->-bleeped-<-s but i don't care?

[Midnightstar]

Okay, i'm having trouble understanding why everyone hates CIS people who are attracted to transgender people
Isn't that just a sexual orientation? I'm not going to dislike someone because they say that they think i'm handsome or are attracted to me just like i wouldn't like someone for being any other sexual orientation. I'll be honest i dislike when they come after me constantly but when that starts to happen i just tell them i'm not interested and they leave.
Maybe it's another thing in socializing i don't have experience with so i don't grasp the understanding yet. But so far there harmless with me so i question why do so many people dislike it? I mean i do i understand if they ask incorporate questions that there stepping over the line and need to be told to go away and corrected. However
why do some people treat them like trash? when you can just explain hey that wasn't asked very appropriately.
I actually had some of these questions come threw on a app i use and i started explain what not to say to people and there like oh sorry! and where okay with everything in the end, some even learned. Maybe it's something im not understand but it's been on my mind lately after watching some videos and thinking about past conversations about the topic that has appeared in my life. So i need to ask i need to find the understand as to why people dislike it? is it wrong i'm not feeling anything and i'd rather work with them then push them away?
or maybe i haven't understood something i don't know i'm just confused as to why it always seems we need to push them away instead of correct them. I still struggle with it maybe because i have CIS friends that don't always say the right thins but are still very close to me i don't know really.

[Laura_7]

There are admirers and ->-bleeped-<-s.

Admirers imo are respectful and looking for a partnership.

->-bleeped-<-s imo are looking for a sexual experience not seeing people as persons.

There is a vid called "So You Wanna Meet A Transsexual? " on youtube where its explained by a transgender person.

She may be a bit explicit but she explains.

Imo it can also be shown to cis people wanting to meet transsexual persons.
It asks for people to be treated as persons, and not to hurt people who are looking for a partnership.


hugs

[Devlyn]

I prefer the word "admirers" and  my theory is that some folks are so full of self-loathing that by default they hate anyone who likes them. As they say, you must love yourself before you can expect anyone else to love you.

Hugs, Devlyn

[Laura_7]

I prefer the word "admirers" and  my theory is that some folks are so full of self-loathing that by default they hate anyone who likes them. As they say, you must love yourself before you can expect anyone else to love you.

Hugs, Devlyn

There may be more.

It seems not uncommon that some people who are attracted to trans people may have trans tendencies themselves, which they may repress. Explaining and treading carefully might help, because of possible self loathing.
Imo a biological explanation to being transgender may help. So its nobodys fault, people really feel that way and its simply a way people are.

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,208438.msg1847638.html#msg1847638

They also may visit an experienced gender therapist to help them find out what they want.

hugs

[Marlee]

true. ->-bleeped-<-'s often have it in their heads that because we're trans, we are "easy" They tend to sexualize the whole thing. Admirers tend to have some understanding of what it mean to be trans, and are attracted more to the courage and personality of the person.

[CatBlack]

There's nothing wrong with being attracted to trans people, we are quite lovely ^.^ some people may even be more attracted to us for very genuine and sweet reasons than to cis people.

A ->-bleeped-<- is a person for whom trans people are a fetish. It's a lot less than flattering. 

[Midnightstar]

There are admirers and ->-bleeped-<-s.

Admirers imo are respectful and looking for a partnership.

->-bleeped-<-s imo are looking for a sexual experience not seeing people as persons.

There is a vid called "So You Wanna Meet A Transsexual? " on youtube where its explained by a transgender person.

She may be a bit explicit but she explains.

Imo it can also be shown to cis people wanting to meet transsexual persons.
It asks for people to be treated as persons, and not to hurt people who are looking for a partnership.


hugs

Oh okay that makes more sense thank you!
so basically the ones asking and not learning are ->-bleeped-<-s?

[Midnightstar]

There's nothing wrong with being attracted to trans people, we are quite lovely ^.^ some people may even be more attracted to us for very genuine and sweet reasons than to cis people.

A ->-bleeped-<- is a person for whom trans people are a fetish. It's a lot less than flattering.

Yea i'm trans and iv'e run into a lot of people like this today and last night and it made me wonder because "Some" where very understanding and respectful when i said i'm not interested. but thanks i understand now
at first it confused me as to why people seemed to upset about it "Sometimes"

[Midnightstar]

I prefer the word "admirers" and  my theory is that some folks are so full of self-loathing that by default they hate anyone who likes them. As they say, you must love yourself before you can expect anyone else to love you.

Hugs, Devlyn

That makes sense

[Laura_7]

Oh okay that makes more sense thank you!
so basically the ones asking and not learning are ->-bleeped-<-s?

