|
On August 03 2013 07:54 Pierrot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:40 Crushinator wrote: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.
The idea of "rape by lie of omission" is a feminist one, originally aimed at men who sleep with women under false pretenses, like pretending to be famous, rich or a person with connections at the University she's applying to. The idea is applicable here to some extent, because to them it does make a difference, regardless of whether you think or care about its legitimacy. Consent is based purely on the perceptions of the person giving it, and withholding information you know would change that decision, just so you can sleep with them, is highly immoral. I'm not sure I'd define it as rape myself, but it's almost comparable to something like picking up a drunk person, because the issue relies on the ability to give (informed) consent.
And seriously when you're trying to paint KwarK as some transphobic monster who only cares about straight white people, you're reaching well into the borders of idiocy. If even he's playing devil's advocate, then it's more likely an issue with your stance than his failing to understand progressive culture.
|
On August 03 2013 08:07 shinosai wrote:
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.
Well the problem is that your solution to the problem, as a clearly more intelligent individual, who *I* believe should hold higher responsibility, as you simply have more information, is to punish them by fucking them. Kwark already explained that it makes a lot more sense if the person who is aware of their situation in society to be the one who discloses, simply from a statistical standpoint.
I don't know if that sounds harsh.
I'll repost the only interesting part from my previous post since I edited it.
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
I don't think I'm holding double standards for that reason. Unfortunately transphobia is quite a widespread phenomenon and to the people who possess it, having slept with a trans woman is a *big* deal. They're idiots, but pretending to not know that seems willfully ignorant.
It's not nearly on the same level as "Oh, that blonde chick wasn't actually blonde" or "that guy pretended to be rich when he actually wasn't" or as widespread as these hypothetical examples. Maybe to some people that would be enough to consider the sex they had as something "terrible".
If you believe that to be the case for whatever reason, you should tell them about it, provided you don't want to be an asshole.
Basically, I believe trans people are in the unfortunate position in this society and for the reasons listed should be the ones to dislose their "status". If you don't think that to be the case, that's is awesome. Issues like these are strictly person's own moral compass.
|
United States41960 Posts
On August 03 2013 07:54 Pierrot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:40 Crushinator wrote: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.
You don't get to decide what changes things for other people when it comes to their criteria for sexual consent. You can think the medical history is completely irrelevant but if they think it is relevant and you have reason to believe they think it is relevant and would not consent if they knew then you ought to tell them. Not telling them is obtaining sex under false pretences when you know they would not consent.
|
Well the problem is that your solution to the problem, as a clearly more intelligent individual, who *I* believe should hold higher responsibility, as you simply have more information, is to punish them by fucking them. Kwark already explained that it makes a lot more sense if the person who is aware of their situation in society to be the one who asks, simply from a statistical standpoint.
Again, I'm not trying to "punish" anyone by fucking them - I would never knowingly deceive someone. What I'm trying to say is that transphobes and racists are certainly aware of their situation in society, and people who dislike them are not statistical anomalies. No matter how many times the numbers and statistics argument is pulled, it works against you because (1) you don't actually know the statistics of how many people are transphobic (2) by comparison you don't know how many people are anti-transphobic and thus opposed to sleeping with THEM and (3) the risk is higher for the trans person.
Therefore, while I might agree to having a responsibility to disclose if I know the other person has a problem, I will not under any circumstance agree that I have a responsibility to disclose when I have a lack of information if the transphobe does not have responsibility to disclose. (edited for clarity)
|
On August 03 2013 08:22 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:54 Pierrot wrote:On August 03 2013 07:40 Crushinator wrote: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. The idea of "rape by lie of omission" is a feminist one, originally aimed at men who sleep with women under false pretenses, like pretending to be famous, rich or a person with connections at the University she's applying to. The idea is applicable here to some extent, because to them it does make a difference, regardless of whether you think or care about its legitimacy. Consent is based purely on the perceptions of the person giving it, and withholding information you know would change that decision, just so you can sleep with them, is highly immoral. I'm not sure I'd define it as rape myself, but it's almost comparable to something like picking up a drunk person, because the issue relies on the ability to give (informed) consent. And seriously when you're trying to paint KwarK as some transphobic monster who only cares about straight white people, you're reaching well into the borders of idiocy. If even he's playing devil's advocate, then it's more likely an issue with your stance than his failing to understand progressive culture.
