|
United States41960 Posts
On August 03 2013 07:37 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:29 KwarK wrote: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?
Yeah, if I was single and was attracted to a trans person then I'd be happy to have a relationship with them. We would have a potential hurdle with biological children but that's not something trans specific.
|
United States41960 Posts
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.
Yes, I do. I do however also defend the right to informed consent for those who don't. If enough people didn't distinguish between the two then trans people could make a reasonable assumption that a potential partner is not assuming they are cis and is instead assuming that they are just whatever gender they are. At this point disclosure would not be necessary. But while consent is often linked to the assumption of cis status the people who are consenting based on that incorrect assumption should be informed, if possible. The reason I believe they should be informed rather than having a responsibility to ask is because of the extreme outlier status of trans people. It is reasonable to assume a partner is cis unless otherwise stated.
|
Like, I don't want to fuck jerks. But do they tell me they are jerks? No. Cause they are jerks!
Most people don't consider themselves jerks. That's why they don't tell you.
|
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.
I think transwomen are transwomen. if there absolutely is a need to make it binary I would say they are women. Is this ok? Serious question, I would like to know any reasons why that may be a bigoted thing to believe.
|
On August 03 2013 07:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:32 fugs wrote: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.
To me though, I feel that's similar to people who think that kids should just give in to bullies rather than stand up to them.
I can understand wanting to respect people's wishes, but the thing about civil rights and acceptance is that by nature, they disrespect the wishes of bigoted people to remain bigoted. When blacks wanted equal rights, we infringed upon white people's rights who disagreed. Same goes to feminists who disrespected the men who demanded they stay in the kitchen, or for muslim rights, and so on. The main point behind this argument is that the idea that trans people should disclose their history 100% of the time in every sexual encounter with no exceptions is an idea that should not be followed or respected. In other words, people are fighting for a society where "are you trans?" isn't the deal breaker of the century. But that type of society is not going to happen if we just acquiesce to everyone who is transphobic.
Sure it's safer to do what you're advocating, but in the early 90s, it was safer for gay people to stay in the closet and not show any kind of homosexual behavior since it would be "disrespectful" otherwise. Gay people said "fuck that", and so far their tactic is working, so I find it odd that you think it's wrong for trans people to do the same.
|
On August 03 2013 07:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:32 fugs wrote: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.
Not exactly a winning scenario no matter what then. To live as a normal human being means admitting that you aren't a normal human being. See that catch 22? I think it's less about deceiving the other person and more about having to admit the world will never see you as the person you are which is something really hard to swallow.
Sorry about earlier, I'm not exactly taking my medication... not that it's an excuse.
|
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.
the issue is with you not with them. i didn't mean you are scared/disgusted of them or something.
the problem is what their stance (in this case) triggers in you. there could be other things/happenings that would trigger the same reaction in you.
so, what are you afraid of?, being duped?, taking advantage of?.
anyway, work on it.
|
On August 03 2013 07:49 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:38 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:32 fugs wrote: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. To me though, I feel that's similar to people who think that kids should just give in to bullies rather than stand up to them. I can understand wanting to respect people's wishes, but the thing about civil rights and acceptance is that by nature, they disrespect the wishes of bigoted people to remain bigoted. When blacks wanted equal rights, we infringed upon white people's rights who disagreed. Same goes to feminists who disrespected the men who demanded they stay in the kitchen, or for muslim rights, and so on. The main point behind this argument is that the idea that trans people should disclose their history 100% of the time in every sexual encounter with no exceptions is an idea that should not be followed or respected. In other words, people are fighting for a society where "are you trans?" isn't the deal breaker of the century. But that type of society is not going to happen if we just acquiesce to everyone who is transphobic. Sure it's safer to do what you're advocating, but in the early 90s, it was safer for gay people to stay in the closet and not show any kind of homosexual behavior since it would be "disrespectful" otherwise. Gay people said "fuck that", and so far their tactic is working, so I find it odd that you think it's wrong for trans people to do the same.
not just in the early 90s but presently in russia too...
omg was that a relevant topic segway?
|
On August 03 2013 07:50 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:49 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:38 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:32 fugs wrote: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. To me though, I feel that's similar to people who think that kids should just give in to bullies rather than stand up to them. I can understand wanting to respect people's wishes, but the thing about civil rights and acceptance is that by nature, they disrespect the wishes of bigoted people to remain bigoted. When blacks wanted equal rights, we infringed upon white people's rights who disagreed. Same goes to feminists who disrespected the men who demanded they stay in the kitchen, or for muslim rights, and so on. The main point behind this argument is that the idea that trans people should disclose their history 100% of the time in every sexual encounter with no exceptions is an idea that should not be followed or respected. In other words, people are fighting for a society where "are you trans?" isn't the deal breaker of the century. But that type of society is not going to happen if we just acquiesce to everyone who is transphobic. Sure it's safer to do what you're advocating, but in the early 90s, it was safer for gay people to stay in the closet and not show any kind of homosexual behavior since it would be "disrespectful" otherwise. Gay people said "fuck that", and so far their tactic is working, so I find it odd that you think it's wrong for trans people to do the same. not just in the early 90s but presently in russia too... omg was that a relevant topic segway?
Yes it was, and thank you, because I think the "should the trans person tell me" question has been beaten to death.
So, what do you guys actually think should be done about Russia in terms of their human rights abuse of LBGT people? I've seen (as expected) a great deal of people say that the Olympics is apolitical, so we should leave them out of it. And that boycotting Russian businesses only hurts the Russian people. So what exactly, then, should we do in order to encourage Russia to stop?
|
On August 03 2013 07:40 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +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. I think transwomen are transwomen. if there absolutely is a need to make it binary I would say they are women. Is this ok? Serious question, I would like to know any reasons why that may be a bigoted thing to believe.
I was never big on binaries. I differentiate between a ciswoman and a transwoman, but that's only how I look at it. I don't think it's bigoted at all. They aren't the same thing to me, more like...different shades of the same color? Sorry I worded that so poorly.
My issue is more with Kwarkykins sticking up for all those poor straight men who picked up a girl at a bar just to hook up, stuck their penis in her vagina, but OH MY GOD she didn't tell them about her medical history as if that changes anything.
|
On August 03 2013 07:53 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:50 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 07:49 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:38 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:32 fugs wrote: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. To me though, I feel that's similar to people who think that kids should just give in to bullies rather than stand up to them. I can understand wanting to respect people's wishes, but the thing about civil rights and acceptance is that by nature, they disrespect the wishes of bigoted people to remain bigoted. When blacks wanted equal rights, we infringed upon white people's rights who disagreed. Same goes to feminists who disrespected the men who demanded they stay in the kitchen, or for muslim rights, and so on. The main point behind this argument is that the idea that trans people should disclose their history 100% of the time in every sexual encounter with no exceptions is an idea that should not be followed or respected. In other words, people are fighting for a society where "are you trans?" isn't the deal breaker of the century. But that type of society is not going to happen if we just acquiesce to everyone who is transphobic. Sure it's safer to do what you're advocating, but in the early 90s, it was safer for gay people to stay in the closet and not show any kind of homosexual behavior since it would be "disrespectful" otherwise. Gay people said "fuck that", and so far their tactic is working, so I find it odd that you think it's wrong for trans people to do the same. not just in the early 90s but presently in russia too... omg was that a relevant topic segway? Yes it was, and thank you, because I think the "should the trans person tell me" question has been beaten to death. So, what do you guys actually think should be done about Russia in terms of their human rights abuse of LBGT people? I've seen (as expected) a great deal of people say that the Olympics is apolitical, so we should leave them out of it. And that boycotting Russian businesses only hurts the Russian people. So what exactly, then, should we do in order to encourage Russia to stop?
email the sponsors
|
On August 03 2013 05:33 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 05:31 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 05:30 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 03 2013 05:27 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 05:22 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 03 2013 05:18 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 05:14 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
It's pretty busted that trans people have to consider themselves to be rapists in the eyes of others until they are told that they are not. Yeah, asking people if they wanna have sex with you before you have sex with them must suck. Intentional and mean-spirited twisting. In my experience, people ask me and I say "yes" if I want to, not the other way around. But in your's and other people's eyes, that makes me a rapist. There's nothing to say to that other than to call it busted. If you think their assumptions are leading them to consent when they would not otherwise do so and you know their assumptions are false, 100% rapist. I think almost everyone would agree. 100% Double standard. please explain why you think its a double standard? if you deceive someone in order to get a "yes" then its probably rape. It's not deception. *I* don't do anything except exist. Who and what I am is not about anyone else but me.
