|
On August 04 2013 05:27 Wheats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:54 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:41 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though. Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer. I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races". The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white. I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing. I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman. And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I concede that the difference between a white woman and a biracial woman who appears white is less than or equal to the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman. It's a rather easy concession to make, since I don't think that there's a meaningful difference between trans women and cis women. I think ideally in a future where the actual scientific transformation process is much more refined and thorough, you might be right. Currently though, I see a significant enough difference between cis and trans women to warrant not wanting to sleep with a trans woman. Going into where the line is drawn is where the paradox arises. I definitely don't see how that makes me a transphobe. Further, I don't see how I am being inconsistent for thinking that in the situation regarding race, one actually might be somewhat racist for not wanting to sleep with someone who appears white but is actually biracial purely for the reason that they are biracial. This is the hidden transphobic attitude that motivates your inconsistency. In a previous post I debunked many of the reasons that one might feel trans women are different from cis women. So, then, what exactly is the difference? You still haven't pointed out where or how I'm being inconsistent; you just keep saying that I am. I think you can pin it down to any single one issue, but rather it's an issue of holism. The vague predicate paradox could also be relevant here. For example, your link to men who have swollen breasts - are you telling me that there is no difference between those breasts and natural breasts of a woman? Each one of those examples is some form or another of a genetic defect or a medical illness and isn't natural. If by some chance a man possessed all of these defects that led him to have no penis, breasts, internal female organs, are you really going to try to tell me that he is indistinguishable to an average female? Are you going to tell me that if such a man underwent plastic surgery, that it would be unnoticeable that he had it? In regards to your point about chromosomes, just because you aren't aware of the fact that they are different isn't grounds for it being disregarded as a difference. A genetic defect is natural, it occurred as a result of nature acting upon genetic code. One could, or even should, argue from an atheistic viewpoint (even though it falls out of the definition of "natural") that everything that happens is natural and would happen always the same given the same sequence of events down to the quantum level.
You're right, genetic defects are natural, although I'm not sure it's a result of "nature" acting upon the genetic code, but that isn't important.
That isn't really an atheistic viewpoint though, but the viewpoint of a hard-determinist.
I like Aristotle's distinguishing between natural and unnatural as having been motivated by internal or external causes. A tree grows from an acorn is natural, but a man making a watch is unnatural. If the acorn is put in proper conditions of soil with nutrients, sunlight, and water, it will grow by itself without any outside intervention. No matter what you do with the parts of a watch though, they will never assemble themselves into a watch. One is driven by "internal causes" if you will, and the other by "external causes".
|
On August 04 2013 05:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 01:18 maybenexttime 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. 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. Right, I read it and saw a bunch of conservatives running a website attempting to make an argument that the statement did not mean the Pope approved of being gay. I mean, that is what you do when the leader of the Church makes a statement that group may not agree with. Calling me uninformed does not make that less true. I also find it amusing that you are having a case of selective memory right now, because the Pope stated he was not sure there was a "lobby" within the Church, as he had "never seen their ID cards". He then stated he did not approve of any lobby within the church. But I am sure both the conservatives and liberals will have very creative interpretations of his statements and what they mean.
He certainly did not approve of being gay - what is there to approve or disapprove of? He was sympathetic of them, which, again, is perfectly in line with what the Church teaches. He outright referred to the Catechism, and used the word "sin" as regards the alleged homosexual activity of Ricca. That couldn't have been more straightforward. But somehow you are making it into some kind of a step forward.
"Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem (...)" - I am not having selective memory. Whether there is a lobby has nothing to do with the fact that he plainly said that homosexual lobbying is wrong in his view.
On August 04 2013 05:13 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:01 maybenexttime wrote:On August 04 2013 04:54 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:41 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though. Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer. I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races". The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white. I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing. I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman. And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I concede that the difference between a white woman and a biracial woman who appears white is less than or equal to the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman. It's a rather easy concession to make, since I don't think that there's a meaningful difference between trans women and cis women. I think ideally in a future where the actual scientific transformation process is much more refined and thorough, you might be right. Currently though, I see a significant enough difference between cis and trans women to warrant not wanting to sleep with a trans woman. Going into where the line is drawn is where the paradox arises. I definitely don't see how that makes me a transphobe. Further, I don't see how I am being inconsistent for thinking that in the situation regarding race, one actually might be somewhat racist for not wanting to sleep with someone who appears white but is actually biracial purely for the reason that they are biracial. This is the hidden transphobic attitude that motivates your inconsistency. And not wanting to have sex with obese people is somehow hidden cacomorphobia (or whatever it's called)? On August 04 2013 04:54 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:41 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though. Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer. I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races". The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white. I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing. I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman. And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I concede that the difference between a white woman and a biracial woman who appears white is less than or equal to the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman. It's a rather easy concession to make, since I don't think that there's a meaningful difference between trans women and cis women. I think ideally in a future where the actual scientific transformation process is much more refined and thorough, you might be right. Currently though, I see a significant enough difference between cis and trans women to warrant not wanting to sleep with a trans woman. Going into where the line is drawn is where the paradox arises. I definitely don't see how that makes me a transphobe. Further, I don't see how I am being inconsistent for thinking that in the situation regarding race, one actually might be somewhat racist for not wanting to sleep with someone who appears white but is actually biracial purely for the reason that they are biracial. This is the hidden transphobic attitude that motivates your inconsistency. In a previous post I debunked many of the reasons that one might feel trans women are different from cis women. So, then, what exactly is the difference? If Michael Jackson started to identify as a white man (I have no idea whether he did, I assume not), would you say he is no different from a naturally born white man? The reason my biracial example works, and your obesity example does not, is because there is no underlying attraction in the latter. As I've said many times before, it's okay if you don't want to date a particular person because you are not attracted to them. If you don't want to date me, that's okay, I don't mind. If you don't want to date that obese person because you're not attracted to her, that's also okay. But when you like a person, but later find out something about them (they are black, they are transsexual, they have a disability) and decide not to sleep with them solely for that reason, even if it seems like you have a totally legitimate reason (your parents were murdered by blacks, transsexuals freak you out, the disability could interfere with your enjoyment of the sex) - you are discriminating against them solely for their race, origin of birth, or disability, and this is prejudiced. If Michael Jackson could change his body to be indistinguishable from a white man's, then yes, I would say he is no different from a naturally born white man.
You are missing the point I made earlier. You have to understand that there is more to sexual attraction (or being repulsed by a certain quality) than things that are immediately obvious. Basically, you can have:
1) Qualities that are immediately obvious and tangible, e.g. being obese.
