Eine interessante Studie schaut sich die Einstellung gegenüber Transsexuellen auf dem Datingmarkt an:
The current study sought to describe the demographic characteristics of individuals who are willing to consider a transgender individual as a potential dating partner. Participants (N = 958) from a larger study on relationship decision-making processes were asked to select all potential genders that they would consider dating if ever seeking a future romantic partner. The options provided included cisgender men, cisgender women, trans men, trans women, and genderqueer individuals. Across a sample of heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and trans individuals, 87.5% indicated that they would not consider dating a trans person, with cisgender heterosexual men and women being most likely to exclude trans persons from their potential dating pool. 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 results are discussed within the context of the implications for trans persons seeking romantic relationships and the pervasiveness of cisgenderism and transmisogyny.
Quelle: 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 (Oder als PDF im Volltext)
Es geht also darum, wer überhaupt bereit wäre Transpersonen zu daten, also sie als potentielle Beziehungspartner in Betracht zieht.
Dazu aus der Studie:
Also wenn ich es richtig verstehe die Zahlen für diejenigen, die Transpersonen in Betracht ziehen würden:
- Bi/queer/non-Binary: 34,5%
- Lesbisch: 9%
- Schwul: 8,2%
- Heterosexuelle Frauen: 1,5%
- Heterosexuelle Männer: 1,4%
Wie man sieht sind sich die Heterosexuellen da recht einig, aber auch innerhalb der Gruppe der Lesben oder Schwulen ist man wenig bereit dazu. Selbst unter den „Queeren“ ist die Zahl mit 34,5% für die Option nicht sehr groß.
Interessanterweise gibt es hier auch ein „Männerprivileg“:
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).
Man könnte böse behaupten, dass es vielleicht eher ein Frauenprivileg als ein Männerprivileg ist, weil viele Lesben vielleicht weniger Probleme damit haben, mit eine noch nicht operierten Transman etwas zu habe, der ja dann im wesentlich noch einen weiblichen Körper hat. Das wäre dann vielleicht für sie auch nicht viel anders als eine Butchlesbe. Aber sie hätten eben eine Problem damit mit einer Transfrau zu schlafen, weil sie eben im unopierten Zustand keinen Penis wollen.
Die Grafik dazu:
Wenn ich es richtig sehe, dann würde ein kleiner Anteil von Heteromännern entweder einen Transmann oder eine Transfrau daten, Heterofrauen aber eher einen Transmann, aber keine Transfrau. Bei den Schwulen schneiden die Transmänner besser ab, bei den Lesben scheint der Transmann einen leichten Vorsprung zu haben, bei den Queers hingegen ist die Vorliebe nur für Transfrauen relativ klein, aber viele für Beides offen.
Hier noch mal weitere Tabelle:
Und aus der Studie:
Across sexual and gender identities, 87.5% of participants were classified as having an exclusionary response, meaning that they had not selected either trans men or trans women as potential dating partners. Exclusion was highest among cisgender heterosexual men and women, with only a handful indicating a willingness to date trans individuals. Gay men were the next most likely to provide exclusionary responses, followed by lesbians, and finally queer and bisexual men, women, and non-binary individuals. Nearly three quarters of lesbians provided exclusionary responses compared to approximately half of the queer and bisexual men, women, and non-binary individuals. Consequently, even though certain identities were associated with a greater likelihood of being willing to date trans persons, exclusion remained the norm.
There are a number of reasons that might explain such high rates of excluding trans persons from potential dating pools. Perhaps the most salient are cisnormativity, cisgenderism, transphobia, and a general habituation to excluding trans persons from all areas of social life. Cisnormativity has been defined as “the expectation that all people are cissexual, that those assigned male at birth always grow up to be men and those assigned female at birth always grow up to be women” (Bauer et al., 2009, p. 356). This assumption shapes social attitudes and activities thereby influencing the ways that trans people navigate the social world. By operating on cisnormative assumptions, social worlds and systems are ill equipped for the presence of trans people. The current data demonstrate that this exclusion extends to the parameters cisgender individuals place around their prospective dating partners and that we are, therefore, quite a ways off from what Bibby (2007) would recognize as a society that has fully integrated its trans and gender diverse citizens.