Well, to be honest, as a transsexual woman you really go out of your way to be as undistinguishable from a cis woman as possible, right? Nobody is faulting you for that, but to say that you don't do absolutely anything to reinforce that false assumption is not true. Would you be willing to agree with that?
P.S. I don't think I'm ever gonna catch up with the discussion... ;/
|
On August 03 2013 07:37 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:35 MidKnight wrote: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.
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. Does that imply that you think I'm a transphobe even from everything I wrote in this post?
Anyway.
If there was a certain quality about me which I knew majority of people would consider to be a dealbreaker for them in a VERY MEANINGFUL WAY, I believe not disclosing such information is immoral. Maybe to them knowing that I'm a (hypothetical) racist, for example, isn't a big deal for a one night stand, maybe it is. If you believe it is, you should tell them.
My whole point is that responsibility is on the person who feels like they are withholding certain information which may influence their partner's decision.
If you are conscious of such thing and you are reasonably sure (by your own perception which may or may not be right) that it could be a MAJOR dealbreaker for majority of population (which is I believe trans status is, even if for wrong reasons), not disclosing it is being dishonest and falls into an "asshole move" territory. How do you determine that? Fuck knows. That's where your own moral compass comes in.
Criminals won't tell the people they fuck know that they are criminals, well knowing that most people would not want to have any kind of relationship with them. I believe that's immoral.
It's all on that person's conscience. I wrote a longer post before this explaining this better, I hope. If one doesn't feel something they know about themselves is a big deal to most people in a major way (what constitutes to major? I don't know), they shouldn't tell anyone that. If they do and they want to do a moral thing, they should.
It's as simple as that.
The whole discussion is that as it turns out, in the current shitty society most people do think that sleeping with a trans woman is a "disaster" and to them it's a big deal.. Their reasons are stupid and they are bigots IMO (just to clarify), but willfully deceiving them (and to reiterate, willfully deceiving as in knowing very well that it's a big deal to a lot of people) in those people's minds is an asshole move.
It's like... You have to multiply your perceived impact of how big of a deal it would be for them to know that fact (as in how much would they be devastated mentally) by your perceived % of population that would care about that fact and then decide if it's worth telling them about it (I guess you would do it subconsciously).
Yeah I just wrote a formula about how to decide if you should tell your ons about your "dirty laundry", that's fucking weird :D
Everyone has things they don't want other people to know about them, most of those things would lessen the attraction, but wouldn't stop the ons from happening. It's just your own perceived moral compass.
|
United States41960 Posts
On August 03 2013 07:49 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:38 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:32 fugs wrote: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. To me though, I feel that's similar to people who think that kids should just give in to bullies rather than stand up to them. I can understand wanting to respect people's wishes, but the thing about civil rights and acceptance is that by nature, they disrespect the wishes of bigoted people to remain bigoted. When blacks wanted equal rights, we infringed upon white people's rights who disagreed. Same goes to feminists who disrespected the men who demanded they stay in the kitchen, or for muslim rights, and so on. The main point behind this argument is that the idea that trans people should disclose their history 100% of the time in every sexual encounter with no exceptions is an idea that should not be followed or respected. In other words, people are fighting for a society where "are you trans?" isn't the deal breaker of the century. But that type of society is not going to happen if we just acquiesce to everyone who is transphobic. Sure it's safer to do what you're advocating, but in the early 90s, it was safer for gay people to stay in the closet and not show any kind of homosexual behavior since it would be "disrespectful" otherwise. Gay people said "fuck that", and so far their tactic is working, so I find it odd that you think it's wrong for trans people to do the same.
