|
On August 03 2013 07:27 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:26 fugs wrote:
So for clarification, even after a transwoman has completed her transition and therefor is no longer a transwoman she still has to disclose her medical history to all of her suitors? I wasn't aware that people who are "done" transitioning consider themselves to no longer be trans. Am I misinformed on this?
Some do yeah, at least I'm of the opinion that I wouldn't be trans anymore. Trans means transition as to transition sexually, transexual. Once that transition is over, in my opinion, you kinda aren't transsexual anymore...
|
On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape.
he only wants the definition of rape to protect him, legally, from trans.
he can never justify his point based on morality but i would not call him an x-phobic of some sorts. he is probably just scared on some level.
|
United States44243 Posts
On August 03 2013 07:26 fugs wrote:
So for clarification, even after a transwoman has completed her transition and therefor is no longer a transwoman she still has to disclose her medical history to all of her suitors?
To those suitors for whom it is likely to be relevant to their decision to consent to sex with her, yes, assuming they have not already considered the possibility and are not asking due to not caring. Basically that. It's none of their business right up until you involve them making a decision to consent to sex based upon limited information, at which point it becomes their business. If they believe there is a distinction between cis and trans and it is a dealbreaker for them then it doesn't matter if the trans person doesn't agree with that distinction because how valid their reasons for consent or not consent are is not up to the trans person to judge.
|
On August 03 2013 07:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:20 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 03 2013 07:17 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:14 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 03 2013 07:10 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:04 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:03 Snusmumriken wrote:re: misusing rape, phobia, racist etc. Ill just quote myself: Youre just washing out whatever meaning those words actually have for rethoric purpose, because guess what its uncomfortable to be called a racist or a bigot or a transphobe or a rapist. Its a cheapshot, its ridiculous, its used to push certain dogma and worst of all, it obscures communication.
I absolutely refuse to play that game. The difference is that KwarK actually wants to expand the notion of "rape" in a moral sense. He's not exaggerating, he literally thinks that you are a rapist. I think that if you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you disregard their lack of consent through any means, be it force, drugs, deception or whatever, then you're a rapist. If you think they don't want to have sex with you then you're just really rapey and should probably be in jail anyway. Yeah. Fuck this discussion. I would have reported you several times over for being blatantly inflammatory, but apparently I can't. So yeah, good time to call it quits. I'm really quite horrified that this isn't something immediately obvious to most people. If you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you have sex with them anyway then that's bad. Like how are we struggling with this one? Seriously? The issue people are having with transphobes like yourself (you said you were a more transphobic earlier, so you're transphobic and should be named and shamed for it, to follow your logic) is that you're purposesly conflating know and might. You're conflating 'trapping' someone and a casual interaction. You're using bad analogies (I'm not going to dismantle the twin argument again, I did it earlier to such an extent that the OP of it stopped using it) and you're purposely being disruptive. Before this discussion I was familiar with what trans people were and had absolutely no problem with it. Cis, trans, didn't bother me. After having discussed things at length with trans people I have observed a number of them excusing behaviour I would call abhorrent using some really awful arguments. You shame yourselves. Your arguments have been awful. Your language has been inexcusable. You shame yourself. I on the other hand have always disclosed everything to anyone because I think it's the right thing to do and still think you're being an asshole. All I ask is that if someone, anyone, trans or not, believes that their partner's consent is based upon an assumption which is not true but which is so unlikely that their partner has no reason to ask that specific question then they disclose the fact so as to avoid obtaining sex where consent would not be granted otherwise. It is a universal standard which does not change, even if it makes your life inconvenient, even if you don't like their assumption, even if you think you know better. A number of trans people have argued that transphobic people don't have the right to choose who they have sex with because their criteria are dumb, meaningless or just "life is hard as a trans person".
Actually if you know who were trans and who wasn't a little better and stopped making generalisations and assuming anyone who posts a counter point disagrees with you and is trans you'd realise the incidence was a lot more split. Literally no one has argued that transphobic people have no right to choose, I don't know if you actually think they have or if you're just stirring stuff up. Like literally, I don't know.
|
United States44243 Posts
On August 03 2013 07:29 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. he only wants the definition of rape to protect him, legally, from trans. he can never justify his point based on morality but i would not call him an x-phobic of some sorts. he is probably just scared on some level.
