Talk:Attraction to transgender people

Big problems with the lead

I think we have a big problem with the lead but I'm not sure how best to fix it. Recent attempts don't seem to have got it right but I do see the issue that they were trying to address and it's pretty bad. Let's see if we can find a better wording.

Currently we say "Sexual arousal research has confirmed that their response patterns are unlike those of gay men and resemble those of heterosexual men, except that they are highly aroused by transgender women in addition to cisgender women." The "they" here is "Cisgender men attracted to transgender women"

I can see some huge problems here:

1. We have absolutely no right to imply that a heterosexual man is any less heterosexual for being attracted to a trans woman. We have absolutely no right to imply that the default position of a heterosexual man is never to be attracted to a trans woman. That is not only untrue. It is an untruth can and does get people killed. We have to be much more responsible. The use of "resemble" and "except" are utterly awful here.
2. We are not distinguishing between people who are attracted to trans people incidentally and people who are specifically attracted to trans people because they are trans. That makes not only the lead but the whole article confusing and unhelpful, bordering on the incomprehensible.
3. We are only talking about men being attracted to women when the subject of this article is sexual attraction to transgender people in general. We should talk try to cover this in a less gendered way. I really doubt that the way we just shrug off the issue of attraction to trans men is justified.
4. We are only talking about cis people's attraction. There is no mention of trans people's preferences. A lot of trans people are in relationships with other trans people and I'd expect that there is something to be said about that.

Reading through the rest of the article it seems that we are going to have a very hard time improving it as some of the source material seems to be straight up garbage (assuming that we are not misrepresenting it to make it sound worse than it actually is) predicated on the false axiom that trans people are not really the gender that they say that they are. I mean, if something purporting to be a scientific study really does say "said that he was 'bisexual' rather than 'gay' because he was able to think of the transwomen as women" then that's disgusting unscientific language being used in an entirely gratuitous way which should not have been published in 2010. It reads like something from the 1950s.

OK. So, I already said that I don't have the answer but I think I do have some of the right questions though:

1. Are we using the best sources? Is there really nothing better out there than this?
2. Have we got the topic right here? If we really don't have enough sources for a general article about attraction to trans people then maybe we should reframe and rename this as an article about cis people who are specifically attracted to trans people or even just about cis men who are attracted to trans women?
3. How can we rewrite the article in less offensive terms if these sources really are all we have to work with?

DanielRigal (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The core of the problems with this article is that it used to be called "Tr*nny chaser" (without the star). Here's the edit that moved it to that from the original title of "transsensual", it then got moved to "transfan", and from there to the current title.

It seems like the motivation for the current title was to avoid debates about whether the title should be pejorative or a euphemism, but in doing so it inadvertently hugely expanded the scope of the page, from a small group of men who fetishize trans people into being an article about any attraction to trans people at all. I think the page ought to be moved to "trans fetish" or something similar since the current page is extremely not about the thing the title purports to be about. Loki (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The last move was 10 years ago, and the article has changed greatly since then. I see no reason to purge a bunch of relevant material to turn back the clock.

Regarding the lead more generally, the current wording could possibly be improved upon, though this is not the way as it implies that all heterosexual men show arousal to both transgender and cis women, when this is not supported by the sources. A workable solution may simply be to end the lead with the "psychologists have researched" sentence to cut the Gordian knot and let the body of this short article do the talking.

Regarding neglect of trans people's attraction and attraction to other groups than trans women, missing material about that can certainly be added, but it is quite possible that the body of sources themselves are biased in that way (towards cis and men's attractions) and hence there's nothing we can do about it.

More generally, regarding predicated on the false axiom that trans people are not really the gender that they say that they are, while there is no reason to say that, there's also really no getting around the fact that the trans women being studied do have a type of body that differs a lot from that of cis women, and more specifically contains a major characteristic associated with the sex opposite their gender - and that the body plays a huge role in sexual attraction. Really, does not the finding that men attracted to trans women even with penises have arousal patterns matching heterosexual and not gay men refute the very thing of concern - the idea that such attraction makes a man gay? It's true that not all straight men have this arousal pattern, but the same is true of attraction to other types of women; we can still talk about differences between body types and recognize that attractions differ. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that Loki's suggestion is good. It is a quick and easy way to deal with the main problem here. The article would still benefit from improvement but at least once it is clear what the subject actually is the article will be encouraged to develop along the right lines. DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

