Are transsexuals homosexual?

[Berserk]

I guess it's more on how you view yourself. I am female; I see myself as female, I feel female, so I am simply a female. My attraction to Men would mean that I am "straight".

Could be for some, but not for others. Could be about politics, too. I am male, feel male, see myself as male etc. I am attracted to women and more particularly queer women. I identify as a queer (not gay, not bisexual, not lesbian) transguy. Doesn't suggest that I am any less of a transguy/transmale. I can't see myself ever wanting to be in a relationship with a straight woman. That much is about politics, relationship dynamics and perspectives on the problems inherent to a heteronormative framework. That and I don't believe in a sex binary or the notion of an "opposite sex." Unfortunately too many in our community have been way too brainwashed by the medical community into taking on their rigid views of sexuality, sex and gender. We need to stop thinking that just because a transperson identifies as gay, lesbian or queer while being attracted to people of the sex they were incorrectly assigned at birth, that they see themselves as any less "male"/"female"/whatever (unless they state so explicitly themselves).

[azSam]

Well Berserk, there are opposite sexes. Maybe it's the term "opposite" that you have a problem with? But there are men with penis's and women with vaginas, it's part of our natural world. This match is necessary for the procreation and survival of our species.

And I have my own ideas of what "gender" is, and I guess you could say that it's "brainwashing". While that is pretty close descriptor, it's not completely accurate to my views on gender.

[Raya]

I don't get it when people say stuff like this as if statistics don't exist and it works as an explanation for why the majority of MTFs like women but only a small minority of cis women like women. 

I think of it like this:

Well, most of us (MtFs) have a female gender identity that shows itself in our brains (and maybe our genes?) but nowhere else. Despite decades of looking, all evidence shows that the rest of our bodies are no different from cis men's. This seems enough to make a strong case that the process that formed the rest of our bodies isn't (in any way we can tell so far) affected by what created our gender identity.

If the process that set our sexual orientation was governed by what made our gender identity female, it would make sense that we'd be no different from cis women over the Kinsey scale.

If instead it was not influenced by that process, it would make sense that we could turn out differently from cis women with respect to sexual orientation.

(Here's my hypothesis) What if our sexual orientations instead responded mainly to what made the rest of our bodies male? Wouldn't it make sense that we'd turn out similar to cis men and anyone else who experienced "male gestation"? It's only looks flipped around because cis society robbed us of the ability to talk about what genders we're attracted to without making gratuitous references to our own.

[Skyanne]

It does seem like hormones have a big effect. I had absolutely zero interest in men, one year of HRT and I am decidedly bisexual, with a preference towards men.

[Berserk]

Well Berserk, there are opposite sexes. Maybe it's the term "opposite" that you have a problem with? But there are men with penis's and women with vaginas, it's part of our natural world. This match is necessary for the procreation and survival of our species.

And I have my own ideas of what "gender" is, and I guess you could say that it's "brainwashing". While that is pretty close descriptor, it's not completely accurate to my views on gender.

Actually there are not opposite sexes. The word "opposite" requires that there be only two sexes. There are not only two sexes and in fact scientific fact does not support the existence of only two sexes. The mainstream medical community continues to try to uphold that myth because it benefits a certain patriarchal social framework, which are at its origins. Btw, opposite sexes are not necessary for procreation. There are species with only one sex, for example, who still manage to reproduce. Everything humans do is natural, we can never escape being "natural" because we are a part of nature. As such, the fact that we're able to reproduce today without "opposite sexes" is just as natural.

[Tigger]

As a striaght male having had a transgender girl friend I always viewed her and our relationship as hetrosexual, true gender is determined between your ears.

[kelly_aus]

I recently came to realise that I simply don't care about what's between someone's legs..  Be they a man, woman, trans or something else, if I'm attracted to the person, it's good for me.. That said, I'm currently in a kind-of relationship with a cis woman - someone who is most definitely a lesbian..

So I guess I don't really fit as a gay, straight or lesbian.. Best thing is, I don't like labels, so it's all a non argument for me..

[Chloe]

I just don't think the kind of dogmatic insistence by some of the trans community that gender and sexuality can't possibly have any sort of connection at all is helping anyone.  It's convenient and it's obviously false, for whatever reason.

*smiles* I 100% agree pretty link - having struggled with this my entire life and reading same stuff here for years i feel the "trans" community in general is immature & confused with subjective, personal agendas at best ! Read JACQUES LACAN on psychosexual development - it was actually a very kind, objective straight guy on another forum who pointed out to me what i've been trying to say, have suspected all along.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, or course, but plz don't get "dogmatic" 'cause most "arguments" here just plain don't wash !