It's not comparable to racism, the discrimination being protected here is the right to choose your sexual partners by whatever categories you deem relevant.
|
On August 03 2013 07:53 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:50 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 07:49 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:38 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:32 fugs wrote: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. To me though, I feel that's similar to people who think that kids should just give in to bullies rather than stand up to them. I can understand wanting to respect people's wishes, but the thing about civil rights and acceptance is that by nature, they disrespect the wishes of bigoted people to remain bigoted. When blacks wanted equal rights, we infringed upon white people's rights who disagreed. Same goes to feminists who disrespected the men who demanded they stay in the kitchen, or for muslim rights, and so on. The main point behind this argument is that the idea that trans people should disclose their history 100% of the time in every sexual encounter with no exceptions is an idea that should not be followed or respected. In other words, people are fighting for a society where "are you trans?" isn't the deal breaker of the century. But that type of society is not going to happen if we just acquiesce to everyone who is transphobic. Sure it's safer to do what you're advocating, but in the early 90s, it was safer for gay people to stay in the closet and not show any kind of homosexual behavior since it would be "disrespectful" otherwise. Gay people said "fuck that", and so far their tactic is working, so I find it odd that you think it's wrong for trans people to do the same. not just in the early 90s but presently in russia too... omg was that a relevant topic segway? Yes it was, and thank you, because I think the "should the trans person tell me" question has been beaten to death. So, what do you guys actually think should be done about Russia in terms of their human rights abuse of LBGT people? I've seen (as expected) a great deal of people say that the Olympics is apolitical, so we should leave them out of it. And that boycotting Russian businesses only hurts the Russian people. So what exactly, then, should we do in order to encourage Russia to stop?
I don't know but its horrible that this stuff could even be considered in modern times. Isn't it true that they are considering public displays of affection propaganda?
|
MidKnight I do not think you are a transphobe. I was simply pointing out what I believe to be a double standard. Again, I believe that one ought to avoid sex or disclose if one knows the other party is transphobic. However, I do not know of any trans people that actively try to sleep with transphobic individuals. Seriously, if I found out someone was transphobic, I would have nothing to do with that person. My question is, why is everyone blaming the trans person and ignoring the crime of the transphobe? The dangers of sleeping with a transphobe vastly, vastly outweigh the dangers of sleeping with a transsexual.
So the response to this argument is, "Well, trans people are rare. Therefore, it's their responsibility to inform, not the transphobes." To which I replied, "The danger to the trans person is higher, and people who dislike transphobes are *not* rare, therefore, transphobes have an equal responsibility to inform."
Equal. Responsibility.
|
On August 03 2013 07:59 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:53 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 07:50 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 07:49 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:38 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:32 fugs wrote: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. To me though, I feel that's similar to people who think that kids should just give in to bullies rather than stand up to them. I can understand wanting to respect people's wishes, but the thing about civil rights and acceptance is that by nature, they disrespect the wishes of bigoted people to remain bigoted. When blacks wanted equal rights, we infringed upon white people's rights who disagreed. Same goes to feminists who disrespected the men who demanded they stay in the kitchen, or for muslim rights, and so on. The main point behind this argument is that the idea that trans people should disclose their history 100% of the time in every sexual encounter with no exceptions is an idea that should not be followed or respected. In other words, people are fighting for a society where "are you trans?" isn't the deal breaker of the century. But that type of society is not going to happen if we just acquiesce to everyone who is transphobic. Sure it's safer to do what you're advocating, but in the early 90s, it was safer for gay people to stay in the closet and not show any kind of homosexual behavior since it would be "disrespectful" otherwise. Gay people said "fuck that", and so far their tactic is working, so I find it odd that you think it's wrong for trans people to do the same. not just in the early 90s but presently in russia too... omg was that a relevant topic segway? Yes it was, and thank you, because I think the "should the trans person tell me" question has been beaten to death. So, what do you guys actually think should be done about Russia in terms of their human rights abuse of LBGT people? I've seen (as expected) a great deal of people say that the Olympics is apolitical, so we should leave them out of it. And that boycotting Russian businesses only hurts the Russian people. So what exactly, then, should we do in order to encourage Russia to stop? I don't know but its horrible that this stuff could even be considered in modern times. Isn't it true that they are considering public displays of affection propaganda?