As an overall reply to your specific concerns.:

• • 1) People may self-identify as heterosexual, but a choice in sexual partners may depend on circumstances. I recount a story narrated to me by my father years ago. Dad self-identified as heterosexual and had multiple female partners. But at one point an attractive gay man offered him sex, and my father was horny and seriously tempted. He stopped at the last minute, due to a fear of how his family and peers would react. It was a one-time thing and not a habit, but he recalled the event as the one time in his life where he doubted his own self-identification. I tend to believe that arousal and temptation may have a similar effect on other people.
  • 2) We are also not distinguishing between people who simply feel attraction, and those who already had one or more transgender sexual partners.
  • 3) I am aware that women could also be attracted to transgender people, but have there been published studies on the topic?
  • 4) Again the problem here is the lack of relevant sources. Have there been studies on the sexual preferences of transgender people? And can any conclusion be drawn by the experiences of a hand full of individuals? Dimadick (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposing page deletion / merge into Transgender sexuality

I was going to propose changing the title and heavily refactoring the article but just came across the article Transgender sexuality. It seems like we should just move the relevant parts there and remove the page, for the many aforementioned issues above.

All we would need to do is add section on "Attraction to transgender people" with subsections on 1) a better referenced shorter overview of the fact people aren't less straight or gay for being attracted to trans people, 2) T4T relationships, what trans people call dating other trans people (though I'm not sure if this warrants being a subsection or section, since it is often more about community and understanding than attraction/sexual orientation, though that plays a role), 3) fetishization of transgender people, and 4) societal views. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. they are two different things. Transgender sexuality talks about the sexual orientation of transgender individuals, while attraction to transgender people talks about those attracted to transgender individuals. It's like as if they were antonymous pages MikutoH (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that Transgender sexuality is the correct place but I do agree that the proposed content would be good somewhere, possibly as a section in Human sexuality or Sexual orientation. I'm not sure where best to place it. I'm not sure that this would replace this article. Loki has suggested (in the section above) that this article has really always been about the fetishisation of trans people, which seems reasonable to me and makes it sound like it could be a valid topic for its own article if reframed correctly. DanielRigal (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd prefer this page be moved to Fetishisation of Transgender People and cleaned up rather than merged in with an article about the sexuality of transgender people themselves. Loki (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, because trans people are completely unlovable. Nobody could possibly love a trans person, unless it was a fetish. And then it's not love, anyway. Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a weirdly pointed reaction to a proposal to move a page which is clearly, in fact, talking about the fetishisation of trans people instead of any sort of actual love or attraction to them. Loki (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Math, I'm sure that's not what Loki was trying to say. –Daveout(talk) 20:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

That's my thing, we have an article called "attraction to transgender people", basically covering 1) straight men are attracted to trans women (not really covering all of it) and 2) men fetishize trans women (and it doesn't go nearly into depth about the sexualization of trans people in general). The first feels like it could be more succinct and tucked somewhere else and the second doesn't cover genuine attraction. I don't think an article about "attraction to asian people" would ever be created covering 1) straight white guys are attracted to asian women as much as white women, look at some old studies about it and 2) some fetishize asian women, here's a list of terms for them.

I listed my original idea below, but think "fetishization/sexualization of trans people" could be a workable alternative and a noteworthy topic in and of itself since I don't know any trans people who aren't aware of it as a distinct phenomenon from love. As a trans women, lumping fetishization and the idea people can be attracted to a trans person in their own article calling them both attraction in such clinical terms feels a lot weirder than having an article about fetishing trans people and leaving it obvious, in the footnotes, or a more relevant article, that nobody's less straight or gay for loving a trans person and there's nothing stopping people from loving trans people. I don't think anybody was implying that because fetishization exists nobody can love someone. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Even worse, the article doesn't claim "straight men are attracted to trans women", it claims "the men who are attracted to trans women identify as straight or bisexual, and their attraction patterns are similar to straight or bisexual men, but we definitely can't just call them 'straight men' (implied: because they're attracted to trans women and that's weeeeiiiirrrdddd)". It's not a coincidence that this article has been contributed to significantly by James Cantor (James_Cantor), a supporter of Blanchard's typology who pretty clearly, just from reading his Wikipedia page, has a strong and very particular POV on trans issues. Loki (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot living on the edge here by not putting a /s, lol. But the point of the satire is correct - the page does talk about more than fetishization, and those aspects can certainly be expanded more anyway. It's also not at all clear that attraction to trans women specifically is fetishization, anyway. Not to get too crude, but if another subset of men really likes women with a particular shape of posterior, and dates them preferentially, and shows more attraction than others to them when hooked up to a penile plethysmograph, is this a "fetish"? Is any form of attraction more specific than "class of gender" a mere fetish? I always understood fetishization to be about reducing a person to certain characteristics, not mere body type preferences. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Such merges would unbalance those articles, per WP:UNDUE. It would immediately need to be split out again. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

