Super Straight?

[Zachafer]

Hey all, I just read a long Discord thread provoked by one person setting their status to "Super Straight", which is defined as "a sexual preference in which one prefers only the opposite sex with the exclusion of transgender people". This led to a long conversation about how the term is transphobic and exclusionary. I had never even heard of this term before today.

Knowing CK is a diverse community, I am curious what y'all think of this. Is it harmful for someone to be "super straight"? Is it mainly offensive when you actively identify as "super straight" with an "in your face" attitude? Do you think it's the term itself that is offensive or is it the mindset of excluding transgender people from your sexual preference?

One argument I read was that being "super straight" just reduces the other person to what's in their pants. I have lesbian friends who tell me they are grossed out by the thought of sexually interacting with the male phallus... which to me sounds like "super lesbian"? Given the current cultural climate I would think that people could be accepting of someone's sexuality rather they include or exclude men/women/trans people.

Please understand I am genuinely asking in an attempt to better understand both sides of the coin. I hope my wording was not offensive. My PMs are open if you feel uncomfortable replying...

[Rhymes with Witch]

Yeah, it's harmful, and the people using it are doing so with the intent of being divisive and cruel.

Gender is a socially constructed concept and physical sex is, well... complicated. There are "biological women" born with penises and "biological men" born with vaginas. Would you call an intersex woman born with a penis someone with a male phallus? Would you call a man's micropenis a clit? Male and female are descriptors that don't even always work. Human biodiversity is so overwhelming there will always be people for whom the "natural" constructs of physical sex are fuzzy and they're gonna get shafted by people looking to make a culture war out of their very existence, same as trans people's existence is being made a culture war now because gay people are at least in some places more accepted. The second trans people are stomped back into the closet they'll be moving on to the rest of the rainbow because that's how it works. (There were after all gay nazis until suddenly there weren't. etc etc. And nazis explicitly targeted trans studies. What fuckin books you think they burned?)

I remember being younger and taking the pansexual label specifically because I would encounter bisexual people whose sexuality explicitly excluded trans people. This is the same shit in a newer, meaner hat. New things scary, people I don't understand are getting rights so I have to make their lives miserable to try and stop change from happening, ooga booga booga.


As well this shit explicitly comes from 4chan nazis. "Super straight" - SS - is literally a nazi reference. If you need the screenshots as proof I can hunt them down.


ETA: Just realized I might sound aggressive. I'm just naturally cranky.

[MrSlowBro]

i mean hey to each their own, super straight we out here super gay so lol

[Rhymes with Witch]

i mean hey to each their own, super straight we out here super gay so lol

Unfortunately Super Gay is also happening in tandem with Super Straight and it's just as transphobic. No nice things for anyone ever :o_o:

[MrSlowBro]

Unfortunately Super Gay is also happening in tandem with Super Straight and it's just as transphobic. No nice things for anyone ever :o_o:

really ok let's be honest please no one get offended but as a gay man, all this lgbtq+ has gone too far. People are just trying to stem as far as they can from the norm:S
Everythings becoming confusing as fuck not just for straight people but for the rest of us lol. THe idea of being transphobic when we're talking super straight or super gay defs sounds like some little kid not making it on grindr lmao

tbh i find the trans community gets a lot of love its just a lot are down low and into trans but dont feel comfortable enough yet

[Rhymes with Witch]

really ok let's be honest please no one gets offended but as a gay man, all this lgbtq+ has gone too far. People are just trying to stem as far as they can from the norm:S
Everythings becoming confusing as fuck not just for straight people but for the rest of us lol. THe idea of being transphobic when we're talking super straight or super gay defs sounds like some little kid not making it on grindr lmao

"Change is scary, fire bad, Thomas Edison was a witch"

[Zachafer]

There are "biological women" born with penises and "biological men" born with vaginas. Would you call an intersex woman born with a penis someone with a male phallus?
Wikipedia's article on Intersex states The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%. I don't think the super straight definition really considered this rare medical condition. My interpretation is super straight excludes people who made a cognizant decision to undergo hormone therapy and/or sex reassignment surgery. Personally I am fine with someone identifying however they want, and I expect to have the same graces afforded to myself, be it straight, gay, super straight, super gay, non-smokers-only, doesn't-already-have-kids, etc. However when dating or searching for your potential life partner I think it's fair for someone to include/exclude people who have made decisions you agree/disagree with, beliefs contrary to yours (religion), mentalities that do not align with your own.

For debate purposes I don't have much interest in the term's origins. I think now that it's out there we should discuss it's definition at face value. It is not fair to assume someone using the term today is aware of its origins (i.e. myself)

[twooldcat]

I think I'm also in that same Discord server and it was cool to see the original person reevaluate and concede their point. Specifically that it's mostly bad-faith groups using the term so it is probably wise to steer clear of it.


For debate purposes I don't have much interest in the term's origins. I think now that it's out there we should discuss it's definition at face value. It is not fair to assume someone using the term today is aware of its origins (i.e. myself)

I don't think we can fairly isolate the term's origins from how it is being used. Taking the same approach with any slur isn't super productive because oftentimes it isn't the word itself that is particularly harmful or offensive but rather the context and history surrounding the word that can cut like a dagger.


