|
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.
So, how about the example of a transwoman who took puberty blockers and avoided male puberty, took female hormones at a young age, surgically transitioned as soon as she was able and lived her entire adult life as a woman. There is no visible difference to you here between this transwoman and a woman born without a vagina. Does the Y chromosome make you unable to ever see yourself in a sexual relationship with the transwoman even though both women are sterile and take similar hormonal regimens for the entirety of their lives? What about XXY women, born women who live as women, does that Y chromosome also preclude you from sexual activity with such a woman?
|
On August 04 2013 06:02 GGTeMpLaR 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). 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.
Hormone therapy and a vagina alone are sufficient to have all characteristics within cis female ranges.
|
On August 04 2013 05:14 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:07 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 04 2013 05:04 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 04:58 Snusmumriken 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. Do you consider it a phobia if they simply get a feeling of disgust when they ponder the fact that their sexual partner used to be a man? Fantasy comes along and all of a sudden they picture sucking cock. IE it makes them feel gay by proxy. Is that a phobia in your opinion? Uhh, that is exactly transphobia. Just like being uncomfortable around people of other races is racism, just like being uncomfortable around gay people is homophobia, no matter how much you try to hide it. Is one not an arachnophobe as long as they have a fear and disgust of spiders, even if they put on a brave face around spiders? Or braving your fear of heights doesn't make you not afraid of them. You have to recognize that you are phobic of the things that make you scared or disgusted, and you have to accept that and try to move beyond your fears. Thats not what I asked. I didnt ask what if a person feels disgusted around transexuals in general, I asked specifically what if a person feels gay by proxy by having sex with one. Unless you consider me fatophobic simply for feeling disgusted by the notion of having sex with an extremely fat person, I fail to see the difference. By the way I dont feel that way. I wanna answer this one too. The idea coming to the person that their partner is actually a man (and thus gay) is practically the definition of transphobia. I wouldn't call that person tranphobic and I wouldn't even discount them from my potential friends, but that feeling, whether by social conditioning or whatever, is still transphobic in nature.
Fair enough. Would you then also consider a person fatsophobic simply because they feel some level of discomfort when they picture having sex with a very fat person? If yes, ok. If not, please explain. I do appologize for the analogy, its only relevant as it relates to what constitutes a phobia.
Just curious.
I think the main reason some people are made uncomfortable by the notion of having sex with a transexual is either what I mentioned, being gay by proxy, and/or that it wouldnt look and feel the same once the clothes come off. Would you consider both transphobic or only the first?
|
On August 04 2013 06:02 GGTeMpLaR 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). 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.
What about naturally hairy women? Women who don't have curves? Women with broad shoulders? Ciswomen with adams apples? All three of those or more? Are you never to have sex with them even though they shave/wear clothes that disguise their flaws to you? Once you see them unclothed, vulnerable, do you reject them?
Why don't you just admit you want to have sex with people who look like women to you, including a transwoman, any single transwoman in the world, possibly more than one transwoman. Would you allow yourself to have sex with a passable transwoman? If you can't admit that then you're reacting to an irrational fear, i.e. a phobia, TRANSPHOBIA.
|
I actually think it's rather amusing that in a thread that spent literally 20+ pages talking about how transsexual women must disclose their status because someone might unintentionally sleep with a trans woman and be unable to tell, here we are now.... with people postulating that they (or their hypothetical scenarios) can tell the difference.
It's just a little bit ironic to me.
|
On August 04 2013 06:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:55 maybenexttime wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Well, clearly your views of what the Catholic Church teaches regarding homosexuality are in line with what the left wing media say about it, otherwise you wouldn't have thought that what the pope said is somehow different or a step forward. I take what he said at face value, while you are trying to find some hidden meaning or something.
When saying you're relying on what the left wing media tell you, I am talking strictly about your comment regarding previous statements. I am telling you, for the past ten years that I was interested in the topic of homosexuality I have not met a priest or religion teacher that said anything that was any different from what the pope said recently. To claim there is a significant change means you probably used to rely on biased sources.
And even if I were to concede that there is achange when it comes to semantics, there is absolutely no change when it comes to the heart of the matter, so I wouldn't blow it out of proportion.
On August 04 2013 06:06 Wheats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:55 maybenexttime wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
No, the Church is generally sympathetic towards "sinners" (using quotation marks because, as an atheist, I don't embrace the idea of "sin").
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.