I have zero issue with sex with trans people.
|
On August 03 2013 07:29 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. he only wants the definition of rape to protect him, legally, from trans. he can never justify his point based on morality but i would not call him an x-phobic of some sorts. he is probably just scared on some level.
KwarK has no issue with trans people and has said so a ton of times. Are we sure we're talking about the same KwarK? The litigious defender of LGBT people on TL? I really don't think his definition is motivated by transphobia.
|
On August 03 2013 07:27 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:26 fugs wrote:
So for clarification, even after a transwoman has completed her transition and therefor is no longer a transwoman she still has to disclose her medical history to all of her suitors? I wasn't aware that people who are "done" transitioning consider themselves to no longer be trans. Am I misinformed on this?
Some do, some don't. It's kind of up to the person, but most trans people do not seem to identify as trans. It's something that describes their medical history and not who they are today.
In the trans community, what usually ends up happening is people who have completed transition leave the community and disappear... they go "stealth" and no longer interact with the community. It's so that they can move on.
|
United States44243 Posts
On August 03 2013 07:29 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:23 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:20 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 03 2013 07:17 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:14 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 03 2013 07:10 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:04 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:03 Snusmumriken wrote:
re: misusing rape, phobia, racist etc.
Ill just quote myself:
[quote] The difference is that KwarK actually wants to expand the notion of "rape" in a moral sense. He's not exaggerating, he literally thinks that you are a rapist. I think that if you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you disregard their lack of consent through any means, be it force, drugs, deception or whatever, then you're a rapist. If you think they don't want to have sex with you then you're just really rapey and should probably be in jail anyway. Yeah. Fuck this discussion. I would have reported you several times over for being blatantly inflammatory, but apparently I can't. So yeah, good time to call it quits. I'm really quite horrified that this isn't something immediately obvious to most people. If you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you have sex with them anyway then that's bad. Like how are we struggling with this one? Seriously? The issue people are having with transphobes like yourself (you said you were a more transphobic earlier, so you're transphobic and should be named and shamed for it, to follow your logic) is that you're purposesly conflating know and might. You're conflating 'trapping' someone and a casual interaction. You're using bad analogies (I'm not going to dismantle the twin argument again, I did it earlier to such an extent that the OP of it stopped using it) and you're purposely being disruptive. Before this discussion I was familiar with what trans people were and had absolutely no problem with it. Cis, trans, didn't bother me. After having discussed things at length with trans people I have observed a number of them excusing behaviour I would call abhorrent using some really awful arguments. You shame yourselves. Your arguments have been awful. Your language has been inexcusable. You shame yourself. I on the other hand have always disclosed everything to anyone because I think it's the right thing to do and still think you're being an asshole. All I ask is that if someone, anyone, trans or not, believes that their partner's consent is based upon an assumption which is not true but which is so unlikely that their partner has no reason to ask that specific question then they disclose the fact so as to avoid obtaining sex where consent would not be granted otherwise. It is a universal standard which does not change, even if it makes your life inconvenient, even if you don't like their assumption, even if you think you know better. A number of trans people have argued that transphobic people don't have the right to choose who they have sex with because their criteria are dumb, meaningless or just "life is hard as a trans person". Actually if you know who were trans and who wasn't a little better and stopped making generalisations and assuming anyone who posts a counter point disagrees with you and is trans you'd realise the incidence was a lot more split. Literally no one has argued that transphobic people have no right to choose, I don't know if you actually think they have or if you're just stirring stuff up. Like literally, I don't know.
You're right, I don't know who is trans. Apologies. People have argued that because the trans person knows there is no difference then they don't have to disclose, even if the transphobe believes there is a difference. That the trans person can make that decision for them by not disclosing because they know better. That if they can't tell the difference then it's fine not to tell them, even if they believe there is a difference and it would alter their decision.
|
On August 03 2013 07:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:26 fugs wrote:
So for clarification, even after a transwoman has completed her transition and therefor is no longer a transwoman she still has to disclose her medical history to all of her suitors? To those suitors for whom it is likely to be relevant to their decision to consent to sex with her, yes, assuming they have not already considered the possibility and are not asking due to not caring. Basically that. It's none of their business right up until you involve them making a decision to consent to sex based upon limited information, at which point it becomes their business. If they believe there is a distinction between cis and trans and it is a dealbreaker for them then it doesn't matter if the trans person doesn't agree with that distinction because how valid their reasons for consent or not consent are is not up to the trans person to judge.