Yes.
There may be different motives.
Simply wanting an experience ...
having possibly repressed transgender feelings themselves ...
etc ....

[FTMDiaries]

There's another, rather ugly angle for some ->-bleeped-<-s: a portion of them have homosexual tendencies but for a variety of reasons (often due to their upbringing) they're ashamed of them and they'd be mortified if they were seen as being gay.

So these particular ->-bleeped-<-s go after pre-op trans women presuming that they'll be able and willing to 'top' them. The thinking behind this is both homophobic and transphobic, I'm afraid: they think of trans women as being 'really men' but because they present as women, having sex with them is not 'really gay'. So they see it as a way of having sex with a man without being gay.

I'm not here to judge anyone for their sexual preferences, but this sort of thing upsets me on several levels.

[kellykh]

...they think of trans women as being 'really men' but because they present as women, having sex with them is not 'really gay'. So they see it as a way of having sex with a man without being gay.

I think that hits the nail on he head with many (most?) ->-bleeped-<-s. I would go on to say that this is the premise of the "->-bleeped-<-" niche in pornography. The intended market for it is closet gays who cannot admit to themselves that they are gay, so they use the "surprise" as a fetish. I don't have a problem with their fetish, but it becomes an issue when they proceed under the assumption that all trans people share their kink.

[Lady_Oracle]

Let's just put it this way ->-bleeped-<-s can be very manipulative and more often than not just see us as objects. These are the kind of men who will break up with a girl because they get surgery. Its really messed up. ->-bleeped-<-s fetishize us in the worst way possible. As others have mentioned in this thread, admirers or just people in general that date us, date us for who we are not for what is between our legs.

[Midnightstar]

I prefer the word "admirers" and  my theory is that some folks are so full of self-loathing that by default they hate anyone who likes them. As they say, you must love yourself before you can expect anyone else to love you.

Hugs, Devlyn

I'm new to this understanding of what both are and what ones to stay away from
so if i got the wrong title "->-bleeped-<-s" then i apologies.

[Devlyn]

Here's my deal: Giving someone a label they didn't ask for (->-bleeped-<- in this case) is wrong. If we don't want people calling us ->-bleeped-<-, we shouldn't be calling them ->-bleeped-<-. Everyone is welcome here at Susan's, including admirers.

We all need to respect each other. Part of what I'm seeing in this thread is sex shaming, nothing more or less. I don't judge someone based on the length of a relationship they want to have. I think the question was ill advised, to be honest. But we can make a learning experience out of it.

Hugs, Devlyn

[Midnightstar]

Here's my deal: Giving someone a label they didn't ask for (->-bleeped-<- in this case) is wrong. If we don't want people calling us ->-bleeped-<-, we shouldn't be calling them ->-bleeped-<-. Everyone is welcome here at Susan's, including admirers.

We all need to respect each other. Part of what I'm seeing in this thread is sex shaming, nothing more or less. I don't judge someone based on the length of a relationship they want to have. I think the question was ill advised, to be honest. But we can make a learning experience out of it.

Hugs, Devlyn

I guess i'm lost on where you got that from
because that's not what i intended
i was saying i think its someones sexuality so i was asking why people bash it basically or at least trying to.

[FTMax]

It really depends for me. I've been hit on by several gay men that I went to school with, who wanted to have a sexual experience with a transman. I'm not okay with that. I can understand how it would appeal to them, and I can understand that for some transguys, that kind of offer would be appealing. But I don't like being approached for anything simply due to the fact that I meet a niche sexual interest. Like someone said earlier, it just doesn't seem to take into account that I'm a person with feelings.

But if it's more of an emotional/mental thing, I can dig that. Both of my most recent girlfriends enjoy being with transmen for very specific reasons, and I don't feel put out or objectified or fetishized by that. I'm okay with people having preferences as long as you can articulate why you have those preferences, and the reason doesn't boil down to an acute interest in my anatomy.

[HappyMoni]

Here's my deal: Giving someone a label they didn't ask for (->-bleeped-<- in this case) is wrong. If we don't want people calling us ->-bleeped-<-, we shouldn't be calling them ->-bleeped-<-. Everyone is welcome here at Susan's, including admirers.

We all need to respect each other. Part of what I'm seeing in this thread is sex shaming, nothing more or less. I don't judge someone based on the length of a relationship they want to have.

Hugs, Devlyn

I like this answer. For sex for two consenting adults, it is all good. If someone wants a relationship, it boils down to respect. Transgender, cisgender, it doesn't matter. People want to be respected for who they are. I think all the labeling can make us miss out on good people, good experiences. My opinion.
Moni