>>5804147
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/10/02/trans_chasers_exploitive_admirers_who_harass_trans_people.html

Here's the gist.

>>5804178
cheers duderino

>>5804178

>Even if he doesn't secretly consider you a boy exactly, you'll never truly be a woman in his mind, either, because you've been exoticized as "the woman with something extra." Something else. Something other.

Because you ARE different: you were assigned male at birth. That doesn't mean you're not a woman, but it doesn't mean you're cis... Why do people like this author focus so much on propagating the cis meme? You can have a loving boyfriend who knows you're trans and [gasp!] might even like you for it. That doesn't mean he's chaser scum. Obviously the guy in this story who called his girlfriend a "cute boy" is a complete idiot, but blindly refuting any attempts of discussion regarding the womanhood of transgirls is only going to cause problems.

>>5804265
>Why do people like this author focus so much on propagating the cis meme?
Cis is the opposite of trans. It's a Latin prefix that has been in use for things that are on the same side of other things for a very long time, same with trans. It's less a meme and more basic modern vernacular nowadays. Your rejection of it doesn't make it disappear and it won't make people stop using it. If you honestly expect people to refer to themselves in a "normal" and "trans" paradigm... just no. It's too easy to conflate the meaning of "normal" as an indicator of frequency with the meaning that indicates what is socially acceptable, which happens all the time. It's a similar case with "natural" as a synonym for "right" when "unnatural" is a synonym for "wrong." It's why gay people began using "straight" instead of "normal" to describe hetero people.

>Because you ARE different: you were assigned male at birth.
You missed the point entirely though. Trans women understand full well that they're physically different from most other women. It causes distress to think about, so many avoid the topic entirely if they can to begin with. But if all you're gonna focus on is that physical difference, and how much it turns you on, it's objectification. Objectification typically makes women uncomfortable, especially on a first date or when being approached for the first time by someone they don't know. Imagine you're on a date with a girl and she has massive boobs she's uncomfortable with and wants to get a reduction for. Are you gonna keep driving the conversation towards her boobs, how she moisturizes them after a shower, when they started growing, when she realised she was different from all of the smaller-breasted women, if she will rub them on your dick later, etc.? Hopefully not.

Note how the author talks about how personality is important, how trans women are women, people with lives and histories and hobbies and interests, and not a walking dick with tits.

>>5804384
I'm aware of the Latin meanings of cis and trans.

We've had a miscommunication here: I'm not rejecting "cis" as a categorical term and I by no means want anyone to call themselves "normal". I'm rejecting the tendency for transwomen to put themselves on par with ciswomen because it doesn't do either group any good. Neither group is "better", they're just not the same and shouldn't be lumped together.

Also, I'm talking about the partner who is not entirely concerned with his partner's genitals at all times, i.e. not objectifying them. Obviously, no matter what your gender or orientation, if you're obsessing about someone's looks or singular facets of them as human beings, you're not capable of participating in a healthy relationship. I'm not excusing the behaviour of certain people who do treat transwomen as fetishist objects. My point was that you can have a loving partner who likes you for who you are. That doesn't mean they're obsessed with your body.

The reasonable human is well aware that the person with whom they are in a relationship is much more than just a sex partner and therefore deserves to be loved in all emotional ways. If you're not interested in your partner as a person, you're not worthy of their time.

>>5804448
>I'm rejecting the tendency for transwomen to put themselves on par with ciswomen because it doesn't do either group any good. Neither group is "better", they're just not the same and shouldn't be lumped together.
This is just a roundabout way of saying "there's normal and then there's you." They're going to put themselves on par with cis women because they're both women. They should be treated as such and addressed as such instead of having their womanhood constantly questioned and othered and segregated off into their own special group by others against their will. It's rude and demeaning.

>if you're obsessing about someone's looks or singular facets of them as human beings, you're not capable of participating in a healthy relationship
That's what a chaser is. If you're not this, or the person you're describing isn't this, then you (or they) are not a chaser.

>>5804147
A demented faggot that tries to get HIV

>>5804487
>This is just a roundabout way of saying "there's normal and then there's you."
It is only if you actually believe that cis = normal and trans = abnormal... It's just an acknowledgement of difference, free from connotation and subjectivity. They're both women and should be treated as such, I agree, but you can't pretend the minute differences don't exist. It's just a fact. Neither are "more normal" than the other. Again there is nothing wrong with these differences.

I suppose "chaser" will never supplant "trans-attracted" then and will remain as a pejorative term describing someone transgender people should avoid. I was speaking more or less in a way that would suggest "chaser" as a term encompassing all trans-attracted people, regardless of their levels of scumbaggery. But I see now that it will remain a negative term.

>>5804495

That's a bug chaser. We're talking about tranny chasers.