2) Qualities that are immediately obvious and are intangible, e.g. being a police officer (assuming you wear your uniform).
3) Qualities that are not immediately obvious and are tangible, e.g. being HIV positive.
4) Qualities that are not immediately obvious and are intangible, e.g. being a former prostitute.
They are all valid reasons to not be attracted to someone or even be repusled by the idea of having sex with people having those types of qualities. Being transsexual belongs to the 4th category.
I would also say that there's a difference between naturally not being attracted to black people and not being attracted to them because some black people murdered your parents (both are just as valid, though). I think you can agree that for many people not being attracted to obese people or being repulsed by the idea of having sex with them may be completely natural, right? I believe that the same applies to transsexuals. There's also a difference between being not being attracted to people of the same sex and being uncomfortable being around homosexuals. The latter would be homophobic while the former wouldn't. Don't you agree? I think the same may be applied to transsexuals.
As for the Michael Jackson example, I wouldn't. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the issue, tbh.
|
On August 04 2013 05:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:27 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:54 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:41 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:
[quote]
Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer. I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races". The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white. I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing. I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman. And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I concede that the difference between a white woman and a biracial woman who appears white is less than or equal to the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman. It's a rather easy concession to make, since I don't think that there's a meaningful difference between trans women and cis women. I think ideally in a future where the actual scientific transformation process is much more refined and thorough, you might be right. Currently though, I see a significant enough difference between cis and trans women to warrant not wanting to sleep with a trans woman. Going into where the line is drawn is where the paradox arises. I definitely don't see how that makes me a transphobe. Further, I don't see how I am being inconsistent for thinking that in the situation regarding race, one actually might be somewhat racist for not wanting to sleep with someone who appears white but is actually biracial purely for the reason that they are biracial. This is the hidden transphobic attitude that motivates your inconsistency. In a previous post I debunked many of the reasons that one might feel trans women are different from cis women. So, then, what exactly is the difference? You still haven't pointed out where or how I'm being inconsistent; you just keep saying that I am. I think you can pin it down to any single one issue, but rather it's an issue of holism. The vague predicate paradox could also be relevant here. For example, your link to men who have swollen breasts - are you telling me that there is no difference between those breasts and natural breasts of a woman? Each one of those examples is some form or another of a genetic defect or a medical illness and isn't natural. If by some chance a man possessed all of these defects that led him to have no penis, breasts, internal female organs, are you really going to try to tell me that he is indistinguishable to an average female? Are you going to tell me that if such a man underwent plastic surgery, that it would be unnoticeable that he had it? In regards to your point about chromosomes, just because you aren't aware of the fact that they are different isn't grounds for it being disregarded as a difference. A genetic defect is natural, it occurred as a result of nature acting upon genetic code. One could, or even should, argue from an atheistic viewpoint (even though it falls out of the definition of "natural") that everything that happens is natural and would happen always the same given the same sequence of events down to the quantum level. You're right, genetic defects are natural, although I'm not sure it's a result of "nature" acting upon the genetic code, but that isn't important. That isn't really an atheistic viewpoint though, but the viewpoint of a hard-determinist. I like Aristotle's distinguishing between natural and unnatural as having been motivated by internal or external causes. A tree grows from an acorn is natural, but a man making a watch is unnatural. If the acorn is put in proper conditions of soil with nutrients, sunlight, and water, it will grow by itself without any outside intervention. No matter what you do with the parts of a watch though, they will never assemble themselves into a watch. One is driven by "internal causes" if you will, and the other by "external causes".
But aren't the "internal causes" you cite, being nutrients, sunlight and water, actually "external causes" as we know of them today? If one made a robot whose only purpose was to gather resources to make a watch, and then make it, would that watch be a natural occurrence?
Or at what point of proxy does human action take something from natural to unnatural? Farming being an example.
At what point does an animal made dwelling become unnatural?
|
On August 04 2013 05:28 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:54 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:41 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:18 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I agree 100% that the term "real" man or woman should be avoided entirely for those reasons.
I definitely wouldn't consider myself transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a trans though. Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer. I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races". The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white. I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing. I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman. And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I concede that the difference between a white woman and a biracial woman who appears white is less than or equal to the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman. It's a rather easy concession to make, since I don't think that there's a meaningful difference between trans women and cis women. I think ideally in a future where the actual scientific transformation process is much more refined and thorough, you might be right. Currently though, I see a significant enough difference between cis and trans women to warrant not wanting to sleep with a trans woman. Going into where the line is drawn is where the paradox arises. I definitely don't see how that makes me a transphobe. Further, I don't see how I am being inconsistent for thinking that in the situation regarding race, one actually might be somewhat racist for not wanting to sleep with someone who appears white but is actually biracial purely for the reason that they are biracial. This is the hidden transphobic attitude that motivates your inconsistency. In a previous post I debunked many of the reasons that one might feel trans women are different from cis women. So, then, what exactly is the difference? You still haven't pointed out where or how I'm being inconsistent; you just keep saying that I am. I think you can pin it down to any single one issue, but rather it's an issue of holism. The vague predicate paradox could also be relevant here. For example, your link to men who have swollen breasts - are you telling me that there is no difference between those breasts and natural breasts of a woman? Each one of those examples is some form or another of a genetic defect or a medical illness and isn't natural. If by some chance a man possessed all of these defects that led him to have no penis, breasts, internal female organs, are you really going to try to tell me that he is indistinguishable to an average female? Are you going to tell me that if such a man underwent plastic surgery, that it would be unnoticeable that he had it? In regards to your point about chromosomes, just because you aren't aware of the fact that they are different isn't grounds for it being disregarded as a difference. You missed the point. The point is that you cannot define a man by his penis, lack of breasts, or lack of internal female organs. He's still a man, even though he lacks those characteristics. About gynecomastia... the breast tissue is the same sort of tissue as a woman's breast tissue. Sometimes the issue comes up because of excessive amounts of testosterone, which is converted into estrogen (a hormone responsible for the development of breasts). So, yes, they are actually the same. I'm calling you inconsistent because you call a person who refuses to sleep with someone solely because of their race a racist, but refuse to say the same thing about someone who refuses to sleep with someone solely because of their trans status. How are they different? You have not said anything convincing, so I still believe you are inconsistent.
I don't think you can define a man by the lack of or presence of a single organ.