I don't need to paint KwarK as anything, KwarK speaks for KwarK.
There are plenty of things that don't effect a hookup at a bar. Things like whether or not someone was born with a tail, whether they have been in a mental hospital, whether or not they had been molested by their neighbor (three things that might "gross out" the other person, or be a deal breaker). In a serious relationship, you do get a little deeper, but for a purely-based-on-physical-attraction "let's leave this place and fuck", a person's medical history is not relevant, with the exception of any risk of infection from sex.
|
On August 03 2013 08:29 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +Well the problem is that your solution to the problem, as a clearly more intelligent individual, who *I* believe should hold higher responsibility, as you simply have more information, is to punish them by fucking them. Kwark already explained that it makes a lot more sense if the person who is aware of their situation in society to be the one who asks, simply from a statistical standpoint. Again, I'm not trying to "punish" anyone by fucking them - I would never knowingly deceive someone. What I'm trying to say is that transphobes and racists are certainly aware of their situation in society, and people who dislike them are not statistical anomalies. No matter how many times the numbers and statistics argument is pulled, it works against you because (1) you don't actually know the statistics of how many people are transphobic (2) by comparison you don't know how many people are anti-transphobic and thus opposed to sleeping with THEM and (3) the risk is higher for the trans person. Therefore, while I might agree to having a responsibility to disclose if I know the other person has a problem, I will not under any circumstance agree that I have a responsibility to disclose when I have a lack of information if the transphobe does not.
If you're asking, yes, I do think that transphobes and racists should disclose their status. I believe that they should disclose this status because I perceive (as well as you) that majority of population would not want to bang people with those qualities and it would be nice of said transphobes and racists to tell their potential partners.
Ultimately though, it comes down to those people only. If they think that disclosing this status would be a dealbreaker to a lot of people, they should tell them.
OF COURSE this whole scenario hinges on the assumption that said transphobes/racists want to remain moral in their own eyes. Which is most likely a problem since, you know, they are transphobic and racist, in the first place, and they most likely don't think about those issues that much or have a great moral compass.
I guess the unfortunate circumstance here is that the more ignorant you are, the less responsibilites you have. Or if you lie to yourself in a "this thing I know about myself isn't that big of a deal, right?.. They wouldn't care even if they knew, I'm sure.." fashion, for example.
Again, I never said I'm asking or expecting trans people to disclose anything.
From my own perception of the general public though, I believe majority of it are transphobes, and I also believe that to those people having slept with someone who they, for idiotic ignorant reasons, perceive as "not a woman" is a quite a big deal and could be traumatizing. And being in your position, you would be risking making them feel really uncomfortable with the situation. And again, yes, "fuck those guys", but it doesn't let you decide for them what their criteria for their sexual partners is, as Kwark said.
|
On August 03 2013 06:01 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 05:52 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 05:48 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:44 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 05:40 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 05:35 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:34 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 05:32 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 03 2013 05:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
No, universal moral standard. No. Systemic oppression. Reinforced by bigotry and prejudice wearing the mask of moral standard. Not raping = oppression. Must suck to be a minority and not get given a free moral card to do whatever the fuck you want. Fuck off. I have nothing against trans people. I just really like consent. You're accusing us of rape what'd you expect, a high five? Well stop raping people and I won't call you a rapist. Jesus. It's not hard. A bunch of trans people in here all agree that they tell people for exactly the described reasons. I haven't raped anyone. If I recall correctly they're the ones that put their dick inside of me. Because only women can be raped. Nice... You should return your moral compass to the store you got it from, you sicken me. Oh I'd hate to sicken yet another individual, it's not like the world is full of you people. Stop fucking around and grow up. You definitely don't sound tolerant of trans people since you keep yelling rape. Maybe you should take a look at your own damned moral compass, it's not our job to cater to you. It's not our responsibility to guide your penis around the bar. "Its not my job to keep her legs shut, she never said no" Oh how easy it is for a man to link rape and 'trickery', as if you've ever been raped. It's fucking offensive as hell hearing this argument. For starters none of you fucks know what it's like to be held down and raped so don't fucking act like you've been there. And second take a gander and the obvious double standards you're blowing out your ass.
