|
|
|
United States41959 Posts
For those who were here yesterday, Arkless just sent me this.
I feel like you are just mad, because i pointed out sleeping with people and lying by omission is wrong. And it is what you are probably doing.
wow
|
On August 03 2013 23:09 KwarK wrote:For those who were here yesterday, Arkham just sent me this. Show nested quote +I feel like you are just mad, because i pointed out sleeping with people and lying by omission is wrong. And it is what you are probably doing. wow
I think you were correct. He does wear his badge of ignorance with pride.
|
On August 03 2013 23:09 KwarK wrote:For those who were here yesterday, Arkham just sent me this. Show nested quote +I feel like you are just mad, because i pointed out sleeping with people and lying by omission is wrong. And it is what you are probably doing. wow
Arkham? Please explain.
|
United States41959 Posts
On August 03 2013 23:10 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 23:09 KwarK wrote:For those who were here yesterday, Arkham just sent me this. I feel like you are just mad, because i pointed out sleeping with people and lying by omission is wrong. And it is what you are probably doing. wow Arkham? Please explain.
My bad, typo.
|
On August 03 2013 21:19 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:07 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 19:48 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 19:34 i_bE_free wrote:On August 03 2013 19:10 Lynda wrote:
Wow, I can't believe people went on for 60 pages in a circle, beating a dead horse, posting very flawed analogies, while reaching both extreme wrong ends, of it being rapey / a redefinition of rape, and that people who at all are uncomfortable having sex with a trans woman are instantly transphobic/bigots and then their consent criterias doesn't matter. And what was achieved? After initially everyone being more or less able to agree that it's morally wrong, congratulations, you just spent a lot of your time arguing for 60 pages about something that apparently the two (I think there were two?) trans women who posted that they are going to do, are going to continue to do anyway without you being able to enforce it, while a lot of people pissed each other off and created a toxic environment.
While I strongly disagree too with the notion of it being rapey / a redefinition of rape, and rather would just call it immoral / being an asshole, I can agree with KwarK that two wrongs don't make a right, not wanting to disclose due to personal safety does not give the moral card to someone to disregard others' consent criterias, because having one night stands isn't a 100% necessity for one's life.
To the two trans women who posted that they're going to do it anyway, what did you expect, to be given a high five and to be given permission to continue doing it? Frankly, it surely isn't helping your cause to passionately post that just because people don't care about your safety then you can completely disregard what could potentially make someone very uncomfortable (hinging on the fact that they never find out and then they won't be), because two wrongs don't make a right. If you love one night stands so much that you think it's an indispensable part of your life and you are going to behave this way, we can't force you not to do it, but then don't passionately post about it while even having the attitude of being on a high horse and then bring up really flawed, sexist statements (even if in defense of rapist accusations that, like I said, I disagree with myself) like men can't be raped.
I might also be negatively biased here though because being a lesbian I don't have this problem, I also don't care about one night stands at all, and it also angers me from the standpoint that people like myself, as well as straight/bisexual trans women who do disclose to their partners, will be lumped in together with straight/bi trans women who don't disclose, and can receive just as heavy of a physical assault from people / friends of people who had not been disclosed to prior but they found out (or from people who heard about that happening and got really angered), as they'll assume about us too that we're just "creepy sexually deviant freaks who trick straight men into having sex with them" as many people probably already think that's what transsexuality is all about (and when I tell them I'm a lesbian they can't comprehend it / don't believe me, as suddenly their entire notion of transsexuality would completely collapse).
But if you're not going to disclose, then at least please don't be a vocal minority online who passionately keeps posting that you won't, while having the attitude that you do not care at all about anyone else's opinion on the matter, because you sure aren't even helping your cause, you are just angering people who would've supported you otherwise and reinforcing people's views that because two trans women posted that they don't disclose, they can automatically generalize that all trans women won't disclose.
As for the extreme accusation of people being bigots/transphobes for not wanting to sleep with a trans woman, that's an extremely flawed stretch; even I myself felt very uncomfortable with the idea even long after I came out to myself, yet I'm a lesbian trans woman myself. So it can be all the more understood that people who are straight cis men could have a much harder time becoming comfortable, if ever. It's not their fault, we have less control over our inner sense of comfort or lack thereof than we'd think, especially when it's been so deeply ingrained due to decades of society brainwashing us into thinking that it's horribly wrong and disgusting.
People can work on their internalized transphobia, but those who won't fully be able to get rid of that sense of discomfort regarding sleeping with a straight/bi trans woman are at no fault so long as they accept trans people as their identified gender in every other way. It's society's fault, so calling those people at all transphobic, especially when they are actually supportive, is not going to help anyone; if anything, it will just anger them.
I really hope this thread can move on because it's been fucking horribly painful to read. at least the pope seems ok about gays As in believes they should not have homosexual sex because it is a sin? His view on homosexuality and homosexuals is not any different from the official line of the Church. He specifically said "I will not judge them". In Pope speak, that's saying that he is ok with them. You're manipulating what he said, like socially liberal media did. "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" He clearly implied that in order to search for God you need to try to abstain from sinful activity, as you cannot have good will and deliberately lead a sinful life. You can read more about it here: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2013/07/30/pope-francis-on-homosexuality-take-a-deep-breath.htm
Oh man my bad, I forgot that the mythical language of Pope Speak can only be translated by experts. I should know better and leave it to the experts, the Conservative media and anyone who would want to roll back that statement. After all, they are the best ones to inform me on what he meant and that it didn't change anything. Making up my own mind would be to difficult.
I read the quote and I know what he said and the question that was asked. I know that the statement does not change the entire Catholic church's stance on gays. However, he did not condemn gay people for being gay and said he did not feel it was his place to judge them. If the head of the Catholic church is unwilling to judge someone for being gay, one can assume he also means no one else should. This is a huge change in tone.
|
On August 03 2013 23:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:19 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 21:07 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 19:48 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 19:34 i_bE_free wrote:On August 03 2013 19:10 Lynda wrote:
Wow, I can't believe people went on for 60 pages in a circle, beating a dead horse, posting very flawed analogies, while reaching both extreme wrong ends, of it being rapey / a redefinition of rape, and that people who at all are uncomfortable having sex with a trans woman are instantly transphobic/bigots and then their consent criterias doesn't matter. And what was achieved? After initially everyone being more or less able to agree that it's morally wrong, congratulations, you just spent a lot of your time arguing for 60 pages about something that apparently the two (I think there were two?) trans women who posted that they are going to do, are going to continue to do anyway without you being able to enforce it, while a lot of people pissed each other off and created a toxic environment.
While I strongly disagree too with the notion of it being rapey / a redefinition of rape, and rather would just call it immoral / being an asshole, I can agree with KwarK that two wrongs don't make a right, not wanting to disclose due to personal safety does not give the moral card to someone to disregard others' consent criterias, because having one night stands isn't a 100% necessity for one's life.
To the two trans women who posted that they're going to do it anyway, what did you expect, to be given a high five and to be given permission to continue doing it? Frankly, it surely isn't helping your cause to passionately post that just because people don't care about your safety then you can completely disregard what could potentially make someone very uncomfortable (hinging on the fact that they never find out and then they won't be), because two wrongs don't make a right. If you love one night stands so much that you think it's an indispensable part of your life and you are going to behave this way, we can't force you not to do it, but then don't passionately post about it while even having the attitude of being on a high horse and then bring up really flawed, sexist statements (even if in defense of rapist accusations that, like I said, I disagree with myself) like men can't be raped.
I might also be negatively biased here though because being a lesbian I don't have this problem, I also don't care about one night stands at all, and it also angers me from the standpoint that people like myself, as well as straight/bisexual trans women who do disclose to their partners, will be lumped in together with straight/bi trans women who don't disclose, and can receive just as heavy of a physical assault from people / friends of people who had not been disclosed to prior but they found out (or from people who heard about that happening and got really angered), as they'll assume about us too that we're just "creepy sexually deviant freaks who trick straight men into having sex with them" as many people probably already think that's what transsexuality is all about (and when I tell them I'm a lesbian they can't comprehend it / don't believe me, as suddenly their entire notion of transsexuality would completely collapse).
