|
On August 08 2013 14:11 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 12:54 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 12:10 killa_robot wrote:On August 08 2013 11:50 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
The basis of Kwark's consent argument is that it is a "reasonable assumption" that most people would not be ok having sex with a trans person,
I do not agree that this is a reasonable assumption on the basis that it is not my experience and that the invocation of "reasonable assumption" has the same flaws as the invocation of "common sense" in that it is highly subjective.
The demand is that I accept a different experience that is not my own as my basis of "reasonable assumption."
That is not reasonable. You're wrong actually. The basis of his argument is that it's a reasonable assumption that most people would consider having sex with a trans person something different from having sex with a cis one, and so they should have the right to choose if they wish to or not. The other part is that everyone is under the assumption they are having sex with a cis individual by default, your case is different, and due to it being different you have the responsibility to make them aware that it is in fact different. You reject this because it's inconvenient for you, you feel it's irrelevant, and you think it could endanger you. The middle point is false, but the other two have merit(if you really think you convenience outweighs their right to know who they're doing). However then you (and whoever the other transwoman was that posted a lot was), eventually degrade your own argument to "Fuck everyone, I'm gonna sleep with whoever I feel like and I don't need to tell them a damn thing". Kwark, being a hardcore feminist, who very much likes the idea of real consent, thinks this is a very bad thing. KwarK likes to call himself a hardcore feminist, but if he actually were, he'd know not to try to place morality on people's sexuality. He'd be aware of the imbalance in sexual power and negotiation and he'd be aware of things like survival sex work. If he is indeed aware of these things and still chooses to pass judgment, then he truly is an awful person. I've given him a pass based off of assumed ignorance. Just in case any of you needed any more reason to dislike me, get this: I don't let wedding rings stop me either. Why? Because I have had a culmination of experiences ranging from women wearing them just so they can have an easy go-to to get men to leave them alone while they prowl around to people being in open relationships to people just flat out cheating on their spouse. I'm still not responsible for them. I reject the basis of his argument because it's not my problem and not my hangup. I reject it because I do not make myself responsible for another person's hangups. I reject it because I stand up for my right to not *have* to be responsible for someone else's feelings - a responsibility that is demanded of no other group of people. You all strike me as pretty sheltered in your sexual experiences. My first four sexual partners came from a leather fetish background and stressed to me the importance of personal responsibility and how to navigate human sexuality. How to stay safe with my physical body and how to protect my mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being. What it boiled down to is this: The radical notion that only you are responsible for your own life. Nobody owes you anything and don't let anyone else demand that you owe them anything. Only you are responsible for constructing your reality and if you fail to maintain it, that is your own fault. Learn, and move on. You're rejecting it because you don't like it is all it comes down to. An easy comparison is to compare this to a situation with an 18 year old and 15 year old. Let's say the 18 year old is really into the 15 year old, and the 15 year old *appears* to be 18. Is it the 15 year old's responsibility to correct the 18 year old's assumption? If the 15 year old wants sex, obviously they won't want to tell the 18 year old. After all, they want to do it, and the 18 year old will more than likely be put off by the fact this person is in fact 15 if told. So, obviously it's in the interest of the 15 year old to try and justify not telling them. This would be even more true if they knew the 18 would react violently if told. The situation with transgenders is similar, in that the one party knowingly withholds information they know will affect how the other party feels, for their own benefit. All you "justifications" for not telling them are just self-serving. Morally you're certainly in the wrong here, you just don't care, because it benefits of not telling vs the repercussions of telling make the obvious better choice for you, to not tell. Until you tell them you are in fact a transwoman, you're just taking advantage of the false pretense they are under. I mean, I can sympathize with you to an extent, and truthfully I disagree with a good portion of what Kwark is saying (like all that rape stuff), but you're saying it's better for you to not tell, and because it's better for you it's the right thing to do. Which morally makes no sense.
I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that I was having sex with children.
|
On August 08 2013 14:15 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 14:11 killa_robot wrote:On August 08 2013 12:54 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 12:10 killa_robot wrote:On August 08 2013 11:50 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
The basis of Kwark's consent argument is that it is a "reasonable assumption" that most people would not be ok having sex with a trans person,
I do not agree that this is a reasonable assumption on the basis that it is not my experience and that the invocation of "reasonable assumption" has the same flaws as the invocation of "common sense" in that it is highly subjective.
The demand is that I accept a different experience that is not my own as my basis of "reasonable assumption."
