June 17, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Physical attraction to members of the same sex is typically unquestionable in modern academic circles, yet a new study argues that only being attracted to biological members of a particular sex is, to some extent, a product of prejudice and ignorance.
On Sunday, Psychology Today published an article by Karen Blair, chair of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Issues (SOGII) section of the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) and founder of LGBTQ Psychology Canada, detailing a recent survey she led asking 1,000 respondents about their willingness to date “cisgendered” men or women (individuals who identify with their actual biology), “transgendered” men or women, or individuals with “non-binary gender identification.”
They found that 87.5% of respondents would only date actual members of the sex to which they were attracted, and that only 3.1% of straight, non-trans respondents would consider dating someone who identified otherwise.
A follow-up survey found that the most common explanation for rejecting gender-confused partners was “lack[ing] information and understanding of what precisely these kinds of identities mean within the context of dating,” though others cited the inability to naturally have children or gave answers the researchers deemed “dehumanization/prejudice.” They allege that at least one respondent referred to gender-confused individuals as “non-humans,” and claim that believing a “transgender identity” is “make believe” constitutes prejudice.
Even some respondents who cited reproduction were deemed “dehumanizing” because they, for instance, saw gender-confused women as “not a natural man” or a “real man.”
“Relationships are one of our most important sources of social support. Indeed, our relationships play an important role in our overall mental and physical well-being and our relationships are a better predictor of how long we'll live than smoking or obesity,” Blair wrote. “But, if very few people are willing to date trans people, what does this mean for their health and well-being? 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.”
She later qualified these statements by conceding that “ultimately, each individual has the freedom to decide whom they date or are interested in dating,” and claimed the study didn’t presume to tell anyone whom they “should date or consider dating” (emphasis in the original).
Nevertheless, she likened reluctance to date the gender-confused to past animosity toward interracial relationships, and called for “improving general education about the diversity of gender identities and what each identity means,” “increasing accurate media representations of trans and non-binary people,” and “finding ways to increase contact” in order to increase “dating prospects for transgender and non-binary individuals.”
“That is some backward, and frankly, bizarre thinking,” RedState’s Brandon Morse wrote in response to the article. “Pushing the idea that people putting reality first and desiring biologically driven outcomes are somehow advocating for the dehumanization of people with disorders is, to put it bluntly, pure lunacy. It is, in essence, an attack natural norms in order to promote a fantasy that has a high rate of doing harm to those who engage in it.”
Biological sex is rooted in an individual’s chromosomes and reflected by hundreds of genetic characteristics. The American Psychiatric Association still classifies gender dysphoria as a mental disorder; studies indicate that more than 80% of children experiencing gender dysphoria outgrow it on their own by late adolescence, unless their confusion is reinforced by adults. Even full sex “reassignment” surgery often fails to resolve gender-confused individuals’ heightened tendency to engage in self-harm.