But if you're not going to disclose, then at least please don't be a vocal minority online who passionately keeps posting that you won't, while having the attitude that you do not care at all about anyone else's opinion on the matter, because you sure aren't even helping your cause, you are just angering people who would've supported you otherwise and reinforcing people's views that because two trans women posted that they don't disclose, they can automatically generalize that all trans women won't disclose.
As for the extreme accusation of people being bigots/transphobes for not wanting to sleep with a trans woman, that's an extremely flawed stretch; even I myself felt very uncomfortable with the idea even long after I came out to myself, yet I'm a lesbian trans woman myself. So it can be all the more understood that people who are straight cis men could have a much harder time becoming comfortable, if ever. It's not their fault, we have less control over our inner sense of comfort or lack thereof than we'd think, especially when it's been so deeply ingrained due to decades of society brainwashing us into thinking that it's horribly wrong and disgusting.
People can work on their internalized transphobia, but those who won't fully be able to get rid of that sense of discomfort regarding sleeping with a straight/bi trans woman are at no fault so long as they accept trans people as their identified gender in every other way. It's society's fault, so calling those people at all transphobic, especially when they are actually supportive, is not going to help anyone; if anything, it will just anger them.
I really hope this thread can move on because it's been fucking horribly painful to read. at least the pope seems ok about gays As in believes they should not have homosexual sex because it is a sin? His view on homosexuality and homosexuals is not any different from the official line of the Church. He specifically said "I will not judge them". In Pope speak, that's saying that he is ok with them. You're manipulating what he said, like socially liberal media did. "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" He clearly implied that in order to search for God you need to try to abstain from sinful activity, as you cannot have good will and deliberately lead a sinful life. You can read more about it here: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2013/07/30/pope-francis-on-homosexuality-take-a-deep-breath.htm Oh man my bad, I forgot that the mythical language of Pope Speak can only be translated by experts. I should know better and leave it to the experts, the Conservative media and anyone who would want to roll back that statement. After all, they are the best ones to inform me on what he meant and that it didn't change anything. Making up my own mind would be to difficult. I read the quote and I know what he said and the question that was asked. I know that the statement does not change the entire Catholic church's stance on gays. However, he did not condemn gay people for being gay and said he did not feel it was his place to judge them. If the head of the Catholic church is unwilling to judge someone for being gay, one can assume he also means no one else should. This is a huge change in tone.
If he hadn't followed it up with a shot on gay lobbying I would completely agree.
Also, lol at that PM to KwarK.
|
On August 03 2013 23:54 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 23:20 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 21:19 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 21:07 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 19:48 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 19:34 i_bE_free wrote:On August 03 2013 19:10 Lynda wrote:
Wow, I can't believe people went on for 60 pages in a circle, beating a dead horse, posting very flawed analogies, while reaching both extreme wrong ends, of it being rapey / a redefinition of rape, and that people who at all are uncomfortable having sex with a trans woman are instantly transphobic/bigots and then their consent criterias doesn't matter. And what was achieved? After initially everyone being more or less able to agree that it's morally wrong, congratulations, you just spent a lot of your time arguing for 60 pages about something that apparently the two (I think there were two?) trans women who posted that they are going to do, are going to continue to do anyway without you being able to enforce it, while a lot of people pissed each other off and created a toxic environment.
While I strongly disagree too with the notion of it being rapey / a redefinition of rape, and rather would just call it immoral / being an asshole, I can agree with KwarK that two wrongs don't make a right, not wanting to disclose due to personal safety does not give the moral card to someone to disregard others' consent criterias, because having one night stands isn't a 100% necessity for one's life.
To the two trans women who posted that they're going to do it anyway, what did you expect, to be given a high five and to be given permission to continue doing it? Frankly, it surely isn't helping your cause to passionately post that just because people don't care about your safety then you can completely disregard what could potentially make someone very uncomfortable (hinging on the fact that they never find out and then they won't be), because two wrongs don't make a right. If you love one night stands so much that you think it's an indispensable part of your life and you are going to behave this way, we can't force you not to do it, but then don't passionately post about it while even having the attitude of being on a high horse and then bring up really flawed, sexist statements (even if in defense of rapist accusations that, like I said, I disagree with myself) like men can't be raped.
I might also be negatively biased here though because being a lesbian I don't have this problem, I also don't care about one night stands at all, and it also angers me from the standpoint that people like myself, as well as straight/bisexual trans women who do disclose to their partners, will be lumped in together with straight/bi trans women who don't disclose, and can receive just as heavy of a physical assault from people / friends of people who had not been disclosed to prior but they found out (or from people who heard about that happening and got really angered), as they'll assume about us too that we're just "creepy sexually deviant freaks who trick straight men into having sex with them" as many people probably already think that's what transsexuality is all about (and when I tell them I'm a lesbian they can't comprehend it / don't believe me, as suddenly their entire notion of transsexuality would completely collapse).
But if you're not going to disclose, then at least please don't be a vocal minority online who passionately keeps posting that you won't, while having the attitude that you do not care at all about anyone else's opinion on the matter, because you sure aren't even helping your cause, you are just angering people who would've supported you otherwise and reinforcing people's views that because two trans women posted that they don't disclose, they can automatically generalize that all trans women won't disclose.
As for the extreme accusation of people being bigots/transphobes for not wanting to sleep with a trans woman, that's an extremely flawed stretch; even I myself felt very uncomfortable with the idea even long after I came out to myself, yet I'm a lesbian trans woman myself. So it can be all the more understood that people who are straight cis men could have a much harder time becoming comfortable, if ever. It's not their fault, we have less control over our inner sense of comfort or lack thereof than we'd think, especially when it's been so deeply ingrained due to decades of society brainwashing us into thinking that it's horribly wrong and disgusting.
People can work on their internalized transphobia, but those who won't fully be able to get rid of that sense of discomfort regarding sleeping with a straight/bi trans woman are at no fault so long as they accept trans people as their identified gender in every other way. It's society's fault, so calling those people at all transphobic, especially when they are actually supportive, is not going to help anyone; if anything, it will just anger them.
I really hope this thread can move on because it's been fucking horribly painful to read. at least the pope seems ok about gays As in believes they should not have homosexual sex because it is a sin? His view on homosexuality and homosexuals is not any different from the official line of the Church. He specifically said "I will not judge them". In Pope speak, that's saying that he is ok with them. You're manipulating what he said, like socially liberal media did. "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" He clearly implied that in order to search for God you need to try to abstain from sinful activity, as you cannot have good will and deliberately lead a sinful life. You can read more about it here: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2013/07/30/pope-francis-on-homosexuality-take-a-deep-breath.htm Oh man my bad, I forgot that the mythical language of Pope Speak can only be translated by experts. I should know better and leave it to the experts, the Conservative media and anyone who would want to roll back that statement. After all, they are the best ones to inform me on what he meant and that it didn't change anything. Making up my own mind would be to difficult. I read the quote and I know what he said and the question that was asked. I know that the statement does not change the entire Catholic church's stance on gays. However, he did not condemn gay people for being gay and said he did not feel it was his place to judge them. If the head of the Catholic church is unwilling to judge someone for being gay, one can assume he also means no one else should. This is a huge change in tone. If he hadn't followed it up with a shot on gay lobbying I would completely agree. Also, lol at that PM to KwarK.
He didn't take a shot at the gay lobby as a whole. Get took a shot at the "lobbies" in the church, which he even questioned if they existed. He was addressing that the church needs to be more unified and less factional on all subject. I would not take than as an attack on gays or their interests.
|
On August 04 2013 00:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 23:54 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 03 2013 23:20 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 21:19 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 21:07 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 19:48 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 19:34 i_bE_free wrote:On August 03 2013 19:10 Lynda wrote:
Wow, I can't believe people went on for 60 pages in a circle, beating a dead horse, posting very flawed analogies, while reaching both extreme wrong ends, of it being rapey / a redefinition of rape, and that people who at all are uncomfortable having sex with a trans woman are instantly transphobic/bigots and then their consent criterias doesn't matter. And what was achieved? After initially everyone being more or less able to agree that it's morally wrong, congratulations, you just spent a lot of your time arguing for 60 pages about something that apparently the two (I think there were two?) trans women who posted that they are going to do, are going to continue to do anyway without you being able to enforce it, while a lot of people pissed each other off and created a toxic environment.
While I strongly disagree too with the notion of it being rapey / a redefinition of rape, and rather would just call it immoral / being an asshole, I can agree with KwarK that two wrongs don't make a right, not wanting to disclose due to personal safety does not give the moral card to someone to disregard others' consent criterias, because having one night stands isn't a 100% necessity for one's life.