>>5804487
they're both women, but they're not the same kind of women, which is all the other anon is saying. as much as we might wish we were strictly women in the traditional sense, we're not. and that's okay. it's okay to be trans, it's okay to not be "normal". and imo it's okay for someone to be attracted to you for who you are and everything that comes along with that, which includes growing up as a boy, having a uniquely androgynous body, and probably still having a penis. it's not wrong to love those things, and if it was then personally i would feel like important parts of who i am were being deemed unlovable or impossible for me to accept.

a guy being a tranny chaser does not make him bad, just like a guy being a woman chaser doesn't make him bad either, as long as he's respectful

>>5804521
>It is only if you actually believe that cis = normal and trans = abnormal... It's just an acknowledgement of difference, free from connotation and subjectivity.
No I believe cis = cis and trans = trans. You're the one making a big to do about there being some massive difference between the two. The last thing trans women want to hear from a guy is "wow ur 'different' from all the other gurls lol." That is eye-roll-inducing shit right there. Imagine if some guy used that line on the only Asian girl in a school full of white girls. Same amount of awkwardness.

> I was speaking more or less in a way that would suggest "chaser" as a term encompassing all trans-attracted people, regardless of their levels of scumbaggery.
The term "chaser" is a perjorative for any person who sexually or romantically objectifies someone. It doesn't make sense to only be different with trans people. This is another part of the "ur not like other girls" bullshit, where what's unacceptable for cis women is somehow tolerable for trans women.

>>5804521
>But I see now that it will remain a negative term.

i don't think i hear the term trans-attracted very often. chaser is a lot more common to refer to guys who like mtf's, and even though it's mostly used in a negative sense it's also used positively or neutrally sometimes.

i can't speak for all mtf's, but when i saw chasers as inherently bad it had nothing to do with their behavior and everything to do with the fact that i was insecure about not being a cisgender woman. guys who thought it was okay to treat trans girls like garbage just reinforced something that was coming from a place of insecurity

>>5804571
>they're both women, but they're not the same kind of women
You could say the same thing for women with any type of personality or trait.

>as much as we might wish we were strictly women in the traditional sense, we're not. and that's okay.
>it's okay to be trans, it's okay to not be "normal".
>a guy being a tranny chaser does not make him bad
Speak for yourself. Weak bitch.

>it's okay for someone to be attracted to you for who you are and everything that comes along with that
Yeah, you don't need to automatically conflate this line with the acceptance of dudes who don't respect the fact that you're a woman and not a woman*.

>>5804586
>The last thing trans women want to hear from a guy is "wow ur 'different' from all the other gurls lol"

well not when he says it that way.... lol

>>5804620
Yeah I like being told I'm different because the person thinks I'm cool, or they like me more than other girls, or they enjoy the way I think more, not because I'm some manic pixie trans girl.

>>5804586
>cis = cis and trans = trans
Agree. That's all I've been trying to say. This is precisely why I find it disappointing when transwomen such as the author of that article get unreasonably defensive when they're reminded of this fact. It's by no means an affront to your womanhood and if you're confident in who you are, this should not bother you.

>"chaser" is also used positively or neutrally sometimes.
This explains my prior confusion. I didn't understand why someone would want to claim themselves a chaser considering all the stigma it carries.

>>5804571
>as long as he's respectful and genuine
This is all that really matters in the end.

>>5804147
You will never be cis and with today's medical technology even the most expensive transition surgery+hormones will pale in comparison:why turn away a person who finds your teams status sexually attractive?
>b-but muh gender identity
Unless you're incredibly beautiful and pay out of your arse for surgery on your genitals it's not happening.

Just make sure they see that there's a person beyond that like any woman.

>>5804448
/thread

>>5804738
Logic: 1
Fee-fees: 0

>>5804704
>Agree. That's all I've been trying to say. This is precisely why I find it disappointing when transwomen such as the author of that article get unreasonably defensive when they're reminded of this fact.
>It's by no means an affront to your womanhood and if you're confident in who you are, this should not bother you.
Because it's pointless to bring up in conversation unless you're gonna be an awkward asshole about it and make them feel uncomfortable. It's like stomping up to an Asian girl and demanding that she admit her ethnicity makes her different from the other girls around her that aren't Asian. It's jarring, embarassing, gauche and altogether unpleasant.

It's not a conversation to be had with random people for no reason, especially not those who get off on the fact that people treat you differently than other women against your will based purely on something they readily can't see. If you're talking about sex with a partner, that's an intimate conversation with two people who are comfortable enough to share that intimate information with one another. It's not a conversation to be had with some drunken douche stumbling up to you at a bar demanding that you justify your existence/value to them as a woman, or some rando on tinder, or some guy on social media who treats you more like a novel curiosity than a person and prods at you as if you're from another planet.