My original idea was moving the page to "Gender and sexuality" or "Gender identity and sexuality", since we have a Race and sexuality that does a good job discussing a similar interplay. It'd be a big project, and considerable expansion on content in the article, but help the encylopedia a lot.

The refactor could be split into 3 sections:

Gender and sexual orientation: Covering statistics about different rates of sexual orientations among different genders, proposed causes, and affirmation of the fact that transgender people are the sexual orientation corresponding their gender and people aren't less straight or gay for being attracted to them.

Gendered sexuality: Covering basically the gist of Gendered sexuality

Attitudes: Covering societal attitudes and expectations in various places and times regarding sexuality / sexual orientation among different genders.

Gender and sexualization: Covering information about fetishization and sexualization of different gender identities. The Race and sexuality article has some information to start.

TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

"Gender and sexuality" sounds like it would be talking overwhelmingly about cisgender people, more specifically sex or gender differences. "Gender identity and sexuality" sounds like a duplicate of transgender sexuality. More generally this looks like a lot of shifting things around for no good reason and dilutes the actual topic with a bunch of tangentially related stuff that belongs in (and already is in) separate articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering cisgender people are the majority, it would most likely mostly discuss cisgender people. And trans people. "Gender identity and sexuality" would not be a duplicate of "transgender sexuality" since cisgender people also have gender identities. (I'm not sure where I saw it but kudos to whoever pointed out cis people are said to have a "gender", trans people a "gender identity"). Examining the interplay between gender and sexuality doesn't mean examining only trans people or cis people, it means both as the key point of such a move would be to cover various attractions to and from various genders without centering a particular experience as noteworthy in and of itself (attraction to transgender people is as ridiculous as attraction to cisgender people, attraction to asian people, or any other implicit othering which implies attraction to a demographic to be distinct from just attraction) and give an overview of a broad area that is covered more in-depth in other locations. Race and sexuality does this well. This is all moot, as while I think such an article would help the encylopedia, sexual objectification or fetishization of transgender people seem like better options. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If we are going to narrow the article's scope down to its roots (which was originally restricted to 'fetishisation' of trans ppl), it could instead be merged with Sexual objectification. It's another possibility to be considered. I couldn't find any article similar, in nature, to this one (like: "attraction to men"). The only similar article I could find was "attraction to disabled ppl", which is also restricted to fetishism and excludes other forms of attraction like romantic\platonic attraction etc. –Daveout(talk) 20:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, it seems the perfect place for it! TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It would very much unbalance that article, being WP:UNDUE, and most of the material here is not on that topic anyway. See also what I said above in my other comments. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The double standard here is evidenced by a simple example, I don't believe anyone would argue Race and sexuality#Asian women or Asian fetish would be better off as an article called Attraction to Asian people, since it's so hard to differentiate between just being attracted to vs fetishing us. No-one would argue, "hey, some men (read white men) are attracted to Asian women because of some clinical studies that show straight white men are attracted to white and Asian women (shocker); Asian women are sexualized and fetishized; these are both examples of 'attraction to Asians' (which is obviously fundamentally different than 'regular' attraction) and deserve a shared article covering both concepts".