To the two trans women who posted that they're going to do it anyway, what did you expect, to be given a high five and to be given permission to continue doing it? Frankly, it surely isn't helping your cause to passionately post that just because people don't care about your safety then you can completely disregard what could potentially make someone very uncomfortable (hinging on the fact that they never find out and then they won't be), because two wrongs don't make a right. If you love one night stands so much that you think it's an indispensable part of your life and you are going to behave this way, we can't force you not to do it, but then don't passionately post about it while even having the attitude of being on a high horse and then bring up really flawed, sexist statements (even if in defense of rapist accusations that, like I said, I disagree with myself) like men can't be raped.
I might also be negatively biased here though because being a lesbian I don't have this problem, I also don't care about one night stands at all, and it also angers me from the standpoint that people like myself, as well as straight/bisexual trans women who do disclose to their partners, will be lumped in together with straight/bi trans women who don't disclose, and can receive just as heavy of a physical assault from people / friends of people who had not been disclosed to prior but they found out (or from people who heard about that happening and got really angered), as they'll assume about us too that we're just "creepy sexually deviant freaks who trick straight men into having sex with them" as many people probably already think that's what transsexuality is all about (and when I tell them I'm a lesbian they can't comprehend it / don't believe me, as suddenly their entire notion of transsexuality would completely collapse).
But if you're not going to disclose, then at least please don't be a vocal minority online who passionately keeps posting that you won't, while having the attitude that you do not care at all about anyone else's opinion on the matter, because you sure aren't even helping your cause, you are just angering people who would've supported you otherwise and reinforcing people's views that because two trans women posted that they don't disclose, they can automatically generalize that all trans women won't disclose.
As for the extreme accusation of people being bigots/transphobes for not wanting to sleep with a trans woman, that's an extremely flawed stretch; even I myself felt very uncomfortable with the idea even long after I came out to myself, yet I'm a lesbian trans woman myself. So it can be all the more understood that people who are straight cis men could have a much harder time becoming comfortable, if ever. It's not their fault, we have less control over our inner sense of comfort or lack thereof than we'd think, especially when it's been so deeply ingrained due to decades of society brainwashing us into thinking that it's horribly wrong and disgusting.
People can work on their internalized transphobia, but those who won't fully be able to get rid of that sense of discomfort regarding sleeping with a straight/bi trans woman are at no fault so long as they accept trans people as their identified gender in every other way. It's society's fault, so calling those people at all transphobic, especially when they are actually supportive, is not going to help anyone; if anything, it will just anger them.
I really hope this thread can move on because it's been fucking horribly painful to read. at least the pope seems ok about gays As in believes they should not have homosexual sex because it is a sin? His view on homosexuality and homosexuals is not any different from the official line of the Church. He specifically said "I will not judge them". In Pope speak, that's saying that he is ok with them. You're manipulating what he said, like socially liberal media did. "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" He clearly implied that in order to search for God you need to try to abstain from sinful activity, as you cannot have good will and deliberately lead a sinful life. You can read more about it here: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2013/07/30/pope-francis-on-homosexuality-take-a-deep-breath.htm Oh man my bad, I forgot that the mythical language of Pope Speak can only be translated by experts. I should know better and leave it to the experts, the Conservative media and anyone who would want to roll back that statement. After all, they are the best ones to inform me on what he meant and that it didn't change anything. Making up my own mind would be to difficult. I read the quote and I know what he said and the question that was asked. I know that the statement does not change the entire Catholic church's stance on gays. However, he did not condemn gay people for being gay and said he did not feel it was his place to judge them. If the head of the Catholic church is unwilling to judge someone for being gay, one can assume he also means no one else should. This is a huge change in tone. If he hadn't followed it up with a shot on gay lobbying I would completely agree. Also, lol at that PM to KwarK. He didn't take a shot at the gay lobby as a whole. Get took a shot at the "lobbies" in the church, which he even questioned if they existed. He was addressing that the church needs to be more unified and less factional on all subject. I would not take than as an attack on gays or their interests.
I know that was what he was answering, but look at what was actually said:
Addressing the issue of the gay lobby, Pope Francis said it was important to "distinguish between a person who is gay and someone who makes a gay lobby," he said. "A gay lobby isn't good."
"A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will -- well, who am I to judge him?" the pope said. "The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn't this (homosexual) orientation -- we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby."
This, coupled with the fact that nothing has actually changed makes it look like a political move and seriously devalues what he said, in my opinion. Fortunately, I think a lot of decent catcholic people will feel supported by his statement though, so in that sense I'm not in any way criticising him saying something good but in my heart I can't help but feel it was a likely clever but cynical political move.
|
I really hoped this wouldn't be necessary, but it's time for a treatise on consent.
What is consent?
Consent means that all parties involved participate of their own free will. We will primarily be discussing this in the context of sex.
Is it really that simple?
No. On one extreme end, if my partner doesn't know I'm HIV positive, while she's consenting to have sex with me, this isn't real consent. If I videotape us having sex without telling her, she's perhaps consenting to the sex, but not to being videotaped. If she knows she's being videotaped but I publish the video on the internet without telling her, I can't claim she consented. Consent in part depends on the involved parties knowing what they are consenting to.
In the same vein, if I videotape someone in the public bathroom or have sex with someone who's literally unconscious, they never get to make their feelings known. Lack of refusal does not imply consent.
Further examples involve prostitutes, who in some sense consent, but in some cases might feel they have to, because otherwise they will be (a) beaten by their pimp, (b) suffer from heroin abstinence, (c) not be able to afford fashionable clothing. Other examples involve a girl having second thoughts about her one night stand on seeing his bedroom being full of Nazi imagery, his body covered in tattoos and scars and knowing he's high on amphetamines, who doesn't really want to have sex, but fears the consequences of refusing. Consent in part depends on feasible alternatives.
Another grey area about what is consent, is the temporal dimension. If she agreed beforehand, but changed her mind during, can she withdraw her consent? (Editor's note: yes, she can.) If she genuinely enjoyed herself during the sex, but changed her mind afterwards, what then? Consent isn't entirely clear cut. It at the very least involves no direct physical violence. I have no ambitions of giving a clear definition to shove down anybody's throat.
Why should I care about consent?
At the very least, because criminal law cares about sex offenders.
If you have moral standards beyond avoiding jail time, you should care about consent because it goes a long way towards making sure nobody has sex at the expense of someone else's well-being. Insofar as possible, sex should be an enjoyable experience for everybody.
Why does consent increase the probability that everybody's enjoying themselves?
Because, generally, people themselves know better if they're enjoying themselves and what risks they are okay with than you do. If you do not obtain consent, there is a risk that you delude yourselves about what they want because the sex drive is fairly strong. There's also a chance that you know or suspect that they do not want to, but feign ignorance about this to get what you want. Furthermore, when people consent, they get to evaluate the situation on the basis of their own preferences, which might be different from yours - if she thinks herpes or being with someone who's married is a big deal and that ultimately makes her suffer, it doesn't matter that you think it isn't a big deal and her reasons for caring about herpes are silly. Ultimately, the point of consent is that everybody wins.
Can you elaborate?
It's funny that you ask.
In extreme bondage play, people use safe words. The reason for this is that it can be hard for everybody to tell when people are enjoying themselves and when they want something to stop, when the pleasure of pain is part of the deal. They will probably have agreed in advance on what's okay, but if someone realizes mid-act that they are not enjoying themselves, that's good enough reason to stop.
Why isn't it enough that people say okay in advance? Because if they misunderstood what was about to happen or if they misjudged how they would respond to it, they might have unpleasant experiences, which is a genuinely bad thing.
Do I only need to care about consent?
No. Consent is only a proxy for making sure people don't suffer. You should be extremely super careful about doing something without consent. However, consent is not necessarily sufficient.
Consent is a good proxy, only when:
- people know what they are consenting to
- people know that they have a neutral alternative to consenting, i.e. they know that a no will be respected or they can leave and go home freely; consent only means somebody prefers whatever is happening to the available alternatives and loses its value when all (perceived) alternatives are unpleasant
- people have sufficient mental capabilities to take responsibility for themselves, i.e. they are not retarded, drunk out of their minds, seven years old, senile, suffering from withdrawal symptoms, et cetera
Do I always need consent?
