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 should, of course, have your preferences, and your deal-breakers, and whatever else. So if you find someone you are interested in is trans, and that's a deal-breaker for you, that's fine.
But there is a difference between that and putting in your bio "No Trans People." Is being trans your only deal-breaker? What makes that a deal-breaker worth calling out, but not others? Before you put "No Trans" in your profile, I would ask you to consider that, if you are an athletic person and want an athletic person, would "No fat women" be something you would feel comfortable putting in your bio (even if that was a deal-breaker for you)? What would you think of someone who puts "No black people" in their bio?
If they have any sense, they will let you know either in their profile, in conversation before-hand, or during the first date or so (before things get intimate), and you can politely end things, just like if you found out they were Scientologists or several levels up in an MLM (or both). Hell, it may take until a third date, like finding out they don't just like, but can relate to Olivia Rodrigo's music. (In fairness, those three were objectively bad, but I don't know any of your non-trans related preferences, so I had to go with some things most people should consider deal-breakers).
The point is, people look for and look out for a lot of things, but I only ever hear people complain about it being rude to put "No trans." It kind of makes it clear that the person saying it has a particular issue beyond just dating preferences.
Tact does matter. That is why I say "seeking cis man/woman" is better than "no trans man/woman". "No black people" is bad, "prefer SWM/SWF" is better and acceptable IMO (disclaimer: I'm black), "looking for athletic man/woman" is better than "no fat people", etc., just my opinion.
I take your point, and agree. The positive (as opposed to the "No xxxx") seems generally to be more polite.
You can change your weight. You can't change who you are. Lesbians don't want men. People not attracted to trans people cannot just chose to be attracted to them. And I have no oreferencws but do understand that sexuality is not something you chose.
I can see if someone is overweight, of a certain skin color or whatever other visible indicators you mention, and simply not like their profile, so a match would not occur.
I cannot (necessarily) see if someone is trans, so a match would potentially still happen.
So mentioning the "obvious" can be seen as harmful since you are effectively calling people out, while mentioning the "invisible" is merely stating a preference to reduce false positives.
It would be the same as sexuality? If you're a straight bloke you'd want a cis woman, it's not comparable to race or fitness. It's about sexual compatibility.
You think that straight men aren't attracted to trans women, because you know that straight men are attracted to women and you don't think trans women are women. This isn't about sexual preferences, it's just about you denying trans women's genders.
This was the best explanation of how this is hurtful that I think you could possibly put together. I came into this thread skeptical of this being a real concern. This changed my mind. Thank you.
You may be right, but if someone writes "no trans people" or "no d*cks smaller than 25cm" or "no crybabies" or "no n*ggers", then if you are some of the mentioned, you wouldn't want to communicate to that person anyway. If you are not, then you still likely wouldn't.
It's a natural flow of communication in my opinion. Let people write what they want.
This isn't a first amendment issue, or an issue of what people should be allowed to say. It's a question of etiquette, and not being rude. The thing is, saying each of those things would drive away more than just those specifically excluded.
To give a better example, if I were on a dating site and saw a woman who said "No guys under 6 ft," and I were taller than 6 ft, I still wouldn't want anything to do with that woman. It give a completely different vibe, however, to say "I really like tall guys." I get, though, that there's not a positive equivalent for the original question.
Isn't it better that people get to show their inner asshole in their profiles so that you can just ignore them and move on instead of them having to hide it because of "etiquette" and then you're only going to find out later after you've already invested time and effort into them?
If someone not wanting to date a person under 6ft is a red flag to you, then isn't it good that you found out right away? Imagine if they didn't say this and you only found out when she calls the waiter a manlet on your 3rd date.
It's as if you haven't really read what I wrote, repeating what I said with that disagreeing tone.
I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by this, but to be clear, somebody putting the things you mentioned in their profiles would make them seem rude or generally unappealing. I think that is precisely what the OP was trying to avoid.
The OP repeated what I said in my comment, phrasing it as if there's an argument, so now there is one over the OP deciding what others mean before reading their comments.
Many women already put "over 6 foot only" or "only swipe if you have abs" so why not let people filter out what they don't want before wasting time and money and emotion on a date and talking
And they are wrong for that as well. That sounds like someone I wouldn’t want to be friends with or date bc they reduced someone down to their body parts and not who they are as a person.
Abs do not define someone, abs don’t make someone a better person or have a better personality.
Every single thing you've said demands specific rebuttal. But I think it would be exhausting and you're not worth it.
Nearly everything you compare is actually a visible trait, where being trans isn't. Nobody's going to be tricked into dating anybody they don't want when all the attributes are visible up-front. I can SEE if somebody is athletic. I can SEE if somebody is black. I can SEE if somebody is obese.
Quit pretending there's something wrong with having preferences. You're delusional and you have no right to pretend that anybody owes anybody anything except honesty up-front in a dating context.
You actually think somebody who is not interested in a trans person OWES a trans person a date "just in case". Frankly, get your head out of your ass.
Hey can we please be civil here?
Lol, they're a transphobe. Being civil isn't a strong suit for that kind of person.
Not sure if you stopped reading halfway through, but I mentioned 2 clearly visible things and 3 not visible things, specifically because I recognize it's not immediately obvious from pictures.
Or maybe you started reading on the second paragraph, because I clearly said it's fine having preferences (including trans or not). I also never said anything about "owing" a trans person a date, just in case or otherwise. There's no problem with it being a deal breaker. You're reading things I didn't say.
I think it's telling, though, that you use the word "tricked." It shows, like my whole comment was saying, that you view being trans as different from other deal breakers, if you think somebody going on a date with a person they didn't realize was trans was the trans person "tricking" them.
Why not? Women can put "no short people/manlets" why can't I put "no fatties/giantesses?" I fail to see how they differ.
Neither are acceptable, especially when it's propagating ugly labels. All of it is really unnecessary. Swipe left on people you aren't attracted to, and if you talk to someone and find a dealbreaker, politely disengage without making them feel shitty or othered. It really isn't that difficult.
One is a lot more acceptable than the other by society's standards and that is exactly the problem actually.
And that makes them bigots as well. This is not a this or that. If someone says attracted to men but no short people, they are also a cunt of a person and probably not someone you want to date.
If I am attracted to you, then it does not matter height, weight, etc..
Well facts, that's actually what I always say. But let's be honest women body shaming men is still a lot more culturally acceptable than the reverse and often people are hypocritical when it comes to this topic. You sound cool, but it is a topic that deserves to have attention brought to it, as not everyone is as cool.
Being trans doesn't necessarily show outwards unlike being fat would. If I'm looking for a guy that doesn't automatically mean this includes FTM.
Neither does a micro penis (or serious erectile dysfunction) and that might be a deal breaker for you. But it would still be rude to say "No small dicks, and don't message me if you can't get it up." But is it worth addressing, prior to being intimate? Absolutely.
Maybe people should be direct and stop being afraid to list their preferences because they're afraid of insulting someone.
Whataboutism much?