As I noted, it seems to be a much more complicated question of holism relevant to the vague predicates paradox. No single part or organ defines you as male or female. It's the totality of your being that makes you what you are. What makes someone a "man" versus a "woman" is much more complicated than what makes someone "white" versus "black".
On August 04 2013 05:31 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +
If the transsexual procedures of the future are so scientifically perfect and thorough that there is literally no distinguishable difference between a trans woman and a cis woman, then that is an interesting question and you might get away with your accusations if I kept the same stance I do now, but as it stands there are many differences between cis and trans, even if they are sometimes not easily perceptible.
Tell me about those differences, then. What is a characteristic of a trans woman that no cis woman has? In the present, I don't own a time machine.
I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Is every procedure the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways?
Perhaps you might see where I'm going with this.
|
On August 04 2013 05:39 Wheats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 05:27 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:54 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:41 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races".
The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white.
I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing. I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman. And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I concede that the difference between a white woman and a biracial woman who appears white is less than or equal to the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman. It's a rather easy concession to make, since I don't think that there's a meaningful difference between trans women and cis women. I think ideally in a future where the actual scientific transformation process is much more refined and thorough, you might be right. Currently though, I see a significant enough difference between cis and trans women to warrant not wanting to sleep with a trans woman. Going into where the line is drawn is where the paradox arises. I definitely don't see how that makes me a transphobe. Further, I don't see how I am being inconsistent for thinking that in the situation regarding race, one actually might be somewhat racist for not wanting to sleep with someone who appears white but is actually biracial purely for the reason that they are biracial. This is the hidden transphobic attitude that motivates your inconsistency. In a previous post I debunked many of the reasons that one might feel trans women are different from cis women. So, then, what exactly is the difference? You still haven't pointed out where or how I'm being inconsistent; you just keep saying that I am. I think you can pin it down to any single one issue, but rather it's an issue of holism. The vague predicate paradox could also be relevant here. For example, your link to men who have swollen breasts - are you telling me that there is no difference between those breasts and natural breasts of a woman? Each one of those examples is some form or another of a genetic defect or a medical illness and isn't natural. If by some chance a man possessed all of these defects that led him to have no penis, breasts, internal female organs, are you really going to try to tell me that he is indistinguishable to an average female? Are you going to tell me that if such a man underwent plastic surgery, that it would be unnoticeable that he had it? In regards to your point about chromosomes, just because you aren't aware of the fact that they are different isn't grounds for it being disregarded as a difference. A genetic defect is natural, it occurred as a result of nature acting upon genetic code. One could, or even should, argue from an atheistic viewpoint (even though it falls out of the definition of "natural") that everything that happens is natural and would happen always the same given the same sequence of events down to the quantum level. You're right, genetic defects are natural, although I'm not sure it's a result of "nature" acting upon the genetic code, but that isn't important. That isn't really an atheistic viewpoint though, but the viewpoint of a hard-determinist. I like Aristotle's distinguishing between natural and unnatural as having been motivated by internal or external causes. A tree grows from an acorn is natural, but a man making a watch is unnatural. If the acorn is put in proper conditions of soil with nutrients, sunlight, and water, it will grow by itself without any outside intervention. No matter what you do with the parts of a watch though, they will never assemble themselves into a watch. One is driven by "internal causes" if you will, and the other by "external causes". But aren't the "internal causes" you cite, being nutrients, sunlight and water, actually "external causes" as we know of them today? If one made a robot whose only purpose was to gather resources to make a watch, and then make it, would that watch be a natural occurrence? Or at what point of proxy does human action take something from natural to unnatural? Farming being an example. At what point does an animal made dwelling become unnatural?
The nutrients, sunlight, and water have no intent or will of their own, they simply exist as they are.
If one made a robot, we would have an intent and a will in making the robot. We would be directly imposing an external cause on matter that it did not have of it's own accord. Sunlight simply shines, there is no external being willing it to shine with intent (as far as we know) such that without it's will, it would cease to shine. Without us making the robot with a pre-set programming to design a watch, the parts of the watch would simply remain the parts of the watch.
Perhaps if you adopt and assume a deterministic understanding of the universe, everything is externally motivated since there is no free will, but this is getting really off-topic though lol
|
On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Are they all the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways?
Ok, so maybe I've missed this as I've only just entered this thread and clicked to the last page just in interest for the first time but... what does this have to do with anything? Can't an XX woman be born with no discernible vagina at all? When do these genetically XX women become not women to you - is it when you can no longer have PIV sex with them? Is that what defines a woman to you, as no more than sexual objects?
That last question was offensive and threatening but think about it, please.
Women like I have mentioned above need corrective surgery to create a neovagina much (or exactly, procedure depending) like transwomen do.
|
On August 04 2013 05:37 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:09 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2013 01:18 maybenexttime 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. 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. Right, I read it and saw a bunch of conservatives running a website attempting to make an argument that the statement did not mean the Pope approved of being gay. I mean, that is what you do when the leader of the Church makes a statement that group may not agree with. Calling me uninformed does not make that less true. I also find it amusing that you are having a case of selective memory right now, because the Pope stated he was not sure there was a "lobby" within the Church, as he had "never seen their ID cards". He then stated he did not approve of any lobby within the church. But I am sure both the conservatives and liberals will have very creative interpretations of his statements and what they mean. He certainly did not approve of being gay - what is there to approve or disapprove of? He was sympathetic of them, which, again, is perfectly in line with what the Church teaches. He outright referred to the Catechism, and used the word "sin" as regards the alleged homosexual activity of Ricca. That couldn't have been more straightforward. But somehow you are making it into some kind of a step forward. "Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem (...)" - I am not having selective memory. Whether there is a lobby has nothing to do with the fact that he plainly said that homosexual lobbying is wrong in his view.