Have you heard of going stealth? It's when a transperson decides to hide their transition after the fact. Which means even their doctors have no idea. Are they morally reprehensible for doing so since by popular definition they're being 'deceitful'?
|
On August 03 2013 07:30 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:27 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:26 fugs wrote:
So for clarification, even after a transwoman has completed her transition and therefor is no longer a transwoman she still has to disclose her medical history to all of her suitors? I wasn't aware that people who are "done" transitioning consider themselves to no longer be trans. Am I misinformed on this? Some do, some don't. It's kind of up to the person, but most trans people do not seem to identify as trans. It's something that describes their medical history and not who they are today. In the trans community, what usually ends up happening is people who have completed transition leave the community and disappear... they go "stealth" and no longer interact with the community. It's so that they can move on.
That's really interesting. I dunno, I entertained thoughts at one point that I might be trans, so I did a bit of research on the community, but I never came across that in particular. The more you know :/
|
On August 03 2013 07:20 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:18 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:16 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. I'm genuinely amazed that some people think it's fine to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you as long as you tricked them. I understand that it's a grey area in terms of proving it and therefore impossible to legislate on but it ought not to be a grey area morally. Most people here agree that it's not good to hide things from your partner, but to actually call it rape is nothing short of insane. Going by your logic, I can call rape on just about anything my partner hides from me that I find to be a turnoff. Sex with a blonde women who's actually a brunette. OMG she deceived me! RAPE! Sex with a women who turns out to be a bitch. She deceived me by acting like a princess. RAPE! Simply hiding things is disrespectful, but to actually call it rape is ridiculous. Even impersonating a completely different person is a grey line, yet you cling to this notion so fervently. The incidence of hair dye is actually higher than that of trans people. Likewise the incidence of dyed hair being a dealbreaker is considerably lower than that of trans status being a dealbreaker. Swing and a miss I'm afraid. Try again with a valid example. So trans being a more common turnoff somehow makes it rape or "rapey"? I guess anyone with a scat fetish better tell everyone up front then. Lots of people are turned off by that.
You don't have to disclose that one beforehand, just don't be surprised when your partner reacts unfavorably to your sudden bowel movement during sex.
|
|
|
On August 03 2013 07:20 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:18 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:16 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. I'm genuinely amazed that some people think it's fine to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you as long as you tricked them. I understand that it's a grey area in terms of proving it and therefore impossible to legislate on but it ought not to be a grey area morally. Most people here agree that it's not good to hide things from your partner, but to actually call it rape is nothing short of insane. Going by your logic, I can call rape on just about anything my partner hides from me that I find to be a turnoff. Sex with a blonde women who's actually a brunette. OMG she deceived me! RAPE! Sex with a women who turns out to be a bitch. She deceived me by acting like a princess. RAPE! Simply hiding things is disrespectful, but to actually call it rape is ridiculous. Even impersonating a completely different person is a grey line, yet you cling to this notion so fervently. The incidence of hair dye is actually higher than that of trans people. Likewise the incidence of dyed hair being a dealbreaker is considerably lower than that of trans status being a dealbreaker. Swing and a miss I'm afraid. Try again with a valid example. So trans being a more common turnoff somehow makes it rape or "rapey"? I guess anyone with a scat fetish better tell everyone up front then. Lots of people are turned off by that.
The whole point is the PERCEPTION of *how big of a deal it is*. Very few people would flip out or feel taken advantage of if they found out their sexual partner was lying about the color of their hair or most other examples people gave.
But trans people ARE aware that a large % of population are transphobes and in their own head having had sex with someone who "used to be a man" (a notion which I don't agree with), *might* be "scarring" FAR MORE than most qualities. Yes, I believe they are idiots, I believe their belief that "a trans woman isn't really a woman" is bigoted. And yes, this is an extremely unfortunate situations for trans people to be in. But I still think if a trans person doesn't disclose such information while being intelligent enough to know that majority of population think that way is immoral "asshole move", whatever you wanna call it.
|
On August 03 2013 07:32 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:30 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 07:27 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:26 fugs wrote:
So for clarification, even after a transwoman has completed her transition and therefor is no longer a transwoman she still has to disclose her medical history to all of her suitors? I wasn't aware that people who are "done" transitioning consider themselves to no longer be trans. Am I misinformed on this? Some do, some don't. It's kind of up to the person, but most trans people do not seem to identify as trans. It's something that describes their medical history and not who they are today. In the trans community, what usually ends up happening is people who have completed transition leave the community and disappear... they go "stealth" and no longer interact with the community. It's so that they can move on. That's really interesting. I dunno, I entertained thoughts at one point that I might be trans, so I did a bit of research on the community, but I never came across that in particular. The more you know :/
It's really not surprising that you didn't know - it's not something that people talk about, but rather something that kind of happens. You may be talking to say, two dozen trans people in a chatroom. Over the course of the next year, you'll hear about some people getting their SRS, and after that.... gone.
|
Kwark, do you believe that transwomen are women? Because it really sounds like you don't.