>>5804738
>You will never be cis
No one's saying they're cis. Not being uncomfortably othered to justify someone's fetish or curiosity and being cis are not the same thing.

>>5804756
Typical. Fuck off.

>>5804815
>an intimate conversation with two people who are comfortable enough to share that intimate information with one another
But this is exactly what I've been referring to the whole time: talking with your significant other. I would of course expect a transgirl to react negatively to some obnoxious stranger battering her with inappropriate questions.

sexy chaser man da bes

everyone rooting for sexy chaser man to win thread

i hope he can melt the heart of angry trans lady

>>5804844
>I would of course expect a transgirl to react negatively to some obnoxious stranger battering her with inappropriate questions.
Then you understand why trans girls and trans women react negatively to chasers.

>>5804857
Indeed. It's the negative reaction to the caring boyfriend who mentions anything trans-related about the girlfriend (assuming he does so in a non-creepy and non-chaseresque manner) that I do not understand.

>>5804880
you don't need to justify yourself to her

you seem like a good guy

>>5804891
Thanks anon, I'm just curious to hear the different perspectives.

>>5804880
Trans women typically don't like talking about the social or physical aspects of being trans for multiple reasons, mainly dysphoria. Dysphoria sucks really, really badly. It's like a deep, twisted depression that's glued to your body as if you were dipped in burning tar and survived. Most trans people navigate a lot of their lives around specifically avoiding things that make them feel dysphoria. Unless the conversation is absolutely, positively necessary to have, most trans women are not going to want to be constantly reminded of their trans status with their partner if they don't have to be. The last thing they typically want their boyfriend thinking about or talking about is the part of themselves they eschewed when they transitioned, and probably hate. It brings back the trauma.

>>5804891
Conversely, trans women don't need to justify themselves to him. This explanation is purely me doing him a favor so he doesn't make some random trans girl he likes uncomfortable and dysphoric some day.

>>5804945
>brings back the trauma
Makes sense pretty well actually. I've never felt that intense dysphoria so I can't grasp how bad it would feel to have to have it come up again, and am therefore more likely to underestimate it's emotional weight. I imagine that no one would want to be reminded all the time of something that has caused them immense pain for the majority of their lifetime.

>favour
It's true. I don't see our back-and-forth as a series of justifications, but rather a means of gaining a better understanding of the two points of view in this type of a relationship. Cheers.

>>5804945
i don't think most trans women have an issue with being reminded that they're trans. they know they're trans anyway.

i understand being made uncomfortable by people asking you about living as a guy before transition, but i'm having trouble understanding why you would be upset for them being attracted to you for who you are today

>>5804999
>Makes sense pretty well actually. I've never felt that intense dysphoria so I can't grasp how bad it would feel to have to have it come up again, and am therefore more likely to underestimate it's emotional weight. I imagine that no one would want to be reminded all the time of something that has caused them immense pain for the majority of their lifetime.
Pretty much yes.

>It's true. I don't see our back-and-forth as a series of justifications, but rather a means of gaining a better understanding of the two points of view in this type of a relationship. Cheers.
You're asking trans women to not only justify why you shouldn't bring up something about their bodies and their pasts that makes them uncomfortable and causes an extremely negative emotional reaction, but why they're not attracted to people who do that, why they don't treat people who disrespect them with respect in return, and why they don't see themselves as how you want them to see themselves to suit your preconceptions about them.

Cheers.

>>5805087
>i don't think most trans women have an issue with being reminded that they're trans.
You can think what you want to think they think, but that doesn't make it a reality. Trans women will typically not enjoy being reminded that they're trans because they spend a lot of their time trying to erase that fact from their psyche. It's like getting rid of a massive burn scar on your face and then someone who heard about you walks up and demands to know what it's like to be a burn victim... then tells you that they find the allure of burn victims positively intoxicating.

>i understand being made uncomfortable by people asking you about living as a guy before transition, but i'm having trouble understanding why you would be upset for them being attracted to you for who you are today
>they know they're trans anyway.
Which makes it even more redundant, annoying, pointless and uncomfortable to actively remind them that they're trans all the time.

>>5805358
>You're asking trans women to not only justify why you shouldn't bring up something about their bodies and their pasts that makes them uncomfortable and causes an extremely negative emotional reaction, but why they're not attracted to people who do that, why they don't treat people who disrespect them with respect in return, and why they don't see themselves as how you want them to see themselves to suit your preconceptions about them.
I wasn't being sarcastic nor facetious. I genuinely enjoyed our exchanges. Have you confused me with other anons in this thread?

>>5804178
> dated "Chad," a chaser.
>Chad
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE