|
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.
It stops when you think it's not something that would affect their decision, the problem I've seen in this thread is that they know the other person might care, but think their opinion is wrong and/or discountable because they disagree with it.
Trans people don't have to divulge anything, just don't have sex with them if you don't want to mention it, or at least recognize what you're doing is a dick move.
|
On August 03 2013 09:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 09:05 shinosai wrote: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.
Reasonable depending on where you live. I'm 100% certain that in certain cities, the anti-transphobes outnumber the transphobes. You must logically admit then that it is possible for a transphobe to rape a trans person in these cities. I mean, it's purely statistics.
|
United States41959 Posts
On August 03 2013 09:12 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 09:07 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 09:05 shinosai wrote: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. Reasonable depending on where you live. I'm 100% certain that in certain cities, the anti-transphobes outnumber the transphobes. You must logically admit then that it is possible for a transphobe to rape a trans person in these cities. I mean, it's purely statistics.
And in those cities then your rule would apply. My rule isn't out to get trans people, it's a moral principle.
|
On August 03 2013 09:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 09:02 Pierrot wrote: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.
Where do you draw the line though? I thought the whole point of random casual sex based on physical attraction to one another was mutually shallow? For the sake of this point, I'm going to assume that you are a man who is attracted to women, apologies if you are not. You also aren't into one night stands either, so it doesn't apply anyway. But do you think the phrase "Just to let you know babe, I moderate a video game forum" might effect consent? Even a little bit? I think it might, given the right atmosphere. I struggle to think of anything that matters less when you hook up with someone. How about "So...I used to be a bed wetter"? Or "I've struggled with mental illness my whole life and have attempted suicide 3 times". Yeah, that might weird someone out to hear it, it might not make them want to fuck you that night. Withholding that information doesn't matter though. But it's information that may effect consent...
|
On August 03 2013 09:12 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 09:07 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 09:05 shinosai wrote: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. Reasonable depending on where you live. I'm 100% certain that in certain cities, the anti-transphobes outnumber the transphobes. You must logically admit then that it is possible for a transphobe to rape a trans person in these cities. I mean, it's purely statistics.
thats weird...thats like a westboro church member going to castro district in SF to hook up with a trans....the fact that this place takes in such area, the trans would assume the westboro member to be pro-trans. and afterwards westboro member says "SIKE! i'm a transphobe!!" thats comedy actually
|
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 [the non-transphobes/racists] and to ask in order to rule it out. (edited for clarity)
The problem I see with that one is that, as already mentioned before transphobe / racist people usually don't see themselves as thransphobe or racist.
A racist person isn't racist for the lulz of it but because in his/her twisted mind he actually thinks he's got a point.
At the very least if you're not going for down-to-the-root racists / transphobes and are asking about those grey areas that may be racist but aren't inteded to be and aren't hurtful, it's very unlikely for the person to be able to figure out himself he's a racist until being told so.
|
On August 03 2013 09:15 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 09:12 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 09:07 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 09:05 shinosai wrote: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. Reasonable depending on where you live. I'm 100% certain that in certain cities, the anti-transphobes outnumber the transphobes. You must logically admit then that it is possible for a transphobe to rape a trans person in these cities. I mean, it's purely statistics. thats weird...thats like a westboro church member going to castro district in SF to hook up with a trans....the fact that this place takes in such area, the trans would assume the westboro member to be pro-trans. and afterwards westboro member says "SIKE! i'm a transphobe!!" thats comedy actually
I'm so stealing this and writing a musical around the idea.
|
On August 03 2013 09:15 Pierrot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 09:05 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 09:02 Pierrot wrote: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. Where do you draw the line though? I thought the whole point of random casual sex based on physical attraction to one another was mutually shallow? For the sake of this point, I'm going to assume that you are a man who is attracted to women, apologies if you are not. You also aren't into one night stands either, so it doesn't apply anyway. But do you think the phrase "Just to let you know babe, I moderate a video game forum" might effect consent? Even a little bit? I think it might, given the right atmosphere. I struggle to think of anything that matter less when you hook up with someone. How about "So...I used to be a bed wetter"? Or "I've struggled with mental illness my whole life and have attempted suicide 3 times". Yeah, that might weird someone out to hear it, it might not make them want to fuck you that night. Withholding that information doesn't matter though. But it's information that may effect consent...