"Watch List"? Why is that ?

[Jennifer.L]

Oh I don't know if it's the hormaons that tend to get Transe girls to like boy.  I've become Bi, but I haven't started HRT.  I only like a few boys and most of them are Bi.  But well I have to wounder if maybe I NEEDED to be with a woman because I couldn't be one.  But now it's not so big

[AbraCadabra]

As so many things - it depends.

If I was a 'male-lesbian' (pre-transition) in a pseudo-lesbian relationship, AND as it happens I'm now a lesbian post-op... that just makes me a homosexual, or?

If I was a 'male' pre-transition (in some folk's opinion - note OPINION!) then I was straight, and since I'm not in any relationship - and might just wind up in a (post-op) hetero relationship with a male, that would have me straight as an arrow. Or maybe BI, too?

Go figure - or just take your pick honey, eh :-)

Axélle

[Jeneva]

I don't get it when people say stuff like this as if statistics don't exist and it works as an explanation for why the majority of MTFs like women but only a small minority of cis women like women. 

Statistics have no bearing on this.  As long as one example exists where a the two blanks are the same then BY DEFINITION they are NOT the same.  It doesn't matter how many exist where they aren't.

Gender is X
Attraction to Y

If there exists even 1 case of X = Y and even one case of X != Y then they are distinct questions.  It doesn't matter how many exist where they are the same or different.  There may be a correlation, but you cannot use that to state that it MUST be true.

Crows can fly
Crows are birds
Penguins are birds
Penguins cannot fly

In other words just because X happens MOST of the time doesn't mean it must.

Right. By the way I don't have an agenda or anything, I just don't think the kind of dogmatic insistence by some of the trans community that gender and sexuality can't possibly have any sort of connection at all is helping anyone.  It's convenient and it's obviously false, for whatever reason. We know they have a definite correlation and that's the reality. I mean, it's pretty clear that they have to have a correlation because gender and sex are usually in harmony and there are two sexes for a reason. Whether people wanna go down the nature or nurture street with that is another question and it's a can of worms I am not sticking my nose in 

Dogma is saying that there MUST be a connection because there usually is.  How is it dogma to say that you cannot define what another person's sexuality is? 

Can you please provide a single example of this "dogma" that is being used by those that don't want a limited definition?

[A_Dresden_Doll]

I'm only just posting this now as it's very hard to talk about, please understand before making any insensitive comments.

My wife left me when I came out to her a couple of months ago, and the reason was that because she wanted to be with a heterosexual man and not a homosexual man.
I've been thinking since then, are transsexuals homosexual?

Obvious troll is obvious. Good job guys, good job. You can turn anything this single-mindly stupid into 2 pages of discussion. *claps slowly*

[Alainaluvsu]

Obvious troll is obvious. Good job guys, good job. You can turn anything this single-mindly stupid into 2 pages of discussion. *claps slowly*

I honestly sat back and lol'd. For so many reasons...

[azSam]

Btw, opposite sexes are not necessary for procreation. There are species with only one sex, for example, who still manage to reproduce. Everything humans do is natural, we can never escape being "natural" because we are a part of nature. As such, the fact that we're able to reproduce today without "opposite sexes" is just as natural.

Yes there are certain species that are not human that can procreate without medical intervention with just a single sex. We are not that species. We need an egg and sperm for fertilization to occur and for an embryo to eventually form. Yeah sure, we can probably do something from stem cells or some other amazing medical breakthrough to circumvent that, and that is great. But it's not something that occurs naturally, without the intervention of our modern medicine.

But if you're talking about in vitro fertilization. You still require two sexes. One to produce an egg, and another to produce the sperm. Both may not be required to be active in the process of fertilization, but both are necessary to produce the necessary "components".

Normally I'd put a lot more time into responses in these sorts of debates. But this debate seems pointless, because from where I'm standing, it all seems to be a matter of perception. Best thing to do is to post some studies or papers that I can read up on.

[pretty]

Statistics have no bearing on this.  As long as one example exists where a the two blanks are the same then BY DEFINITION they are NOT the same.  It doesn't matter how many exist where they aren't.

Gender is X
Attraction to Y

If there exists even 1 case of X = Y and even one case of X != Y then they are distinct questions.  It doesn't matter how many exist where they are the same or different.  There may be a correlation, but you cannot use that to state that it MUST be true.