However when dating or searching for your potential life partner I think it's fair for someone to include/exclude people who have made decisions you agree/disagree with, beliefs contrary to yours (religion), mentalities that do not align with your own.

I don't think anyone would disagree with this. I also think people should critically examine their own preferences from time to time. Most people (myself included) could stand to question their own biases a bit more. In the case of folks who refer to themselves as super-straight, I honestly think that line of questioning would reveal some latent opinions about trans people that might be rooted in misinformation.

[Nameless Ghoul]

Everythings becoming confusing as fuck not just for straight people but for the rest of us lol. THe idea of being transphobic when we're talking super straight or super gay defs sounds like some little kid not making it on grindr lmao

I think the issue with Super Straight is as a term it was created WITH THE INTENT of being transphobic. It comes from Terf rhetoric and that crap. I am trans, and I don't take it personally if people aren't comfortable sleeping with me because of my parts, people have preferences, and that's totally fair and fine. The reason Super Straight is transphobic is because it was literally created to be a transphobic term. It's used alongside terf shit to basically say I'm only attracted to "real men" and "real women".

[coolstory]

Don't think it's Transphobic at all. Sexual preferences where created so people know what you're into too or not. being "Gay" is Anti Straight and Straight is Anti gay. Just another sexual preference. Being Straight myself I'm not into Trans at all but I'm not Transphobic it's my preference. I think people who see it as Transphobic just want something else to complain about.

Deep thought here: I love black clothing and not a fan of other colored clothing. No is one getting upset that I'm excluding all other colors besides Black Clothing why get upset about someone's sexual preference if they want to exclude a group they should be able to do it in peace. Why are the gays not getting in on this since it's homophobic technically.

Food for thought.

- - - Updated - - -


I think the issue with Super Straight is as a term it was created WITH THE INTENT of being transphobic. It comes from Terf rhetoric and that crap. I am trans, and I don't take it personally if people aren't comfortable sleeping with me because of my parts, people have preferences, and that's totally fair and fine. The reason Super Straight is transphobic is because it was literally created to be a transphobic term. It's used alongside terf shit to basically say I'm only attracted to "real men" and "real women".

All Sexual preferences have intent to be phobic of each other technically.

[LibraryFaerie]

I think the issue with Super Straight is as a term it was created WITH THE INTENT of being transphobic. It comes from Terf rhetoric and that crap. I am trans, and I don't take it personally if people aren't comfortable sleeping with me because of my parts, people have preferences, and that's totally fair and fine. The reason Super Straight is transphobic is because it was literally created to be a transphobic term. It's used alongside terf shit to basically say I'm only attracted to "real men" and "real women".

Yes, this 1000000%.


Deep thought here: I love black clothing and not a fan of other colored clothing. No is one getting upset that I'm excluding all other colors besides Black Clothing why get upset about someone's sexual preference if they want to exclude a group they should be able to do it in peace. Why are the gays not getting in on this since it's homophobic technically.


But clothing isn't people so that's not really a fair comparison..

It's fine to have preferences. I don't think anyone is negating that. It's when someone preference insists on telling another person they aren't worthy, like this one does, that it becomes yucky. That's not "excluding a group in peace." It's excluding a group and being proud and loud about it. Especially in this case, Super Straight it reminding trans men and women that society doesn't actually see them as men or women. It'd be like me saying "I love sleeping with men! Except you uglies with big noses, you all can fuck off!" A decent person would just keep it to themselves. This feels like a rambling train of thought, just had to get it out there.

[Erik.]

So, if this is not the way, how does one say they're not attracted to trans people in a good way? I'm on a dating app that's kinda like grindr/tinder(haven't used it in a while though) where I'm obliged to see trans men when I state I want to see men (there are two buttons: men & trans men, if you click on the men button, the trans men button is automatically checked too. This doesn't happen with the men button when I click the trans men button). How fair is this when I always swipe those away because I'm just not attracted to them? "Forcing" trans people onto people who aren't interested isn't going to get them any matches so I don't get why the app does this.

[Synth Salazzle]

I think if 4chan hadn't included naziism into it, it could have actually been it's own valid sexuality. There's nothing wrong with preferences, that's why we even have sexualities in the first place. There is nothing transphobic about not wanting to date trans people unless it's because you hate them.

[I_royalty_I]

I think it sounds like it was a term that was put into place with the intent of causing issues and stirring up controversy. Personally I don’t care how somebody identifies, I have loved ones from all sides of the coin. Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are and it’s as simple as that. Being super straight or super gay - well that’s just super but does it make one better than the other; being straight vs super straight or gay vs super gay? I don’t mind however people want to identify, it only rubs me the wrong way when somebody feels the need to be all up in my face about it or tries to make my views feel less important than theirs because it’s not as big of an issue for me.

At the end of the day, be who you want, love who ya want, and do no harm. Everybody needs to worry more about themselves and less about putting down others ����*♂️

[Zachafer]

New things scary, people I don't understand are getting rights so I have to make their lives miserable to try and stop change from happening, ooga booga booga.I don't see how you are not making anyone's life miserable by having your own sexual identity?


