Did Person B prove A wrong?

In the hypothetical scenario provided, Person B presents a trans-woman to Person A, who subsequently finds themselves attracted to this trans-woman without knowing their trans status. Person B then points out that the trans-woman is, in fact, a trans-woman.

Let's break down the logical aspects and any potential biases or fallacies:

1. **Initial Claim by Person A**: "I am not attracted to trans-women."
- This is a statement about Person A's preferences.

2. **Experiment by Person B**: Presenting a trans-woman to Person A without revealing their trans status.
- This tests the claim by removing the knowledge factor.

3. **Observation**: Person A is attracted to the presented trans-woman.
- This contradicts Person A’s explicit claim.

4. **Revelation by Person B**: "But this is a trans-woman."
- This is the conclusion drawn from the observation.

### Analyzing Logical Aspects:

**Possible Cognitive Biases:**
- **Confirmation Bias**: Person B might be looking to confirm their belief about Person A's actual attractions by setting up a scenario that could challenge Person A's expressed preferences.

**Logical Reasoning**:
- **Disconfirmation**: Person B observed an instance that contradicts Person A's stated preference.
- **Over-generalization**: The scenario only provides a single example. It's not sufficient to generalize that Person A is wrong in all or most situations based on one instance. Attraction can be complex and situational.

**Addressing Logical Fallacies:**

- **Hasty Generalization Fallacy**: Assuming that because Person A was attracted in this specific case, they would always be attracted to trans-women.
- *Counterpoint*: This scenario only provides a single data point, and one instance does not constitute a broad refutation of Person A's general preference claim.

- **No True Scotsman Fallacy**: If Person A tries to modify their claim by saying, "Well, I'm still not generally attracted to trans-women; this was just an exception," they might be engaging in a No True Scotsman fallacy by shifting the goalposts to protect their original assertion.

- **Appeal to Ignorance**: If Person A’s attraction was influenced by ignorance of the trans status, the original claim’s context matters – are they speaking under conditions of full knowledge or ignorance?

### Conclusion:
While Person B has demonstrated that Person A can find a trans-woman attractive under specific conditions (lack of knowledge about trans status), this alone does not definitively prove Person A’s general claim wrong. It does, however, offer evidence that the attraction might not be as clear-cut and absolute as Person A asserts. Person A's initial claim has shown to have at least one exception, which could invite further reflection or nuance, but it does not irrefutably negate the original statement without more context or broader evidence.

This might be a case of over simplification. "Attraction" is a complex psychological phenomenon that can have many different levels. At the very base level, there is sort of an "animalistic" attraction that bypasses all deliberate cognition. But what most of us consider "attraction" is so much more and includes evaluation of many social and behavioral factors. For example, a woman can be objectively gorgeous (i.e., virtually no sane hetero man would deny the looks) yet if she starts smoking a cigarette, people with strong aversions to cigarette smoking would no longer find her attractive. Likewise, they could find her political views, level of racism, etc. abhorrent and it could be such a turn-off that by every practical sense of the definition, they would no longer be attracted to the woman.

So to answer your question, I think all person B did was prove that there was some level of "physical" attraction - the surface-level attraction that really means little for any kind of relationship.