I assure you that neither does a woman who was raped via a rape pill. Following your logic she wasn't even raped and shouldn't act as if they were...
|
United States41960 Posts
On August 03 2013 08:48 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 06:01 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:52 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 05:48 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:44 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 05:40 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 05:35 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:34 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 05:32 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
[quote]
No. Systemic oppression. Reinforced by bigotry and prejudice wearing the mask of moral standard. Not raping = oppression. Must suck to be a minority and not get given a free moral card to do whatever the fuck you want. Fuck off. I have nothing against trans people. I just really like consent. You're accusing us of rape what'd you expect, a high five? Well stop raping people and I won't call you a rapist. Jesus. It's not hard. A bunch of trans people in here all agree that they tell people for exactly the described reasons. I haven't raped anyone. If I recall correctly they're the ones that put their dick inside of me. Because only women can be raped. Nice... You should return your moral compass to the store you got it from, you sicken me. Oh I'd hate to sicken yet another individual, it's not like the world is full of you people. Stop fucking around and grow up. You definitely don't sound tolerant of trans people since you keep yelling rape. Maybe you should take a look at your own damned moral compass, it's not our job to cater to you. It's not our responsibility to guide your penis around the bar. "Its not my job to keep her legs shut, she never said no" Oh how easy it is for a man to link rape and 'trickery', as if you've ever been raped. It's fucking offensive as hell hearing this argument. For starters none of you fucks know what it's like to be held down and raped so don't fucking act like you've been there. And second take a gander and the obvious double standards you're blowing out your ass. I assure you that neither does a woman who was raped via a rape pill. Following your logic she wasn't even raped and shouldn't act as if they were...
Could not disagree more with this, but likewise, I don't think discounting the feelings of transphobes who discover they have been, in their mind, tricked is wise.
|
Midknight: That's all I really wanted to hear - that they, too, are responsible for their actions. I'm not at all like some other people in this thread that may have said "fuck those guys". I care about consent just as much as Kwark does.
If you're gonna call it rape, though, the transphobic person also raped the trans person.
|
The examples used in this thread in the last few pages (like scat stuff etc.) are so utterly stupid, it is really mind boggling how people who classify themselves as intelligent come up with stuff that doesn't even have the slightest thing to do with the question at hand and the thread. I just shake my head in disbelief.
And people bash Kwark with the most outlandish claims via using examples that are far beyond stupid, "open minded" people draw a really bad picture of themselves in this thread.
Inform sex partners that I used to be a dude? Ah not necessary fucking me won't hurt anybody, I can't fucking believe it.
|
On August 03 2013 08:38 Pierrot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 08:22 RockIronrod wrote:On August 03 2013 07:54 Pierrot wrote:On August 03 2013 07:40 Crushinator wrote: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. The idea of "rape by lie of omission" is a feminist one, originally aimed at men who sleep with women under false pretenses, like pretending to be famous, rich or a person with connections at the University she's applying to. The idea is applicable here to some extent, because to them it does make a difference, regardless of whether you think or care about its legitimacy. Consent is based purely on the perceptions of the person giving it, and withholding information you know would change that decision, just so you can sleep with them, is highly immoral. I'm not sure I'd define it as rape myself, but it's almost comparable to something like picking up a drunk person, because the issue relies on the ability to give (informed) consent. And seriously when you're trying to paint KwarK as some transphobic monster who only cares about straight white people, you're reaching well into the borders of idiocy. If even he's playing devil's advocate, then it's more likely an issue with your stance than his failing to understand progressive culture. I don't need to paint KwarK as anything, KwarK speaks for KwarK. There are plenty of things that don't effect a hookup at a bar. Things like whether or not someone was born with a tail, whether they have been in a mental hospital, whether or not they had been molested by their neighbor (three things that might "gross out" the other person, or be a deal breaker). In a serious relationship, you do get a little deeper, but for a purely-based-on-physical-attraction "let's leave this place and fuck", a person's medical history is not relevant, with the exception of any risk of infection from sex.
It is still relevant because the information might affect someone's decision to consent, which you still kind of need, even in casual encounters. If you don't want to inform someone of something that might affect their decision to consent, either don't get into a situation where you need that consent, or accept you're kind of a dick.
|
I think its the wrong way to look at things. This is just more divide and conquer done by average people who don't even understand they are doing it by using these words and way they look at things.