This slippery slope thing's kind of dumb. Unless the person has mentioned something that shows those things affect their decision to consent, or it's something the majority of people might care about, it's not really relevant. Now, here you can either state that the majority of people care if someone is trans, in which case it'd be something you should tell them, or you think the majority of people don't care if someone is trans, in which case I'd call you a bold faced liar.
|
United States41959 Posts
On August 03 2013 09:15 Pierrot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 09:05 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 09:02 Pierrot wrote: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. Where do you draw the line though? I thought the whole point of random casual sex based on physical attraction to one another was mutually shallow? For the sake of this point, I'm going to assume that you are a man who is attracted to women, apologies if you are not. You also aren't into one night stands either, so it doesn't apply anyway. But do you think the phrase "Just to let you know babe, I moderate a video game forum" might effect consent? Even a little bit? I think it might, given the right atmosphere. I struggle to think of anything that matters less when you hook up with someone. How about "So...I used to be a bed wetter"? Or "I've struggled with mental illness my whole life and have attempted suicide 3 times". Yeah, that might weird someone out to hear it, it might not make them want to fuck you that night. Withholding that information doesn't matter though. But it's information that may effect consent...
I don't have a fixed line for you but nor have I said it's always immoral. I've said it's bad when you have reason to assume that their consent might be linked to their assumption that you are cis.
|
On August 03 2013 06:28 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 06:26 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:23 Shiori wrote:On August 03 2013 06:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 06:06 Shiori wrote:But when she's a trans person, oh holy shit now it's rape by deceit! Fuck you people, it's not about withholding information, it's about her being trans and you being a bigot. Wait. I thought Kwarik was freaking out and everyone was politely telling him to calm down. Now I'm a bigot because I want to sleep with cis women. Go figure. The last time they did they got beat up. In public? coming out as trans isn't always something that happens in public. Picture this. You're at his place, you've been kissing, you both want to go further, but you decide to let them know "there's something I want to tell you first". Next thing you know he's hitting you, calling you a freak, etc. It can get ugly fast, and its a problem that a lot of trans people have to deal with. Uhhhh, why would you ever go home with someone before having this conversation? Seriously. Wtf. Because, according to several trans posters, the conversation is hard and what am I supposed to do, not get laid? Come on KwarK, surely you could recognize that people might not want to publicly out themselves as trans before going home with somebody. You could reveal it in private, or if you're not sure then don't reveal it, but you probably shouldn't have sex with them then.
It's not like there aren't plenty of places that LGBT sympathizers frequent, right? I think dating in one would greatly reduce the chance of coming across a transphobe and would make disclosing that information that much easier. What I'm trying to say is that if someone agrees to meets you at an LGBT bar or whatever, the chance that he's going to harm you in any way if you disclose is pretty nonexistent (otherwise you might as well argue that an average woman should worry that an average man is a potential rapist).
|
On August 03 2013 09:29 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 06:28 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 06:26 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:23 Shiori wrote:On August 03 2013 06:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 06:06 Shiori wrote:But when she's a trans person, oh holy shit now it's rape by deceit! Fuck you people, it's not about withholding information, it's about her being trans and you being a bigot. Wait. I thought Kwarik was freaking out and everyone was politely telling him to calm down. Now I'm a bigot because I want to sleep with cis women. Go figure. The last time they did they got beat up. In public? coming out as trans isn't always something that happens in public. Picture this. You're at his place, you've been kissing, you both want to go further, but you decide to let them know "there's something I want to tell you first". Next thing you know he's hitting you, calling you a freak, etc. It can get ugly fast, and its a problem that a lot of trans people have to deal with. Uhhhh, why would you ever go home with someone before having this conversation? Seriously. Wtf. Because, according to several trans posters, the conversation is hard and what am I supposed to do, not get laid? Come on KwarK, surely you could recognize that people might not want to publicly out themselves as trans before going home with somebody. You could reveal it in private, or if you're not sure then don't reveal it, but you probably shouldn't have sex with them then. It's not like there aren't plenty of places that LGBT sympathizers frequent, right? I think dating in one would greatly reduce the chance of coming across a transphobe and would make disclosing that information that much easier. What I'm trying to say is that if someone agrees to meets you at an LGBT bar or whatever, the chance that he's going to harm you in any way if you disclose is pretty nonexistent (otherwise you might as well argue that an average woman should worry that an average man is a potential rapist).
