You should be able to ask "I want a CIS mate" in a dating app without being shamed.
You should be able to ask "I want a CIS mate" in a dating app without being shamed.
There's this rising narrative going around that if you ask specifically for a CIS partner, you're a transphobe. That could be true for some people but it's not fundamentally related to bigotry. Moreover, this narrative, the "if you only want a CIS mate then that is prejudice" is trampling on one of the most important rights a person can have: the right to choose who they want to get intimate with.
First of all, transmen are in fact men and transwomen are in fact women. Let's get that out of the way. This isn't a foot in the door for "trans this really isn't that" narratives. What this is about it is the freedom to choose who you want to be intimate with. That right is sancrosanct, it is absolutely inviolable.
And yes, there's plenty of issues that make transgender dating a special issue. If someone reveals their TG status they can be open to hate crimes and even deadly violence. However all marginalized groups are special in their own way. As a black man I don't think it's racist if a woman says she doesn't want to date a black man. I face oppression, too. My class is special in its own way. One group isn't more special than the other. None of us have the right to force ourselves upon those who don't want to be intimate with us, even by omitting who we really are.
Really, if you have to deceive or hide who you are in order to date someone, do you really want to date them? I wouldn't. That's not fair to you and you're denying them their right to choose who they want. What do you think will happen when the person wants a CIS mate and they discover the truth? They're going to get pissed and dump you. Now you have to shame them into staying with you: "If you loved me for real this wouldn't bother you"... that's not going to convince anyone. They're either going to leave, or they'll resent you forever. That's just how it is. You can be mad at that but that's about as effective as protesting the rising of the sun. There's just no way to win once you've gone down that road.
"I want a CIS mate" is not the same as "trans women are not women" - one is a preference, the other is harmful prejudice. On the flip side CIS people who do date trans people shouldn't be shamed for their choices either. A man should be free to date a trans woman and not catch flak about it. Trans people should be able to be openly trans and not face hate speech or threats to their well-being. This, without any exception whatsoever.
The fundamental fact is when you shame or worse abrogate people's right to choose who they want to get intimate with, it's not going to end well for you. All you're going to get is people who resent being coerced or bullied to date people they don't want to. And that's not something the country, or the world, will ever put up with. Except that right now, most people don't imagine they can be labeled a transphobe just for wanting a CIS mate. And unpopular opinion: that should be nipped in the bud.
You're viewing a single thread.
While I agree it's certainly fine to have preferences there is also etiquette to consider. Transphobia at it's core is a belief that the very nature of being trans is somehow lesser than or repulsive. Transness is a very wide spectrum that has a bunch of different presentations so simply discarding the entirety of the category is transphobic.
It's more helpful to think of things more in terms the individual things that you are looking for and your deal breakers. Like if your major beef is about physicality there are trans people who retain their physicality and fertility of their birth sex. The feild of trans presentation is really wide. Trans people also generally understand dating as a series of hurdles in finding someone who will give them a chance. Having people just shut down the entirety of the category regardless of any potential reasons they might actually fit what you are looking for contributes to a pervasive fear a lot of trans people have about never finding romantic acceptance. "No trans people!" stands out of a request like a flat out condemnation of anyone who might so much as request a different pronoun rather than just as a personal preference.
An example of something inclusive but still firm on preferences would be something like saying - "I have a female genital preference, want to keep the door open to having children of your own one day and prefer people who present in a very feminine way" ... Because you still haven't discluded all trans people. You've just made it clear that you have a genital and presentation preference and you have a life goal that makes perfect sense. She/they AFAB non-binary partners who are generally femme presenting are rare but still exist and you are communicating your needs in a way that doesn't place a value on how someone internally feels about their gender.
Breaking down the root of transphobia is hard. It demands that we remove a value judgement off of being trans. This at some level means an internal assessment of where you might be open to trans partners and keeping the options open. Like if you are not okay at all with any form of transness because you have a core belief that we are just too much work with our pronouns and our weird way of self conceptualizing ourselves, that's transphobia. ...
Trans is an umbrella term for a group of people so internally diverse that virtually every combination of sexual physicality, gender presentation and gender identity is somewhere represented. Writing off every potential person in the category basically is saying that there are zero concessions you will personally make because even the smallest most unnoticeable presence of trans identity in a person regardless of their physicality or personality is completely repellant to you... Which while it IS a preference is still fairly hostile to trans acceptance.
I am more confused now than before.
I'm not likely to ever date again, so this is simple curiosity, but... I have no interest in playing with anyone's penis but my own. Isn't "CIS-only" shorthand for that? Should it require an essay to dance around the topic? Your example language is clinical and entirely misses the point: it's OK to normalize lesbians being allowed to not want to try dick, but not ok for CIS men to not want to?
I've probably misunderstood your point. I feel as if OP is saying that everyone has a right to have preferences, and nobody should be villified for what they want consenting-adult-wise.
I think you are correct in your idea, however, according to this person, the issue is using Trans as a blanket statement to exclude the entire spectrum in this category. You don't want to play with anyone else's penis, totally your right. What about a transwoman with women genitalia? If that is still not your preference, then truly ask yourself why? If someone is not into black men, they wouldn't say they are not into men.This is a broader topic about our perception of a group of people than just dating preferences.