First of all, you can be part of the Catholic Church while being a sinner, so there's no such ultimatum. Second of all, that is no different from people who are prone to succombing to gluttony, alcoholism, pre-marital sex, or such. Or from people who suffer from kleptomania, etc.
Afaik, he actually sustained the notion that people with homosexual tendencies should be discouraged from priesthood. Maybe in another statement, can't remember.
I don't think it's that much different from a Hinduist telling me I'm a sinner because I eat cow meat when cows are holy animals. I am not going to lose sleep because of that.
|
On August 04 2013 06:21 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:14 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 04 2013 05:07 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 04 2013 05:04 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 04:58 Snusmumriken 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. Do you consider it a phobia if they simply get a feeling of disgust when they ponder the fact that their sexual partner used to be a man? Fantasy comes along and all of a sudden they picture sucking cock. IE it makes them feel gay by proxy. Is that a phobia in your opinion? Uhh, that is exactly transphobia. Just like being uncomfortable around people of other races is racism, just like being uncomfortable around gay people is homophobia, no matter how much you try to hide it. Is one not an arachnophobe as long as they have a fear and disgust of spiders, even if they put on a brave face around spiders? Or braving your fear of heights doesn't make you not afraid of them. You have to recognize that you are phobic of the things that make you scared or disgusted, and you have to accept that and try to move beyond your fears. Thats not what I asked. I didnt ask what if a person feels disgusted around transexuals in general, I asked specifically what if a person feels gay by proxy by having sex with one. Unless you consider me fatophobic simply for feeling disgusted by the notion of having sex with an extremely fat person, I fail to see the difference. By the way I dont feel that way. I wanna answer this one too. The idea coming to the person that their partner is actually a man (and thus gay) is practically the definition of transphobia. I wouldn't call that person tranphobic and I wouldn't even discount them from my potential friends, but that feeling, whether by social conditioning or whatever, is still transphobic in nature. Fair enough. Would you then also consider a person fatsophobic simply because they feel some level of discomfort when they picture having sex with a very fat person? If yes, ok. If not, please explain. I do appologize for the analogy, its only relevant as it relates to what constitutes a phobia. Just curious. I think the main reason some people are made uncomfortable by the notion of having sex with a transexual is either what I mentioned, being gay by proxy, and/or that it wouldnt look and feel the same once the clothes come off. Would you consider both transphobic or only the first?
There are many "non-standard" women who would fall into the trans-appearing zone (masculine traits), women that have a vagina that doesn't self lubricate or does so poorly. Wouldn't having sex with them look and feel the same?
|
On August 04 2013 06:21 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 05:14 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 04 2013 05:07 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 04 2013 05:04 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 04:58 Snusmumriken 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. Do you consider it a phobia if they simply get a feeling of disgust when they ponder the fact that their sexual partner used to be a man? Fantasy comes along and all of a sudden they picture sucking cock. IE it makes them feel gay by proxy. Is that a phobia in your opinion? Uhh, that is exactly transphobia. Just like being uncomfortable around people of other races is racism, just like being uncomfortable around gay people is homophobia, no matter how much you try to hide it. Is one not an arachnophobe as long as they have a fear and disgust of spiders, even if they put on a brave face around spiders? Or braving your fear of heights doesn't make you not afraid of them. You have to recognize that you are phobic of the things that make you scared or disgusted, and you have to accept that and try to move beyond your fears. Thats not what I asked. I didnt ask what if a person feels disgusted around transexuals in general, I asked specifically what if a person feels gay by proxy by having sex with one. Unless you consider me fatophobic simply for feeling disgusted by the notion of having sex with an extremely fat person, I fail to see the difference. By the way I dont feel that way. I wanna answer this one too. The idea coming to the person that their partner is actually a man (and thus gay) is practically the definition of transphobia. I wouldn't call that person tranphobic and I wouldn't even discount them from my potential friends, but that feeling, whether by social conditioning or whatever, is still transphobic in nature. Fair enough. Would you then also consider a person fatsophobic simply because they feel some level of discomfort when they picture having sex with a very fat person? If yes, ok. If not, please explain. I do appologize for the analogy, its only relevant as it relates to what constitutes a phobia. Just curious. I think the main reason some people are made uncomfortable by the notion of having sex with a transexual is either what I mentioned, being gay by proxy, and/or that it wouldnt look and feel the same once the clothes come off. Would you consider both transphobic or only the first?