As I said, people will see the statements the way they want and justify that view with whatever reason they can think of. Your going word for word, I am taking it in context to previous statements form the church on the issue.
|
On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:28 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:54 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:41 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:22 shinosai wrote:
[quote]
Would you not consider yourself a racist if you wanted to sleep with a biracial woman who you thought was white, but upon finding out she wasn't, decided you no longer wanted to sleep with her? If the answer is yes, then at least you're consistent, but I doubt the woman in question would feel the same way you do. If no, then you should reconsider your answer. I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races". The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white. I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing. I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman. And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I concede that the difference between a white woman and a biracial woman who appears white is less than or equal to the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman. It's a rather easy concession to make, since I don't think that there's a meaningful difference between trans women and cis women. I think ideally in a future where the actual scientific transformation process is much more refined and thorough, you might be right. Currently though, I see a significant enough difference between cis and trans women to warrant not wanting to sleep with a trans woman. Going into where the line is drawn is where the paradox arises. I definitely don't see how that makes me a transphobe. Further, I don't see how I am being inconsistent for thinking that in the situation regarding race, one actually might be somewhat racist for not wanting to sleep with someone who appears white but is actually biracial purely for the reason that they are biracial. This is the hidden transphobic attitude that motivates your inconsistency. In a previous post I debunked many of the reasons that one might feel trans women are different from cis women. So, then, what exactly is the difference? You still haven't pointed out where or how I'm being inconsistent; you just keep saying that I am. I think you can pin it down to any single one issue, but rather it's an issue of holism. The vague predicate paradox could also be relevant here. For example, your link to men who have swollen breasts - are you telling me that there is no difference between those breasts and natural breasts of a woman? Each one of those examples is some form or another of a genetic defect or a medical illness and isn't natural. If by some chance a man possessed all of these defects that led him to have no penis, breasts, internal female organs, are you really going to try to tell me that he is indistinguishable to an average female? Are you going to tell me that if such a man underwent plastic surgery, that it would be unnoticeable that he had it? In regards to your point about chromosomes, just because you aren't aware of the fact that they are different isn't grounds for it being disregarded as a difference. You missed the point. The point is that you cannot define a man by his penis, lack of breasts, or lack of internal female organs. He's still a man, even though he lacks those characteristics. About gynecomastia... the breast tissue is the same sort of tissue as a woman's breast tissue. Sometimes the issue comes up because of excessive amounts of testosterone, which is converted into estrogen (a hormone responsible for the development of breasts). So, yes, they are actually the same. I'm calling you inconsistent because you call a person who refuses to sleep with someone solely because of their race a racist, but refuse to say the same thing about someone who refuses to sleep with someone solely because of their trans status. How are they different? You have not said anything convincing, so I still believe you are inconsistent. I don't think you can define a man by the lack of or presence of a single organ. As I noted, it seems to be a much more complicated question of holism relevant to the vague predicates paradox. No single part or organ defines you as male or female. It's the totality of your being that makes you what you are. Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:31 shinosai wrote:
If the transsexual procedures of the future are so scientifically perfect and thorough that there is literally no distinguishable difference between a trans woman and a cis woman, then that is an interesting question and you might get away with your accusations if I kept the same stance I do now, but as it stands there are many differences between cis and trans, even if they are sometimes not easily perceptible.
Tell me about those differences, then. What is a characteristic of a trans woman that no cis woman has? In the present, I don't own a time machine. I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Are they all the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways?
It seems to me if we're talking about totality, then a trans woman is far closer to being a cis woman in totality than a man.
As far as your questions, I'm not hostile to you, so yea, I'll continue the conversation. I'm not an expert on the subject, but in the last fifty years or so... hormone replacement therapy has become a lot better, due to being able to use bio-identical hormones. Premarin was what was used before, which was a hormone taken from the urine of an animal. And due to better blood monitoring, we can keep those hormone levels in similar ranges to cis women.
Secondary sexual characteristics are of course modified by hormones, so those are the same as cis women's. However, the voice must be changed through practice, and laser hair removal or electrolysis is generally necessary to remove facial hair.
The SRS procedures are slightly different depending on the doctor, both cosmetically, procedurally recovery wise. One doctor, for example, you can expect to be in bed for up to 6 weeks, while with another, you may be out of bed within 2. Cosmetically speaking, there is no one single model for vaginas. Cis women's vaginas vary a great deal, and the neovagina is typically within this female range.
In the past, the vagina was constructed using parts of the colon. This obviously caused some pretty serious problems, one being a terrible smell. Now there are two procedures - one in which the penis is inverted, and the other in which the vaginal canal is constructed with penile tissue (I believe this is the difference between Suporn and the Western surgeons).
Penises are actually formed out of vaginas in the womb, so it actually makes a lot of sense that it can be inverted back into its vaginal form. The tissue between genitals is highly similar. The differences in function are more because of hormones than physiological sex.
|
On August 04 2013 05:48 Wheats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Are they all the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways? Ok, so maybe I've missed this as I've only just entered this thread and clicked to the last page just in interest for the first time but... what does this have to do with anything? Can't an XX woman be born with no discernible vagina at all? When do these genetically XX women become not women to you - is it when you can no longer have PIV sex with them? Is that what defines a woman to you, as no more than sexual objects? That last question was offensive and threatening but think about it, please. Women like I have mentioned above need corrective surgery to create a neovagina much (or exactly, procedure depending) like transwomen do.
I won't say they're not women.
I'm merely stating that there is a difference between cis women and trans women.
|
On August 04 2013 05:51 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 05:28 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:54 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:41 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races".
The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white.
I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing. I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman. And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I concede that the difference between a white woman and a biracial woman who appears white is less than or equal to the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman. It's a rather easy concession to make, since I don't think that there's a meaningful difference between trans women and cis women. I think ideally in a future where the actual scientific transformation process is much more refined and thorough, you might be right. Currently though, I see a significant enough difference between cis and trans women to warrant not wanting to sleep with a trans woman. Going into where the line is drawn is where the paradox arises. I definitely don't see how that makes me a transphobe. Further, I don't see how I am being inconsistent for thinking that in the situation regarding race, one actually might be somewhat racist for not wanting to sleep with someone who appears white but is actually biracial purely for the reason that they are biracial. This is the hidden transphobic attitude that motivates your inconsistency. In a previous post I debunked many of the reasons that one might feel trans women are different from cis women. So, then, what exactly is the difference? You still haven't pointed out where or how I'm being inconsistent; you just keep saying that I am. I think you can pin it down to any single one issue, but rather it's an issue of holism. The vague predicate paradox could also be relevant here. For example, your link to men who have swollen breasts - are you telling me that there is no difference between those breasts and natural breasts of a woman? Each one of those examples is some form or another of a genetic defect or a medical illness and isn't natural. If by some chance a man possessed all of these defects that led him to have no penis, breasts, internal female organs, are you really going to try to tell me that he is indistinguishable to an average female? Are you going to tell me that if such a man underwent plastic surgery, that it would be unnoticeable that he had it? In regards to your point about chromosomes, just because you aren't aware of the fact that they are different isn't grounds for it being disregarded as a difference. You missed the point. The point is that you cannot define a man by his penis, lack of breasts, or lack of internal female organs. He's still a man, even though he lacks those characteristics. About gynecomastia... the breast tissue is the same sort of tissue as a woman's breast tissue. Sometimes the issue comes up because of excessive amounts of testosterone, which is converted into estrogen (a hormone responsible for the development of breasts). So, yes, they are actually the same. I'm calling you inconsistent because you call a person who refuses to sleep with someone solely because of their race a racist, but refuse to say the same thing about someone who refuses to sleep with someone solely because of their trans status. How are they different? You have not said anything convincing, so I still believe you are inconsistent. I don't think you can define a man by the lack of or presence of a single organ. As I noted, it seems to be a much more complicated question of holism relevant to the vague predicates paradox. No single part or organ defines you as male or female. It's the totality of your being that makes you what you are. On August 04 2013 05:31 shinosai wrote:
If the transsexual procedures of the future are so scientifically perfect and thorough that there is literally no distinguishable difference between a trans woman and a cis woman, then that is an interesting question and you might get away with your accusations if I kept the same stance I do now, but as it stands there are many differences between cis and trans, even if they are sometimes not easily perceptible.
