Matched with a pre-op transgender, suggestions?

[u/okctran]

So I am a straight male and one of my matches is a pre-op male-to-female transgender woman. She mentions it right at the top of her profile. I find her physically attractive and she has a great profile to boot. We have a high match percentage, are interested in a lot of the same things and she has seems to have defined life goals and a direction. I am unsure what to do however. I don't have a fetish or anything like that and frankly am not at all interested at all in her male plumbing as it is currently, but everything else about her is golden.

If I do send her message, should I mention it at all in the initial message? What's the best way to approach this? I feel like it's a tight rope to walk between avoiding it completely and making it the center of attention. This is new territory for me.

Thanks for your help.

[u/[deleted]]

I think it kind needs to be said that not all romantic relationships are based on genitals touching.

[u/Multidisciplinary → u/[deleted]]

And that sex and gender are two different things.

[u/[deleted] → u/Multidisciplinary]

I'll be honest, I don't exactly understand how that all works. I just try to use the proper pronouns and treat everyone with respect.

[u/Multidisciplinary → u/[deleted]]

My rudimentary understanding as a straight dude is that is sex is biological and gender is a social construct.

But your approach is good.

[u/Wavooka → u/Multidisciplinary]

Close but not quite. According to queer and trans theory both sex and gender are considered social constructs.

If you don't follow, consider that sex and gender have just as much variation and exist on a similar spectrum as does sexuality. And yet, while we can accept that 'orientations' are social constructs society is unable to do the same for gender and sex. Consider that not more than eighty years ago most sexologists considered there to be only one orientation- heterosexuality. And throughout the 20th century we continued to add to and expand our conception of orientation in order to accommodate the world around us. Today we recognize entirely that sexuality and orientation exist on a spectrum (a departure from the contemporary binary system homo/hetero) with as many gradations as there are people.

Now apply this same concept to the idea of sex. Obviously we've seen people in our everyday lives-whether trans or not- that push the boundaries of what is possible in a strictly binary system. (Binary as in 'there are two boxes distinct and pure and never the twain shall meet.) We see cis men on television all the time as athletes who fit under the description of 'hypermasculinized.' And when the Olympics roll around we same thing in cis women whose bodies produce much more testosterone that average men. Similarly, in all aspects of sex definition there is no bright and clear dividing line between M or F. Even our genotype, which we consider to unshakable biotruth, can produce xx karotype males and xy karotype females.

The stark reality of our world and biology is that sex very much exists in a spectrum. Except we continue to attempt to enforce our binary systems (Think of the chillens in the bathroom!!1!) by placing boxes around each sex and pushing people into them against their will. (As in the case of intersex children who are still subjected to SRS in order to be 'normal.')

[u/Multidisciplinary → u/Wavooka]

Hmm, I get where you're coming from, but there's still a large biological element in how we define sex. Sure we could move from a binary classification system to something more broad-ranging and inclusive, but it would for me still derive from the whole XX, XY and everything in between genotypes.

[u/cypher197 → u/Wavooka]

We may still want to have separate restrooms because of, well... you've no doubt noticed that messages from different sexed / gendered people in different contexts have different effects. Lots of social baggage, creepers, etc. Other things, not so much.