For the first one, it would depend. If the person were attracted to them but then began to feel worried about what it would mean to sleep with a "disgusting creature like a fat person" or some specific trauma, then it would be a phobic response. If the person just doesn't find an overweight person attractive, then no.
To the second, the first reason is (with the same disclaimer that I don't think it makes the person themselves transphobic), the second one no. The second one was harder than I first thought to explain why because it is essentially a fear specifically about trans women that could be founded in just not knowing about something, but I think if there is legitimate reason to think you wouldn't find them attractive then it's not.
|
On August 04 2013 06:25 shinosai wrote:
I actually think it's rather amusing that in a thread that spent literally 20+ pages talking about how transsexual women must disclose their status because someone might unintentionally sleep with a trans woman and be unable to tell, here we are now.... with people postulating that they (or their hypothetical scenarios) can tell the difference.
It's just a little bit ironic to me.
Well, we were discussing on the premise that a 100% transition that only a very qualified person could tell the difference - regardless whether the premise is actually true. It's simply that several transsexuals/people allegedly more knowledgealble said that's the case and we accepted the premise. There was nothing more to it. 
|
On August 04 2013 06:11 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. 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.
I think there is more difference between a biracial who looks white and a caucasian than there is between a cis woman and a trans woman.
On August 04 2013 06:11 Wheats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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. 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. So, how about the example of a transwoman who took puberty blockers and avoided male puberty, took female hormones at a young age, surgically transitioned as soon as she was able and lived her entire adult life as a woman. There is no visible difference to you here between this transwoman and a woman born without a vagina. Does the Y chromosome make you unable to ever see yourself in a sexual relationship with the transwoman even though both women are sterile and take similar hormonal regimens for the entirety of their lives? What about XXY women, born women who live as women, does that Y chromosome also preclude you from sexual activity with such a woman?
Assuming this trans-woman was visibly indistinguishable from a cis-woman barring a thorough medical examination, there is still a difference being that one was naturally born a boy and the other naturally born a girl.
Disregarding the difference in obvious visible perception though, there remains the fact that there still is a visible difference that could most likely be ascertained if one actually made a detailed comparison between natural and artificial, similar to how one might ascertain the difference between fake breasts and real breasts or a face without botox injections versus a face with botox injections. I don't know enough about the genetic significance of the chromosomes to say whether it matters or not at any meaningful level, but the difference is still there.
Regarding this, there is a difference here between perception and reality. Even if I grant the assumption that there is an imperceptible difference between a cis woman I would be interested in sleeping with and a trans woman (which I'm skeptical of), it doesn't change the reality that they were born a man.
It might just be that I'm just skeptical about the fact that I could ever be fooled into thinking a trans woman is actually a cis woman.
On August 04 2013 06:13 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Hormone therapy and a vagina alone are sufficient to have all characteristics within cis female ranges.
I'm skeptical of that.
|
I'm skeptical of that.
Tell me what else isn't in female range and I'll google you a picture of a woman with that characteristic.
|
On August 04 2013 06:27 Wheats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:21 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 04 2013 05:14 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 04 2013 05:07 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 04 2013 05:04 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 04:58 Snusmumriken 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:
[quote]
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. Do you consider it a phobia if they simply get a feeling of disgust when they ponder the fact that their sexual partner used to be a man? Fantasy comes along and all of a sudden they picture sucking cock. IE it makes them feel gay by proxy. Is that a phobia in your opinion? Uhh, that is exactly transphobia. Just like being uncomfortable around people of other races is racism, just like being uncomfortable around gay people is homophobia, no matter how much you try to hide it. Is one not an arachnophobe as long as they have a fear and disgust of spiders, even if they put on a brave face around spiders? Or braving your fear of heights doesn't make you not afraid of them. You have to recognize that you are phobic of the things that make you scared or disgusted, and you have to accept that and try to move beyond your fears. Thats not what I asked. I didnt ask what if a person feels disgusted around transexuals in general, I asked specifically what if a person feels gay by proxy by having sex with one. Unless you consider me fatophobic simply for feeling disgusted by the notion of having sex with an extremely fat person, I fail to see the difference. By the way I dont feel that way. I wanna answer this one too. The idea coming to the person that their partner is actually a man (and thus gay) is practically the definition of transphobia. I wouldn't call that person tranphobic and I wouldn't even discount them from my potential friends, but that feeling, whether by social conditioning or whatever, is still transphobic in nature. Fair enough. Would you then also consider a person fatsophobic simply because they feel some level of discomfort when they picture having sex with a very fat person? If yes, ok. If not, please explain. I do appologize for the analogy, its only relevant as it relates to what constitutes a phobia. Just curious. I think the main reason some people are made uncomfortable by the notion of having sex with a transexual is either what I mentioned, being gay by proxy, and/or that it wouldnt look and feel the same once the clothes come off. Would you consider both transphobic or only the first? There are many "non-standard" women who would fall into the trans-appearing zone (masculine traits), women that have a vagina that doesn't self lubricate or does so poorly. Wouldn't having sex with them look and feel the same?
