This will be a series looking at the experience of people, with a trans-identity, who are embarking on dating lives. I will look first at this research.
Here is the abstract. As you can see they express surprise that Lesbians exclude biological males! 😳. That should give you your first clue.
Funded by Federal Government.
Please not that this is funded via a Research Council which attracts Federal Funding. So this is no longer a fringe ideology. This has State backing.
More on the funding body.
Things you are expected to believe before you begin. Sex is an arbitrary classification system. Someone’s proclaimed ”gender identity” takes precedence over biological sex. Excluding trans-identified people from your dating pool is akin to racism. By not dating this group you are denying trans-people vital, social support. Sexual orientation is “fluid” so you cannot hide behind a Lesbian/Gay identity. Data that includes both men and women in the opposite sex category makes sense.
The research begins with a whistle-stop tour of dating history covering the, relatively new, emergence of dating based on personal preferences. Marrying for love is a new social norm. They proceed to cover the fact that inter-racial marriage and marrying across class boundaries has, historically, been frowned upon. Many of these unions were seen as immoral and even disgusting. They even have the cheek to point out how recent the acceptance of same sex relationships is; whilst simultaneously problematising Lesbians, who exclude males who identify as “transgender women”.
They proceed to make up words to imply choosing your partner, based on their biological sex is a new form of societal prejudice, to be overcome.
I was moved to add a series on this topic because these arguments, intended to unmoor us from our sex bodies, are gaining traction, in elite discourse. They are now also taught to our children /youth.
I have had personal DM’s from young females who now identify as gay men. What sort of dating future awaits these vulnerable females? This is one outcome: 👇
Here a gay man defends his sexual boundaries:
Here Ray Blanchard points out that these females are in for a rude awakening.
Back to Phallus in Wonderland
This research attempted to assess how ”trans-inclusive are modern dating patterns. They asked 960 people to indicate if they would date a trans-identified person. (Sample dropped to 958 because two were not interested in sexual relationships.) This is a graph of the responses.
People were categorised by their sexual orientation and whether they were a ”man”, ”woman” or in one of the variously labelled “queer” categories. It is quite confusing because the categories are based on how you identify, until they disaggregate the data by natal sex (which they call “cisgender”.) They don’t provide graphs which display ”cisgender” choices because this would invalidate the trans-identified people. Of course it doesn’t make sense without referencing ”cisgender“ dating preferences so you can find it if you read carefully.
What this means is that even when including people with a trans-identity, as if they were their desired sex, patterns of exclusion still remain high. There does not appear to be a graph showing participants by their natal sex, even in the, published, supplementary data. They do state that patters of exclusion were higher in ”cisgender” people. Only 13% of people, who acknowledge their biological sex, say they would be open to dating someone who wishes to be treated as the opposite sex/claim another ”trans” label.
The authors offer a number of explanations for this strange phenomenon; which has evolved over millennia to further the survival of the species. The idea that sexual attraction can be dismissed as a societal prejudice is ludicrous. There are many theories about why homosexuality evolved but the existence of same sex attraction is now being widely dismissed by trans-activists. It is even more egregious when you consider the fight for same sex attraction to be accepted. Heterosexuals have not had to fight for our rights so it is interesting that the most trans-inclusive demographic (Lesbians), outside of the ”queer” identified, come in for the most criticism.
Where did the Lesbian’s go “wrong”.
Apparently it is not enough to accept trans-identified people in your dating pool. You have to be inclusive in the correct way. In order to expose trans-inclusive Lesbians the author invented the idea of ”congruent” dating. By this logic it is argued that Lesbians are attracted to ”women” and thus, theoretically, should be open to dating women and men who identify as women. In news that should surprise nobody the trans-inclusive Lesbians are only accepting of “transmen” i.e. persons of the same sex. This is variously described as “misgendering” and evidence of biological determinism.
Different suggestions for the exclusionary/ incongruent dating practices were advanced.
Perhaps some were confused by the definitions? 🤔
Cis-sexism/Cisgenderism. People *still* don’t see trans-bodies as ”natural”. Perhaps they are hyper-focused on genitals?
Another argument was put forward about the higher rates of exclusion of trans-identified males. This was ascribed to “masculine privilege”. The author’s argue that society privileges the ”masculine presenting” which means feminine-expressing males are subject to an extra layer of prejudice. Thus, in clownfish world, the normal hierarchy of the male sex in a position of dominance has been inverted in clownfish world.
Can you be overly-inclusive?
Turns out you can! Some people displayed incongruent dating patterns by including gender identities they are not supposed to be attracted to. So, if a trans-man, who identifies as gay, include a (female) Lesbian and a trans-man they are being untrue to their same gender attraction. Any combination that deviates from the gender rules risks undermining core tenets of the religious texts. Turns out some trans-identifying people are having sex like gender apostates!
Can you be transphobic and ”trans”?
Yep! Turns out some ”trans-men” who are ”heterosexual” only want to date “cisgender” women. This is put down to an excessive need for validation. By excluding males, who identify as women they are behaving like a cisgender supremacist.
Turns out even those with a transgender identity can be guilty of believing in sexual dimorphism and be guilty of being a trans person in the tweets and a Terf between the sheets.
Turns out the heretics are inside the house! We did not even get into enbyphobia!
Turns out it is not so easy to socially engineer a new reality denying ideology. Finally, after all the rape-adjacent rhetoric the authors claim they are not denying bodily autonomy and free choice about our sexual partners.
No! We just want you to examine your prejudice.
There was a lot to unpack in this paper so I may revisit it.
You can support my work here: All donations are welcome, but only if you have spare cash and want to amplify dissenting voices, and offset the billions funding the dissemination of Gender Identity Ideology.