I think the issue with Super Straight is as a term it was created WITH THE INTENT of being transphobic. It comes from Terf rhetoric and that crap.
It seems like most people have a problem with the origin of the term but the meaning itself isn't too harmful? Am I reading the room correctly? Would "straight AF" ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) be less harmful than "super straight"? (I had to google what TERF means lol)



It's when someone preference insists on telling another person they aren't worthy, like this one does, that it becomes yucky. That's not "excluding a group in peace." It's excluding a group and being proud and loud about it.
Trying to follow the logic... is not the definition of homosexuality "being attracted to your own sex"? Which would be excluding a group? So a Gay Pride parade would be the proud and loud exclusion of Straight people?

[Erik.]

I think it sounds like it was a term that was put into place with the intent of causing issues and stirring up controversy. Personally I don’t care how somebody identifies, I have loved ones from all sides of the coin. Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are and it’s as simple as that. Being super straight or super gay - well that’s just super but does it make one better than the other; being straight vs super straight or gay vs super gay? I don’t mind however people want to identify, it only rubs me the wrong way when somebody feels the need to be all up in my face about it or tries to make my views feel less important than theirs because it’s not as big of an issue for me.

At the end of the day, be who you want, love who ya want, and do no harm. Everybody needs to worry more about themselves and less about putting down others 路*♂️


I get that. "Super" is not the right preposition to use, it makes me think of "super Aryan". But what would be a good term? Bio(logically) gay? Just brainstorming, I don't mean anything by it. I want to do it the good way.

- - - Updated - - -
Zachafer, well you can be gay and be attracted to trans gays as well? That's also homosexuality.

[Anybody]

Trying to follow the logic... is not the definition of homosexuality "being attracted to your own sex"? Which would be excluding a group? So a Gay Pride parade would be the proud and loud exclusion of Straight people?

I’m by no means qualified to speak on these topics but I just had a thought. It’s on the difference between equality and equity. We can’t judge transexuality by the same standards as heterosexuality and now homosexuality, because those are already established in society (don’t get me wrong, homosexuality still has its struggles).

Transexuality is like the younger sibling trying to find their place in the world, so something that might not be harmful to the hetero/homo sexual community can still be harmful to the transexual community in light of this. People are in the thick of working to establish the trans community as valid, so let’s give them some room while they do that and kindly express our preferences rather than perpetuate terms created by these unsavoury groups.

(Edit to add, for context personally I would not exclude trans people from my dating pool)

[Da Plushee Boree]

Hey all, I just read a long Discord thread provoked by one person setting their status to "Super Straight", which is defined as "a sexual preference in which one prefers only the opposite sex with the exclusion of transgender people". This led to a long conversation about how the term is transphobic and exclusionary. I had never even heard of this term before today.

Knowing CK is a diverse community, I am curious what y'all think of this. Is it harmful for someone to be "super straight"? Is it mainly offensive when you actively identify as "super straight" with an "in your face" attitude? Do you think it's the term itself that is offensive or is it the mindset of excluding transgender people from your sexual preference?

One argument I read was that being "super straight" just reduces the other person to what's in their pants. I have lesbian friends who tell me they are grossed out by the thought of sexually interacting with the male phallus... which to me sounds like "super lesbian"? Given the current cultural climate I would think that people could be accepting of someone's sexuality rather they include or exclude men/women/trans people.

Please understand I am genuinely asking in an attempt to better understand both sides of the coin. I hope my wording was not offensive. My PMs are open if you feel uncomfortable replying...


To my knowledge, the correct term is 'Cishet' or 'Cissex', people that identify as their biological sex that are sexually attracted to their cis opposite. Actually searched this a while ago when i tried to explain to my partner why i was demi, he is cishet to the point he find it ridiculous the term 'Super Straight'

As others have said, the expresion 'Super Straight' was intendent to hurt the trans comunity by implying they're not what they feel themselves to be, so it's better, imo, to avoid the term at all and prefer Cishet/Cissex that, on the contrary, can only be seem as "preference to born/cis opposite sex", and not "preference to opposite sex excluding trans". On the same hand we can use Cisgay/Cisles that may consider gay/lesbian for cis; i love 'GAY AF' tho ahahhah

[coolstory]

Yes, this 1000000%.



But clothing isn't people so that's not really a fair comparison..

It's fine to have preferences. I don't think anyone is negating that. It's when someone preference insists on telling another person they aren't worthy, like this one does, that it becomes yucky. That's not "excluding a group in peace." It's excluding a group and being proud and loud about it. Especially in this case, Super Straight it reminding trans men and women that society doesn't actually see them as men or women. It'd be like me saying "I love sleeping with men! Except you uglies with big noses, you all can fuck off!" A decent person would just keep it to themselves. This feels like a rambling train of thought, just had to get it out there.

I think to begin with it hasn't been represented the right way by some but most movements in the early phases are similar to begin with. Always extreme types sadly pushing it the wrong way. Same could be said for those crazy feminist types that absolutely hate men when the movement is really about empowering woman. It's really about empowerment that is why all these different sexual preferences exist to empower people for the people.

