Are transexual women attractive to hetero men?

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 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..

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...

lawred2 wrote: »

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

Admiring people maybe

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!

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.'

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.

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.

That’s not being on any spectrum though, those too are completely separate and distinct sexual orientations. They too are influenced by social conditioning, but I disagree that anyone actually needs convincing to acknowledge their sexual orientation for themselves. It’s their efforts to convince other people that everyone’s on a spectrum and that nobody is 100% heterosexual can be irritating, when someone says they are heterosexual.

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 don’t see any difference between that and the same need to assert to the same degree that everyone’s on a spectrum, as though there is indeed a continuum of sexual orientation which implies that for example someone is 97% heterosexual and 3% homosexual.

There’s absolutely no way to objectively quantify that measurement as though it’s like a compass where heterosexual points north, and anything which deviates from that can be measured in degrees. Homosexuality, bisexuality, pan or asexuality aren’t even on the same compass, they’re on different compasses so to speak. They orient north according to their identified separate and distinct sexual orientation.

Undoubtedly peoples sexual orientation may change throughout the course of their lives, it’s a well observed phenomenon in puberty for example, but if an adult identifies themselves as heterosexual, I don’t understand what is to be gained by implying they aren’t. That says more about the person saying they aren’t, than the person who says themselves that they are, or the “nutter versus nature” argument, if you will