a) In the context of what I said, it wouldnt. Then again I didnt say what you seem to assume, I said they worry about it. I also asked if that would constitute a phobia.
b) Im personally not turned on by the stereotypical butch woman. I find the notion of having sex with a female bodybuilder (of the testosterone-injecting kind) to be a little nasty. Am I simply by that fact then expressing female-bodybuilder-phobia?
|
On August 04 2013 06:24 Wheats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What about naturally hairy women? Women who don't have curves? Women with broad shoulders? Ciswomen with adams apples? All three of those or more? Are you never to have sex with them even though they shave/wear clothes that disguise their flaws to you? Once you see them unclothed, vulnerable, do you reject them? Why don't you just admit you want to have sex with people who look like women to you, including a transwoman, any single transwoman in the world, possibly more than one transwoman. Would you allow yourself to have sex with a passable transwoman? If you can't admit that then you're reacting to an irrational fear, i.e. a phobia, TRANSPHOBIA.
All the things you listed aren't deal-breakers like being a transsexual is.
I can still imagine being attracted to a woman with those traits under the right circumstances.
I can't imagine being attracted to a transsexual, possibly just because I can't ever recall seeing an attractive transsexual whereas there is no shortage of attractive cis women, even ones with traits mentioned above (depending on how radically you define those traits at least).
I don't think I'm reacting irrationally or from fear.
|
On August 04 2013 06:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:24 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What about naturally hairy women? Women who don't have curves? Women with broad shoulders? Ciswomen with adams apples? All three of those or more? Are you never to have sex with them even though they shave/wear clothes that disguise their flaws to you? Once you see them unclothed, vulnerable, do you reject them? Why don't you just admit you want to have sex with people who look like women to you, including a transwoman, any single transwoman in the world, possibly more than one transwoman. Would you allow yourself to have sex with a passable transwoman? If you can't admit that then you're reacting to an irrational fear, i.e. a phobia, TRANSPHOBIA. All the things you listed aren't deal-breakers like being a transsexual is. I can still imagine being attracted to a woman with those traits under the right circumstances. I can't imagine being attracted to a transsexual, possibly just because I can't ever recall seeing an attractive transsexual whereas there is no shortage of attractive cis women. I don't think I'm reacting irrationally or from fear.
How do you know thats true?
|
On August 04 2013 06:41 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 06:24 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What about naturally hairy women? Women who don't have curves? Women with broad shoulders? Ciswomen with adams apples? All three of those or more? Are you never to have sex with them even though they shave/wear clothes that disguise their flaws to you? Once you see them unclothed, vulnerable, do you reject them? Why don't you just admit you want to have sex with people who look like women to you, including a transwoman, any single transwoman in the world, possibly more than one transwoman. Would you allow yourself to have sex with a passable transwoman? If you can't admit that then you're reacting to an irrational fear, i.e. a phobia, TRANSPHOBIA. All the things you listed aren't deal-breakers like being a transsexual is. I can still imagine being attracted to a woman with those traits under the right circumstances. I can't imagine being attracted to a transsexual, possibly just because I can't ever recall seeing an attractive transsexual whereas there is no shortage of attractive cis women. I don't think I'm reacting irrationally or from fear. How do you know thats true?
Because he can tell the difference.
