Is being attracted to transgender considered gay?

Pretty sure it's more technical than that. And "trans girls" are not women based on "certain aspects" like breasts, butt, voice, lol. Who told you that garbage?

People worry about weird sh*t. If you love someone and want to express that physically (and the other person is consenting, cause rape is bad) go for it, but if identifying with a social label is more important than what you feel for that person, you were never really that into them to begin with.

Technically, if we follow the definition of what "gay/homo" means, then yes. By technicality. Underneath all that surgery done, they were still born that gender and no amount of sweeping under the rug can change that.

Then again, if you just solely consider them a female now, then no? Either way, transgenders aren't really that common. Day to day I and most people I've talked to don't really see them on a daily basis so I'm not really sure you're gonna have to deal with this at all whatsoever.

xoxo, -Saint Sophie

Who cares?

Sorta kinda but not really

No, if they're attractive, then they're attractive.

This

Depends on how manly they look.

Maybe 10% gay

~MiB

No it's really not. We've only recently gotten a grasp on genetics. That's really the only exception to what I said. An adult human being that has a pretty face, a nice body, and a soft feminine voice, is by all intents and purposes...a woman. And if I was attracted to such a being, I wouldn't be gay.

It depends really. My current understanding is that a Trans-gender isn't necissarily a transexual, meaning they can identify as a member of the opposite gender without having surgeries necisary to sort of change sexes. In honesty (let's say you like the female sex) if you find a transgender attractive in a sense that you like the female qualities they have, then no, I wouldn't call you gay. However, if you specifically like transgender women, sort of separating them, or prioritizing them, then you may be gay.

But who cares? Labels only seperate people.

How are those sex exclusive? Are men incapable of having a nice body? And are you telling me, to even be considered a Woman you must have a nice body, a pretty face, and a soft feminine voice? LOL!!! What kind of world do you live in? That's incredibly sexist. And that wouldn't make them a woman, looking like a woman ≠ being a woman. And if you do know they're guys, then yes, that would make you gay.

Tricky question, lol.

To be considered an attractive woman. I mean Caitlyn Jenner is pretty much a woman, but looking at her I would consider her an -unatrractive- one. I was debating actually using the word 'attractive' in there; I guess I should've. But I definitely don't think that about all women (for example my mom, sisters ect.) Looking like an attractive woman, and not having any significant physical qualities that would make one unattractive = being an attractive woman. The only significant thing that differentiates a trans girl with a woman is...chromosomes. Literally molecules. That's it.

No it just sounds like a transgender fetish if you do know they are a transgender. If you don't then you obviously thought it was a girl

No, he is not a woman, dressing up like a tiger doesn't make me a tiger, mate. So you're going to ignore the uterus, vagina, and ovaries? How intelligent...

Ah now who's sounding a little sexist lol. Some women don't have ovaries or a uterus. You don't need to have those to be considered a woman. Not in our times.

If a person had the literal body of a tiger. Sugically added claws ect. to the point where they looked like a tiger, and behaved like a tiger to the point where you couldn't even tell otherwise...then yes. It's basically a tiger. Such a sugery is of course impossible right now.

You said that it only counts through chromosomes (which is wrong), which is why I said uterus, ovaries, etc. Ok not only is that impossible, but you actually think you can validate a human being, being a tiger through surgery? ( which is down right stupid). I can't even tell if you're being serious or just trolling, If you actually behave like a tiger why the f would you get surgery?

"Oh I behave like a tiger but I have human intelligence to go see a surgeon to mess up my body, instead of attacking/eating em"

Yeah, it really only 'counts' through chromosomes. That is the only difference. Plenty of women don't have ovaries. There isn't, but IF there was a surgery that made a human being somehow have the body of a tiger, and that person acted like a tiger then what can you say that makes them not a tiger? But also...YOU brought up the tiger, not me. You said one dressing as a tiger, doesn't make one a tiger. Trans women aren't 'dressing' up like women. They literally have vaginas.

You are implying that all tigers attack humans. I don't know. The whole tiger thing isn't possible, which I said. But it is possible to be trans.

Who cares about what label it makes you. If you're attracted to someone, you're attached to them.

Tyga should know Lool

People as usual use sex and gender interchangeably. They are actually completely different. A person's sex (sexual organs) is not necissarily the same as someone's gender. The two definitions are completely different.

"Trans women aren't 'dressing' up like women. They literally have vaginas." "Plenty of women don't have ovaries",

Ok, I had my fill of ignorance. No more from you. Plus my tiger comparison is obviously made to be ludicrous, like a man turning into a woman, or vice versa. You think that's true, go to india, meet a tiger face to face go see.

....Pretty much all women have vaginas. Ovaries aren't vaginas, bro. My point was that if a person is cosmetically and aesthetically a woman, then they are a woman. Ovaries are an internal organ. The vagina is the sex organ of women, that makes sex practical and safe. In other words, if you have want to have non-oral/anal sex with a girl, she's going to need a vagina. And you aren't addressing any of my other points.