Tell me about those differences, then. What is a characteristic of a trans woman that no cis woman has? In the present, I don't own a time machine. I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Are they all the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways? It seems to me if we're talking about totality, then a trans woman is far closer to being a cis woman in totality than a man. As far as your questions, I'm not hostile to you, so yea, I'll continue the conversation. I'm not an expert on the subject, but in the last fifty years or so... hormone replacement therapy has become a lot better, due to being able to use bio-identical hormones. Premarin was what was used before, which was a hormone taken from the urine of an animal. And due to better blood monitoring, we can keep those hormone levels in similar ranges to cis women. Secondary sexual characteristics are of course modified by hormones, so those are the same as cis women's. However, the voice must be changed through practice, and laser hair removal or electrolysis is generally necessary to remove facial hair. The SRS procedures are slightly different depending on the doctor, both cosmetically, procedurally recovery wise. One doctor, for example, you can expect to be in bed for up to 6 weeks, while with another, you may be out of bed within 2. Cosmetically speaking, there is no one single model for vaginas. Cis women's vaginas vary a great deal, and the neovagina is typically within this female range. In the past, the vagina was constructed using parts of the colon. This obviously caused some pretty serious problems, one being a terrible smell. Now there are two procedures - one in which the penis is inverted, and the other in which the vaginal canal is constructed with penile tissue (I believe this is the difference between Suporn and the Western surgeons).
Just adding, another procedure is to use skin grafts from the thighs of the patient, penile inversion/penile-scrotal tissue techniques being much easier and safer to do.
|
On August 04 2013 05:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:37 maybenexttime wrote:On August 04 2013 05:09 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2013 01:18 maybenexttime 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. 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. Right, I read it and saw a bunch of conservatives running a website attempting to make an argument that the statement did not mean the Pope approved of being gay. I mean, that is what you do when the leader of the Church makes a statement that group may not agree with. Calling me uninformed does not make that less true. I also find it amusing that you are having a case of selective memory right now, because the Pope stated he was not sure there was a "lobby" within the Church, as he had "never seen their ID cards". He then stated he did not approve of any lobby within the church. But I am sure both the conservatives and liberals will have very creative interpretations of his statements and what they mean. He certainly did not approve of being gay - what is there to approve or disapprove of? He was sympathetic of them, which, again, is perfectly in line with what the Church teaches. He outright referred to the Catechism, and used the word "sin" as regards the alleged homosexual activity of Ricca. That couldn't have been more straightforward. But somehow you are making it into some kind of a step forward. "Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem (...)" - I am not having selective memory. Whether there is a lobby has nothing to do with the fact that he plainly said that homosexual lobbying is wrong in his view. As I said, people will see the statements the way they want and justify that view with whatever reason they can think of. Your going word for word, I am taking it in context to previous statements form the church on the issue.
I think you are talking about statements selectively chosen by left wing media. I live in a predominantly Catholic country. I've met many priest and religion teachers and not a single one of them, literally not a single one of them, said anything different from what the pope said recently. I really think you have a biased and skewed view of what the Church teaches as regards homosexuality and thought it was being closer to Westboro Baptist Church than anything else.
|
On August 04 2013 05:54 Wheats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:51 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 05:28 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:54 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:41 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:
[quote]
If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing. I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman. And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I concede that the difference between a white woman and a biracial woman who appears white is less than or equal to the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman. It's a rather easy concession to make, since I don't think that there's a meaningful difference between trans women and cis women. I think ideally in a future where the actual scientific transformation process is much more refined and thorough, you might be right. Currently though, I see a significant enough difference between cis and trans women to warrant not wanting to sleep with a trans woman. Going into where the line is drawn is where the paradox arises. I definitely don't see how that makes me a transphobe. Further, I don't see how I am being inconsistent for thinking that in the situation regarding race, one actually might be somewhat racist for not wanting to sleep with someone who appears white but is actually biracial purely for the reason that they are biracial. This is the hidden transphobic attitude that motivates your inconsistency. In a previous post I debunked many of the reasons that one might feel trans women are different from cis women. So, then, what exactly is the difference? You still haven't pointed out where or how I'm being inconsistent; you just keep saying that I am. I think you can pin it down to any single one issue, but rather it's an issue of holism. The vague predicate paradox could also be relevant here. For example, your link to men who have swollen breasts - are you telling me that there is no difference between those breasts and natural breasts of a woman? Each one of those examples is some form or another of a genetic defect or a medical illness and isn't natural. If by some chance a man possessed all of these defects that led him to have no penis, breasts, internal female organs, are you really going to try to tell me that he is indistinguishable to an average female? Are you going to tell me that if such a man underwent plastic surgery, that it would be unnoticeable that he had it? In regards to your point about chromosomes, just because you aren't aware of the fact that they are different isn't grounds for it being disregarded as a difference. You missed the point. The point is that you cannot define a man by his penis, lack of breasts, or lack of internal female organs. He's still a man, even though he lacks those characteristics. About gynecomastia... the breast tissue is the same sort of tissue as a woman's breast tissue. Sometimes the issue comes up because of excessive amounts of testosterone, which is converted into estrogen (a hormone responsible for the development of breasts). So, yes, they are actually the same. I'm calling you inconsistent because you call a person who refuses to sleep with someone solely because of their race a racist, but refuse to say the same thing about someone who refuses to sleep with someone solely because of their trans status. How are they different? You have not said anything convincing, so I still believe you are inconsistent. I don't think you can define a man by the lack of or presence of a single organ. As I noted, it seems to be a much more complicated question of holism relevant to the vague predicates paradox. No single part or organ defines you as male or female. It's the totality of your being that makes you what you are. On August 04 2013 05:31 shinosai wrote:
If the transsexual procedures of the future are so scientifically perfect and thorough that there is literally no distinguishable difference between a trans woman and a cis woman, then that is an interesting question and you might get away with your accusations if I kept the same stance I do now, but as it stands there are many differences between cis and trans, even if they are sometimes not easily perceptible.