Gay people see themselves as gay not wanting to be with opposite sex. Super Straights don't want to be with trans. they are literally the same thing excluding a group of people. When it comes down to it people have always exclude groups of people across history so it's nothing new that something like this has popped up.

I myself have been with a trans person and it frankly wasn't for me so evidently I've excluded trans from my sexual preference since and don't plan to change that. I'd imagine you have your own preference and exclude a group of people or many groups.

[LibraryFaerie]

I’m by no means qualified to speak on these topics but I just had a thought. It’s on the difference between equality and equity. We can’t judge transexuality by the same standards as heterosexuality and now homosexuality, because those are already established in society (don’t get me wrong, homosexuality still has its struggles).

Transexuality is like the younger sibling trying to find their place in the world, so something that might not be harmful to the hetero/homo sexual community can still be harmful to the transexual community in light of this. People are in the thick of working to establish the trans community as valid, so let’s give them some room while they do that and kindly express our preferences rather than perpetuate terms created by these unsavoury groups.

(Edit to add, for context personally I would not exclude trans people from my dating pool)

The equity vs equality argument is good. I pulled a few quotes from an article that better articulate it from that viewpoint

“Straight Pride” movement trivializes the trials and tribulations that the LGBTQ community is up against. Straight people are quite literally never the target of violence for wanting to love who they love or for trying to live a truer version of their lives... Pride Month is more than just rainbow floats and Drag Queens lip-syncing for their lives. It’s an opportunity to do what those at Stonewall couldn’t do: be themselves without shame or fear of retaliation.

Straight Pride is an opportunity for what? Celebrate the fact that straight people never have to worry about prejudice being brought against them for being straight?

And Erik. to your point - I don't want to discredit your feelings, but I don't think it's necessarily forcing anyone on you? Even without trans men in the mix, I imagine you'd still be swiping no on people for reasons other than their body parts. I think if an app wants to open itself up to letting people choose "no brown eyes, no one under 5'8, no one over 130lbs, etc." and then they also threw in "no trans men" as an option, it'd be less yucky?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

At the end of the day I am a cis white woman speaking from a place of privilege, so don't take my word as gospel (i also have mega covid brain and have a hard time making complete thoughts). It's just things I've learned in conversation with people from marginalized communities.

[Erik.]

The equity vs equality argument is good. I pulled a few quotes from an article that better articulate it from that viewpoint

“Straight Pride” movement trivializes the trials and tribulations that the LGBTQ community is up against. Straight people are quite literally never the target of violence for wanting to love who they love or for trying to live a truer version of their lives... Pride Month is more than just rainbow floats and Drag Queens lip-syncing for their lives. It’s an opportunity to do what those at Stonewall couldn’t do: be themselves without shame or fear of retaliation.

Straight Pride is an opportunity for what? Celebrate the fact that straight people never have to worry about prejudice being brought against them for being straight?

And Erik. to your point - I don't want to discredit your feelings, but I don't think it's necessarily forcing anyone on you? Even without trans men in the mix, I imagine you'd still be swiping no on people for reasons other than their body parts. I think if an app wants to open itself up to letting people choose "no brown eyes, no one under 5'8, no one over 130lbs, etc." and then they also threw in "no trans men" as an option, it'd be less yucky?

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

At the end of the day I am a cis white woman speaking from a place of privilege, so don't take my word as gospel (i also have mega covid brain and have a hard time making complete thoughts). It's just things I've learned in conversation with people from marginalized communities.

I think I maybe worded that wrong. It's not that I feel forced to get trans matches, it's more like I mean why does the app work like that when trans people are just going to get rejected. Wouldn't they prefer that their profiles are only shown to people who are interested in them? Personally I wouldn't want my profile to be shown to women for example, or hetero men is a better example I suppose. They're not into me and I'm not into them, what's the point of them seeing my pics and personal info?

[motherfucker]

My personal physical attraction makes me "Super Gay" by definition, but I don't think that I would ever go announcing that as who I am.

I like to think that sexuality and preferences don't specifically define a person. There's a lot more to everyone than people really know. (Like what their favourite Neopet is...)

I have a strong physical attraction to masculinity, including the physical parts that come with it; I don't know where that comes from. I don't know if it's implicit bias. I don't know if it's science or chemicals. I have no idea if it's a result of my upbringing.

Defining something like "Super Straight" and choosing to identify as such seems super malicious in its intent.
It's a weird line because while trans people should have every right to identify and be who they want to be, straight people should also have the same right.

I've recently come to terms with the fact that human-kind in general constantly needs a definition for things. Our brains make it impossible for things to just exist.

In the end, it's sad people need to be outright assholes. There's no co-existing for some people
(I'm saying assholes in any sense. Malicious in any intent toward any sexuality or identity.)

Be who you are.
Live your life.
JUST ALWAYS REMEMBER:
Feed your Neopets.