There's not a single gay/lbgt bar that isn't 2 hours away from where I live. And I don't live in a rural area. Granted, I only date women, so not much of an issue. Point is, there are actually a lot of areas that don't have access to lbgt friendly spaces. There are a few events here and there, but in my city the summer has been pretty dry.
|
On August 03 2013 09:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 09:05 shinosai wrote: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.
Another point which I think is important is the perceived "impact" on the knowledge that a person you slept with had an undesirable quality. Like, knowing that your partner was a racist probably wouldn't be ok with most people, but it's still "just sex" and it isn't closely related to the intimacy of the situation.
Having slept with trans woman, however, in transphobe's mind means that they actually slept with a man who is just pretending to be a woman (I believe homosexual fears are closely connected to this) and to people who are homophobic/transphobic, this is a huge issue (in their mind they lost their manhood and all that other egocentric ignorant BS).
I don't know if that's accurate, but again, that's just the my perception (image in my head) transphobes to be from the media and so on. They are basically huge assholes who aren't capable of feeling other people's pain or imagine themselves in their shoes, but I still believe they have the right to choose their sexual partners from any criteria they want.
As a result I feel like if one had a similar perception on transphobia and its effects as me and wanted to remain moral and respect other human beings (even if they're quite likely huge empathy-lacking assholes), they should tell them about their status. It's a terrible situation either way..
But again, it's possible some trans people don't think it's a big deal (due to a combination of their perception of how big of a deal it is for someone to sleep with a trans and the likelihood of actually sleeping with a transphobe who would have such a strong reaction), so they think it's not important for them to tell.
|
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 have responsibility to disclose. (edited for clarity)
I will try to give a painfully detailed explanation of the argument for voluntary disclosure of transsexuality. It hinges on the combination of two factors:
a) it is relatively rare, meaning you would have to do a lot of asking per affirmative
b) it is something that would make relatively many people, somewhere in the order of 10% to 90%, withdraw their consent to sex
The argument does not hold for:
- a but not b, i.e. missing one kidney; it is rare, but very few people consider it a dealbreaker
- b but not a, i.e. having a moderately small penis; conceivably, some people would consider this a dealbreaker, but the other party knows that this is a fairly likely possibility and should ask if particularly concerned about it
- neither b nor a, i.e. missing one of your molars, which is neither rare nor something people feel strongly about
Let's practice a bit more, now using examples from a wider space:
- a and b: you are selling pieces of art at your gallery, and among a thousand authentic pieces, you are also displaying a single, non-authentic piece; this is (a) not something your customers would expect, and (b) something which can be expected to change their perceived value of the piece, and thus you should make sure they know the piece is non-authentic
- a and b: you are married and just had sex with your secretary at work; this is (a) not something your wife can ask you about every time you come home, and (b) something she might very well think is a big deal, and thus you should tell her
- a and b: you are bench pressing with your friend every day at eight o'clock, but today you are feeling too sick; this is (a) something which happens too rarely for him to call you and confirm every session and (b) something which would make it difficult for him to work out on his own, so you should make sure he knows you won't show
- a but not b: you go to see the doctor for some abdominal pains; you always wear different socks on each foot, but you figure that can't matter for the diagnosis, so you don't feel obliged to tell him
- b but not a: you go to see the doctor for some abdominal pains; you are on the pill, but you figure he is aware you might be and would ask if he wanted to know, so you don't feel it is necessary to tell him
- neither b nor a: you are becoming friends with a guy at work; you don't drink alcohol, which is fairly common and also probably not something which would change his opinion about being friends with you, so you you don't see why you would have to tell him
The argument does not hold for transsexuality, in a setting which where either condition (a) or (b) fails, such as:
- neither b nor a, i.e a transsexual dating site, where you would be expected both to meet transsexuals and think that's great
- a but not b, i.e. someone who's had transsexual partners before and thus can be expected to be fine with transsexuals
- b but not a - I'm not sure if I can find an example for this case
Transsexuality isn't the only case where you should inform in advance. If you meet someone at a speed dating event and you are married and planning to stay with your wife, then you ought to inform, because:
- a: this is not something your partner can be expected to ask about
- b: this is something you could expect would make your partner reconsider
As far as transphobia goes, I consider it extremely unlikely that it fulfills both conditions a and b.
