whenever the conversation on desirability politics via dating "preferences" comes up--
in the sense of someone categorically being uninterested dating someone for being part of some stigmatized demographic (e.g. trans, fat, racialized, disabled, etc.) even if they were fully into someone before learning they are part of that demographic
--it's always reframed as a debate around if it is prejudiced to not date the person.
I think this is such a frustrating direction for the conversation to go. obviously losing interest in someone purely for their social position within a marginalized demographic is something that emerges from prejudice. but where people absolutely lose the plot is the implication that covering up prejudice is the same as actually unlearning it. if they were to keep dating that person just to avoid being considered transphobic/fatphobic/racist/ableist/etc., that is still prejudice!
the prejudice exists whether or not they date the person. so they probably should not, because any relationship that emerges is almost guaranteed to be abusive towards the marginalized person, as it's founded on bigoted resentment.
if you lose attraction to someone because of a stigmatized characteristic, you shouldn't date them. but you are still prejudiced, and you should still work on that. not for the purpose of widening your dating pool (who cares!) but because you impact other people in the world as you move through it.
when you view demographics with disgust and discomfort, it matters. these biases are never contained to sex and romance. someone identifying this prejudice is not saying "fuck me or you're a bigot" they are saying "leave me alone, and also please care enough to grow as a person."