[LibraryFaerie]

I think I maybe worded that wrong. It's not that I feel forced to get trans matches, it's more like I mean why does the app work like that when trans people are just going to get rejected. Wouldn't they prefer that their profiles are only shown to people who are interested in them? Personally I wouldn't want my profile to be shown to women for example, or hetero men is a better example I suppose. They're not into me and I'm not into them, what's the point of them seeing my pics and personal info?

Ok, that’s a fair point. I hadn’t thought about rejection and/or how that might affect their likelihood of successful matches..

[motherfucker]

Now that the conversation has steered this way, I have a genuine question with no malice intended.

Which comes off as more offensive, or transphobic? Is it really that way? Or is it just how non-trans people interpret it sometimes?
If I am a gay CIS male, looking for other CIS male companionship (hookup or relationship):

1. Putting "no-trans" in a dating profile. (Worded politely, or just so).

2. Responded after finding out someone is trans saying that I am not interested. (Worded politely, or just so).

Are both of these considered transphobic?

(For additional context, I'm super happy that Grindr and Tinder have become more inclusive of the trans community because at the end of the day, everyone deserves love.)

[Erik.]

Now that the conversation has steered this way, I have a genuine question with no malice intended.

Which comes off as more offensive, or transphobic? Is it really that way? Or is it just how non-trans people interpret it sometimes?
If I am a gay CIS male, looking for other CIS male companionship (hookup or relationship):

1. Putting "no-trans" in a dating profile. (Worded politely, or just so).

2. Responded after finding out someone is trans saying that I am not interested. (Worded politely, or just so).

Are both of these considered transphobic?

(For additional context, I'm super happy that Grindr and Tinder have become more inclusive of the trans community because at the end of the day, everyone deserves love.)

I feel like the first is already harsh-ish, but the second is so much more personal and confrontational... I've had it happen once when I was dating and I'm ashamed to admit I cut off contact with a nonsense reason, instead of telling the truth.

[motherfucker]

I feel like the first is already harsh-ish, but the second is so much more personal and confrontational... I've had it happen once when I was dating and I'm ashamed to admit I cut off contact with a nonsense reason, instead of telling the truth.

There's a third option then.
Is ignoring a better option, or worse?

[Erik.]

There's a third option then.
Is ignoring a better option, or worse?

I think that's worse. I imagine suspecting someone is ignoring you because you're trans is much shittier than a polite decline.

[twooldcat]

Now that the conversation has steered this way, I have a genuine question with no malice intended.

Which comes off as more offensive, or transphobic? Is it really that way? Or is it just how non-trans people interpret it sometimes?
If I am a gay CIS male, looking for other CIS male companionship (hookup or relationship):

1. Putting "no-trans" in a dating profile. (Worded politely, or just so).

2. Responded after finding out someone is trans saying that I am not interested. (Worded politely, or just so).

Are both of these considered transphobic?

(For additional context, I'm super happy that Grindr and Tinder have become more inclusive of the trans community because at the end of the day, everyone deserves love.)

It's super reasonable in my opinion to not provide a reason beyond "I'm not feeling it right now". People might call it a lie by omission but I think that is miles better than telling them you are not a fan of something they have no control over.

Ghosting is certainly not a nice thing to do though.

[Da Plushee Boree]

Now that the conversation has steered this way, I have a genuine question with no malice intended.

Which comes off as more offensive, or transphobic? Is it really that way? Or is it just how non-trans people interpret it sometimes?
If I am a gay CIS male, looking for other CIS male companionship (hookup or relationship):

1. Putting "no-trans" in a dating profile. (Worded politely, or just so).

2. Responded after finding out someone is trans saying that I am not interested. (Worded politely, or just so).

Are both of these considered transphobic?

(For additional context, I'm super happy that Grindr and Tinder have become more inclusive of the trans community because at the end of the day, everyone deserves love.)


Honestly i think none of them are phobic if there's not inted to hurt (imo).
I can make a profile and put "no women", that doesn't make me les-phobic; or can be as Summer and put "no love interest" and that doesn't make me love-phobic. It's a direct information that may be hurtful in a personal way if the trans looking at it somehow takes it personal (the only way i can think about it is beign overly dramatic or know that person from before/beign interested in said person).

I think it's more harmful after a couple dates, because 'everything is fine until i showed them my true colors' feeling. Wich some of us feel when sharing anime openings in a party.

I feel the difference resides in that, the first information matters and with someone with 'no-trans' on their profile prob trans people wouldn't be interested in friendship or even meeting them. The second one, is actually beign rejected by someone that gave you hopes just because of what you are, and that hurts, if you're strong enough you can be friends, but it does indeed hurt.

And even if i'm late-to-never reply, consciously ignoring someone is never right.....

Today i payed the Neolodge!

-----------------------------------------------
To add a little to twooldcat 's reply, i have rejected* with "I can't respond to your feelings the way you expect me to", and i have been able to keep lovely and long friendship with some people C:!

Obviously everyone reacts differently and have also lost precious friends this way... But i keep that dearly place for them. It's an honest-personal way to indicate you're not interested in romance.

[Stardew]

Now that the conversation has steered this way, I have a genuine question with no malice intended.

