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

P_1

Rennaws wrote: »

Why ?

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

Absolutely nothing

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.

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.

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..

chopperbyrne

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

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...

HappyAsLarE

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

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

StereoSound

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

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!

pickarooney

Dravokivich wrote: »

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

But also very, very, very dark blue.

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.'

_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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

enfant terrible

Check out 13 minutes into this video

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

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!!

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 ....

Redpatio

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

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!!

Why do you feel the need to say "so long as you don't hurt anyone, sleep with whoever you want"?

Nobody has said otherwise, it's like saying water is wet.

PlaneSpeeking

TomSweeney wrote: »

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

Too many uses of that - do you hate transgender people and wish them harm ? You don't seem to.

When did we have to force ourselves to fancy someone we may not, just to tick a box ?

Mind you, i was called a racist when I said I didn't fancy dark skinned men like Idris Elba. FFS!

One eyed Jack

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

Redpatio

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Too many uses of that - do you hate transgender people and wish them harm ? You don't seem to.

When did we have to force ourselves to fancy someone we may not, just to tick a box ?

Mind you, i was called a racist when I said I didn't fancy dark skinned men like Idris Elba. FFS!

Well by definition you are racist as you discriminate based on skin colour.

There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination or racism. Unfair racism is wrong.

PlaneSpeeking

Redpatio wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to say "so long as you don't hurt anyone, sleep with whoever you want"?

Nobody has said otherwise, it's like saying water is wet.

I fail to see your point ?

Redpatio

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I fail to see your point ?

The point is you're posting a non sequitar, projecting against an argument that nobody made.

PlaneSpeeking

Redpatio wrote: »

Well by definition you are racist as you discriminate based on skin colour.

There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination or racism. Unfair racism is wrong.

I smell... something.

No dear, I like skinny ginger men, there's my preference.

Stop trying to find racism where none exists, k ???

Redpatio

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I smell... something.

No dear, I like skinny ginger men, there's my preference.

Stop trying to find racism where none exists, k ???

Discrimination based on skin colour would be racist. The problem is you incorrectly assume all racism is bad. I would say that's because you are more susceptible to social conditioning than myself, i tend to see through it easier than others and see past group think.

PlaneSpeeking

Redpatio wrote: »

The point is you'reposting a non sequitar, projecting against an argument that nobody made.

10 posts ? Yeah stench getting stronger. Ignore time.