Or at the very least, it sounds like you are actively defend those who don't.
|
On August 03 2013 07:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:29 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 03 2013 07:23 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:20 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 03 2013 07:17 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:14 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 03 2013 07:10 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:06 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:04 packrat386 wrote:
[quote]
The difference is that KwarK actually wants to expand the notion of "rape" in a moral sense. He's not exaggerating, he literally thinks that you are a rapist. I think that if you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you disregard their lack of consent through any means, be it force, drugs, deception or whatever, then you're a rapist. If you think they don't want to have sex with you then you're just really rapey and should probably be in jail anyway. Yeah. Fuck this discussion. I would have reported you several times over for being blatantly inflammatory, but apparently I can't. So yeah, good time to call it quits. I'm really quite horrified that this isn't something immediately obvious to most people. If you know someone doesn't want to have sex with you and you have sex with them anyway then that's bad. Like how are we struggling with this one? Seriously? The issue people are having with transphobes like yourself (you said you were a more transphobic earlier, so you're transphobic and should be named and shamed for it, to follow your logic) is that you're purposesly conflating know and might. You're conflating 'trapping' someone and a casual interaction. You're using bad analogies (I'm not going to dismantle the twin argument again, I did it earlier to such an extent that the OP of it stopped using it) and you're purposely being disruptive. Before this discussion I was familiar with what trans people were and had absolutely no problem with it. Cis, trans, didn't bother me. After having discussed things at length with trans people I have observed a number of them excusing behaviour I would call abhorrent using some really awful arguments. You shame yourselves. Your arguments have been awful. Your language has been inexcusable. You shame yourself. I on the other hand have always disclosed everything to anyone because I think it's the right thing to do and still think you're being an asshole. All I ask is that if someone, anyone, trans or not, believes that their partner's consent is based upon an assumption which is not true but which is so unlikely that their partner has no reason to ask that specific question then they disclose the fact so as to avoid obtaining sex where consent would not be granted otherwise. It is a universal standard which does not change, even if it makes your life inconvenient, even if you don't like their assumption, even if you think you know better. A number of trans people have argued that transphobic people don't have the right to choose who they have sex with because their criteria are dumb, meaningless or just "life is hard as a trans person". Actually if you know who were trans and who wasn't a little better and stopped making generalisations and assuming anyone who posts a counter point disagrees with you and is trans you'd realise the incidence was a lot more split. Literally no one has argued that transphobic people have no right to choose, I don't know if you actually think they have or if you're just stirring stuff up. Like literally, I don't know. You're right, I don't know who is trans. Apologies. People have argued that because the trans person knows there is no difference then they don't have to disclose, even if the transphobe believes there is a difference. That the trans person can make that decision for them by not disclosing because they know better. That if they can't tell the difference then it's fine not to tell them.
Yes, people had tried to discuss how much weight should be on each side to ask or disclose and whether it was morally correct to require either side to at all. That was a reasonable discussion. No one ever said that a transphobe shouldn't be told, there was some discussion of whether everyone should be presumed to be transphobic and what portion of people don't have to be for it to not be brought up. That was a reasonable discussion too.
That's why I find your posts so confusing, they're not talking about what everyone else was discussing. I've calmed down a bit now, sorry, but you seemed to come in at a point without reading or understanding what came before and being atagonistic and getting replies as a result which weren't useful to the discussion and it was creating a toxic environment.
