huge element of social condidtioning convincing them they were 100% straight or latterly 100% gay. People can move on spectrum ans there's not only one spectrum. Frankly everyone is different and it's whatever you're comfortable with. If you're 100% straight then good on you, however the need to assert that, quite forcefully by some would lead me to question how much is nature and how much is nurture.

_Kaiser_

Wouldn't be for me, and would be an instant deal-breaker especially if someone wasn't upfront about it.

I've no problem with someone living how they want to live, but personally I am only interested in "original/natural" (or however you want to phrase it) women.

skybox2014

Mellor wrote: »

Well technically, Hetro- means "other" or "different". So heterosexual actually meant attracted to people with a different sex to your own. These new "sexes" are kinda making hetro-, homo-, bi- a little obsolete.

Realistically this topic is beyond the comprehension of AF. Considering people can't tell the difference between transvestites and transsexuals.

There really aren't new 'sexes" though.
People are still biologically male or female, but some are now choosing to present themselves publicly as a gender that doesn't match their biology.
The trans term these days seems to incorporate a lot more than most people understand, and seems to change quite quickly.

Stonewall UK say ' Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, two-spirit, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois.'

pickarooney

Dravokivich wrote: »

No it isnt. Its why we have black and white.

But also very, very, very dark blue.

Annasopra

StereoSound wrote: »

If a man is attracted to a transexual woman then he is biologicaly gay. That's fine if that's the case.

No. He's straight!

StereoSound

If a man is attracted to a transexual woman then he is biologicaly gay. That's fine if that's the case.

Annasopra

lawred2 wrote: »

Out of interest, let's say someone was 97% on this spectrum... How would that three percent manifest itself?

Admiring people maybe

HappyAsLarE

A man being attracted to a trans woman is simply a victim to a con.

Mellor

Omackeral wrote: »

We'll see that's the thing. If you're attracted to her before you know, you're still attracted to a trans woman. Them's the facts.

Actually it's a just photograph. Pixels on a screen. If it appears to be a photo of a women, she's going to be interpreted as a women. You brain can't process what it doesn't know.

The fact you mentally thought of that photo, suggests you well you know...

chopperbyrne

Much like women who are born to a female body, some are, some aren't.

The Bishop Basher

P_1 wrote: »

essentially I'm saying that painting yourself into a corner isn't the best of ideas.

Rennaws wrote: »

Why ?

If you're comfortable with your sexual orientation what's wrong with stating it.

P_1 wrote: »

Absolutely nothing

I'm not sure you've thought this through..

lawred2

Omackeral wrote: »

lawred2 wrote: »

Before or after willy presence was known

We'll see that's the thing. If you're attracted to her before you know, you're still attracted to a trans woman. Them's the facts.

Because biologically I am predisposed naturally to be attracted to the female form. And that's a well engineered female form.

But with a penis.

BurnUp78

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i would say no. surely the definition of a hetro male is attraction to hetero women? transexual women are not hetero women

I've chatted with trans women online and they've all said pretty much said the same: they get bombarded with hundreds of messages from straight men. Id even go as far to say an attractive trans woman would be far more popular than your average looking biological woman on those dating sites.

P_1

Rennaws wrote: »

Why ?

If you're comfortable with your sexual orientation what's wrong with stating it.

Absolutely nothing

[Deleted User]

lawred2 wrote: »

Before or after willy presence was known

We'll see that's the thing. If you're attracted to her before you know, you're still attracted to a trans woman. Them's the facts.

The Bishop Basher

P_1 wrote: »

But that's not what I'm saying, essentially I'm saying that painting yourself into a corner isn't the best of ideas.

Why ?

If you're comfortable with your sexual orientation what's wrong with stating it.

lawred2

Omackeral wrote: »

By finding this one attractive...

There's a willy between those legs

Before or after willy presence was known

[Deleted User]

P_1 wrote: »

True but one person's boring is another's exciting. Like it's one of those questions where there's no right or wrong answer, it ll depends on the perspective of the person who's answering it

I think calling someone boring for something they've no control over is a bit crappy though.

P_1

Omackeral wrote: »

You kinda called him boring ,in a roundabout way, for not exploring his sexuality!

True but one person's boring is another's exciting. Like it's one of those questions where there's no right or wrong answer, it ll depends on the perspective of the person who's answering it

P_1

lawred2 wrote: »

Out of interested, let's say someone was 97% on this spectrum... How would that three percent manifest itself?

It likely wouldn't manifest itself in any meaningful way to be perfectly honest. Now say if somebody identified as 80% on the others hand you may see some manifestation.

It's an off the wall idea I know but at least it's got people thinking this fine sunny morning

[Deleted User]

lawred2 wrote: »

Out of interested, let's say someone was 97% on this spectrum... How would that three percent manifest itself?

By finding this one attractive...

There's a willy between those legs

P_1

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Would you find that an acceptable thing for a straight person to say to a gay person?
"I'm sure if you made the effort you could fancy people of the opposite sex. I personally don't think much of your CHOICE to not do so?"

Everyone's individual choice and perspective seems to be so much more interesting and the spice of life when that perspective only undermines one side of any debate on these matters.

I fully believe some people are gay and bi and trans and whatever, and fully respect to their to choose their own way without any form of judgement, but surely we can afford straight people the same respect?

But that's not what I'm saying, essentially I'm saying that painting yourself into a corner isn't the best of ideas.

lawred2

Out of interest, let's say someone was 97% on this spectrum... How would that three percent manifest itself?