There is NO gay rights, there is NO minority rights, there is NO woman rights, there is no black rights, no disabled rights, no religion rights, they are only HUMAN RIGHTS, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, ideology or political beliefs.
Once you start cutting it up into smaller and different things like gay rights, woman rights you end up dividing people and causing stereotypes to form, causing division between people as they feel different. If we understood that there is only human rights and judged a person based on its merits then we won't have the problems we are having right now.
But again it has to click in your brain, people need to become aware that we are all human and have the same human rights and no group can have more or less rights.
So its paramount that people forgo the fake names, the fake beliefs of group rights and start standing up for human rights as the sole rights. We also need to understand that humans are more important than animals as well and not put people in jail over not feeding their dog properly, we don't have dog rights, we have human rights and humans are more important than dogs or other animals.
If we start valuing dogs and/or other animals more than humans, than we are destroying our own future, we are destroying our own rights.
|
On August 03 2013 08:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 08:48 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 06:01 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:52 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 05:48 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:44 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 05:40 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 05:35 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:34 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Not raping = oppression. Must suck to be a minority and not get given a free moral card to do whatever the fuck you want. Fuck off. I have nothing against trans people. I just really like consent. You're accusing us of rape what'd you expect, a high five? Well stop raping people and I won't call you a rapist. Jesus. It's not hard. A bunch of trans people in here all agree that they tell people for exactly the described reasons. I haven't raped anyone. If I recall correctly they're the ones that put their dick inside of me. Because only women can be raped. Nice... You should return your moral compass to the store you got it from, you sicken me. Oh I'd hate to sicken yet another individual, it's not like the world is full of you people. Stop fucking around and grow up. You definitely don't sound tolerant of trans people since you keep yelling rape. Maybe you should take a look at your own damned moral compass, it's not our job to cater to you. It's not our responsibility to guide your penis around the bar. "Its not my job to keep her legs shut, she never said no" Oh how easy it is for a man to link rape and 'trickery', as if you've ever been raped. It's fucking offensive as hell hearing this argument. For starters none of you fucks know what it's like to be held down and raped so don't fucking act like you've been there. And second take a gander and the obvious double standards you're blowing out your ass. I assure you that neither does a woman who was raped via a rape pill. Following your logic she wasn't even raped and shouldn't act as if they were... Could not disagree more with this, but likewise, I don't think discounting the feelings of transphobes who discover they have been, in their mind, tricked is wise.
What do you mean? A woman raped via a rape pill has no idea how it's like to be held down and brutally raped (from what I know, most of the time they have absolutely no recollection of the whole thing - that's the point of using the pill). My point is that there are various kinds of rape and the above logic may very well be used for rape pill victims because they did not go through what a stereotypical rape victim goes through.
|
On August 03 2013 08:22 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:54 Pierrot wrote:On August 03 2013 07:40 Crushinator wrote: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. The idea of "rape by lie of omission" is a feminist one, originally aimed at men who sleep with women under false pretenses, like pretending to be famous, rich or a person with connections at the University she's applying to. The idea is applicable here to some extent, because to them it does make a difference, regardless of whether you think or care about its legitimacy. Consent is based purely on the perceptions of the person giving it, and withholding information you know would change that decision, just so you can sleep with them, is highly immoral. I'm not sure I'd define it as rape myself, but it's almost comparable to something like picking up a drunk person, because the issue relies on the ability to give (informed) consent.
Kwark has said he is a firm feminist, so this connection shouldn't come as a big surprise.
|
United States41960 Posts
On August 03 2013 08:59 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 08:50 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 08:48 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 06:01 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:52 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 05:48 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:44 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 05:40 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 05:37 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 05:35 fugs wrote:
[quote]
You're accusing us of rape what'd you expect, a high five?