|
On August 03 2013 07:35 MidKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:20 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:18 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:16 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. I'm genuinely amazed that some people think it's fine to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you as long as you tricked them. I understand that it's a grey area in terms of proving it and therefore impossible to legislate on but it ought not to be a grey area morally. Most people here agree that it's not good to hide things from your partner, but to actually call it rape is nothing short of insane. Going by your logic, I can call rape on just about anything my partner hides from me that I find to be a turnoff. Sex with a blonde women who's actually a brunette. OMG she deceived me! RAPE! Sex with a women who turns out to be a bitch. She deceived me by acting like a princess. RAPE! Simply hiding things is disrespectful, but to actually call it rape is ridiculous. Even impersonating a completely different person is a grey line, yet you cling to this notion so fervently. The incidence of hair dye is actually higher than that of trans people. Likewise the incidence of dyed hair being a dealbreaker is considerably lower than that of trans status being a dealbreaker. Swing and a miss I'm afraid. Try again with a valid example. So trans being a more common turnoff somehow makes it rape or "rapey"? I guess anyone with a scat fetish better tell everyone up front then. Lots of people are turned off by that. The whole point is the PERCEPTION of *how big of a deal it is*. Very few people would flip out or feel taken advantage of if they found out their sexual partner was lying about the color of their hair or most other examples people gave. But trans people ARE aware that a large % of population are transphobes and in their own head having had sex with someone who "used to be a man" (a notion which I don't agree with), *might* be "scarring" FAR MORE than most qualities. Yes, I believe they are idiots, I believe their belief that "a trans woman isn't really a woman" is bigoted. And yes, this is an extremely unfortunate situations for trans people to be in. But I still think if a trans person doesn't disclose such information while being intelligent enough to know that majority of population think that way is immoral "asshole move", whatever you wanna call it.
And you guys ARE aware that a large % of the population hate transphobes and racists. Like, I get it, I really do. It's a dick move not to disclose, but don't take the moral high ground here. You're no better if you don't inform your partner about your offensive attitudes.
|
On August 03 2013 07:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:29 xM(Z wrote:On August 03 2013 07:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 07:08 xM(Z wrote:
if i were a trans, after reading this thread, i would randomly start doing cis dudes then watch them go batshit crazy after telling them (from a safe vantage point) they just had sex with an ex-dude; film the reaction, then post it on youtube.
i mean, what would kwark do at that point?, be outraged? lol; sue me?. on what grounds?, his moral compass?. I think a lot of people would think you are a bad person for doing that. KwarK isn't talking about the current legal definition, he wants to redefine rape. he only wants the definition of rape to protect him, legally, from trans. he can never justify his point based on morality but i would not call him an x-phobic of some sorts. he is probably just scared on some level. I have zero issue with sex with trans people.
Involving yourself, though?
|
On August 03 2013 07:36 Pierrot wrote:
Kwark, do you believe that transwomen are women? Because it really sounds like you don't.
Or at the very least, it sounds like you are actively defend those who don't.
He's defending their right to believe otherwise and base their consent on it. If I defend Nazi's free speech am I a Nazi?
|
United States44243 Posts
On August 03 2013 07:32 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:29 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:26 fugs wrote:
So for clarification, even after a transwoman has completed her transition and therefor is no longer a transwoman she still has to disclose her medical history to all of her suitors? To those suitors for whom it is likely to be relevant to their decision to consent to sex with her, yes, assuming they have not already considered the possibility and are not asking due to not caring. Basically that. It's none of their business right up until you involve them making a decision to consent to sex based upon limited information, at which point it becomes their business. If they believe there is a distinction between cis and trans and it is a dealbreaker for them then it doesn't matter if the trans person doesn't agree with that distinction because how valid their reasons for consent or not consent are is not up to the trans person to judge. Have you heard of going stealth? It's when a transperson decides to hide their transition after the fact. Which means even their doctors have no idea. Are they morally reprehensible for doing so since by popular definition they're being 'deceitful'?
Trans people are in a horrible position in that regard. If they tell anyone they risk being outed and returning to the nightmare from before but obviously they also want normal human companionship. I believe an ideal solution would be avoiding random hookups in which it is likely that the person could have a problem with sex with trans people, not doing so shows a complete disregard for their partner. It's not a binary choice between getting beaten up or ignoring the hangups of the partner in order to obtain consent. They would instead have to try and get to know potential partners better and screen for people who are fine with trans people, it's not ideal, it offers them fewer options than had they been born cis, but it also ensures that nobody is knowingly deceived into consenting to something they would not otherwise do so. Someone who takes the mentality of "fuck those guys, I'm getting mine, they should have asked" while knowing that not asking is not indicative of not having an issue with it is showing an active disregard for the consent of their partners and I would call that person morally reprehensible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