There are very, very, very few situations where obtaining consent isn't a very, very, very good idea. But the thing that's really important is that people don't suffer needlessly.
If you are watching a movie with your wife and she's sitting in your lap and she happens to feel asleep without you noticing and you touch her boobs - yes, you have acted without her consent. No, you're not a monster. Remember, consent is a proxy for making sure nobody gets hurt, not a categorical imperative.
But you are not a fucking psychiatrist, and even if you are, you are not a better judge of what's people are okay with than they themselves are. Obtain consent, without holding back information and while making sure people feel comfortable with saying no. Treat it like a categorical imperative.
A lot of people lie about being doctors.
A lot of people are assholes. If you wonder what you can get away with without doing time, read up on your local laws. If you genuinely want your sexual partners to have a good time, don't be an asshole.
Do I need to take responsibility for everybody's feelings?
You have the primary responsibility for yourself. Your partner has the primary responsibility for herself. This is because people themselves have a lot better information on what they want and how they feel. But if you are in a position to help others not do something they would regret or provide information which makes it easier for them to take responsibility for themselves, then:
- failing to do so, on nothing but a whim, is needlessly hurting people
- failing to do so, for personal gain, is malicious, though not necessarily criminal
I cannot tell people every single detail about myself, just in case it matters to her - nobody does that!
No, you can't, and people themselves need to use common sense and take responsibility.
If there is something very particular about you that you suspect most people would want to know before deciding to have sex, then you should tell them. This part is about you using common sense without excusing dishonesty because you really want to have sex.
Else, you're in the clear.
Sometimes people have bad sexual experiences, despite honesty and consent.
And sometimes people die in earthquakes. Even best efforts to prevent bad stuff aren't fool proof. You are still expected to try.
But this isn't a good deal for me!
Not, it really isn't. Respecting other people's well being often comes at a cost to your own. Your only reward is getting to sit on a moral high horse, and the hope that people will return the favor if they feel you are treating them with kindness and honesty.
|
United States41959 Posts
It might be worth adding that there is a huge, huge divide between what is legally defined as rape and what can be enforced and what is enforced. If your objective is simply to avoid being convicted as a rapist and have no strong feelings about the moral importance of consent then you can still be a serial rapist and have no real issues. Provided you practice good target selection, such as people of colour, people who don't fit a traditional victim narrative, people who are involved in sex work and people who consensually consumed drugs you can generally get away with it. Obviously some don't but most rapes are committed by a minority of serial rapists who are good at what they do.
The higher moral standard matters. It's about not wanting to do harm, not simply covering yourself so you don't go to prison.
|
On August 03 2013 23:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 21:19 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 21:07 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 19:48 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 19:34 i_bE_free wrote:On August 03 2013 19:10 Lynda wrote:
Wow, I can't believe people went on for 60 pages in a circle, beating a dead horse, posting very flawed analogies, while reaching both extreme wrong ends, of it being rapey / a redefinition of rape, and that people who at all are uncomfortable having sex with a trans woman are instantly transphobic/bigots and then their consent criterias doesn't matter. And what was achieved? After initially everyone being more or less able to agree that it's morally wrong, congratulations, you just spent a lot of your time arguing for 60 pages about something that apparently the two (I think there were two?) trans women who posted that they are going to do, are going to continue to do anyway without you being able to enforce it, while a lot of people pissed each other off and created a toxic environment.
While I strongly disagree too with the notion of it being rapey / a redefinition of rape, and rather would just call it immoral / being an asshole, I can agree with KwarK that two wrongs don't make a right, not wanting to disclose due to personal safety does not give the moral card to someone to disregard others' consent criterias, because having one night stands isn't a 100% necessity for one's life.
To the two trans women who posted that they're going to do it anyway, what did you expect, to be given a high five and to be given permission to continue doing it? Frankly, it surely isn't helping your cause to passionately post that just because people don't care about your safety then you can completely disregard what could potentially make someone very uncomfortable (hinging on the fact that they never find out and then they won't be), because two wrongs don't make a right. If you love one night stands so much that you think it's an indispensable part of your life and you are going to behave this way, we can't force you not to do it, but then don't passionately post about it while even having the attitude of being on a high horse and then bring up really flawed, sexist statements (even if in defense of rapist accusations that, like I said, I disagree with myself) like men can't be raped.
I might also be negatively biased here though because being a lesbian I don't have this problem, I also don't care about one night stands at all, and it also angers me from the standpoint that people like myself, as well as straight/bisexual trans women who do disclose to their partners, will be lumped in together with straight/bi trans women who don't disclose, and can receive just as heavy of a physical assault from people / friends of people who had not been disclosed to prior but they found out (or from people who heard about that happening and got really angered), as they'll assume about us too that we're just "creepy sexually deviant freaks who trick straight men into having sex with them" as many people probably already think that's what transsexuality is all about (and when I tell them I'm a lesbian they can't comprehend it / don't believe me, as suddenly their entire notion of transsexuality would completely collapse).
But if you're not going to disclose, then at least please don't be a vocal minority online who passionately keeps posting that you won't, while having the attitude that you do not care at all about anyone else's opinion on the matter, because you sure aren't even helping your cause, you are just angering people who would've supported you otherwise and reinforcing people's views that because two trans women posted that they don't disclose, they can automatically generalize that all trans women won't disclose.
As for the extreme accusation of people being bigots/transphobes for not wanting to sleep with a trans woman, that's an extremely flawed stretch; even I myself felt very uncomfortable with the idea even long after I came out to myself, yet I'm a lesbian trans woman myself. So it can be all the more understood that people who are straight cis men could have a much harder time becoming comfortable, if ever. It's not their fault, we have less control over our inner sense of comfort or lack thereof than we'd think, especially when it's been so deeply ingrained due to decades of society brainwashing us into thinking that it's horribly wrong and disgusting.
People can work on their internalized transphobia, but those who won't fully be able to get rid of that sense of discomfort regarding sleeping with a straight/bi trans woman are at no fault so long as they accept trans people as their identified gender in every other way. It's society's fault, so calling those people at all transphobic, especially when they are actually supportive, is not going to help anyone; if anything, it will just anger them.
I really hope this thread can move on because it's been fucking horribly painful to read. at least the pope seems ok about gays As in believes they should not have homosexual sex because it is a sin? His view on homosexuality and homosexuals is not any different from the official line of the Church. He specifically said "I will not judge them". In Pope speak, that's saying that he is ok with them. You're manipulating what he said, like socially liberal media did. "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" He clearly implied that in order to search for God you need to try to abstain from sinful activity, as you cannot have good will and deliberately lead a sinful life. You can read more about it here: http://catholicism.about.com/b/2013/07/30/pope-francis-on-homosexuality-take-a-deep-breath.htm Oh man my bad, I forgot that the mythical language of Pope Speak can only be translated by experts. I should know better and leave it to the experts, the Conservative media and anyone who would want to roll back that statement. After all, they are the best ones to inform me on what he meant and that it didn't change anything. Making up my own mind would be to difficult. I read the quote and I know what he said and the question that was asked. I know that the statement does not change the entire Catholic church's stance on gays. However, he did not condemn gay people for being gay and said he did not feel it was his place to judge them. If the head of the Catholic church is unwilling to judge someone for being gay, one can assume he also means no one else should. This is a huge change in tone.
You then lack reading comprehension because what the pope said was perfectly in line with the Church's teachings in that regard. In stead of going off on a tangent, based solely on your misinformed opinion of what the Church teaches about homosexuality, maybe you should inform yourself. Not to mention the fact that he did condemn homosexual activism and lobbying.
Stop imagining things.
|
Nice write-up @ Darkwhite. The only thing I missed was the difference between "consent" and "INFORMED consent" (it seems to me like you define it as the same, which ideally they should be, but very seldom are.)
|
On August 03 2013 22:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 22:37 Arkless wrote:On August 03 2013 22:30 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 22:14 Arkless wrote:
I think there is a big part of this argument missing.
First of all, let's all be realistic here. Being Trans isn't a normal thing, you can try and say "society has all the issues, etc" and "it's societies fault we aren't accepted" but the fact of the matter is. IT ISN'T NORMAL. With that said, do what you want to make yourself happy.