The idea that being attracted to trans people in itself a noteworthy topic honestly feels incredibly othering and clinical as the implicit assumption is that attraction to transgender people is a fundamentally different phenomenon than attraction to cisgender people. Straight men are attracted to women, who can be cis or trans. Generally, attraction tends to cover gender identity rather than sex. One does not need a whole article to say this (poorly, since it's mostly just reporting what straight white men feel). A more obvious example of the double standard is we have no article on Attraction to cisgender people, covering how people can be attracted to cisgender people, including both fetishization and general attraction, since cis people are considered the default.

Fetishization of trans people / Sexual objectification of trans people is a noteworthy topic in and of itself, and a lot of the page covers that and would be better suited there. There's a lot more that could go into that article, and thus provider a much better view of the topic. There's a wealth of material on sexualizing trans people which would do well in an article, off the top of my head cis men are more likely to consider a trans woman dtf than a cis woman. Also not really touched on in the article but I'm sure mentioned in other sources, bluntly speaking as a trans woman, chasers tend to be looking for dicks. The objectification revolves around them not searching for a woman who they care for and are attracted to, and may happen to be trans, but specifically a pre-op trans woman because she has a penis. Chaser's don't go for post-op trans women. They aren't attracted to individuals, but what they see as an experience to seek out. A chaser's not the person who thinks "I really like this woman (who happens to be trans), I'll ask her out" but the one who thinks "I want to try having sex with a trans woman because I want girldick, lemme specifically look for one." TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately the comparison to ethnicity or race is comparing apples and oranges to an extent. Being transgender is not an ethnicity or a race; it has to do with how sex and gender interact, which are also the very concepts by which sexuality is defined. None of that applies to race. You states that "attraction tends to cover gender identity rather than sex"; I will note that since gender identity is not necessarily equivalent to gender as a whole, this is not supported by sources. Gender identity is psychological, and while it does usually drive changes in many or all aspects of appearance to match that gender/sex, in and of itself it is unseen, and attraction often occurs on the basis of appearance alone, so this can't be it. Studies of sexual attraction use photos and videos of people based on appearance.

Ultimately what is noteworthy in Wikipedia is dictated by reliable sources. I don't really see why this article's existence in principle is necessarily any more othering than transgender or trans woman; different demographic groups do exist, do have different characteristics, and those things do lead to differences in how it all works out in society. If you feel othered by it I'm sorry to hear that and I want to be clear that I am good with adding to or editing this article in other ways, and I'm sure there's room for improvement. If sources support the existence of "attraction to cisgender people" - there are sources framing it that way and on that specific topic - than it can be created. If there aren't, then that isn't our issue to fix.

Fetishization of trans people and the chaser phenomenon as you describe is absolutely a thing and you are more than welcome to add material about it. I really think that would do best here - we generally don't overdivide articles and this one is not that long. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If we expand the article to include more details about fetishism and center that, we should update the title to match, as we do clearly differentiate fetishm and attraction in other pages covering how minorities are caught in larger societal issues surrounding attraction. You're right I should have worded gender vs gender identity better but the point still stands that equivocating the chaser and the man who sees a woman (for the sake of argument, passing and trans, or even not passing) and is attracted to her is weird, as these are clearly different phenomena, one being normal attraction (which doesn't differentiate between attempts to other people), the other being fetishizing.

The title itself is othering because there isn't really any other group we single out to say being attracted to them is worthy of its own article and distinct from "regular" attraction. We don't say "attraction to Asian", we say "Asian fetishism" and leave it implied and BLUESKY that Asians are a wide category of people that people can just be attracted to without being Asian particularly effecting that. Transgender is matched by cisgender, we don't write an article about one and leave the other as an unspoken implicit "normal".

Having been on the end of both attraction and fetishization, for being both asian and trans, the similarity feels very clearly similar and is less apples to oranges than granny smith to red delicious. In both there is a distinction between attraction to me as a person and attraction to certain features or people's pre-concieved biases about what the accident of birth must mean in bed. I would be just as perplexed and offended if my "Attraction to Asian people" example was a real article (with no equivalent "attraction to white people", who are implicitly considered "normal") which lumped in "golly, here's some studies proving people aren't less straight/gay for liking asians" and various details about fetishizing Asians. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, these are very much two different topics. Attraction to transgender people has to do with everyone, not just transgender people and their sexuality. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Misleading quote for no good reason.