Well stop raping people and I won't call you a rapist. Jesus. It's not hard. A bunch of trans people in here all agree that they tell people for exactly the described reasons. I haven't raped anyone. If I recall correctly they're the ones that put their dick inside of me. Because only women can be raped. Nice... You should return your moral compass to the store you got it from, you sicken me. Oh I'd hate to sicken yet another individual, it's not like the world is full of you people. Stop fucking around and grow up. You definitely don't sound tolerant of trans people since you keep yelling rape. Maybe you should take a look at your own damned moral compass, it's not our job to cater to you. It's not our responsibility to guide your penis around the bar. "Its not my job to keep her legs shut, she never said no" Oh how easy it is for a man to link rape and 'trickery', as if you've ever been raped. It's fucking offensive as hell hearing this argument. For starters none of you fucks know what it's like to be held down and raped so don't fucking act like you've been there. And second take a gander and the obvious double standards you're blowing out your ass. I assure you that neither does a woman who was raped via a rape pill. Following your logic she wasn't even raped and shouldn't act as if they were... Could not disagree more with this, but likewise, I don't think discounting the feelings of transphobes who discover they have been, in their mind, tricked is wise. What do you mean? A woman raped via a rape pill has no idea how it's like to be held down and brutally raped (from what I know, most of the time they have absolutely no recollection of the whole thing - that's the point of using the pill). My point is that there are various kinds of rape and the above logic may very well be used for rape pill victims because they did not go through what a stereotypical rape victim goes through.
Ah, my bad, misread what you wrote.
|
On August 03 2013 08:55 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 08:38 Pierrot wrote:On August 03 2013 08:22 RockIronrod wrote:On August 03 2013 07:54 Pierrot wrote:On August 03 2013 07:40 Crushinator wrote: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. The idea of "rape by lie of omission" is a feminist one, originally aimed at men who sleep with women under false pretenses, like pretending to be famous, rich or a person with connections at the University she's applying to. The idea is applicable here to some extent, because to them it does make a difference, regardless of whether you think or care about its legitimacy. Consent is based purely on the perceptions of the person giving it, and withholding information you know would change that decision, just so you can sleep with them, is highly immoral. I'm not sure I'd define it as rape myself, but it's almost comparable to something like picking up a drunk person, because the issue relies on the ability to give (informed) consent. And seriously when you're trying to paint KwarK as some transphobic monster who only cares about straight white people, you're reaching well into the borders of idiocy. If even he's playing devil's advocate, then it's more likely an issue with your stance than his failing to understand progressive culture. I don't need to paint KwarK as anything, KwarK speaks for KwarK. There are plenty of things that don't effect a hookup at a bar. Things like whether or not someone was born with a tail, whether they have been in a mental hospital, whether or not they had been molested by their neighbor (three things that might "gross out" the other person, or be a deal breaker). In a serious relationship, you do get a little deeper, but for a purely-based-on-physical-attraction "let's leave this place and fuck", a person's medical history is not relevant, with the exception of any risk of infection from sex. It is still relevant because the information might affect someone's decision to consent, which you still kind of need, even in casual encounters. If you don't want to inform someone of something that might affect their decision to consent, either don't get into a situation where you need that consent, or accept you're kind of a dick.
Where do you draw the line between what to divulge and what to not? Lots of things (like the three I mentioned) may influence someone's consent.
And I never said that I do this, or have any intention of ever doing so. Maybe I'm an anti-KwarK, like, I just defend the decision of t-folk not to divulge that part of their past to a stranger.
|
United States41960 Posts
On August 03 2013 08:53 shinosai wrote:
Midknight: That's all I really wanted to hear - that they, too, are responsible for their actions. I'm not at all like some other people in this thread that may have said "fuck those guys". I care about consent just as much as Kwark does.
If you're gonna call it rape, though, the transphobic person also raped the trans person.
Only if it is reasonable to assume the trans person wouldn't have sex with a person who wouldn't have sex with a trans person and that they had no way of knowing this. This is not the case. A large number of people wouldn't have sex with a trans person, it is reasonable to expect your partner to be one of them and to ask in order to rule it out. Whereas it is not reasonable to ask every partner if they are cis because so few will be trans. The burden is on the party with the greater amount of information, in this case the trans person knows they are an outlier.