Oh. I see; the objection comes from using CIS, because OP not wanting a trans woman is not kosher. Your question about introspection implies that something is wrong with a person who does not want intimacy with transwomen.
So, I understand the delicacy; trans people are in the middle of a fight for validation and their human rights. Any rejection or indeed distinction between a born-woman and trans-woman is fraught. I'm also well aware of the Paradox of Tolerance, and that inolerance cannot be tolerated.
OTOH, we're talking about what peopl want in the bed room. Would you also suggest a gay person "truly ask yourself why," implying that there is something wrong with their personal, bedroom-privacy interests? I'm not suggesting all sexual preferences are healthy, or equal, but we're talking about consenting-adult sex - who are you, or is anyone to judge OP for their preferences?
This is how I read OP's question: why are they villified for stating their personal sexual preferences?
You are very much misunderstanding my point.
Let me give you an example of what this shorthand is like. Say you are a person who lives for going out mountain climbing and any partner you have is one you want to be able to join you out in that sphere. So you write on your dating profile "NO Disability" or "Only fully abled people" - The field of disability is very wide encompassing both physical and mental disability. Someone who is missing a finger or has autism for instance is still gunna be able to keep up so it is kind of ableist to just assume every disability under the sun isn't going to be able to keep up with you on a mountain but the people who read "no disability" are going to be reminded that there are people out there who are ablist scum and anything short of perfect neurotypicality and physical ability makes you virtually unlovable in their eyes.
Being Trans is equally a wide field. For instance, if your problem is not wanting to interface with dick would you still date a trans man who isn't going to transition? In that instance you have someone who presents and conceptualizes themselves as a man but the body is still female. But maybe your heart of hearts desires someone who does not present as a man which is equally a valid preference.
So then what about a non-binary person? Non binary is under the umbrella term of trans and there is a whole host of different presentations. Like you can have a person who never transitioned and doesn't even present outwardly as any different than a cis person... But they may be agender and feel like gendered expectations are harmful, they may be fluid and their presentation changes from week to week but they still don't have a penis. A lot of non binary trans presentations are fairly outwardly invisible and I know a fair amount of guys with non-penis genital preferences of the "not even a little bi-curious" variety who are dating non binary and trans masculine trans people. There is a fair amount of enbyphobia and erasure out in the world at present. A lot of people tend to be so trans and enbyphobic that they think all of us are basically just something they never want to interact with or even spare a thought for so enbies see a lot of general transphobic rejection.
The concept that "CIS ONLY" is only screening out people with different sex characteristics than what you are looking for is a feature of transphobia via ignorance. It's not coming from a place of cruelty but it's still saying that just identifying as any form of trans is a dealbreaker because any form of acceptance is too much. Because if you can't handle even the thought of a romantic partner asking for you to use a gender neutral pronoun even if they have never so much as touched a horomone or a scalpel yeah, you are kind of adverse to trans people in a more endemic zero tolerance sense in which case calling you transphobic isn't someone being mean, it's describing your aversion in the same way a hydrophobic surface repels water.
Ok, fair enough; it's a complex topic. So how, without writing a dissertation on your preferrences, do you state your preferrences on apps where users get maybe seconds of eyeball time before being swiped? What's a useful shorthand that fits in a profile?
You're bucking tens of thousands of years of evolution designed to have us making fast decisions based on limited information. I applaud you for it; bias and bigotry will be a hard yoke to shrug. I don't see how your advice, which mandates a complex statement about a complex topic, helps OP answer their question about a dating app.
Honestly, the answer is don't go the road of those apps. Putting yourself in that setting where romance is an advertising market creates an atmosphere of fungibility. Half the reason the dating market is so fucked up is because people have been trained to not value their individual liaisons in favour of convenience. If you find yourself needing to compress your entire deal into a single sentence maybe you are participating in an implicitly harmful system?
The best thing you can do, provided you are open, is to try your best to not make snap judgements. Frame things in a way that focus on your actual needs or even just talk to people one on one if they show an interest. Just getting to the talking phase is a win. Trans people are very aware of the realities of genital preference and the desire to have natural born kids. If they are not complete assholes by their own community metric they aren't gunna fault you for having romance and life goals and they don't want to waste their time with someone uninterested.
It's unsavoury, not exactly romantic but overwhelmingly practical that we as trans people front what our entire deal is to perspective partners early. It's actually kind of a safety thing for us. Best practice is for us to be up front at the messaging phase because some potential dates will become volitile or violent if our transness is disclosed in person. Trans women don't want to leave themselves open to being stalked and assaulted because a trans/homophobe can't handle that they felt romantic inclinations towards someone whom threatens their self conception as super straight.
Just imagine from our perspective looking at a bunch of dating profiles that look indistinguishable from transphobes being transphobes. There is often a sense of growing danger and threat to life and liberty when you start noticing openly hostile language or exclusion in a space that seemed safe before. We are as a group being actively surpressed and rejected from public spaces and we know we are asking people to take on a little personal inconvenience on our behalf. If trans matters matter to you then shouldering a slight potential inconvenience is how we ask you to help. That aside something like "cis only" might be a turn off to allies who might not be willing to give you a chance either.
Sorry, couldn't make it past "etticate."
Ah, a spelling error was enough to dislodge you. Fuck you very much then.