Jamison Greens statement is extremely problematic and misleading. "Those who are partnered with trans men are often surprised to find that a penis is not what defines a man, that the lack of a penis does not mean a lack of masculinity, manliness, or male sexuality" There is little to no evidence for that. On the contrary, there are more than enough studies that suggest: Men who identify as "homosexual" do so because they feel attracted to male-bodies. I.e. a flat muscular chest, washboard abs and more than anything else: primary sex characteristics. I consider the "Many are surprised to find"-pattern to be manipulative rhetoric. How many? Out of how many? Why are they surprised? It is something you hear in advertisement, not in science. The idea that they are attracted to some abstract concept of masculinity is highly ideological theory and backed up by zero evidence. You will find similar concepts in i.e. in the Ex-gay-movement.

Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence, but if were willing to go by that, here is what I think people should know: In the transitions I have witnessed the transitioning partner always thought the relationships would survive because of misleading statements like the one above. The relationships always ended. This is not a reason against transitioning at all, yet it is something people deserve to know. The body matters. There is overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of homosexual men and women aren't attracted to gestures or behaviors but bodies and primary sex characteristics. Gay-men-centered-advertisement is littered with flat defined pectorals, washboard abs and muscular men displaying bulging underwear. It doesn't matter if the thong is pink or if they show effeminate gestures. In men, effeminate looks or gestures etc. are devalued socially because of toxic concepts of masculinity. That they would influence sexual attraction is a myth.

I would recommend removing the statement. It is misleading and there is no good reason to have it here at all. 2001:A61:1205:C801:495D:A9B9:F2B0:BBF6 (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a properly attributed quotation which is relevant to the topic. The fact that you personally disagree with it is not a concern for Wikipedia. You have articulated no valid reason to remove it. I would also remind you that the Talk page is not a soapbox for you to dump your own unattributed opinions and anecdotes. DanielRigal (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Jamison Greens statement is the what is what is an "entirely personal opinion" and highly misleading in the way it is phrased. His personal opinion is not in the talk section, where those may exist, it is on the actual page and misleading people. That you are willing to actually defend his statement and even flip it reflects an you. I'm not gonna make the effort to actually post sources for homosexual men being are attracted to varieties of male bodies and not "the concept of masculinity". It is unbelievably offensive that somebody would even ask for that:: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:1205:C801:F1FD:DCEB:CD41:B1F4 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

We get it. You don't like it but that's really not our problem. It is a view from a relevant notable person validly sourced to a Reliable Source. It gets one sentence. There is nothing offensive about it. You have articulated no valid reason to remove it. DanielRigal (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You are not "we". "I" get it:

You were willing to use a quote to inject your personal ideas into this article. It is simply a misleading, out-of-context quote. It clearly hints a claim that Jamison Greens wouldn't make. Physical bodily features matter for sexual attraction, that is not disputed by many people and not by Jamison Greens. The reality is that relationships tend to end if a partner transitions. Don't you think that would be valuable information to people? I'm sure "some" people are surprised, as entirely subjective as a that is - but that is not important here. 2001:A61:1205:C801:CCB6:2088:7FED:73CE (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written based on what the reliable sources say, not what you argue. The quote is reported as an attributed quote. It is not in Wikipedia's own voice. Readers are not required to agree with it. If you have any reliable sources to support coverage of a relevant and notable alternative opinion then maybe we could add that in addition but we (that's Wikipedia!) will not be removing relevant coverage just because you don't like it. DanielRigal (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiktionary links

Is it normal that like every other link on this page links to wiktionary? it's not a good experience while trying to read the page. It feels like a 50/50 when i'm going to click a link whether i'm going to stay on wikipedia or if my browser will open and i'm shepherded to wiktionary. Nithin🚀 ^talk 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan opinion

What makes his opinion specifically worthy of inclusion on this page? Sure, he's gay, but we don't list opinions of every gay person in this article so why should we list his?

The assertion that sexual orientation is based solely on assigned sex at birth and not gender identity/presentation is also questionable at best (and frankly transphobic), so at the very least some opposite opinions should be included. But that'd still mean potential WP:DUE issues Amberkitten (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

IIRC that is there to represent the other side of the argument from the preceding opinion in the text. Both opinions exist in society. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)