|
United States41960 Posts
On August 03 2013 09:02 Pierrot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 08:55 RockIronrod wrote:On August 03 2013 08:38 Pierrot wrote:On August 03 2013 08:22 RockIronrod wrote:On August 03 2013 07:54 Pierrot wrote:On August 03 2013 07:40 Crushinator wrote: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. The idea of "rape by lie of omission" is a feminist one, originally aimed at men who sleep with women under false pretenses, like pretending to be famous, rich or a person with connections at the University she's applying to. The idea is applicable here to some extent, because to them it does make a difference, regardless of whether you think or care about its legitimacy. Consent is based purely on the perceptions of the person giving it, and withholding information you know would change that decision, just so you can sleep with them, is highly immoral. I'm not sure I'd define it as rape myself, but it's almost comparable to something like picking up a drunk person, because the issue relies on the ability to give (informed) consent. And seriously when you're trying to paint KwarK as some transphobic monster who only cares about straight white people, you're reaching well into the borders of idiocy. If even he's playing devil's advocate, then it's more likely an issue with your stance than his failing to understand progressive culture. I don't need to paint KwarK as anything, KwarK speaks for KwarK. There are plenty of things that don't effect a hookup at a bar. Things like whether or not someone was born with a tail, whether they have been in a mental hospital, whether or not they had been molested by their neighbor (three things that might "gross out" the other person, or be a deal breaker). In a serious relationship, you do get a little deeper, but for a purely-based-on-physical-attraction "let's leave this place and fuck", a person's medical history is not relevant, with the exception of any risk of infection from sex. It is still relevant because the information might affect someone's decision to consent, which you still kind of need, even in casual encounters. If you don't want to inform someone of something that might affect their decision to consent, either don't get into a situation where you need that consent, or accept you're kind of a dick. Where do you draw the line between what to divulge and what to not? Lots of things (like the three I mentioned) may influence someone's consent. And I never said that I do this, or have any intention of ever doing so. Maybe I'm an anti-KwarK, like, I just defend the decision of t-folk not to divulge that part of their past to a stranger.
I don't think they should divulge it to a stranger unless it's relevant to that stranger but they're asking to be in situations where it could realistically be relevant and still keep it to themselves. When it impacts consent people ought to be able to make the best decision they can within reason.
|
On August 03 2013 09:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 08:53 shinosai wrote:
Midknight: That's all I really wanted to hear - that they, too, are responsible for their actions. I'm not at all like some other people in this thread that may have said "fuck those guys". I care about consent just as much as Kwark does.
If you're gonna call it rape, though, the transphobic person also raped the trans person. Only if it is reasonable to assume the trans person wouldn't have sex with a person who wouldn't have sex with a trans person and that they had no way of knowing this. This is not the case. A large number of people wouldn't have sex with a trans person, it is reasonable to expect your partner to be one of them and to ask in order to rule it out. Whereas it is not reasonable to ask every partner if they are cis because so few will be trans. The burden is on the party with the greater amount of information, in this case the trans person knows they are an outlier.
You're ignoring parts of my post again, and still refuse to address it. A large number of people wouldn't have sex with a transphobe or racist, it is reasonable to expect your partner to be one of them [the non-transphobes/racists] and to ask in order to rule it out. (edited for clarity)
|
United States41960 Posts
On August 03 2013 09:05 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 09:04 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 08:53 shinosai wrote:
Midknight: That's all I really wanted to hear - that they, too, are responsible for their actions. I'm not at all like some other people in this thread that may have said "fuck those guys". I care about consent just as much as Kwark does.
If you're gonna call it rape, though, the transphobic person also raped the trans person. Only if it is reasonable to assume the trans person wouldn't have sex with a person who wouldn't have sex with a trans person and that they had no way of knowing this. This is not the case. A large number of people wouldn't have sex with a trans person, it is reasonable to expect your partner to be one of them and to ask in order to rule it out. Whereas it is not reasonable to ask every partner if they are cis because so few will be trans. The burden is on the party with the greater amount of information, in this case the trans person knows they are an outlier. You're ignoring parts of my post again, and still refuse to address it. A large number of people wouldn't have sex with a transphobe or racist, it is reasonable to expect your partner to be one of them and to ask in order to rule it out.
Not convinced that is reasonable but if it were then sure, you'd have a point. I don't disagree with the principle you're arguing, I just think your hypothetical isn't realistic. Far, far, far more people don't want to have sex with trans people than don't want to have sex with people who don't want to have sex with trans people. But if the people who don't want to have sex with people who don't want to have sex with trans people were a large proportion of society and people who don't want to have sex with trans people were a tiny minority then the onus would be on the people who don't want to have sex with trans people to divulge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