Tell me about those differences, then. What is a characteristic of a trans woman that no cis woman has? In the present, I don't own a time machine. I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Are they all the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways? It seems to me if we're talking about totality, then a trans woman is far closer to being a cis woman in totality than a man. As far as your questions, I'm not hostile to you, so yea, I'll continue the conversation. I'm not an expert on the subject, but in the last fifty years or so... hormone replacement therapy has become a lot better, due to being able to use bio-identical hormones. Premarin was what was used before, which was a hormone taken from the urine of an animal. And due to better blood monitoring, we can keep those hormone levels in similar ranges to cis women. Secondary sexual characteristics are of course modified by hormones, so those are the same as cis women's. However, the voice must be changed through practice, and laser hair removal or electrolysis is generally necessary to remove facial hair. The SRS procedures are slightly different depending on the doctor, both cosmetically, procedurally recovery wise. One doctor, for example, you can expect to be in bed for up to 6 weeks, while with another, you may be out of bed within 2. Cosmetically speaking, there is no one single model for vaginas. Cis women's vaginas vary a great deal, and the neovagina is typically within this female range. In the past, the vagina was constructed using parts of the colon. This obviously caused some pretty serious problems, one being a terrible smell. Now there are two procedures - one in which the penis is inverted, and the other in which the vaginal canal is constructed with penile tissue (I believe this is the difference between Suporn and the Western surgeons). Just adding, another procedure is to use skin grafts from the thighs of the patient, penile inversion/penile-scrotal tissue techniques being much easier and safer to do.
True. Skin grafts from the thighs are usually only used when there is insufficient penile material, from what I understand.
|
On August 04 2013 05:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:48 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Are they all the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways? Ok, so maybe I've missed this as I've only just entered this thread and clicked to the last page just in interest for the first time but... what does this have to do with anything? Can't an XX woman be born with no discernible vagina at all? When do these genetically XX women become not women to you - is it when you can no longer have PIV sex with them? Is that what defines a woman to you, as no more than sexual objects? That last question was offensive and threatening but think about it, please. Women like I have mentioned above need corrective surgery to create a neovagina much (or exactly, procedure depending) like transwomen do. I won't say they're not women. I'm merely stating that there is a difference between cis women and trans women.
Would you not sleep with these women, as you would not sleep with trans women, because they have surgically created vaginas?
|
On August 04 2013 05:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:48 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Are they all the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways? Ok, so maybe I've missed this as I've only just entered this thread and clicked to the last page just in interest for the first time but... what does this have to do with anything? Can't an XX woman be born with no discernible vagina at all? When do these genetically XX women become not women to you - is it when you can no longer have PIV sex with them? Is that what defines a woman to you, as no more than sexual objects? That last question was offensive and threatening but think about it, please. Women like I have mentioned above need corrective surgery to create a neovagina much (or exactly, procedure depending) like transwomen do. I won't say they're not women. I'm merely stating that there is a difference between cis women and trans women.
You're using really vague language in order to make this distinction. Like 'totality.' What is the 'totality' difference between cis and trans women? And is it meaningful in the same way that white women have a different 'totality' than biracial women who appear white?
|
On August 04 2013 05:55 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:49 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2013 05:37 maybenexttime wrote:On August 04 2013 05:09 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2013 01:18 maybenexttime 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:
[quote]
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. Right, I read it and saw a bunch of conservatives running a website attempting to make an argument that the statement did not mean the Pope approved of being gay. I mean, that is what you do when the leader of the Church makes a statement that group may not agree with. Calling me uninformed does not make that less true. I also find it amusing that you are having a case of selective memory right now, because the Pope stated he was not sure there was a "lobby" within the Church, as he had "never seen their ID cards". He then stated he did not approve of any lobby within the church. But I am sure both the conservatives and liberals will have very creative interpretations of his statements and what they mean. He certainly did not approve of being gay - what is there to approve or disapprove of? He was sympathetic of them, which, again, is perfectly in line with what the Church teaches. He outright referred to the Catechism, and used the word "sin" as regards the alleged homosexual activity of Ricca. That couldn't have been more straightforward. But somehow you are making it into some kind of a step forward. "Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem (...)" - I am not having selective memory. Whether there is a lobby has nothing to do with the fact that he plainly said that homosexual lobbying is wrong in his view. As I said, people will see the statements the way they want and justify that view with whatever reason they can think of. Your going word for word, I am taking it in context to previous statements form the church on the issue. I think you are talking about statements selectively chosen by left wing media. I live in a predominantly Catholic country. I've met many priest and religion teachers and not a single one of them, literally not a single one of them, said anything different from what the pope said recently. I really think you have a biased and skewed view of what the Church teaches as regards homosexuality and thought it was being closer to Westboro Baptist Church than anything else.
The implications of what a priest says and what the Holy See says are entirely different. Never before has a Pope issued a statement using language the way Pope Francis did, and many people consider this important. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to share.
|
On August 04 2013 05:55 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:49 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2013 05:37 maybenexttime wrote:On August 04 2013 05:09 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2013 01:18 maybenexttime 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:
[quote]
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. Right, I read it and saw a bunch of conservatives running a website attempting to make an argument that the statement did not mean the Pope approved of being gay. I mean, that is what you do when the leader of the Church makes a statement that group may not agree with. Calling me uninformed does not make that less true. I also find it amusing that you are having a case of selective memory right now, because the Pope stated he was not sure there was a "lobby" within the Church, as he had "never seen their ID cards". He then stated he did not approve of any lobby within the church. But I am sure both the conservatives and liberals will have very creative interpretations of his statements and what they mean. He certainly did not approve of being gay - what is there to approve or disapprove of? He was sympathetic of them, which, again, is perfectly in line with what the Church teaches. He outright referred to the Catechism, and used the word "sin" as regards the alleged homosexual activity of Ricca. That couldn't have been more straightforward. But somehow you are making it into some kind of a step forward. "Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem (...)" - I am not having selective memory. Whether there is a lobby has nothing to do with the fact that he plainly said that homosexual lobbying is wrong in his view. As I said, people will see the statements the way they want and justify that view with whatever reason they can think of. Your going word for word, I am taking it in context to previous statements form the church on the issue. I think you are talking about statements selectively chosen by left wing media. I live in a predominantly Catholic country. I've met many priest and religion teachers and not a single one of them, literally not a single one of them, said anything different from what the pope said recently. I really think you have a biased and skewed view of what the Church teaches as regards homosexuality and thought it was being closer to Westboro Baptist Church than anything else.
