Are transexual women attractive to hetero men?

wexie wrote: »

I made it to a minute and 22 seconds and used up my entire tolerance for bollocks for the rest of the day

Hahaha indeed, I have linked that video before in another thread as it highlights the craziness of certain folk and how they want to force sexual attraction.

You could say that it's only a small group that think this way but as I am sarcasticly pointing out above even at our trans rally we had placards saying only real men like trans woman .

cgcsb wrote: »

Australian lads LOVE THEM!

The ladyboys of Bankok are also extremely popular with NI protestant boys who flock down to Dublin everytime the ladyboys perform. There's an element of forbidden fruit in repressed cultures being attractive.

world renowned flautists

Zulu wrote: »

Managed to 1:25 myself. ****me.

I got as far as cis..

I think it was probably about 4 seconds in..

I've seen in this discussion before people claiming that heterosexuality is strictly an attraction to someone of the genetically opposite sex.

Which is bollox of course, because your brain when deciding whether it finds someone attractive, hasn't a clue what their genetics are.

It also implies that a man who is attracted to a trans man, post-op genitals and all, is a heterosexual.

Heterosexuality when defined in boxed-off terms is probably only most useful in regards to physical attraction. And in that regard it's still not simple. For example, most hetero men would say that a mostly feminine woman with feminine physiology is attractive. But many will also say that a very masculine woman is not, regardless of what body parts she has. And others would find a very feminine man attractive, and a masculine man, not.

Where is the "hetero" line? Is it demeanour, or is it biology? If someone doesn't find a masculine woman attractive, are they still hetero?

If we visualise it as a matrix of what is attractive, then the below illustrates the traditional hetero male:
|Woman|Man
Feminine|Yes|No
Masculine|Yes|No

And we can say that being hetero is bound to the biology of the other party.

But what about this:
|Woman|Man
Feminine|Yes|No
Masculine|No|No


If we say that the above person is hetero, then it implies that heterosexuality isn't necessarily bound to biology, and it's more complicated than that.

If we say that both are hetero - and the second is a subset of the first, then it evokes an obvious question: Is this person hetero?:
|Woman|Man
Feminine|Yes|Yes
Masculine|No|No


If not, why not? We've already established that biology is not the sole decider.

OK, so we might say that table 1 and table 2 are both hetero, and table 2 describes a subset of hetero people. But then that means that table 2 and table 3 are some other type of sexuality. And table 2 is a subset of that.

What is this sexuality?

So clearly it's a mistake to think that sexuality is at all simple, or black-and-white. If a man is attracted to trans women and wants to call himself hetero, then I see no reason to deny it. If he specifically gravitates towards pre-op trans women, then I'd be inclined to categorise him as hetero with a fetish, but unless he also finds men attractive, then I see no logical reason to claim he's not hetero.

seamus wrote: »

I've seen in this discussion before people claiming that heterosexuality is strictly an attraction to someone of the genetically opposite sex.

Which is bollox of course, because your brain when deciding whether it finds someone attractive, hasn't a clue what their genetics are.

It also implies that a man who is attracted to a trans man, post-op genitals and all, is a heterosexual.

Heterosexuality when defined in boxed-off terms is probably only most useful in regards to physical attraction. And in that regard it's still not simple. For example, most hetero men would say that a mostly feminine woman with feminine physiology is attractive. But many will also say that a very masculine woman is not, regardless of what body parts she has. And others would find a very feminine man attractive, and a masculine man, not.

Where is the "hetero" line? Is it demeanour, or is it biology? If someone doesn't find a masculine woman attractive, are they still hetero?

If we visualise it as a matrix of what is attractive, then the below illustrates the traditional hetero male:
|Woman|Man
Feminine|Yes|No
Masculine|Yes|No

And we can say that being hetero is bound to the biology of the other party.

But what about this:
|Woman|Man
Feminine|Yes|No
Masculine|No|No


If we say that the above person is hetero, then it implies that heterosexuality isn't necessarily bound to biology, and it's more complicated than that.

If we say that both are hetero - and the second is a subset of the first, then it evokes an obvious question: Is this person hetero?:
|Woman|Man
Feminine|Yes|Yes
Masculine|No|No


If not, why not? We've already established that biology is not the sole decider.

OK, so we might say that table 1 and table 2 are both hetero, and table 2 describes a subset of hetero people. But then that means that table 2 and table 3 are some other type of sexuality. And table 2 is a subset of that.

What is this sexuality?

So clearly it's a mistake to think that sexuality is at all simple, or black-and-white. If a man is attracted to trans women and wants to call himself hetero, then I see no reason to deny it. If he specifically gravitates towards pre-op trans women, then I'd be inclined to categorise him as hetero with a fetish, but unless he also finds men attractive, then I see no logical reason to claim he's not hetero.

Have to say that's the most balanced take I've seen on this yet

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yup. It's terrifying. Some of the absolute hatred and victimhood on display in there is staggering. No place for discourse and no realisation that such "safe spaces" are usually more damaging than productive.

(Especially when I discovered that one particular person wasn't a troll)

I'd have a very large degree of sympathy given what trans people have to put up with but I would agree with the safe space echo chambers are counter productive and in some cases potentially dangerous

Deleted User wrote: »

Have it only available to members who request to join then.

On a public discussion board, open to all, immediately shutting down genuine questions or opinions an "outsider" may have because they "aren't like them" will only lend to further segregation.

Some people will troll and some will want to learn. Treating them both the same will lead to people who want to understand becoming disinterested or even more ironically, intolerant of people who treat them differently.

the lgbt forum is often plagued with trolls telling people that they are ill. That kind of idiocy gets banned of course.