Which comes off as more offensive, or transphobic? Is it really that way? Or is it just how non-trans people interpret it sometimes?
If I am a gay CIS male, looking for other CIS male companionship (hookup or relationship):

1. Putting "no-trans" in a dating profile. (Worded politely, or just so).

2. Responded after finding out someone is trans saying that I am not interested. (Worded politely, or just so).

Are both of these considered transphobic?

(For additional context, I'm super happy that Grindr and Tinder have become more inclusive of the trans community because at the end of the day, everyone deserves love.)

Responding to this specifically, I would hope that dating apps start making this an option so people just get filtered out for you. Like "I am a cis male looking for cis males" when you create your account. Or "I am a cis man interested in trans and cis men." Does that make sense?

I would say that both of these feel personally iffy to me, and I would prefer you write "interested in cis men only" over "no trans men" on a profile. But that's just me. Essentially it's saying the same thing, but it feels less hurtful IMO.

Also I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having a preference. Some may be offended by it, but it's something you can't really explain, it just is. It's how you respond to others that makes the difference though!
Also ignoring after finding out someone is trans is definitely a nope. A polite rejection beats ignoring.

(I'm generally genderconfused & still questioning my identity by the way, if that helps give context to my reply :P)

[ribossoma]

From what I read, this was created mostly as a troll attempt by a dude that got bashed simply for stating he wasn't interested in transgender people. If (big if) that it is true and that he wasn't hateful towards anyone, he had an hint of a point (to be able to have his own preferences without being shamed for it) but, of course, the need for 15 minutes of fame made him do it the wrong way.

[Cutepup]

The term super straight, not too good. Being only into cis people is fine and I agree that saying �only into cis� is better than �no trans�. I will only date people who are open to accepting trans men and find it annoying some places won�t allow separation of this. I don�t want to see applications of people who are only into cis men but the app won�t let them not pick �only into cis men.� It�s annoying for me, a person who has been questioning my identity for far too long and wishes to only pick those who are open to the possibility of this.

There is nothing wrong with people who are not into certain physical traits they cannot change as long as it�s not done in hate. Some people aren�t into people of certain height, some people don�t like certain people of certain builds. There is nothing wrong with this as long as it�s not stated rudely.

[coolstory]

What it comes down too is the fact anyone can create a new preference and people just have to respect that within limitations obviously. Kinder reminds me of a person in Turkey from what I recall could be wrong about the place itself. Any how a man created a religion he got 1000 followers (requirement to be known as real religion) to where they have to wear spaghetti strainer on the head. License photo time he has a strainer on his head. Just to prove how dumb it could get. If anyone can create a new preference then people will have to respect that like they do the others that have already been created and accepted that also exclude other preference groups.

People accept what works for them all the time and complain about everything else. see it all the time on forum groups like reddit and Youtube it's a shit storm called freedom of speech and Freedom in general. If you don't like a certain group that really isn't hurting anyone maybe you have a issue. Obviously some people take it to the extreme but why take it out on the preference group as a whole when it's few bad eggs.

[empmirage]

I think we're seriously overthinking this. Is it really something that needs to be defined--or outspoken? Is it really the publics business your sexual orientation regardless if you're straight or gay? Seems like things would be a lot easier if people didn't need to brag about being super gay or super straight. Enjoy life with your partner and it's really nobody else's business. If how other people feel about your orientation or whatever impacts your happiness--you're pretty much setting yourself up for disappointment.

[Da Plushee Boree]

I think we're seriously overthinking this. (...)

I am 100% and 0% this. It all depends on the space you're comunicating. Feeling part of a socially accepted group is part of the human most basic needs, so making different preferences visible is needed most of times. I agree that it shouldn't be public, things prone to generate discrimination shouldn't necesarily be public, just like some japanese people don't put blood types on CVs by law.

Still, this convo was originated in a board about dating, so it's from-ok-to-needed to discuss it. It's kinda unfair to say "enjoy your life with your partner" when your partner get their teeth off with a kick after some intransigent rando saw you with them. (i'm not meant to sound harsh or rude, i'm sorry if it can be viewed and read like that, just explaining myself in a no-native language).

Now, and to keep on topic, i think coolstory has a point, whenever there's something that doesn't fit with popular opinion, it's easy to get backslashed nowadays. That doesn't exclude SS to be a shitty backup for trans/homo phobia; tho. I just think everyone should be attracted to whatever they're attracted without beign hurtful nor hurt about it.

[Harvest Goddess]

I'm spoilering because this may be ranty -

I think the term super straight is stupid. You're allowed to be straight, lesbian, gay and have a genital preference. To have a sexuality that excludes trans people and reduces them to what may or may not be in their pants is in it's own transphobic..

You as a person are allowed to say "Hey I think you're wonderful, but I'm not attracted to those genitals" when a partner discloses they are trans to you and has not had bottom surgery. There is nothing wrong with genital preference.

The problem I find that arises with Super Straight - is that you are assuming that trans people have a certain set of genitals, when in reality that may not be the case. You will not know what's in someones pants unless you are about to be intimate with them. Trans and nonbinary folks are not automatically clockable.

I have friends who have had bottom surgery - who you would have no indicator that they are trans. Their name / gender marker / birth certificate and genitals all align with their gender - at that point would they have to tell people they are trans? Would a cisgender person pursuing them know any different? (They do disclose that to partners because they are used to disclosing gender)

My opinion on this is skewed because I do not have a genital preference, I don't give 2 fucks what's in someones pants, and it doesn't effect my attraction to them in the slightest. But I feel like having a sexuality to exclude a group of people is phobic regardless.


I hope that makes sense?

[RealisticError]

From what I read, this was created mostly as a troll attempt by a dude that got bashed simply for stating he wasn't interested in transgender people. If (big if) that it is true and that he wasn't hateful towards anyone, he had an hint of a point (to be able to have his own preferences without being shamed for it) but, of course, the need for 15 minutes of fame made him do it the wrong way.

This is correct, a dude on Tiktok made it as a joke, although he had over 1million followers before making it so I think the idea of 15 minutes of fame is in bad faith.

reply to the whole thread, not just the quote:
as a bi person who would date a trans person no problems, I think it's unfair to say that not wanting to date trans people is inherently transphobic, it's not different from not wanting to date someone because they have brown hair, or freckles, those things are inherent parts of people that they can't change, but we're allowed to be more or less attracted to people because of them. attraction isn't skin deep either, the idea that you HAVE to be attracted to someone because they're feminine or masculine passing and you're attracted to traditional male or females is dangerous.

Basically, my thought on anything is: don't be an asshole to anyone for anything, if you don't want to date someone, don't make a big deal of it and if someone doesn't want to date you, move on, it's unhealthy to keep trying.

edit: all better :)

[Da Plushee Boree]

slur

thank you dear! edited, in case you want to too :) !
(in spanish it isn't a slur, just in case!)

[empmirage]

I am 100% and 0% this. It all depends on the space you're comunicating. Feeling part of a socially accepted group is part of the human most basic needs, so making different preferences visible is needed most of times. I agree that it shouldn't be public, things prone to generate discrimination shouldn't necesarily be public, just like some japanese people don't put blood types on CVs by law.

Still, this convo was originated in a board about dating, so it's from-ok-to-needed to discuss it. It's kinda unfair to say "enjoy your life with your partner" when your partner get their teeth off with a kick after some intransigent rando saw you with them. (i'm not meant to sound harsh or rude, i'm sorry if it can be viewed and read like that, just explaining myself in a no-native language).

Now, and to keep on topic, i think coolstory has a point, whenever there's something that doesn't fit with popular opinion, it's easy to get backslashed nowadays. That doesn't exclude SS to be a shitty backup for trans/homo phobia; tho. I just think everyone should be attracted to whatever they're attracted without beign hurtful nor hurt about it.

Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. Here's an example a lot of us can probably relate to--I'm a 33 year old male--I don't try to talk about Neopets in public because I have awareness that only .000001% of people would understand. I do however come specifically to this forum instead.

Yeah you're right--people shouldn't need to live in fear about their sexual orientation--but there's definitely those who don't make it easy on themselves(internally or externally).

[Hare]

speaking as a trans person (who vaguely skimmed most of this thread bc discourse honestly stresses me the fuck out but seeing this thread title on the boards every time i look is gonna keep bothering me until i say something)

i don't care if people have a genital preference, ultimately, though the way people express that tends to range from eyeroll-inducing to downright disgusting, in my experience...and super straight is very much the latter

fact of the matter is people have been and continue to be violent and putrid to trans folk, and this super straight thing reeks of exclusionist, bigoted bullshit to me

the fact that people like stonetoss and paintgrease and other weird literal nazis are obsessing about defending this term should rly be all anyone hopefully needs to recognize the intent behind it
it's a term created out of hatred, used primarily by bigots who want to pull the 'but muh identity! :3' card against trans people, knowing that arguing about it opens you to them arguing that you're the bigot, and it just. doesn't work. doesn't sit right with me.

intent matters and the intent behind this term is rooted in hatred and disingenuity.

sorry if i covered points already addressed, this is just my take on the matter to get it off my chest, mostly.


eta: ok i mostly read the thread and i'm so very relieved most people here are trans friendly, bless u
i always expect the worst from gender/sexuality threads, but that's changing, lately? phew!

[typhil01]

It seems to me that society is already confused about what is offensive. If a person is proud of the fact that he accepts a relationship exclusively with the opposite sex and considers it the only right decision, he is entitled to it. Others should not perceive his position as offensive.

[Numbkins]

Wikipedia's article on Intersex states The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 0.02% to 0.05%. I don't think the super straight definition really considered this rare medical condition. My interpretation is super straight excludes people who made a cognizant decision to undergo hormone therapy and/or sex reassignment surgery. Personally I am fine with someone identifying however they want, and I expect to have the same graces afforded to myself, be it straight, gay, super straight, super gay, non-smokers-only, doesn't-already-have-kids, etc. However when dating or searching for your potential life partner I think it's fair for someone to include/exclude people who have made decisions you agree/disagree with, beliefs contrary to yours (religion), mentalities that do not align with your own.

For debate purposes I don't have much interest in the term's origins. I think now that it's out there we should discuss it's definition at face value. It is not fair to assume someone using the term today is aware of its origins (i.e. myself)

Replying because about 2% of the world population are red heads so when you think of it like that, intersex isn’t really as rare as you’d think.

As far as “super straight” I think of it as “monosexual”. I can’t get my head around being attracted to only one sex so I don’t know how natural it is or how much of it is a choice, but with those thoughts I wonder if I’m discounting gay people who truly are monosexual and it’s not really a choice.

I imagine most people who flaunt a super straight label do it to stir the pot, I don’t have much respect for it but at the same time I do have friends that cannot deal with certain genitals for whatever reason, but they don’t announce it because of how hurtful it could be.

Edit: I also just remembered when it comes to genitals I don’t think you can really tell if somebody has transitioned or not, so when it comes to preferences you’re just discounting trans people because you want to or making decisions based off misinformation like somebody said before. Anyway the term super straight definitely irks me.

[Druid]

I’m extremely suspicious of “super straight” as just like, a presentation of transphobia that’s trying to sneak away from how bigoted it is by tying it to an identity. I’m not straight but I am monosexual - I am fully, 100% gay, only ever attracted to women, and preference-wise generally femme for femme. Regardless, idc what genitals a potential partner has. There’s fun stuff to do with whatever might be going on down there.

It could be argued that I prefer the AFAB situation, but the same way someone might prefer brunettes - it’s a light preference that maybe is tied to a pattern in people I’m into but is nowhere near make or break level. My attraction to someone is pretty tied to femininity, so I do imagine that if I met a trans woman with no intention of ever doing hormone therapy it’s pretty unlikely I’d be attracted to her, but this is more tied to secondary sex characteristics like stubble. And that isn’t necessarily true even - Gia Gunn pre-transition is still feminine AF, and if she weren’t such a fucking idiot lmao is someone I could find attractive.

That to say, I feel like the concept of “only being into cis people” in most cases is probably born of latent transphobia, whether that’s conscious or not. Also unsure what the line is in “super straight/gay” - if a trans person gets bottom surgery do they magically switch from “def not attracted to” to “could potentially be attracted to”? I’m not saying that absolutely no one is repulsed by certain types of genitals, but if stigma around transness in general were removed I think it’s probably a much smaller minority than current polling would indicate.

Also, “which individuals am I actively attracted to” is a very different question than “what is my orientation”. If we’re talking like, to the point of being open to dating/intimacy with someone, I’m attracted to a very small fraction of the women I know. If we’re more talking like, finding someone hot, that percentage is much larger but still nowhere near 100. If I were to do the math on what characteristics these people have in common it would be like,
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
..and it strikes me as really bizarre to come in preemptively like “but I know for sure this whole demographic is out”. Kind of find it the same kind of gross as saying “I’d NEVER date X race”

[Sanctus]

I agree with coolstory ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) in that it isn't inherently transphobic; people are allowed to have genital preferences just like they have racial or size preferences. I do think it is quite immature and reflects on the insecurity of that person moreso than anything else, however. It is also silly to assume that they will somehow be able to 'spot' a trans person on sight...
Right now discourse about transgender people seems to be at a peak; eventually this will die down and people will stop trying to compensate about their views as much.

[Druid]

I agree with coolstory ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) in that it isn't inherently transphobic; people are allowed to have genital preferences just like they have racial or size preferences. I do think it is quite immature and reflects on the insecurity of that person moreso than anything else, however. It is also silly to assume that they will somehow be able to 'spot' a trans person on sight...
Right now discourse about transgender people seems to be at a peak; eventually this will die down and people will stop trying to compensate about their views as much.
Having things like race and size as recurring patterns in the people you’re attracted to is one thing, but if you were to tack those onto the label for your orientation and say it was a hard and fast rule instead that’d be uhhhhhh dicey. Most of my partners have been thin white women - I am not ‘thinwhitewomansexual’ and the idea of trying to claim that in any way would make me such an asshole? Attraction is innate, no one is obligated to be into any given individual of course, and the stuff your attraction hormones or whatever respond to doesn’t necessarily have to be inclusive or PC. BUT making up labels to specify that exclusion doesn’t do anything but alienate people.

[funnybell]

my only experience of "super straight" people are their tiktoks.... more like super cringe.

"super straight" only exists because their are people who are "super gay" and the straights feel left out. (see white pride) but the only reason people are super gay is because the LGBTQ community has been ostracized from society for the majority of time and space, and openly declaring how gay you are (gay pride) is a coping mechanism/sign of defiance towards oppression. what with the gays being more openly accepted and praised for their pride these days, being super straight is a reaction, at best ignorant and at worst bigoted

[TimeLord]

i think i am super straight as i am only interested in opposite sex. but heard this term first time. and maybe its not a good idea to write it on your profiles and post every where that you are super straight and stuff. and i dont mind if someone is gay or super gay. their choice.

[fengeance]

The term never offended me. I do think people get overly sensitive from both sides in regards to this. But then maybe it's me trying too hard to avoid letting things bother me.