@heatblaze123: @immovableray: vaginas or ovaries have nothing to do with the definition of gender. The definition of gender does not include someone's biological sex.

"Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity." - Google

@sophia89: Sorry.

@cable_extreme: Yeah. My point is that a woman can be a woman without ovaries. The only thing that makes the vagina an exception, is the actual physical aspects of sexual intercourse, and how different it would be without the vagina.

No, everybody is going to sit here and LISTEN!! Lol just kidding. I'll handle it.

Unless I knew better I never would have guessed these were dudes.

No, they are just chicks with a penis, if the penis turns you on then youre probs somewhat gay

@sophia89 said:

I don't think that's how homosexuality works. If I only like a transsexual for what parts she has that make her look female...that means i'm still attracted to women and therefore straight.

@immovableray: Because your points are down right dumb. A male that tries to look like a woman either cosmetically or surgically, doesn't make them a woman, google the definition of "woman". and mutilating your own penis doesn't make it a vagina. It's common sense mate.

@vance_astro: precisely. If someone is sporting attractive female qualities regaurdless of their biological sex, it isn't gay if a guy is attracted to them, same goes if the genders were reversed.

@dngn4774 said:

I don't think this is really worrying about "weird sh_t". Transgender people exist. Straight people may want to date them but they don't want to be humiliated or harassed for that choice. I think this is deeper than social labels. Homosexuals don't get treated very well in this country but if doing this is however not considered gay then you shouldn't suffer the same treatment as people who are. (Not that i'm ok with the poor treatment of homosexuals in the first place).

Call it ignorant or dumb all you want but its true. Oh, I did. And I got this.

Which obviously leads to this:

But it's clear that not all woman can bear offspring. Which returns to my original point. The only real thing that we distinguish women from is genes and appearance. When you're attracted to someone you aren't thinking about their molecule configuration lol, you're thinking about how they look and their personality. If a person has the traits of a typical woman (whatever they may be) and don't have any particular male traits (for example a penis), then they are a woman. You can't address this point without simply saying "You're wrong."

@immovableray: If you're attracted to a person's femininity, I don't think your body is reacting to a homosexual impulse. Really, though, none of this matters. Nothing matters. Hold your breath; it'll all be over soon anyway.

@immovableray: Like I said before over and over again. If that Transgender person does not have the genes of a female they're not a woman. You sir, are saying that a woman is only a woman based on appearance when it's not true,I know that you can't tell if they are or not (you sometimes can) and if you know they're Transgender then it's pretty obvious that they're not a woman and shouldn't be called one. And I already adress that if you know they're male, then yes, you are gay.

Yeah and I'm telling you that genes are irrelevant because molecules have literally no bearing whatsoever on attraction. You don't see them. It's not just 'appearance' that I'm talking about. Their essence, their aesthetic, and their bodies are female. Characteristically they are female. At that point they would be a woman...with the exception of a chromosome lol. Your trying to put too much value on sex, but the things that I've listed are the only things that we use to identify sex especially attraction. So, I'm right. Who cares if a girl has a Y chromosome. As long as she doesn't have a d!ck I'm not gay.

Fuffufufufufuffufufu.

Beata

Remember the Freaks & Geeks episode wherein Seth Rogen's gf was born with both parts? Ah, memories. Say! This reminds me... time to give my dog a Snausage!

No seeing someone who appears to be the opposite sex and then knowing that they're the same is completely understandable. I think it's gay if you find out and are still attracted to that person.

@sophia89 said:

You already suggested this. I disagreed and you just said it again...

If you believe really hard that they are actually from the opposite sex then that shouldn't be considered gay. Of course there will be many who will say otherwise but it's mostly illogical bs.

I don't think so but the majority of guys will call you gay because they're homophobic and not comfortable with gay people

@kgb725: in this instance, it is understandable to think someone who likes transgenders to be gay, I can understand why people would initially say that. And telling someone they are gay isn't necessarily homophobic if you believe they fall under the definition. It is an honest mistake.

Saying guys in general or "most guys" are homophobic is kinda sexist to be honest.

@cable_extreme: Most guys are imo. As a guy I've known them my whole lives. Alot 0f guys feel that everywhere they look it has something to do with being gay and don't like that. In my personal experience they're comfortable making gay jokes but if they were to see a man kissing another man they'd be freaked out

Yep.... You're gay, dude.

Doesn't really matter what it makes you. You finding an appropriate label wont make you less or more attracted than you already are.

They're bodies are not female mate, don't be stupid. Ok so you will acknowledge the fact that they're males and you don't care if they're born with a d!ck, just as long as you don't see it, and have an appearance of a female?, just with a mess up d!ck? Sorry mate, but that still makes you gay, that or a pansexual. Either way you have some f'ed up standards....