|
On August 03 2013 06:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 06:42 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 06:40 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:38 Sokrates wrote:On August 03 2013 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:28 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 06:26 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:23 Shiori wrote:On August 03 2013 06:09 packrat386 wrote:On August 03 2013 06:06 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
Wait. I thought Kwarik was freaking out and everyone was politely telling him to calm down. Now I'm a bigot because I want to sleep with cis women. Go figure.
[quote]
In public? coming out as trans isn't always something that happens in public. Picture this. You're at his place, you've been kissing, you both want to go further, but you decide to let them know "there's something I want to tell you first". Next thing you know he's hitting you, calling you a freak, etc. It can get ugly fast, and its a problem that a lot of trans people have to deal with. Uhhhh, why would you ever go home with someone before having this conversation? Seriously. Wtf. Because, according to several trans posters, the conversation is hard and what am I supposed to do, not get laid? According to several male cis posters it's the girl's job to do the thinking during sex. Need to make sure the boys don't end up doing something their tiny minds might regret after all. Nope, applies both ways. Stop trying to paint me as a sexist, my disgust from you come from my feminist convictions about consent being really important. If i know a girl is really into astronauts and i tell her i m an astronaut to fuck her then i m a rapist? By my moral standard, yes. But the law can't possibly prove that her consent was entirely due to the lie and that she would not have otherwise consented so it's impossible to build a legal structure around that principle. Your moral standard does not stand up to others and implies a terrible crime that does not match the act in question. You may wish to find a new word, as you are offending the shit out of people. You think obtaining consent through deception is any better than obtaining it through force? If she doesn't want to have sex with you and you know she doesn't want to have sex with you and you do a thing that gets her to have sex with you then you're a rapist.
Just to throw my two cents: using a rape pill is closer to deception (you're essentially tricking them into drinking something they wouldn't drink, in order to have unconsensual sex with them - you're not actually brutalizing them) than it is to forcefully raping someone.
|
On August 03 2013 09:43 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 06:43 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:42 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 06:40 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:38 Sokrates wrote:On August 03 2013 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:28 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 06:26 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:23 Shiori wrote:On August 03 2013 06:09 packrat386 wrote:
[quote]
coming out as trans isn't always something that happens in public. Picture this.
You're at his place, you've been kissing, you both want to go further, but you decide to let them know "there's something I want to tell you first".
Next thing you know he's hitting you, calling you a freak, etc. It can get ugly fast, and its a problem that a lot of trans people have to deal with. Uhhhh, why would you ever go home with someone before having this conversation? Seriously. Wtf. Because, according to several trans posters, the conversation is hard and what am I supposed to do, not get laid? According to several male cis posters it's the girl's job to do the thinking during sex. Need to make sure the boys don't end up doing something their tiny minds might regret after all. Nope, applies both ways. Stop trying to paint me as a sexist, my disgust from you come from my feminist convictions about consent being really important. If i know a girl is really into astronauts and i tell her i m an astronaut to fuck her then i m a rapist? By my moral standard, yes. But the law can't possibly prove that her consent was entirely due to the lie and that she would not have otherwise consented so it's impossible to build a legal structure around that principle. Your moral standard does not stand up to others and implies a terrible crime that does not match the act in question. You may wish to find a new word, as you are offending the shit out of people. You think obtaining consent through deception is any better than obtaining it through force? If she doesn't want to have sex with you and you know she doesn't want to have sex with you and you do a thing that gets her to have sex with you then you're a rapist. Just to throw my two cents: using a rape pill is closer to deception (you're essentially tricking them into drinking something they wouldn't drink, in order to have unconsensual sex with them - you're not actually brutalizing them) than it is to forcefully raping someone.