For those who didn't get it: + Show Spoiler +I said this with the deepest levels of sarcasm.
|
On August 04 2013 06:41 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 06:24 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What about naturally hairy women? Women who don't have curves? Women with broad shoulders? Ciswomen with adams apples? All three of those or more? Are you never to have sex with them even though they shave/wear clothes that disguise their flaws to you? Once you see them unclothed, vulnerable, do you reject them? Why don't you just admit you want to have sex with people who look like women to you, including a transwoman, any single transwoman in the world, possibly more than one transwoman. Would you allow yourself to have sex with a passable transwoman? If you can't admit that then you're reacting to an irrational fear, i.e. a phobia, TRANSPHOBIA. All the things you listed aren't deal-breakers like being a transsexual is. I can still imagine being attracted to a woman with those traits under the right circumstances. I can't imagine being attracted to a transsexual, possibly just because I can't ever recall seeing an attractive transsexual whereas there is no shortage of attractive cis women. I don't think I'm reacting irrationally or from fear. How do you know thats true?
How do I know what's true?
On August 04 2013 06:42 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:41 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 04 2013 06:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 06:24 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:[quote] 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. What about naturally hairy women? Women who don't have curves? Women with broad shoulders? Ciswomen with adams apples? All three of those or more? Are you never to have sex with them even though they shave/wear clothes that disguise their flaws to you? Once you see them unclothed, vulnerable, do you reject them? Why don't you just admit you want to have sex with people who look like women to you, including a transwoman, any single transwoman in the world, possibly more than one transwoman. Would you allow yourself to have sex with a passable transwoman? If you can't admit that then you're reacting to an irrational fear, i.e. a phobia, TRANSPHOBIA. All the things you listed aren't deal-breakers like being a transsexual is. I can still imagine being attracted to a woman with those traits under the right circumstances. I can't imagine being attracted to a transsexual, possibly just because I can't ever recall seeing an attractive transsexual whereas there is no shortage of attractive cis women. I don't think I'm reacting irrationally or from fear. How do you know thats true? Because he can tell the difference.
What?
|
On August 04 2013 06:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:41 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 04 2013 06:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 06:24 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:[quote] 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. What about naturally hairy women? Women who don't have curves? Women with broad shoulders? Ciswomen with adams apples? All three of those or more? Are you never to have sex with them even though they shave/wear clothes that disguise their flaws to you? Once you see them unclothed, vulnerable, do you reject them? Why don't you just admit you want to have sex with people who look like women to you, including a transwoman, any single transwoman in the world, possibly more than one transwoman. Would you allow yourself to have sex with a passable transwoman? If you can't admit that then you're reacting to an irrational fear, i.e. a phobia, TRANSPHOBIA. All the things you listed aren't deal-breakers like being a transsexual is. I can still imagine being attracted to a woman with those traits under the right circumstances. I can't imagine being attracted to a transsexual, possibly just because I can't ever recall seeing an attractive transsexual whereas there is no shortage of attractive cis women. I don't think I'm reacting irrationally or from fear. How do you know thats true? How do I know what's true? Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:42 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 06:41 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 04 2013 06:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 06:24 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What about naturally hairy women? Women who don't have curves? Women with broad shoulders? Ciswomen with adams apples? All three of those or more? Are you never to have sex with them even though they shave/wear clothes that disguise their flaws to you? Once you see them unclothed, vulnerable, do you reject them? Why don't you just admit you want to have sex with people who look like women to you, including a transwoman, any single transwoman in the world, possibly more than one transwoman. Would you allow yourself to have sex with a passable transwoman? If you can't admit that then you're reacting to an irrational fear, i.e. a phobia, TRANSPHOBIA. All the things you listed aren't deal-breakers like being a transsexual is. I can still imagine being attracted to a woman with those traits under the right circumstances. I can't imagine being attracted to a transsexual, possibly just because I can't ever recall seeing an attractive transsexual whereas there is no shortage of attractive cis women. I don't think I'm reacting irrationally or from fear. How do you know thats true? Because he can tell the difference. What?
How do you know that one of the 'attractive cis woman' wasn't a trans in disguise!?
|
Attraction is subjective. I said I can't imagine being attracted to a transsexual. I just tried to imagine it and it didn't work.