Right, exactly, My points of view are given to me by the left wing media and yours are the truth, despite the fact that you read the right wing media. If course you are correct, you have the correct, real interpenetration of the quote and mine was given to me by the left wing media because I can't think for myself. And I am sure the priest that agree with that view are also 100% correct as well. After all, they agree with your point of view, so why wouldn't they be right.
|
On August 04 2013 05:51 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 05:28 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 05:23 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:54 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:48 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:41 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:38 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 04:35 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 04:24 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I think there are far more differences between the sexes than there are differences between "races".
The differences between man and woman, be it cis or trans, is far more significant than the differences between black and white.
I suppose it might be somewhat racist because I can't really think of any other reason someone would be upset over that for the reasons mentioned above If you can agree that it's somewhat racist, then you should agree that you're a bit transphobic. Which is okay - you have a hangup that a lot of other people do, which is probably related to cultural upbringing. I don't think it's a good analogy though, unless you're willing to admit the difference between a black man and a white man is as great as the difference between a white man and a white woman. And I don't think you'd be willing to concede that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I concede that the difference between a white woman and a biracial woman who appears white is less than or equal to the difference between a trans woman and a cis woman. It's a rather easy concession to make, since I don't think that there's a meaningful difference between trans women and cis women. I think ideally in a future where the actual scientific transformation process is much more refined and thorough, you might be right. Currently though, I see a significant enough difference between cis and trans women to warrant not wanting to sleep with a trans woman. Going into where the line is drawn is where the paradox arises. I definitely don't see how that makes me a transphobe. Further, I don't see how I am being inconsistent for thinking that in the situation regarding race, one actually might be somewhat racist for not wanting to sleep with someone who appears white but is actually biracial purely for the reason that they are biracial. This is the hidden transphobic attitude that motivates your inconsistency. In a previous post I debunked many of the reasons that one might feel trans women are different from cis women. So, then, what exactly is the difference? You still haven't pointed out where or how I'm being inconsistent; you just keep saying that I am. I think you can pin it down to any single one issue, but rather it's an issue of holism. The vague predicate paradox could also be relevant here. For example, your link to men who have swollen breasts - are you telling me that there is no difference between those breasts and natural breasts of a woman? Each one of those examples is some form or another of a genetic defect or a medical illness and isn't natural. If by some chance a man possessed all of these defects that led him to have no penis, breasts, internal female organs, are you really going to try to tell me that he is indistinguishable to an average female? Are you going to tell me that if such a man underwent plastic surgery, that it would be unnoticeable that he had it? In regards to your point about chromosomes, just because you aren't aware of the fact that they are different isn't grounds for it being disregarded as a difference. You missed the point. The point is that you cannot define a man by his penis, lack of breasts, or lack of internal female organs. He's still a man, even though he lacks those characteristics. About gynecomastia... the breast tissue is the same sort of tissue as a woman's breast tissue. Sometimes the issue comes up because of excessive amounts of testosterone, which is converted into estrogen (a hormone responsible for the development of breasts). So, yes, they are actually the same. I'm calling you inconsistent because you call a person who refuses to sleep with someone solely because of their race a racist, but refuse to say the same thing about someone who refuses to sleep with someone solely because of their trans status. How are they different? You have not said anything convincing, so I still believe you are inconsistent. I don't think you can define a man by the lack of or presence of a single organ. As I noted, it seems to be a much more complicated question of holism relevant to the vague predicates paradox. No single part or organ defines you as male or female. It's the totality of your being that makes you what you are. On August 04 2013 05:31 shinosai wrote:
If the transsexual procedures of the future are so scientifically perfect and thorough that there is literally no distinguishable difference between a trans woman and a cis woman, then that is an interesting question and you might get away with your accusations if I kept the same stance I do now, but as it stands there are many differences between cis and trans, even if they are sometimes not easily perceptible.
Tell me about those differences, then. What is a characteristic of a trans woman that no cis woman has? In the present, I don't own a time machine. I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Are they all the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways? It seems to me if we're talking about totality, then a trans woman is far closer to being a cis woman in totality than a man. As far as your questions, I'm not hostile to you, so yea, I'll continue the conversation. I'm not an expert on the subject, but in the last fifty years or so... hormone replacement therapy has become a lot better, due to being able to use bio-identical hormones. Premarin was what was used before, which was a hormone taken from the urine of an animal. And due to better blood monitoring, we can keep those hormone levels in similar ranges to cis women. Secondary sexual characteristics are of course modified by hormones, so those are the same as cis women's. However, the voice must be changed through practice, and laser hair removal or electrolysis is generally necessary to remove facial hair. The SRS procedures are slightly different depending on the doctor, both cosmetically, procedurally recovery wise. One doctor, for example, you can expect to be in bed for up to 6 weeks, while with another, you may be out of bed within 2. Cosmetically speaking, there is no one single model for vaginas. Cis women's vaginas vary a great deal, and the neovagina is typically within this female range. In the past, the vagina was constructed using parts of the colon. This obviously caused some pretty serious problems, one being a terrible smell. Now there are two procedures - one in which the penis is inverted, and the other in which the vaginal canal is constructed with penile tissue (I believe this is the difference between Suporn and the Western surgeons).
That's fair enough. I'm not going to argue that a trans woman is a man. I'm just not going to argue that a trans woman is a cis woman either.
Do you mind telling me how many of these recent developments one must have gone through in order to be a trans-woman indistinguishable from a cis-woman? Just one of them? Two of them? If you only had one or two of them, would you be distinguishable from another trans who had all of them done?
Do you need the hormone therapy, the hair removal, and the vaginal construction all to be state-of-the-art and of the most recent technologies to truly be a trans-woman incapable of being distinguished between a cis-woman, or are they merely to give a more complete transformation of being closer to the "average cis-woman". Would this mean those who had the procedure a decade or two ago less resembles the average "cis-woman?"