Crows can fly
Crows are birds
Penguins are birds
Penguins cannot fly

In other words just because X happens MOST of the time doesn't mean it must.
Dogma is saying that there MUST be a connection because there usually is.  How is it dogma to say that you cannot define what another person's sexuality is? 

Can you please provide a single example of this "dogma" that is being used by those that don't want a limited definition?

Well, you're trying to make orientation completely intangible when it isn't...

Things don't have to be the same to have a strong relationship. People can be born with six fingers. But that's a mutation. We can predict that that's not going to happen most of the time and we'd be right, because people aren't supposed to be born with six fingers. If, in some place, people suddenly started being born with six fingers the majority of the time, we'd have to ask, "why is that happening?"
If MTFs have a woman's brain, and women are very rarely lesbian, then you have to ask why that would suddenly change in a male body. After all, orientation happens in the brain. And hopefully, there's a more impressive answer to that question than the one everyone's freaking out about. But "you just can't say anything about it" isn't an answer and it's not realistic 

Not that I'm saying we have to find an answer. I'm more asking that we not try to redefine orientation for no reason. In the same way that I feel like this community is trying to redefine femininity for no reason.

Obvious troll is obvious. Good job guys, good job. You can turn anything this single-mindly stupid into 2 pages of discussion. *claps slowly*

Yeah, but sometimes, no matter how inane, a troll can point to the elephant in the room and go "hey, look at that, I see that. Do you see that?" 

[Zarania]

you guys are so pathetic, seriously.

[Chloe]

. . . some experimental results from the Large Hadron Collider

lol They making any progress on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) slated to be built in Cadarache, France ? I have dreams of FISSION in my sleep and build own solar powered hydrogen electrolysis generators when life permits !

I have not had much chance yet to fully investigate the Freud based Lacanian Theory myself but what i pointed you toward is the easiest to comprehend so far . . . As this board seemingly demonstrates so well one reason we cannot come to any sort of "agreement" on anything is, in Lacan's view and to put quite simply:

"Woman doesn't exist", la femme n'existe pas, which Lacan rephrases as "there is no such a thing as Woman", il n'y a pas La femme. Lacan questions not the noun "woman", but the definite article which precedes it. For the definite article indicates universality, and this is the characteristic that woman lacks: "woman does not lend herself to generalisation, even to phallocentric generalisation." He also speaks of her as "not-all", pas toute; unlike masculinity - a universal function founded upon the phallic exception (castration), woman is a non-universal which admits no exception. "Woman as a symptom" (Seminar RSI) means that a woman is a symptom of a man, in the sense that a woman can only ever enter the psychic economy of men as a fantasy object, the cause of their desire.

No Time Now ! Will Devote More later . . . and YES, in answer to original TROLL Q, we're ALL HOMOSAPIANS but apparently (lol) some are more neanderthal than others too! "Sex preference" obviously has nothing to do with "gender" but then again, on a psychosexual level at least, Lacan claims "gender" is largely a "symbolic social construct" when leaving "real" biologic functions aside?

I leave it as a "question mark" but to my mind this helps to EXPLAIN A LOT about "the alleged us".

( much thx to "Indiana" on men's board elsewhere; am more-or-less OUT over there too but they have made me feel quite "at home" none-the-less !)

[azSam]

"gender" is largely a "symbolic social construct" when leaving "real" biologic functions aside?

I completely agree with that.

[Chloe]

I completely agree with that.

Thx Samantharz, i needed that for sure - seeming uphill battles everywhere and have always felt like such an oddball, lone "guy/girl" OUT ! You know what has actually bothered me most is that deep down I have always disliked women, in todays present "modern reincarnation" at least and sexually for sure, and supposing THAT could be regarded as "normal" in certain cis circles WHY ON EARTH do i feel and still want otherwise to BE like one regardless ? ?

more later - lol - and i do like "the boys" forum better but other things to do too! Am definitely not a terrified & repressed "closet homosexual" if Honest, OUT and still liked and accepted as simply being "me". It's not so much that "we" have to change and conform but rather The World Must instead . . . .

And that's the truly TOUGH PART that will never ever end !

[Dahlia]

I'm only just posting this now as it's very hard to talk about, please understand before making any insensitive comments.

My wife left me when I came out to her a couple of months ago, and the reason was that because she wanted to be with a heterosexual man and not a homosexual man.
I've been thinking since then, are transsexuals homosexual?

The vast majority of MTF's are lesbian, so yes, most of them are homosexual.

What your ex wife meant is: 'I want to be with a heterosexual man because I'm not a lesbian or bi'.