BUT, like I said it isn't normal. Let's get down to some scientific, brass tax here. You can put whatever bow u want to on the package (no pun intended) but scientifically, YOU ARE NOT A REAL WOMAN. You have both chromosomes, you have the bone density of a man. The reaction time of a man, the hands and jaw of a man. An adams apple, ETC. Even after years of taking hormones.
You do not have, ovaries, a uterus, the ability to become pregnant or have your period.Among some other things that come with being born a natural woman. Even when it comes to a 1 night stand, a straight male is subconsciously trying to reproduce. It just so happens to feel good, which is the reward mechanism we are born with to make sure we procreate.So let's not pretend that it's the guys' fault for not wanting to be with a trans woman. That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. And the few trans woman who say they don't feel the need to disclose to a sexual partner they were once a man. Is pretty fuckin deplorable if you ask me. No, of course you shouldn't have to tell everyone you were trans. But when it comes down to the actual act of having sex, I think I have the RIGHT to know what I am putting my penis into. And you have to tell him, you know by not telling him you were trans you are being dishonest. It is not a real vagina, regardless of what you think. And I should have the right to know. And the arguments based on " He may never know" is so gross, you assume he would never find out. But if he does, he is definitely going to be affected mentally, and not positively. And if you say, " well that's his problem" Well, no it isn't. You lied by omission. You aren't normal, so don't pretend you are.
I'm sure this all sounds harsher than intended. I know I would definitely be pissed if I had unknowingly slept with a trans woman, only to find out later it wasn't an actual woman.
And guess what, I don't hate trans people. So INb4 TRANSPHOBE comments. What makes a real man or a real woman? It can't be chromosomes because some men[1] are born with XX chromosomes and some women[2] are born with XY chromosomes. When was the last time you got your chromosomes checked? It can't be hormones because a trans men will have the same levels as a cis man and a trans woman will have the same levels as a cis woman, if they are on HRT. And hormones control secondary sexual characteristics[3] . It can't be primary sex characteristics because some cis men have internal female organs [4] , breasts[5] , and no penis[6] . Some cis women have internal male organs[7] , no breasts[8] (or they lose them[9] ), or no vagina[10] . Some people think that a metoidioplasty or a phalloplasty for a trans man doesn't result in a "real" penis, or that a vaginoplasty doesn't result in a "real" vagina. What makes a metoidioplasty made penis different from a man with a micropenis[11] (especially a guy like this[12] ?) How is a phalloplasty made penis different from a man with erectile dysfunction[13] ? How is a vaginoplasty made vagina different from a cis woman's vagina? And what makes a post op trans person different from a cis person who's sterile[14] ? p.s. You can still have transphobic attitudes even if you don't hate trans people. Ok well a) I'm not fully up on all the terminology. So, let's just forget that, you guys know what I mean. b) Nice little attack "When was the last time I you got your chromosomes checked" I'm going to assume you are trans and I offended you. I didn't mean it offensively, so get off your horse. c) "p.s. You can still have transphobic attitudes even if you don't hate trans people" Is so dumb. Not wanting to sleep with a trans doesn't mean I am transphobic by any means. I don't want to sleep with a guy, does that make me a homophobe? No Mostly because of point b. I'm not going to bother engaging with you in any debate. You know my points are vailid, so you're trying to find any loophole. Like the few out of the many born with those conditions. Such as internal genitalia. "Not wanting to sleep with a black person doesn't mean I'm racist by any means. I don't want to sleep with an animal, does that make me racist? No" If you don't want to sleep with a trans person because you believe they are less than women or not women then you are transphobic. In the exact same way that if you didn't want to sleep with a black woman because you believe blacks are subhuman you would be racist. You would have the right to that preference in terms of your right to consent to sex but your preference is not immune from judgement.
I wouldn't say they would be "less than women". But from a biological definition of the two sexes, they aren't really a " woman" at all, they're still a man. I respect the right to self-determine one's gender but it doesn't seem like you can change your biological sex, at least not with today's science.
I wouldn't say your analogy with blacks is entirely fair either because I don't think the argument is that trans are "subhuman".
|
United States41959 Posts
On August 04 2013 02:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 22:40 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 22:37 Arkless wrote:On August 03 2013 22:30 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 22:14 Arkless wrote:
I think there is a big part of this argument missing.
First of all, let's all be realistic here. Being Trans isn't a normal thing, you can try and say "society has all the issues, etc" and "it's societies fault we aren't accepted" but the fact of the matter is. IT ISN'T NORMAL. With that said, do what you want to make yourself happy.
BUT, like I said it isn't normal. Let's get down to some scientific, brass tax here. You can put whatever bow u want to on the package (no pun intended) but scientifically, YOU ARE NOT A REAL WOMAN. You have both chromosomes, you have the bone density of a man. The reaction time of a man, the hands and jaw of a man. An adams apple, ETC. Even after years of taking hormones.
You do not have, ovaries, a uterus, the ability to become pregnant or have your period.Among some other things that come with being born a natural woman. Even when it comes to a 1 night stand, a straight male is subconsciously trying to reproduce. It just so happens to feel good, which is the reward mechanism we are born with to make sure we procreate.So let's not pretend that it's the guys' fault for not wanting to be with a trans woman. That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. And the few trans woman who say they don't feel the need to disclose to a sexual partner they were once a man. Is pretty fuckin deplorable if you ask me. No, of course you shouldn't have to tell everyone you were trans. But when it comes down to the actual act of having sex, I think I have the RIGHT to know what I am putting my penis into. And you have to tell him, you know by not telling him you were trans you are being dishonest. It is not a real vagina, regardless of what you think. And I should have the right to know. And the arguments based on " He may never know" is so gross, you assume he would never find out. But if he does, he is definitely going to be affected mentally, and not positively. And if you say, " well that's his problem" Well, no it isn't. You lied by omission. You aren't normal, so don't pretend you are.
I'm sure this all sounds harsher than intended. I know I would definitely be pissed if I had unknowingly slept with a trans woman, only to find out later it wasn't an actual woman.
And guess what, I don't hate trans people. So INb4 TRANSPHOBE comments. What makes a real man or a real woman? It can't be chromosomes because some men[1] are born with XX chromosomes and some women[2] are born with XY chromosomes. When was the last time you got your chromosomes checked? It can't be hormones because a trans men will have the same levels as a cis man and a trans woman will have the same levels as a cis woman, if they are on HRT. And hormones control secondary sexual characteristics[3] . It can't be primary sex characteristics because some cis men have internal female organs [4] , breasts[5] , and no penis[6] . Some cis women have internal male organs[7] , no breasts[8] (or they lose them[9] ), or no vagina[10] . Some people think that a metoidioplasty or a phalloplasty for a trans man doesn't result in a "real" penis, or that a vaginoplasty doesn't result in a "real" vagina. What makes a metoidioplasty made penis different from a man with a micropenis[11] (especially a guy like this[12] ?) How is a phalloplasty made penis different from a man with erectile dysfunction[13] ? How is a vaginoplasty made vagina different from a cis woman's vagina? And what makes a post op trans person different from a cis person who's sterile[14] ? p.s. You can still have transphobic attitudes even if you don't hate trans people. Ok well a) I'm not fully up on all the terminology. So, let's just forget that, you guys know what I mean. b) Nice little attack "When was the last time I you got your chromosomes checked" I'm going to assume you are trans and I offended you. I didn't mean it offensively, so get off your horse. c) "p.s. You can still have transphobic attitudes even if you don't hate trans people" Is so dumb. Not wanting to sleep with a trans doesn't mean I am transphobic by any means. I don't want to sleep with a guy, does that make me a homophobe? No Mostly because of point b. I'm not going to bother engaging with you in any debate. You know my points are vailid, so you're trying to find any loophole. Like the few out of the many born with those conditions. Such as internal genitalia. "Not wanting to sleep with a black person doesn't mean I'm racist by any means. I don't want to sleep with an animal, does that make me racist? No" If you don't want to sleep with a trans person because you believe they are less than women or not women then you are transphobic. In the exact same way that if you didn't want to sleep with a black woman because you believe blacks are subhuman you would be racist. You would have the right to that preference in terms of your right to consent to sex but your preference is not immune from judgement. I wouldn't say they would be "less than women". But from a biological definition of the two sexes, they aren't really a " woman" at all, they're still a man. I respect the right to self-determine one's gender but it doesn't seem like you can change your biological sex, at least not with today's science. I wouldn't say your analogy with blacks is entirely fair though because I don't think the argument is that trans are "subhuman".