I can't cite an exact defining difference between what makes someone a "man" versus a "woman" as I'm not an expert on this, but that doesn't mean they are not different or that there isn't a difference between a cis woman and a trans woman, any more than would you say there is no difference between a grain of sand and a heap of sand.
|
On August 04 2013 05:56 Wheats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 05:48 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Are they all the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways? Ok, so maybe I've missed this as I've only just entered this thread and clicked to the last page just in interest for the first time but... what does this have to do with anything? Can't an XX woman be born with no discernible vagina at all? When do these genetically XX women become not women to you - is it when you can no longer have PIV sex with them? Is that what defines a woman to you, as no more than sexual objects? That last question was offensive and threatening but think about it, please. Women like I have mentioned above need corrective surgery to create a neovagina much (or exactly, procedure depending) like transwomen do. I won't say they're not women. I'm merely stating that there is a difference between cis women and trans women. Would you not sleep with these women, as you would not sleep with trans women, because they have surgically created vaginas?
I'm not sure that surgically created vaginas are the only difference between a trans-woman and a cis-woman.
On August 04 2013 05:59 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 05:48 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Are they all the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways? Ok, so maybe I've missed this as I've only just entered this thread and clicked to the last page just in interest for the first time but... what does this have to do with anything? Can't an XX woman be born with no discernible vagina at all? When do these genetically XX women become not women to you - is it when you can no longer have PIV sex with them? Is that what defines a woman to you, as no more than sexual objects? That last question was offensive and threatening but think about it, please. Women like I have mentioned above need corrective surgery to create a neovagina much (or exactly, procedure depending) like transwomen do. I won't say they're not women. I'm merely stating that there is a difference between cis women and trans women. You're using really vague language in order to make this distinction. Like 'totality.' What is the 'totality' difference between cis and trans women? And is it meaningful in the same way that white women have a different 'totality' than biracial women who appear white?
I just mean the whole collection of all the differences.
As far as I know, there is very little noticeable difference between a black man and a white man besides skin color.
The collection of total differences between a man and a woman is much more significant though.
|
On August 04 2013 05:55 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:49 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2013 05:37 maybenexttime wrote:On August 04 2013 05:09 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2013 01:18 maybenexttime 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:
[quote]
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. Right, I read it and saw a bunch of conservatives running a website attempting to make an argument that the statement did not mean the Pope approved of being gay. I mean, that is what you do when the leader of the Church makes a statement that group may not agree with. Calling me uninformed does not make that less true. I also find it amusing that you are having a case of selective memory right now, because the Pope stated he was not sure there was a "lobby" within the Church, as he had "never seen their ID cards". He then stated he did not approve of any lobby within the church. But I am sure both the conservatives and liberals will have very creative interpretations of his statements and what they mean. He certainly did not approve of being gay - what is there to approve or disapprove of? He was sympathetic of them, which, again, is perfectly in line with what the Church teaches. He outright referred to the Catechism, and used the word "sin" as regards the alleged homosexual activity of Ricca. That couldn't have been more straightforward. But somehow you are making it into some kind of a step forward. "Being gay is not the problem, lobbying is the problem (...)" - I am not having selective memory. Whether there is a lobby has nothing to do with the fact that he plainly said that homosexual lobbying is wrong in his view. As I said, people will see the statements the way they want and justify that view with whatever reason they can think of. Your going word for word, I am taking it in context to previous statements form the church on the issue. I think you are talking about statements selectively chosen by left wing media. I live in a predominantly Catholic country. I've met many priest and religion teachers and not a single one of them, literally not a single one of them, said anything different from what the pope said recently. I really think you have a biased and skewed view of what the Church teaches as regards homosexuality and thought it was being closer to Westboro Baptist Church than anything else.
In that saying acting upon homosexual impulses is wrong and a sin, but if you have them and go against that very natural urge, being one that occurs in non-human species and many non-christian societies, you can be found acceptable? I don't believe the pope said anything more than gay people who don't act on their impulses should be allowed to be preachers or whatever. The same is required of straight people, so in fact the previous disallowment of gay pastors/fathers/what-have-you was entirely hypocritical and unnecessary, and this current change of pace is really not one at all. He never said he accepted homosexuality, he just said (paraphrased) "Resist your nature and you can be one of us," which I don't feel is all that healthy of an attitude especially as it applies to many other aspects of religious life, e.g. shaming for being promiscuous.
|
On August 04 2013 06:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:56 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 05:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 05:48 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Are they all the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways? Ok, so maybe I've missed this as I've only just entered this thread and clicked to the last page just in interest for the first time but... what does this have to do with anything? Can't an XX woman be born with no discernible vagina at all? When do these genetically XX women become not women to you - is it when you can no longer have PIV sex with them? Is that what defines a woman to you, as no more than sexual objects? That last question was offensive and threatening but think about it, please. Women like I have mentioned above need corrective surgery to create a neovagina much (or exactly, procedure depending) like transwomen do. I won't say they're not women. I'm merely stating that there is a difference between cis women and trans women. Would you not sleep with these women, as you would not sleep with trans women, because they have surgically created vaginas? I'm not sure that surgically created vaginas are the only difference between a trans-woman and a cis-woman. Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:59 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 05:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 05:48 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I would like to answer this through an indirect approach if you're willing to continue this conversation. Can you tell me about significant advances made in transsexual procedures, be it recent or not? If not, perhaps more generally has the transsexual procedure changed at all or is it the same as it was ten years ago and as it was five years ago? Are they all the same procedure or do different countries with different doctors perform the operation in different ways? Ok, so maybe I've missed this as I've only just entered this thread and clicked to the last page just in interest for the first time but... what does this have to do with anything? Can't an XX woman be born with no discernible vagina at all? When do these genetically XX women become not women to you - is it when you can no longer have PIV sex with them? Is that what defines a woman to you, as no more than sexual objects? That last question was offensive and threatening but think about it, please. Women like I have mentioned above need corrective surgery to create a neovagina much (or exactly, procedure depending) like transwomen do. I won't say they're not women. I'm merely stating that there is a difference between cis women and trans women. You're using really vague language in order to make this distinction. Like 'totality.' What is the 'totality' difference between cis and trans women? And is it meaningful in the same way that white women have a different 'totality' than biracial women who appear white? I just mean the whole collection of all the differences. As far as I know, there is very little noticeable difference between a black man and a white man besides skin color. The collection of total differences between a man and a woman is much more significant though.
We're not talking about the collection of total differences between a man and a woman. We're talking about the collection of total differences between a cis woman and a trans woman. Which, apparently, can't be a great deal more than the difference in race, since all their characteristics overlap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
