You know this was coming. According to this LGBTQ website, “New Research Shows a Vast Majority of Cis People Won’t Date Trans People.”
Virtually all heterosexuals excluded trans folks from their dating pool: only 1.8% of straight women and 3.3% of straight men chose a trans person of either binary gender. But most non-heterosexuals weren’t down for dating a trans person either, with only 11.5% of gay men and 29% of lesbians being trans-inclusive in their dating preferences.
Of course, this a huge problem from a social justice viewpoint, as all this trans exclusion is harmful:
Romantic relationships are one of the most important sources of social support for adults. The fact that most cis people would not consider trans people as potential dating partners is yet another serious risk factor for increased psychological and physical health problems among the trans population.
and
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.
So all you heterosexual men and lesbian women who won’t date a trans women are transphobic and partially responsible for “increased psychological and physical health problems among the trans population.”
If you encounter a self-righteous social justice activist who is shaking their finger at you, don’t forget to ask how many trans people they have dated. If social justice activists are serious about social justice, isn’t it time for them to start dating trans people?
Shadow To Light 
Just to elaborate on the strength of the authors’ ideological blindness, they express “surprise” that straight women and gay men might date a “trans woman” (because they are women, after all). Do they completely miss the fact that people recognize a “trans woman” as being a male?
Turns out the question is irrelevant. Because they also include this gem:
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.
For SOME people, sexual orientation MIGHT – just might, maybe – be about physical attraction to a body “type”.
They seem to be genuinely baffled that a straight man would not be attracted to another guy if that guy identifies as a woman. That is delusion beyond description.
Just read the abstract of the actual study. They don’t seem to be any more in touch with reality than the article discussing it.
Another lovely little threatening gem from these freaks https://twitter.com/sheetghosts/status/949073762217013248
Surely these people aren’t so completely detached from biology that they don’t realise how the heterosexual instinct to reproduce works?
@nsr: By and large they have their head buried so far up their own ideology that they’d be prepared to call the “heterosexual instinct” a social construct. So yes, they’re as detached from biology as needs be for the ideology to prevail.
A couple of failings in the methodology: the first is that the survey questionees were self-selected:
With those methods of recruitment they are not going to be representative. Of course. And that’s evidently the larger group from which the 958 questionees were then selected – see the Abstract – (or is that further self-selection?) from a larger study on relationship decision-making processes. So that’s in double measure unrepresentative of the general population.
Another failing is that the questionees “were asked to select all potential genders that they would consider dating if ever seeking a future romantic partner”: that is, the figures obtained tell what the questionees say – just say – what they might do at some future time (or what they could imagine themselves possibly doing), which is potentially very different indeed from what they would do.
The survey – there’s nothing to indicate the ‘Study’ is anything more sophisticated than a poll, and the method of recruitment tells me it’s much less sophisticated than a Harris Poll or Pew Poll – might reveal not how the questionees are prepared to act in future but what they are prepared to virtue-signal now about their ‘woke’-ness.
*
Michael’s earlier “Always the Victim” post looks at the same issues and in depth, albeit the pictures (Twitter posts?) are now absent:
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/10/07/always-the-victim/
In the responses trans-woman Jacob Tobia is quoted:
The them LGBTQ magazine article’s figures say that in poll figures. I suspect an apt term for Tobia and trans women in general is usually “incel.”
“trans women”
The proper term is “mentally-ill castration fetishists”
That article’s author evidently has trouble separating gender from biological sex; to her a trans woman simply is, identically, a woman, a biological woman as much as a trans woman. On the other hand, the interviewees for the study seem to have little such trouble:
It’s the second paragraph of a section the author began, “Surprisingly …”. But it’s exactly what we’d expect of straight cis people, not to want to date a biological man. This is discrimination only in the sense of eg choosing the chocolates with the centres you like, though I imagine the author intends it to be understood as overloaded with accusations of irrational hate, as in job discrimination against Black people.
*
One of the problematical features of Hemant Mehta’s 30 December 2018 “Facebook Shouldn’t Have Apologized to Franklin Graham for His Hate Speech Ban” post is that he displays that same difficulty discriminating gender from biological sex. Mehta says:
That’s because although a trans woman may be (by preference and by recognition as such by others) a woman by gender, she is biologically a man. Looks like Mehta has fallen into promoting the ‘trans women are biological women’ fallacy.
The issue Mehta is commenting on, and Graham before him, is the by now very familiar ‘women’s restrooms and locker rooms’ issue, namely ensuring the safety and privacy of women and children. Mehta says:
Funny, looking at the 09 April 2016 post which got Franklin temporarily banned, I’d say Franklin’s “offence” (discovered after such a long time, I’d say someone was looking back and back until something fit the bill to be offended by and tag, as a means to attack Graham, to get him offline) — his “offence” was not that he mis-gendered trans women but that he wouldn’t mis-sex trans women [biological men.] See:
http://www.facebook.com/FranklinGraham/posts/2265315136857988
The second problematical feature was that when the banning got Graham some no doubt welcome publicity, helped by him re-publishing FaceBook’s apology, Mehta claimed Franklin shouldn’t have been sent an apology.
Mehta describes how, when someone complains about a post, FaceBook immediately checks it with their algorithms for what might possibly constitute hate speech, then (automatically) takes down the account; then it gets the post or posts assessed by a human when one becomes available — this takes about 24 hours, apparently; then, if warranted, FaceBook issues an apology and reinstates the account, which happens all the time to all sorts of people, why’s Franklin making such a fuss about such a routine matter?
Routine and automated it is, apart from the complainant and the FaceBook employee who decided the complainant was malicious or a snowflake, or both. And because it’s (nearly) all routine and automated, Franklin got a routine and automated reply same as everybody else wrongly complained about, and Mehta knows it full well …
… yet Mehta makes a fuss, claiming Franklin shouldn’t have been issued his routine automated apology.
Two-faced, or what.
Please add a “/blockquote” after the first link, ie unindent all thereafter by two levels.