The term is intentionally vague, and could be interpreted based on the personal preferences of the police officer in question. That being said, it would also be possible for them to arrest olympic athletes (unlikely) and public spectators who happen to be gay (more likely).
|
On August 03 2013 07:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:49 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:38 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:32 fugs wrote: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. To me though, I feel that's similar to people who think that kids should just give in to bullies rather than stand up to them. I can understand wanting to respect people's wishes, but the thing about civil rights and acceptance is that by nature, they disrespect the wishes of bigoted people to remain bigoted. When blacks wanted equal rights, we infringed upon white people's rights who disagreed. Same goes to feminists who disrespected the men who demanded they stay in the kitchen, or for muslim rights, and so on. The main point behind this argument is that the idea that trans people should disclose their history 100% of the time in every sexual encounter with no exceptions is an idea that should not be followed or respected. In other words, people are fighting for a society where "are you trans?" isn't the deal breaker of the century. But that type of society is not going to happen if we just acquiesce to everyone who is transphobic. Sure it's safer to do what you're advocating, but in the early 90s, it was safer for gay people to stay in the closet and not show any kind of homosexual behavior since it would be "disrespectful" otherwise. Gay people said "fuck that", and so far their tactic is working, so I find it odd that you think it's wrong for trans people to do the same. It's not comparable to racism, the discrimination being protected here is the right to choose your sexual partners by whatever categories you deem relevant.
I'm not disagreeing with that, but the issue here is that the idea that trans = disgusting is such a prevalent idea. Nobody has problems with a person who is turned off by black hair because you can reasonably assume that not many of these type of people exist. If we lived in an age where suddenly everyone decided that black hair is disgusting, then people with black hair would have every right to feel trapped and frustrated. So the question is, should those people just suck it up and be celibate, or say "fuck you" and try to change society. You say the former, I say the latter.
EDIT: But whatever, this topic is at its end anyway. We'll agree to disagree.
|
The people with black hair would just have sex with each other
|
United States41960 Posts
On August 03 2013 08:08 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:57 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:49 Spawkuring wrote:On August 03 2013 07:38 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:32 fugs wrote: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. To me though, I feel that's similar to people who think that kids should just give in to bullies rather than stand up to them. I can understand wanting to respect people's wishes, but the thing about civil rights and acceptance is that by nature, they disrespect the wishes of bigoted people to remain bigoted. When blacks wanted equal rights, we infringed upon white people's rights who disagreed. Same goes to feminists who disrespected the men who demanded they stay in the kitchen, or for muslim rights, and so on. The main point behind this argument is that the idea that trans people should disclose their history 100% of the time in every sexual encounter with no exceptions is an idea that should not be followed or respected. In other words, people are fighting for a society where "are you trans?" isn't the deal breaker of the century. But that type of society is not going to happen if we just acquiesce to everyone who is transphobic. Sure it's safer to do what you're advocating, but in the early 90s, it was safer for gay people to stay in the closet and not show any kind of homosexual behavior since it would be "disrespectful" otherwise. Gay people said "fuck that", and so far their tactic is working, so I find it odd that you think it's wrong for trans people to do the same. It's not comparable to racism, the discrimination being protected here is the right to choose your sexual partners by whatever categories you deem relevant. I'm not disagreeing with that, but the issue here is that the idea that trans = disgusting is such a prevalent idea. Nobody has problems with a person who is turned off by black hair because you can reasonably assume that not many of these type of people exist. If we lived in an age where suddenly everyone decided that black hair is disgusting, then people with black hair would have every right to feel trapped and frustrated. So the question is, should those people just suck it up and be celibate, or say "fuck you" and try to change society. You say the former, I say the latter. EDIT: But whatever, this topic is at its end anyway. We'll agree to disagree.
The way to deal with transphobia is not to embrace what they see as "traps".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