First, you trick them into drinking a drug they don't want to drink, which is deception and criminal all by itself, though not yet rape.
Then, you have sex with their unconscious body without their consent, which is rape and criminal all by itself, though this part doesn't involve deception.
Using the rape pill is pretty much the worst from both worlds, though it does lack the dimension of assault and terror.
|
On August 03 2013 09:51 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 09:43 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 06:43 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:42 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 06:40 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:38 Sokrates wrote:On August 03 2013 06:32 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:28 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 06:26 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:23 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
Uhhhh, why would you ever go home with someone before having this conversation? Seriously. Wtf. Because, according to several trans posters, the conversation is hard and what am I supposed to do, not get laid? According to several male cis posters it's the girl's job to do the thinking during sex. Need to make sure the boys don't end up doing something their tiny minds might regret after all. Nope, applies both ways. Stop trying to paint me as a sexist, my disgust from you come from my feminist convictions about consent being really important. If i know a girl is really into astronauts and i tell her i m an astronaut to fuck her then i m a rapist? By my moral standard, yes. But the law can't possibly prove that her consent was entirely due to the lie and that she would not have otherwise consented so it's impossible to build a legal structure around that principle. Your moral standard does not stand up to others and implies a terrible crime that does not match the act in question. You may wish to find a new word, as you are offending the shit out of people. You think obtaining consent through deception is any better than obtaining it through force? If she doesn't want to have sex with you and you know she doesn't want to have sex with you and you do a thing that gets her to have sex with you then you're a rapist. Just to throw my two cents: using a rape pill is closer to deception (you're essentially tricking them into drinking something they wouldn't drink, in order to have unconsensual sex with them - you're not actually brutalizing them) than it is to forcefully raping someone. First, you trick them into drinking a drug they don't want to drink, which is deception and criminal all by itself, though not yet rape. Then, you have sex with their unconscious body without their consent, which is rape and criminal all by itself, though this part doesn't involve deception. Using the rape pill is pretty much the worst from both worlds, though it does lack the dimension of assault and terror.
What if she was there to find a hookup? Some people would argue that this is equal to giving "some degree of consent", and the man drugged her to increase his chances. ;;
@MidKnight
The consent was not given, that's the point. Consent to sex with a cis woman =/= consent to sex with a trans woman, for most people. That doesn't have anything with revoking consent.
Read the twins analogy, or the relatives analogy.
On August 03 2013 07:10 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 07:08 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 07:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 07:01 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 06:49 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 03 2013 06:45 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 06:42 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 06:37 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Actually, this is your position. By not giving men the opportunity for consent, you are effectively taking total reign over the implications of intimacy. Your definition ends up being the only thing that matters. They have the opportunity of consent and I have my privacy. They pick me up at the bar, what they see is what they get, and we fuck and that's it. Because as far as you're concerned there is no cis vs trans distinction. But you don't get to decide their criteria, they do. And if they do make a distinction and have sex with you acting under the assumption that you are cis and you were aware that they made this distinction then you are deceiving them into sex. Consent relies upon equal information. Consent relies on nothing of the sort. And we're back to this one. A guy has a twin who is married. The twins don't know each other as they were adopted separately. His twin's wife doesn't know her husband has a twin. One night the unmarried twin shows up and has sex with his brother's wife. Is it her duty to ask her husband each time "is it you or your twin?" while knowing that he might possibly have a twin but probably doesn't or rather is it reasonable to assume the guy who looks like her husband is her husband. Likewise is it reasonable for the twin to assume that his brother's wife's consent is built on the assumption that he is her husband rather than her husband or his twin or whatever? ...your analogy is fucking horrible, and if this is what you're basing your entire logic on, then your logic is completely out of whack. Rape by impersonation is defined in law, along with consent obtained through impersonation. It is rape, and impersonation does not grant consent. Consent through "failure to disclose turnoffs" is not. Transphobic people believe that trans people are impersonating cis people. Doesn't matter if they're right or not, if that's their condition for consent and you are reasonably sure that that is their condition for consent and reasonably sure they think you're cis, you tell them. But they are still a singular person. Twins are not. Not even close. No matter what information you fail to disclose to a possible sex partner, you are still asking them to have sex with you. Your twin analogy sucks. Please stop. I'm not convinced you understood it. Twin 2 is asking twin 1s wife for sex with him, the singular. The wife is then making a reasonable assumption about who she is about to fuck. Twin 2 knows that this assumption is not true but he doesn't care because he wants to fuck and anyway, if he asks she might have a problem with fucking people who aren't her husband and get mad and hurt him. And what's he meant to do, not get laid? Rape by impersonation. That has a definition that you can actually look up, and I highly suggest you start caring about words and phrases actually mean outside of your own imagination.
And now ask yourself the question: what makes rape by impersonation morally wrong? The fact that you're gaining consent through deception, nothing else. The same applies to the topic at hand. I don't see how going out of your way to be as indistinguishable from cis women, knowing that most people would have a problem with your transsexualism when it comes to giving consent to sex, and that they assume you are a cis woman and you reinforce that reasonable assumption is not a form of deception.
|
To summarize my thoughts on this,
If by your own subjective moral compass *you* are consciously aware that a certain piece of information about yourself is likely make it so that a large % of population would consider that info to be a dealbreaker or make them feel extremely uncomfortable (my own examples I believe a large % of population would consider dealbreakers and would like to know about: marital status, thoughts on racism, cis/trans status) AND you want to be courteous to other people (no matter if you agree with their own criteria of how they choose sexual partners or not), you should tell them that information about yourself.
It comes down to the extent you are aware of the social situation. Some people really have no clue, I think they're excused. But if you can have a conscious thought and some kind of analysis and choose to withhold the info, you're behaving like an ass inconsiderate to other people's feelings.
You can feign ignorance, but that's just being dishonest with yourself and I believe is on your conscience.
We all lie to some extent to increase the attractiveness or mask our imperfections. But in most of those cases other person finding out wouldn't suddenly make them incredibly angry or bitter.
Again, I feel this is all subjective.
For example, putting on a wig when you're bald and not telling someone is fine IMO because even though that increases your perceived attractiveness without them knowing, it's not something:
(and this is, again, my own perception)
1) I think MOST people would care about at all.
2) Out of the small % people who do care, would make this an extremely uncomfortable situation for them.
As a result of these factors, disclosing this information "by default" should probably not be something a woman should do from my perspective, because in her mind, this isn't that big of a deal and by her own subjective judgment, won't make people extremely angry if they found out they were lied to.
However, if before you actually have a ons, the other person would randomly see a bald woman and say something like "I don't find that attractive at all" suddenly your knowledge of the situation changes. Now you DO know that even though your initial perception of the public was possibly right, and as such you initially chose to not disclose the truth, in this specific instance it matters and you are aware that you are consciously deceiving the partner. Personally I still don't think it's that big of a deal to lie, as unless to that person being bald is an actual "dealbreaker", it won't make them feel like they got taken advantage of.
If you continue on with this, you are likely to be an asshole for lying about something which other person perceived differently about you, but I don't think it would make them regret the decision to sleep with you.
Again, this is entirely subjective.
The whole issue in the trans debate is that it's (from my perspective) an extreme outlier in our society. For a lot of people it's, unfortunately, a fundamental problem which they simply can't shake off for a lot of (IMO ignorant) reasons. From my perspective:
1) A reasonably high % of population are transphobes.
2) Because of the disproportionate ratio of cis to trans in the population, people will assume that they are interacting with cis. To a transphobe the event of sleeping with trans could be a traumatizing experience and they would never do so willingly (yet again, I think their reasonings are culture driven and ignorant, but I still think they have a right to choose their sexual partners and can't be forced into a situation they find "icky" or whatever).
If a trans person has a similar (perceived) idea as I do, for example, and still chooses to not disclose their status, I would view them as immoral because even though they know they're the outlier in this society and as such people will make assumptions that they are cis whenever they find them attractive, they chose not to disclose this information about themselves which from their previous perceived knowledge they had could be, and because of the current state of society, unfortunately probably is, a huge issue for a lot of their partners. It has nothing to do how you feel about your potential partner or if you agree with their criteria for sexual partners, but just being the one with more info in the situation and acting courteously to fellow human beings and not deceiving them..
If you don't care about being a decent and moral human being, none of this really applies either way.
Also I posted half this shit half asleep I bet it will be funny to read it tommorow..
|
Maybe im drunk but i really think if someone is that sensitive about having sex and the other person somehow lied to you about certain things or didnt mention certain things at all (except STDs which whould threaten your health) then you have to DEAL WITH IT. Get over it. You are not a fucking child that didnt get the nice toy for behaving well.
Man or women up, dont be fucking childish. If i read all this shit i really wonder how people get along in the real world. There is so much shit going wrong and some people complain about being "tricked" into sex.
Shit you had sex with a trans person and you didnt know. OMFG IT WAS RAPE. Because you realized she wasnt what you expect. I have no sympathy for all this. Neither do i have sympathy for all that "oh you dont wanna have sex with a trans person you most be transphobic and therefore a bad person." Is this discussion about who has the most insulting slurs?
People do what they do. We are all human. You are not the center of the universe.
|
On August 03 2013 11:32 Sokrates wrote:
Maybe im drunk but i really think if someone is that sensitive about having sex and the other person somehow lied to you about certain things or didnt mention certain things at all (except STDs which whould threaten your health) then you have to DEAL WITH IT. Get over it. You are not a fucking child that didnt get the nice toy for behaving well.
Man or women up, dont be fucking childish. If i read all this shit i really wonder how people get along in the real world. There is so much shit going wrong and some people complain about being "tricked" into sex.
Shit you had sex with a trans person and you didnt know. OMFG IT WAS RAPE. Because you realized she wasnt what you expect. I have no sympathy for all this. Neither do i have sympathy for all that "oh you dont wanna have sex with a trans person you most be transphobic and therefore a bad person." Is this discussion about who has the most insulting slurs?
People do what they do. We are all human. You are not the center of the universe.
i would fraze it like yo bro you pickin up chicks at the barz you think they all cis or wat?
|
Northern Ireland23765 Posts
On August 03 2013 11:32 Sokrates wrote:
Maybe im drunk but i really think if someone is that sensitive about having sex and the other person somehow lied to you about certain things or didnt mention certain things at all (except STDs which whould threaten your health) then you have to DEAL WITH IT. Get over it. You are not a fucking child that didnt get the nice toy for behaving well.
Man or women up, dont be fucking childish. If i read all this shit i really wonder how people get along in the real world. There is so much shit going wrong and some people complain about being "tricked" into sex.
Shit you had sex with a trans person and you didnt know. OMFG IT WAS RAPE. Because you realized she wasnt what you expect. I have no sympathy for all this. Neither do i have sympathy for all that "oh you dont wanna have sex with a trans person you most be transphobic and therefore a bad person." Is this discussion about who has the most insulting slurs?
People do what they do. We are all human. You are not the center of the universe.
I'm the centre of my universe. Without appearing humoungously arrogant I'm the only variable I can really account for in terms of emotions/how I feel about things. It's just reasoned conjecture with everyone else.
It's not really bitching, indeed it's merely a hypothetical discussion for most of us. It's interesting to find where the various lines are, or where other people conceive them to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