I'm pretty sure I'm qualified to say what I can imagine or not. I can't imagine one trillion dots in my head either. How do I know that's true? I just tried.
|
On August 04 2013 06:47 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 06:41 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 04 2013 06:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 06:24 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote: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:
[quote]
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. What about naturally hairy women? Women who don't have curves? Women with broad shoulders? Ciswomen with adams apples? All three of those or more? Are you never to have sex with them even though they shave/wear clothes that disguise their flaws to you? Once you see them unclothed, vulnerable, do you reject them? Why don't you just admit you want to have sex with people who look like women to you, including a transwoman, any single transwoman in the world, possibly more than one transwoman. Would you allow yourself to have sex with a passable transwoman? If you can't admit that then you're reacting to an irrational fear, i.e. a phobia, TRANSPHOBIA. All the things you listed aren't deal-breakers like being a transsexual is. I can still imagine being attracted to a woman with those traits under the right circumstances. I can't imagine being attracted to a transsexual, possibly just because I can't ever recall seeing an attractive transsexual whereas there is no shortage of attractive cis women. I don't think I'm reacting irrationally or from fear. How do you know thats true? How do I know what's true? On August 04 2013 06:42 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 06:41 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 04 2013 06:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 06:24 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 06:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 05:51 shinosai wrote:On August 04 2013 05:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 04 2013 05:28 shinosai wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. What about naturally hairy women? Women who don't have curves? Women with broad shoulders? Ciswomen with adams apples? All three of those or more? Are you never to have sex with them even though they shave/wear clothes that disguise their flaws to you? Once you see them unclothed, vulnerable, do you reject them? Why don't you just admit you want to have sex with people who look like women to you, including a transwoman, any single transwoman in the world, possibly more than one transwoman. Would you allow yourself to have sex with a passable transwoman? If you can't admit that then you're reacting to an irrational fear, i.e. a phobia, TRANSPHOBIA. All the things you listed aren't deal-breakers like being a transsexual is. I can still imagine being attracted to a woman with those traits under the right circumstances. I can't imagine being attracted to a transsexual, possibly just because I can't ever recall seeing an attractive transsexual whereas there is no shortage of attractive cis women. I don't think I'm reacting irrationally or from fear. How do you know thats true? Because he can tell the difference. What? How do you know that one of the 'attractive cis woman' wasn't a trans in disguise!?
I don't.
|
On August 04 2013 06:32 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 06:21 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 04 2013 05:14 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 04 2013 05:07 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 04 2013 05:04 Wheats wrote:On August 04 2013 04:58 Snusmumriken 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:
[quote]
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. Do you consider it a phobia if they simply get a feeling of disgust when they ponder the fact that their sexual partner used to be a man? Fantasy comes along and all of a sudden they picture sucking cock. IE it makes them feel gay by proxy. Is that a phobia in your opinion? Uhh, that is exactly transphobia. Just like being uncomfortable around people of other races is racism, just like being uncomfortable around gay people is homophobia, no matter how much you try to hide it. Is one not an arachnophobe as long as they have a fear and disgust of spiders, even if they put on a brave face around spiders? Or braving your fear of heights doesn't make you not afraid of them. You have to recognize that you are phobic of the things that make you scared or disgusted, and you have to accept that and try to move beyond your fears. Thats not what I asked. I didnt ask what if a person feels disgusted around transexuals in general, I asked specifically what if a person feels gay by proxy by having sex with one. Unless you consider me fatophobic simply for feeling disgusted by the notion of having sex with an extremely fat person, I fail to see the difference. By the way I dont feel that way. I wanna answer this one too. The idea coming to the person that their partner is actually a man (and thus gay) is practically the definition of transphobia. I wouldn't call that person tranphobic and I wouldn't even discount them from my potential friends, but that feeling, whether by social conditioning or whatever, is still transphobic in nature. Fair enough. Would you then also consider a person fatsophobic simply because they feel some level of discomfort when they picture having sex with a very fat person? If yes, ok. If not, please explain. I do appologize for the analogy, its only relevant as it relates to what constitutes a phobia. Just curious. I think the main reason some people are made uncomfortable by the notion of having sex with a transexual is either what I mentioned, being gay by proxy, and/or that it wouldnt look and feel the same once the clothes come off. Would you consider both transphobic or only the first? For the first one, it would depend. If the person were attracted to them but then began to feel worried about what it would mean to sleep with a "disgusting creature like a fat person" or some specific trauma, then it would be a phobic response. If the person just doesn't find an overweight person attractive, then no. To the second, the first reason is (with the same disclaimer that I don't think it makes the person themselves transphobic), the second one no. The second one was harder than I first thought to explain why because it is essentially a fear specifically about trans women that could be founded in just not knowing about something, but I think if there is legitimate reason to think you wouldn't find them attractive then it's not.
ok thanks for the answer.
Lets say you dont find a transwomans past as a man an attractive notion, in the same vein that a christian may consider past promiscuity a dealbreaker (even if the woman now is monogamous). Still a phobia?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