Sex isn't at all binary. This keeps coming up although another poster answered it better than me with a bunch of links to relevant examples. You can't rule trans women as not women without excluding a bunch of people normally considered as cis women from being women too. It's not as simple as XX and XY, there are all sorts of other options, people born with all sorts of primary and secondary sexual characteristics and so forth. There is no scientific definition for women which includes everyone transphobes want to include as cis women while excluding trans women.
Basically no.
|
On August 04 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 02:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2013 22:40 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 22:37 Arkless wrote:On August 03 2013 22:30 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 22:14 Arkless wrote:
I think there is a big part of this argument missing.
First of all, let's all be realistic here. Being Trans isn't a normal thing, you can try and say "society has all the issues, etc" and "it's societies fault we aren't accepted" but the fact of the matter is. IT ISN'T NORMAL. With that said, do what you want to make yourself happy.
BUT, like I said it isn't normal. Let's get down to some scientific, brass tax here. You can put whatever bow u want to on the package (no pun intended) but scientifically, YOU ARE NOT A REAL WOMAN. You have both chromosomes, you have the bone density of a man. The reaction time of a man, the hands and jaw of a man. An adams apple, ETC. Even after years of taking hormones.
You do not have, ovaries, a uterus, the ability to become pregnant or have your period.Among some other things that come with being born a natural woman. Even when it comes to a 1 night stand, a straight male is subconsciously trying to reproduce. It just so happens to feel good, which is the reward mechanism we are born with to make sure we procreate.So let's not pretend that it's the guys' fault for not wanting to be with a trans woman. That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. And the few trans woman who say they don't feel the need to disclose to a sexual partner they were once a man. Is pretty fuckin deplorable if you ask me. No, of course you shouldn't have to tell everyone you were trans. But when it comes down to the actual act of having sex, I think I have the RIGHT to know what I am putting my penis into. And you have to tell him, you know by not telling him you were trans you are being dishonest. It is not a real vagina, regardless of what you think. And I should have the right to know. And the arguments based on " He may never know" is so gross, you assume he would never find out. But if he does, he is definitely going to be affected mentally, and not positively. And if you say, " well that's his problem" Well, no it isn't. You lied by omission. You aren't normal, so don't pretend you are.
I'm sure this all sounds harsher than intended. I know I would definitely be pissed if I had unknowingly slept with a trans woman, only to find out later it wasn't an actual woman.
And guess what, I don't hate trans people. So INb4 TRANSPHOBE comments. What makes a real man or a real woman? It can't be chromosomes because some men[1] are born with XX chromosomes and some women[2] are born with XY chromosomes. When was the last time you got your chromosomes checked? It can't be hormones because a trans men will have the same levels as a cis man and a trans woman will have the same levels as a cis woman, if they are on HRT. And hormones control secondary sexual characteristics[3] . It can't be primary sex characteristics because some cis men have internal female organs [4] , breasts[5] , and no penis[6] . Some cis women have internal male organs[7] , no breasts[8] (or they lose them[9] ), or no vagina[10] . Some people think that a metoidioplasty or a phalloplasty for a trans man doesn't result in a "real" penis, or that a vaginoplasty doesn't result in a "real" vagina. What makes a metoidioplasty made penis different from a man with a micropenis[11] (especially a guy like this[12] ?) How is a phalloplasty made penis different from a man with erectile dysfunction[13] ? How is a vaginoplasty made vagina different from a cis woman's vagina? And what makes a post op trans person different from a cis person who's sterile[14] ? p.s. You can still have transphobic attitudes even if you don't hate trans people. Ok well a) I'm not fully up on all the terminology. So, let's just forget that, you guys know what I mean. b) Nice little attack "When was the last time I you got your chromosomes checked" I'm going to assume you are trans and I offended you. I didn't mean it offensively, so get off your horse. c) "p.s. You can still have transphobic attitudes even if you don't hate trans people" Is so dumb. Not wanting to sleep with a trans doesn't mean I am transphobic by any means. I don't want to sleep with a guy, does that make me a homophobe? No Mostly because of point b. I'm not going to bother engaging with you in any debate. You know my points are vailid, so you're trying to find any loophole. Like the few out of the many born with those conditions. Such as internal genitalia. "Not wanting to sleep with a black person doesn't mean I'm racist by any means. I don't want to sleep with an animal, does that make me racist? No" If you don't want to sleep with a trans person because you believe they are less than women or not women then you are transphobic. In the exact same way that if you didn't want to sleep with a black woman because you believe blacks are subhuman you would be racist. You would have the right to that preference in terms of your right to consent to sex but your preference is not immune from judgement. I wouldn't say they would be "less than women". But from a biological definition of the two sexes, they aren't really a " woman" at all, they're still a man. I respect the right to self-determine one's gender but it doesn't seem like you can change your biological sex, at least not with today's science. I wouldn't say your analogy with blacks is entirely fair though because I don't think the argument is that trans are "subhuman". Sex isn't at all binary. This keeps coming up although another poster answered it better than me with a bunch of links to relevant examples. You can't rule trans women as not women without excluding a bunch of people normally considered as cis women from being women too. It's not as simple as XX and XY, there are all sorts of other options, people born with all sorts of primary and secondary sexual characteristics and so forth. There is no scientific definition for women which includes everyone transphobes want to include as cis women while excluding trans women. Basically no.
I was under the impression that any person born with an abnormal chromosome count or structure had serious negative medical side-effects resulting directly from that fact.
|
On August 04 2013 01:29 Ghostcom wrote:
Nice write-up @ Darkwhite. The only thing I missed was the difference between "consent" and "INFORMED consent" (it seems to me like you define it as the same, which ideally they should be, but very seldom are.)
I specifically left the definition of consent open. I don't think anything productive comes from people fighting over the definition of words.
I tried to make it clear that the value of consent - as a safeguard against people having unpleasant experiences - hinges not on a contract being signed, but on all involved parties having knowledge about what they're getting into, freedom to stay out of it and the mental capabilities to take responsibility for their actions.
I really don't want to drag the phrase uncoerced, informed, self-responsible consent through that post, which would at best invite arguments about the definition of coercion.
On August 04 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 02:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2013 22:40 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 22:37 Arkless wrote:On August 03 2013 22:30 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 22:14 Arkless wrote:
I think there is a big part of this argument missing.
First of all, let's all be realistic here. Being Trans isn't a normal thing, you can try and say "society has all the issues, etc" and "it's societies fault we aren't accepted" but the fact of the matter is. IT ISN'T NORMAL. With that said, do what you want to make yourself happy.
BUT, like I said it isn't normal. Let's get down to some scientific, brass tax here. You can put whatever bow u want to on the package (no pun intended) but scientifically, YOU ARE NOT A REAL WOMAN. You have both chromosomes, you have the bone density of a man. The reaction time of a man, the hands and jaw of a man. An adams apple, ETC. Even after years of taking hormones.
You do not have, ovaries, a uterus, the ability to become pregnant or have your period.Among some other things that come with being born a natural woman. Even when it comes to a 1 night stand, a straight male is subconsciously trying to reproduce. It just so happens to feel good, which is the reward mechanism we are born with to make sure we procreate.So let's not pretend that it's the guys' fault for not wanting to be with a trans woman. That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. And the few trans woman who say they don't feel the need to disclose to a sexual partner they were once a man. Is pretty fuckin deplorable if you ask me. No, of course you shouldn't have to tell everyone you were trans. But when it comes down to the actual act of having sex, I think I have the RIGHT to know what I am putting my penis into. And you have to tell him, you know by not telling him you were trans you are being dishonest. It is not a real vagina, regardless of what you think. And I should have the right to know. And the arguments based on " He may never know" is so gross, you assume he would never find out. But if he does, he is definitely going to be affected mentally, and not positively. And if you say, " well that's his problem" Well, no it isn't. You lied by omission. You aren't normal, so don't pretend you are.
I'm sure this all sounds harsher than intended. I know I would definitely be pissed if I had unknowingly slept with a trans woman, only to find out later it wasn't an actual woman.
And guess what, I don't hate trans people. So INb4 TRANSPHOBE comments. What makes a real man or a real woman? It can't be chromosomes because some men[1] are born with XX chromosomes and some women[2] are born with XY chromosomes. When was the last time you got your chromosomes checked? It can't be hormones because a trans men will have the same levels as a cis man and a trans woman will have the same levels as a cis woman, if they are on HRT. And hormones control secondary sexual characteristics[3] . It can't be primary sex characteristics because some cis men have internal female organs [4] , breasts[5] , and no penis[6] . Some cis women have internal male organs[7] , no breasts[8] (or they lose them[9] ), or no vagina[10] . Some people think that a metoidioplasty or a phalloplasty for a trans man doesn't result in a "real" penis, or that a vaginoplasty doesn't result in a "real" vagina. What makes a metoidioplasty made penis different from a man with a micropenis[11] (especially a guy like this[12] ?) How is a phalloplasty made penis different from a man with erectile dysfunction[13] ? How is a vaginoplasty made vagina different from a cis woman's vagina? And what makes a post op trans person different from a cis person who's sterile[14] ? p.s. You can still have transphobic attitudes even if you don't hate trans people. Ok well a) I'm not fully up on all the terminology. So, let's just forget that, you guys know what I mean. b) Nice little attack "When was the last time I you got your chromosomes checked" I'm going to assume you are trans and I offended you. I didn't mean it offensively, so get off your horse. c) "p.s. You can still have transphobic attitudes even if you don't hate trans people" Is so dumb. Not wanting to sleep with a trans doesn't mean I am transphobic by any means. I don't want to sleep with a guy, does that make me a homophobe? No Mostly because of point b. I'm not going to bother engaging with you in any debate. You know my points are vailid, so you're trying to find any loophole. Like the few out of the many born with those conditions. Such as internal genitalia. "Not wanting to sleep with a black person doesn't mean I'm racist by any means. I don't want to sleep with an animal, does that make me racist? No" If you don't want to sleep with a trans person because you believe they are less than women or not women then you are transphobic. In the exact same way that if you didn't want to sleep with a black woman because you believe blacks are subhuman you would be racist. You would have the right to that preference in terms of your right to consent to sex but your preference is not immune from judgement. I wouldn't say they would be "less than women". But from a biological definition of the two sexes, they aren't really a " woman" at all, they're still a man. I respect the right to self-determine one's gender but it doesn't seem like you can change your biological sex, at least not with today's science. I wouldn't say your analogy with blacks is entirely fair though because I don't think the argument is that trans are "subhuman". Sex isn't at all binary. This keeps coming up although another poster answered it better than me with a bunch of links to relevant examples. You can't rule trans women as not women without excluding a bunch of people normally considered as cis women from being women too. It's not as simple as XX and XY, there are all sorts of other options, people born with all sorts of primary and secondary sexual characteristics and so forth. There is no scientific definition for women which includes everyone transphobes want to include as cis women while excluding trans women. Basically no.
This is misguided.
There is no scientific definition for long hair. It is still a meaningful term.
This is a Sorites paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
It is not solved by letting everybody self-identify however they want.
|
On August 04 2013 02:31 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 01:29 Ghostcom wrote:
Nice write-up @ Darkwhite. The only thing I missed was the difference between "consent" and "INFORMED consent" (it seems to me like you define it as the same, which ideally they should be, but very seldom are.) I specifically left the definition of consent open. I don't think anything productive comes from people fighting over the definition of words. I tried to make it clear that the value of consent - as a safeguard against people having unpleasant experiences - hinges not on a contract being signed, but on all involved parties having knowledge about what they're getting into, freedom to stay out of it and the mental capabilities to take responsibility for their actions. I really don't want to drag the phrase uncoerced, informed, self-responsible consent through that post, which would at best invite arguments about the definition of coercion. Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:On August 04 2013 02:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2013 22:40 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 22:37 Arkless wrote:On August 03 2013 22:30 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 22:14 Arkless wrote:
I think there is a big part of this argument missing.
First of all, let's all be realistic here. Being Trans isn't a normal thing, you can try and say "society has all the issues, etc" and "it's societies fault we aren't accepted" but the fact of the matter is. IT ISN'T NORMAL. With that said, do what you want to make yourself happy.
BUT, like I said it isn't normal. Let's get down to some scientific, brass tax here. You can put whatever bow u want to on the package (no pun intended) but scientifically, YOU ARE NOT A REAL WOMAN. You have both chromosomes, you have the bone density of a man. The reaction time of a man, the hands and jaw of a man. An adams apple, ETC. Even after years of taking hormones.
You do not have, ovaries, a uterus, the ability to become pregnant or have your period.Among some other things that come with being born a natural woman. Even when it comes to a 1 night stand, a straight male is subconsciously trying to reproduce. It just so happens to feel good, which is the reward mechanism we are born with to make sure we procreate.So let's not pretend that it's the guys' fault for not wanting to be with a trans woman. That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. And the few trans woman who say they don't feel the need to disclose to a sexual partner they were once a man. Is pretty fuckin deplorable if you ask me. No, of course you shouldn't have to tell everyone you were trans. But when it comes down to the actual act of having sex, I think I have the RIGHT to know what I am putting my penis into. And you have to tell him, you know by not telling him you were trans you are being dishonest. It is not a real vagina, regardless of what you think. And I should have the right to know. And the arguments based on " He may never know" is so gross, you assume he would never find out. But if he does, he is definitely going to be affected mentally, and not positively. And if you say, " well that's his problem" Well, no it isn't. You lied by omission. You aren't normal, so don't pretend you are.
I'm sure this all sounds harsher than intended. I know I would definitely be pissed if I had unknowingly slept with a trans woman, only to find out later it wasn't an actual woman.
And guess what, I don't hate trans people. So INb4 TRANSPHOBE comments. What makes a real man or a real woman? It can't be chromosomes because some men[1] are born with XX chromosomes and some women[2] are born with XY chromosomes. When was the last time you got your chromosomes checked? It can't be hormones because a trans men will have the same levels as a cis man and a trans woman will have the same levels as a cis woman, if they are on HRT. And hormones control secondary sexual characteristics[3] . It can't be primary sex characteristics because some cis men have internal female organs [4] , breasts[5] , and no penis[6] . Some cis women have internal male organs[7] , no breasts[8] (or they lose them[9] ), or no vagina[10] . Some people think that a metoidioplasty or a phalloplasty for a trans man doesn't result in a "real" penis, or that a vaginoplasty doesn't result in a "real" vagina. What makes a metoidioplasty made penis different from a man with a micropenis[11] (especially a guy like this[12] ?) How is a phalloplasty made penis different from a man with erectile dysfunction[13] ? How is a vaginoplasty made vagina different from a cis woman's vagina? And what makes a post op trans person different from a cis person who's sterile[14] ? p.s. You can still have transphobic attitudes even if you don't hate trans people. Ok well a) I'm not fully up on all the terminology. So, let's just forget that, you guys know what I mean. b) Nice little attack "When was the last time I you got your chromosomes checked" I'm going to assume you are trans and I offended you. I didn't mean it offensively, so get off your horse. c) "p.s. You can still have transphobic attitudes even if you don't hate trans people" Is so dumb. Not wanting to sleep with a trans doesn't mean I am transphobic by any means. I don't want to sleep with a guy, does that make me a homophobe? No Mostly because of point b. I'm not going to bother engaging with you in any debate. You know my points are vailid, so you're trying to find any loophole. Like the few out of the many born with those conditions. Such as internal genitalia. "Not wanting to sleep with a black person doesn't mean I'm racist by any means. I don't want to sleep with an animal, does that make me racist? No" If you don't want to sleep with a trans person because you believe they are less than women or not women then you are transphobic. In the exact same way that if you didn't want to sleep with a black woman because you believe blacks are subhuman you would be racist. You would have the right to that preference in terms of your right to consent to sex but your preference is not immune from judgement. I wouldn't say they would be "less than women". But from a biological definition of the two sexes, they aren't really a " woman" at all, they're still a man. I respect the right to self-determine one's gender but it doesn't seem like you can change your biological sex, at least not with today's science. I wouldn't say your analogy with blacks is entirely fair though because I don't think the argument is that trans are "subhuman". Sex isn't at all binary. This keeps coming up although another poster answered it better than me with a bunch of links to relevant examples. You can't rule trans women as not women without excluding a bunch of people normally considered as cis women from being women too. It's not as simple as XX and XY, there are all sorts of other options, people born with all sorts of primary and secondary sexual characteristics and so forth. There is no scientific definition for women which includes everyone transphobes want to include as cis women while excluding trans women. Basically no. This is misguided. There is no scientific definition for long hair. It is still a meaningful term. This is a Sorites paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradoxIt is not solved by letting everybody self-identify however they want.
Kwark is basically a logical positivist and those who disagree are wittgensteinians ^^
Of course one can make a category that would exclude transwomen. It would be considered arbitrary by those who already consider transwomen "real women" and it would likely be considered correct by those who dont do so.
Some people (including women) dont consider a woman who cant have children a "real woman" either. This was especially the case in the past. There is no clearcut universal definition of what constitutes being a "real woman", no more than there is one for what a "real man" is.
what makes a man, is it the woman in his arms?
just cause she has big titties?
or is it the way, he fights every day?
No, it's probably the titties.
Or is there ^^
|
On August 04 2013 02:45 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 02:31 Darkwhite wrote:On August 04 2013 01:29 Ghostcom wrote:
Nice write-up @ Darkwhite. The only thing I missed was the difference between "consent" and "INFORMED consent" (it seems to me like you define it as the same, which ideally they should be, but very seldom are.) I specifically left the definition of consent open. I don't think anything productive comes from people fighting over the definition of words. I tried to make it clear that the value of consent - as a safeguard against people having unpleasant experiences - hinges not on a contract being signed, but on all involved parties having knowledge about what they're getting into, freedom to stay out of it and the mental capabilities to take responsibility for their actions. I really don't want to drag the phrase uncoerced, informed, self-responsible consent through that post, which would at best invite arguments about the definition of coercion. On August 04 2013 02:07 KwarK wrote:On August 04 2013 02:01 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 03 2013 22:40 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 22:37 Arkless wrote:On August 03 2013 22:30 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 22:14 Arkless wrote:
I think there is a big part of this argument missing.
First of all, let's all be realistic here. Being Trans isn't a normal thing, you can try and say "society has all the issues, etc" and "it's societies fault we aren't accepted" but the fact of the matter is. IT ISN'T NORMAL. With that said, do what you want to make yourself happy.
BUT, like I said it isn't normal. Let's get down to some scientific, brass tax here. You can put whatever bow u want to on the package (no pun intended) but scientifically, YOU ARE NOT A REAL WOMAN. You have both chromosomes, you have the bone density of a man. The reaction time of a man, the hands and jaw of a man. An adams apple, ETC. Even after years of taking hormones.
You do not have, ovaries, a uterus, the ability to become pregnant or have your period.Among some other things that come with being born a natural woman. Even when it comes to a 1 night stand, a straight male is subconsciously trying to reproduce. It just so happens to feel good, which is the reward mechanism we are born with to make sure we procreate.So let's not pretend that it's the guys' fault for not wanting to be with a trans woman. That is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. And the few trans woman who say they don't feel the need to disclose to a sexual partner they were once a man. Is pretty fuckin deplorable if you ask me. No, of course you shouldn't have to tell everyone you were trans. But when it comes down to the actual act of having sex, I think I have the RIGHT to know what I am putting my penis into. And you have to tell him, you know by not telling him you were trans you are being dishonest. It is not a real vagina, regardless of what you think. And I should have the right to know. And the arguments based on " He may never know" is so gross, you assume he would never find out. But if he does, he is definitely going to be affected mentally, and not positively. And if you say, " well that's his problem" Well, no it isn't. You lied by omission. You aren't normal, so don't pretend you are.
I'm sure this all sounds harsher than intended. I know I would definitely be pissed if I had unknowingly slept with a trans woman, only to find out later it wasn't an actual woman.
And guess what, I don't hate trans people. So INb4 TRANSPHOBE comments. What makes a real man or a real woman? It can't be chromosomes because some men[1] are born with XX chromosomes and some women[2] are born with XY chromosomes. When was the last time you got your chromosomes checked? It can't be hormones because a trans men will have the same levels as a cis man and a trans woman will have the same levels as a cis woman, if they are on HRT. And hormones control secondary sexual characteristics[3] . It can't be primary sex characteristics because some cis men have internal female organs [4] , breasts[5] , and no penis[6] . Some cis women have internal male organs[7] , no breasts[8] (or they lose them[9] ), or no vagina[10] . Some people think that a metoidioplasty or a phalloplasty for a trans man doesn't result in a "real" penis, or that a vaginoplasty doesn't result in a "real" vagina. What makes a metoidioplasty made penis different from a man with a micropenis[11] (especially a guy like this[12] ?) How is a phalloplasty made penis different from a man with erectile dysfunction[13] ? How is a vaginoplasty made vagina different from a cis woman's vagina? And what makes a post op trans person different from a cis person who's sterile[14] ? p.s. You can still have transphobic attitudes even if you don't hate trans people. Ok well a) I'm not fully up on all the terminology. So, let's just forget that, you guys know what I mean. b) Nice little attack "When was the last time I you got your chromosomes checked" I'm going to assume you are trans and I offended you. I didn't mean it offensively, so get off your horse. c) "p.s. You can still have transphobic attitudes even if you don't hate trans people" Is so dumb. Not wanting to sleep with a trans doesn't mean I am transphobic by any means. I don't want to sleep with a guy, does that make me a homophobe? No Mostly because of point b. I'm not going to bother engaging with you in any debate. You know my points are vailid, so you're trying to find any loophole. Like the few out of the many born with those conditions. Such as internal genitalia. "Not wanting to sleep with a black person doesn't mean I'm racist by any means. I don't want to sleep with an animal, does that make me racist? No" If you don't want to sleep with a trans person because you believe they are less than women or not women then you are transphobic. In the exact same way that if you didn't want to sleep with a black woman because you believe blacks are subhuman you would be racist. You would have the right to that preference in terms of your right to consent to sex but your preference is not immune from judgement. I wouldn't say they would be "less than women". But from a biological definition of the two sexes, they aren't really a " woman" at all, they're still a man. I respect the right to self-determine one's gender but it doesn't seem like you can change your biological sex, at least not with today's science. I wouldn't say your analogy with blacks is entirely fair though because I don't think the argument is that trans are "subhuman". Sex isn't at all binary. This keeps coming up although another poster answered it better than me with a bunch of links to relevant examples. You can't rule trans women as not women without excluding a bunch of people normally considered as cis women from being women too. It's not as simple as XX and XY, there are all sorts of other options, people born with all sorts of primary and secondary sexual characteristics and so forth. There is no scientific definition for women which includes everyone transphobes want to include as cis women while excluding trans women. Basically no. This is misguided. There is no scientific definition for long hair. It is still a meaningful term. This is a Sorites paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradoxIt is not solved by letting everybody self-identify however they want. Kwark is basically a logical positivist and those who disagree are wittgensteinians ^^ Of course one can make a category that would exclude transwomen. It would be considered arbitrary by those who already consider transwomen "real women" and it would likely be considered correct by those who dont do so. Some people (including women) dont consider a woman who cant have children a "real woman" either. This was especially the case in the past. There is no clearcut universal definition of what constitutes being a "real woman", no more than there is one for what a "real man" is. Show nested quote +what makes a man, is it the woman in his arms?
just cause she has big titties?
or is it the way, he fights every day?
No, it's probably the titties. Or is there ^^
I don't want to sidetrack the thread so I'll spoil this: + Show Spoiler +I don't really see how he's being a logical positivist here. A lot more people rejected logical positivism besides Wittgenstein though. It was more of a movement of the early 20th century that has now by-and-large been rejected by most philosophers for a variety of reasons.
I don't think the women in your example are considering the classification of "woman" in the same sense as we're discussing here - from a strict perspective of the sexes. I'd be highly skeptical of them considering those women incapable of having children as "men" or as some third sex, which seems entirely foreign.
I'm genuinely curious how someone would consider me as transphobic simply because I'm not interested in having sex with a trans individual. It seems to be vastly degrading the full meaning of the suffixes "phobia/phobic".
|
consent should be applied by 2 major standards
: reasonable person standard - would a reasonable person want to know this information?
subjective standard - would this specific person want to know this information?
In the case of HIV and a transsexual, yes to both ^
If you conceal that information, then the partner is misinformed, and is not making a fully autonomous decision
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
