Paul Bois wrote an interesting article for Psychology Today titled, People Refusing To Date Transgenders Is ‘Dehumanizing’ which very candidly comments on Karen L. Blair and Rhea Ashley Hoskins’ the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships paper Transgender exclusion from the world of dating: Patterns of acceptance and rejection of hypothetical trans dating partners as a function of sexual and gender identity.”
These lend even more support to that which I claimed, and evidenced, in my book “Karen L. Blair and Rhea Ashley Hoskins in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships” regarding why I subtitled it, “And a History of Changes to Psychiatry and Psychology” and that is that psychiatry and psychology are changing (being changed) in their diagnosis and treatment (or, lack thereof) of LGBTQIAP+ related issues and that is not due to science but due to socio-political activism.
The journal paper’s abstract notes, “The options provided included cisgender men, cisgender women, trans men, trans women, and genderqueer individuals” with cisgender being newspeak for heterosexual.
This was “Across a sample of heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and trans individuals, 87.5% indicated that they would not consider dating a trans person…Individuals identifying as bisexual, queer, trans, or non-binary were most likely to indicate a willingness to date a trans person. However, even among those willing to date trans persons, a pattern of masculine privileging and transfeminine exclusion appeared, such that participants were disproportionately willing to date trans men, but not trans women, even if doing so was counter to their self-identified sexual and gender identity (e.g., a lesbian dating a trans man but not a trans woman).”
The keywords used for the paper are very telling in and of themselves, “Keywords Femmephobia, masculine privileging, trans dating, transgender exclusion, transgender relationships, transmisogyny, transprejudice.”
Blair and Hoskins are clearly socio-political activists who hide (openly) their activism behind science as they were somehow allowed to do as follows within a peer reviewed journal article (which means that their peers as well as the journal are also socio-political activists) as pointed that their message is “shame on you for dehumanizing transgenders and the non-binary” that their paper “chastises people as bigots for the sin of being attracted to a man who is an actual man or a woman who is an actual woman — while also arguing that the prevailing attitude contributes to the psychological harm of transgenderism…The authors find this deeply problematic and believe that attitudes need to change…The authors scold participants for saying transgenders have ‘make believe’ identities or for wanting to date people with whom they could have actual biological children, characterizing their language as ‘dehumanizing.’”
To quote the duo, they claim that participants employed, “dehumanizing language, such as saying that a trans man ‘was not a natural man’ or a ‘real man.’”
As Bois reviews it, “87.5%” of circa 1,000 participants “polled said they prefer the first two options” hetero natural born men and women, “Non-binary and transgender people were at the bottom and typically were only chosen by people who identified as bi-sexual, gay, or some other type of sexuality.”
The activist duo wrote, “If trans and non-binary people lack access to one of the most stable sources of social support, this could explain some of the existing health disparities within trans communities.”
Well, when it comes down to it, there is a difference between an impulse/feeling and an action. Thus, trans and non-binary people have chosen to carry out their respective lifestyles and thus, have, as a byproduct, chosen “lack access to one of the most stable sources of social support” by choosing how they live, how they look, how they behave, how they identify, etc.
The duo also wrote that participants were, “least likely,” “nearly 20% fewer,” “to express an interest in dating trans women, even if their sexual identity would otherwise indicate an interest in women (i.e., straight men, lesbian women, or queer/bisexual individuals).”
They also reviewed, “a similar study by the Canadian Psychological Association’s annual convention, which yielded similar results” which they view as being due to “Dehumanization/prejudice, uncertainty or lack of knowledge, and issues related to bodies and reproduction.”
But, by golly, what if it is not the result of such things but due to affirming the humanity of such personage, not being prejudice, being quite certainty, being well informed and thus, making well informed decisions?
Recall the reference to “existing health disparities within trans communities” which is a quaint manner in which to refer to what extremely dangerous lifestyles they are as they carry with them terrible byproduct side effects such as sky high suicide rates, to mention merely one issue.
Part of the problem is that psychiatrist and psychologists are coming to the same conclusions as trans personages which is that “existing health disparities” means to change society to suit them rather then getting real treatments. For example, I quoted the statement about “wanting to date people with whom they could have actual biological children” and how is that prejudice? In other words, perhaps people have well informed reservations, to say the least, about getting involved (emotionally, sexually, in a familial manner, etc.), with people who are or could be mentally unstable as evidenced by their lack of acceptance of verifiable 3-D physical reality, people who do or might view the solution to mental and emotional problems including self-identify as being radical reconstruction (or, deconstruction) surgery, who may (by pure choice) take hardcore pharmaceuticals for a lifetime, etc., etc., etc.?
The activist duo also wrote that “future fluctuations in the extent to which trans and non-binary individuals are included within the intimate world of dating may help to illuminate progress (or lack thereof) with respect to fully including trans and non-binary individuals within our society.”
In other words, the final solution to the problem is to get traditional society to change to the mindset and actions of people who, by all indications (both commonsensical and as per every research study ever conducted) suffer from terribly debilitating emotional, mental, psychological, problems.
These are the sort of activists who will be taken as doing science and will spread their infectious views from obscure journals to politics to schools until well, as they have already done: if you self-identify as a natural heterosexual (because that is what you are) who was born being naturally attracted to self-identifying a natural heterosexual then you are prejudice and dehumanizing—go figure!
For some related info, see my books (on which I am offering a money saving deal):
The Occult Roots of Postgenderism: And a History of Changes to Psychiatry and Psychology
In Consideration of Rev. Dr. Mel White on Christian Homosexuality
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.