Wednesday, August 08, 2018

How to not get a date.

First seen at Small Dead Animals (as usual because I'm lazy and Kate has all the thingz first anyway) an amazing scientific discovery.

New Research Shows a Vast Majority of Cis People Won't Date Trans People: A recent study attempts to quantify the extent of trans discrimination when it comes to romantic and sexual relationships.

Wow. What a discovery.

To be clear, for the army of outrage seeking dickheads out there, this is not posted for the purpose of mocking Trans people. Those people have enough trouble in their lives without me making fun of them. Leave the Trans people alone, ladies and gentlemen, it is the proper Christian thing to do. Being merciful is never wasted, as somebody besides me should have said a long time ago.

But I am most certainly mocking someone:

 Dr. Zhana Vrangalova is an NYC-based sex researcher, writer, and educator. She received her PhD in Developmental Psychology from Cornell University.

Yes, I am mocking Dr. Zhana Vrangalova for being a fraud, and I am mocking Cornell University for giving this moron a PhD. Why? Behold:

Two Canadian researchers recently asked almost 1000 cisgender folks if they would date a trans person in a new study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. This is the first study to ever attempt to quantify the extent of trans discrimination when it comes to romantic and sexual relationships.
958 participants (all but seven cisgender, ranging in age from 18 to 81, with an average age of 26) were asked to indicate which genders they would consider dating. The options included cisgender man, cisgender woman, trans man, trans woman, or genderqueer, and participants could select as many genders as they wanted.

Only 12% of all participants selected "trans woman" and/or "trans man."
Shock and surprise, most people be they gay or straight won't date the Trans person. Here's what Dr. Zhana Vrangalova makes of that:

The high rates of trans exclusion from potential dating pools are undoubtedly due in part to cisnormativity, cissexism, and transphobia — all of which lead to lack of knowledge about transgender people and their bodies, discomfort with these unknowns, and fear of being discriminated against by proxy of one's romantic partner. It is also possible that at least some of the trans exclusion is due to the fact that for some people, sexual orientation might be not (just) about a partner's gender identity, but attraction to specific body types and/or judgment of reproductive capabilities.

Now, I've not bothered to look up the research. But, sight unseen, I would wager that the majority of people if given the choice of dating a person with one leg or two will pick the person with two legs. I do have some prior experience here, -very- attractive young women in wheelchairs have less luck with getting dates than they do without the wheelchair. Same girl, two different responses. That state of affairs remains constant across race, religion, ideology and gender. Nobody picks the wheelchair.

People like what they like. Generally they like whole, healthy, attractive members of the opposite sex. If you ask them what they want, most will choose that. Some will lie about their choice of course, and claim the virtue signal of Openness, which is probably why they got 12% open to dating a trans. The actual number is probably a lot less. A double-blind test would sort that out.

Why? Because that's how Humans are, not because of "lack of knowledge about transgender people." Knowledge of gay people hasn't changed the percentage of gays in the population in the last 30 years, and it hasn't made straights any more likely to date them. More "education", by which I actually mean browbeating and propaganda, will do nothing positive and will probably make things worse.

People like what they like. Fashions change, but the ground state of dating choices does not. Anybody tells you different, put a hand on your wallet and #walkaway.

The Phantom

Update: Welcome, tsunami of Instapundit readers! Sarah Hoyt linked me again! Woo hoo!


Zsuzsa said...

My guess is that the divorce between the "L" and the "T" is going to be the first big crack in the LGBTWTFBBQ. The lesbians explain that they're interested in women, not men in dresses, and the trans-activists come down on them as transphobic bigots. When that conflict blows up, I'd be willing to bet that the lesbians get dumped in favor of the trans, but I doubt I could find anyone to take the other side of that.

(Incidentally, remember when "I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body" was a joke?)

The Phantom said...

Yeah, this is the "punch a TERF" thing that's blowing up at "Pride" parades all over the place. Actual lesbians are NOT HAPPY about sharing bathrooms, change rooms and etc. with "Trans women", to use the popular euphemism. When asked about dating a trans woman, they're usually pretty raucous and profane about the whole thing.

Over the years I've had quite a few openly lesbian acquaintances (a lot of them like me for some reason) and I do not see any of those women holding still for this business. They like -girls-, they're not the least bit interested in men, and none of the ones I knew would have been shy of saying so.

"I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body" is literally one of the characters on Sense8. Make of that what you will, I took it as a propaganda platform.

Lord Funnybone said...

"The high rates of trans exclusion from potential dating pools are undoubtedly due..."

So, they didn't ask why? Way to spend that research money!

Anonymous said...

I think Zsuzsa is right until the end. I think when push comes to shove the trans might be the ones on the outs. The number of trans people is really, really, small and no non-trans people gay or straight really understand them, and what they are going through, and the high suicide rates, and the hundreds of pronouns. I think trans support is very thin and based primarily on sympathy over how difficult it must be, but that is being ground away daily by the very militant trans activists and the old identify politics claim of hate being turned against otherwise staunch liberals.

William said...

Not difficult to understand. Despite the furious attempts to brainwash us into believing men can turn into women with a few hormones and a bit of self-mutilation, the vast majority of normal people understand that this is hogwash. Within that large group of people who understand this, straight men will not be attracted to other men who think they have somehow changed their sex. The same goes for women and, I would guess, for gays as well. People generally know who they are attracted to sexually and are not easily "spoofed" by an ersatz product.

This is not to attack "trans" (i.e., gender dysphoric) people. They are dealing with a serious situation for which there are no easy answers. But I am pretty sure that encouraging them in their delusion is not a good thing in the long run.

GWB said...

You know, it *could* be that tautologies are bad science. Since "cis-" is defined as what we used to call "normal" - that is, genes and gender match. And the vast majority of those are also heterosexual......

Because, aside from the "looking for best" you identify, hetero guys generally don't want either a woman trying to be a man or a man (at all). I doubt hetero girls want a guy trying to be a woman or a woman (at all). Because none of those arrangements make sense - either in *appearing* to be a homosexual relationship or *actually* being one.

As many are identifying, however, the activists don't just want acceptance, they want affirmative validation. You ~must~ date them or you're evil. (If only I had had *that* in my back pocket when asking girls out in high school! "If you don't go out with me, you're a hateful bigot and I'll get you kicked off the cheerleader squad!" Except I went to a normal high school........)

GWB said...

As to the "lesbian trapped in a man's body", I loved Terry Gilliam's response to a BBC kerfuffle about Monty Python not being able to be produced today:
"I now identify as a BLT - a black lesbian in transition."

Viking Engineer said...

I don't even know what all that gender shit means. I thought they were just gay

Foxfier said...

If I were still single, and ignoring the whole morality and mental illness angles, of course I wouldn't be interested in a relationship where there is no way to know what their freaking PLUMBING looks like from the silly labels! I'd have to be rather enthusiastically bi for that to work out.

That's not ignorance, that's paying enough attention to notice twits like that sexual harasser guy up in Canada, who got his jollies off of attempting to force a lady with a moral objection to touching some dude's junk to give him a bikini wax. ("women have dicks", they don't, you predatory idiot, at least not attached to themselves)

The Phantom said...

"...that sexual harasser guy up in Canada, who got his jollies off of attempting to force a lady with a moral objection to touching some dude's junk to give him a bikini wax."

Oh yeah, I remember that guy. The lady esthetician was Mooselimb too, adding lots of extra spice to the "controversy."

Funny how it just fell off the radar, eh? Just like our Younge St. Ram-A-Van guy and the Danforth Shooter guy. Almost like it never even happened...

Foxfier said...

The lady esthetician was Mooselimb too, adding lots of extra spice to the "controversy."

Eh, I know enough Islamic folks who are... gads, not sure how to put it... if Islam is Catholic, they're C&E protestants, or maybe Mormons who you need to invite the head priest along to make sure they don't drink all your beer...

Mohammad Ali Muslims, basically.

Honestly, the bastard picking someone who was visibly going to object but was also a protected target was probably the only thing that screwed him up.

It's like when a predator down here picks an "easy target" that turns out to exercise their second amendment rights.