Given the vehemence with which issues such as equal access to gender-appropriate washrooms is opposed by some (Westbrook & Schilt, 2014), it is not surprising that there would also be a large segment of society unwilling to date a trans person. However, although anti-trans sentiments, including transphobia and cisgenderism, likely play a large role in the current findings, there are additional, somewhat less malicious, reasons that may explain the patterns observed in the current study
Although participants were provided with a definition of cisgender and transgender, some participants may not have read or understood these terms and, therefore, their answers may not perfectly reflect their intentions or how they would behave if faced with the opportunity to date a trans person. Similarly, even if they understood or were vaguely familiar with the terms, they may still have had questions or uncertainties about precisely what it would mean to date a trans man or a trans woman (in practice and in terms of their own self-identification). A lack of familiarity with the realities of trans identities may have led participants to make certain assumptions concerning the ability to procreate. Of course, it should also be noted that when selecting a cisgender partner, it is not immediately obvious whether the individual is fertile or infertile. Future research should ask participants about the importance of reproductive options when selecting a partner. Transprejudice could be distinguished from personal procreation desires through determining whether perceived infertility is used as a basis for excluding potential trans and cisgender partners, or only trans partners
At present, we know very little about what the average cisgender person knows or thinks of trans bodies. Trans scholars have commented on cisgender people’s preoccupation with the sexual anatomy of trans people, relating it to a form of cissexist sexualization that ultimately reduces trans people to the state of their genitals (Serano, 2007). Considering this preoccupation with the genitals of trans people, what do cisgender participants imagine in terms of trans bodies, and how might this impact their consideration of trans people as potential dating partners? While it is important to be accepting of individuals’ identities regardless of their anatomy, when it comes to real-life dating decisions, knowledge of, and questions about, trans bodies may be a pivotal factor in understanding the willingness of some to date trans partners. In other words, combined with the cisgender privilege of simply not needing to consider trans persons as potential dating partners in order to have a sufficiently large dating pool, sheer ignorance of transgender identities may be a very likely explanation for exclusionary response patterns. It is important to state, however, that while ignorance may play a role in the high rates of exclusionary responses, such ignorance is still indicative of widespread cisgenderism and cis-privilege within today’s society.
Finally, even among the trans-identified participants, there was still evidence of exclusionary and incongruent response patterns. This may be due to internalized cisgenderism and feeling that one’s own gender identity will be best affirmed by dating a cisgender person of the gender of one’s desire (e.g., a heterosexual trans man dating a cisgender heterosexual woman). Future research should more clearly investigate the
reasons that individuals do not view trans folks as potential dating partners in order to more clearly delineate whether interventions aimed at increasing factual information or reducing negative biases may be more likely to increase willingness to date trans individuals (see McDermott et al., 2018, for an example of an intervention that uses information and prejudice reducing techniques to ameliorate transprejudice).
While all of the potential reasons for being unwilling to view a trans person as a potential dating partner are less than ideal, the exclusion category may, in some ways, offer the greatest opportunity for intervention and change. As stated, more research is needed to clearly identify and understand the reasons behind people’s unwillingness to date trans people. If a lack of knowledge is a primary reason, then providing public
education and resources could substantially reduce the exclusion of trans people from dating opportunities. While education often aims to increase tolerance and inclusion, simply increasing acceptance in public places, such as schoolyards, workplaces, and washrooms is ultimately insufficient. Although this type of inclusion is important and, in fact, crucial for the survival and general well-being of trans folks, it is equally important
to consider the extent to which trans folks are included in broader social systems, such as dating and relationships, given that relationships are an important source of social support and well-being (Blair, Holmberg, & Pukall, 2018; Feeney & Collins, 2015; Holmberg & Blair, 2016).
Finde ich eine interessante Darstellung. Es muss entweder die fürchterliche Gesellschaft sein oder fehlendes Wissen oder gar verinnerlichte Transfeindlichkeit.
Das viele Transpersonen schlicht nicht die für die meisten Personen interessanten Attraktivitätsmerkmale bedienen, weil sie eben als Transfrauen eine männliche Pubertät durchlaufen haben etc. kommt darin gar nicht vor.
Ich kann mir vorstellen, dass Leute eher bereit wären Loiza Lamers zu daten
als die Frau aus dem „It is Ma’am“-Meme:
Letztere dürfte aber weitaus eher das Bild von Transsexuellen bestimmen