That is not reasonable. You're wrong actually. The basis of his argument is that it's a reasonable assumption that most people would consider having sex with a trans person something different from having sex with a cis one, and so they should have the right to choose if they wish to or not. The other part is that everyone is under the assumption they are having sex with a cis individual by default, your case is different, and due to it being different you have the responsibility to make them aware that it is in fact different. You reject this because it's inconvenient for you, you feel it's irrelevant, and you think it could endanger you. The middle point is false, but the other two have merit(if you really think you convenience outweighs their right to know who they're doing). However then you (and whoever the other transwoman was that posted a lot was), eventually degrade your own argument to "Fuck everyone, I'm gonna sleep with whoever I feel like and I don't need to tell them a damn thing". Kwark, being a hardcore feminist, who very much likes the idea of real consent, thinks this is a very bad thing. KwarK likes to call himself a hardcore feminist, but if he actually were, he'd know not to try to place morality on people's sexuality. He'd be aware of the imbalance in sexual power and negotiation and he'd be aware of things like survival sex work. If he is indeed aware of these things and still chooses to pass judgment, then he truly is an awful person. I've given him a pass based off of assumed ignorance. Just in case any of you needed any more reason to dislike me, get this: I don't let wedding rings stop me either. Why? Because I have had a culmination of experiences ranging from women wearing them just so they can have an easy go-to to get men to leave them alone while they prowl around to people being in open relationships to people just flat out cheating on their spouse. I'm still not responsible for them. I reject the basis of his argument because it's not my problem and not my hangup. I reject it because I do not make myself responsible for another person's hangups. I reject it because I stand up for my right to not *have* to be responsible for someone else's feelings - a responsibility that is demanded of no other group of people. You all strike me as pretty sheltered in your sexual experiences. My first four sexual partners came from a leather fetish background and stressed to me the importance of personal responsibility and how to navigate human sexuality. How to stay safe with my physical body and how to protect my mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being. What it boiled down to is this: The radical notion that only you are responsible for your own life. Nobody owes you anything and don't let anyone else demand that you owe them anything. Only you are responsible for constructing your reality and if you fail to maintain it, that is your own fault. Learn, and move on. You're rejecting it because you don't like it is all it comes down to. An easy comparison is to compare this to a situation with an 18 year old and 15 year old. Let's say the 18 year old is really into the 15 year old, and the 15 year old *appears* to be 18. Is it the 15 year old's responsibility to correct the 18 year old's assumption? If the 15 year old wants sex, obviously they won't want to tell the 18 year old. After all, they want to do it, and the 18 year old will more than likely be put off by the fact this person is in fact 15 if told. So, obviously it's in the interest of the 15 year old to try and justify not telling them. This would be even more true if they knew the 18 would react violently if told. The situation with transgenders is similar, in that the one party knowingly withholds information they know will affect how the other party feels, for their own benefit. All you "justifications" for not telling them are just self-serving. Morally you're certainly in the wrong here, you just don't care, because it benefits of not telling vs the repercussions of telling make the obvious better choice for you, to not tell. Until you tell them you are in fact a transwoman, you're just taking advantage of the false pretense they are under. I mean, I can sympathize with you to an extent, and truthfully I disagree with a good portion of what Kwark is saying (like all that rape stuff), but you're saying it's better for you to not tell, and because it's better for you it's the right thing to do. Which morally makes no sense. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that I was having sex with children.
What a great straw man comeback. Not that I expected anything intellectual from you at this point.
|
On August 08 2013 14:17 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 14:15 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 14:11 killa_robot wrote:On August 08 2013 12:54 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 12:10 killa_robot wrote:On August 08 2013 11:50 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
The basis of Kwark's consent argument is that it is a "reasonable assumption" that most people would not be ok having sex with a trans person,
I do not agree that this is a reasonable assumption on the basis that it is not my experience and that the invocation of "reasonable assumption" has the same flaws as the invocation of "common sense" in that it is highly subjective.
The demand is that I accept a different experience that is not my own as my basis of "reasonable assumption."
That is not reasonable. You're wrong actually. The basis of his argument is that it's a reasonable assumption that most people would consider having sex with a trans person something different from having sex with a cis one, and so they should have the right to choose if they wish to or not. The other part is that everyone is under the assumption they are having sex with a cis individual by default, your case is different, and due to it being different you have the responsibility to make them aware that it is in fact different. You reject this because it's inconvenient for you, you feel it's irrelevant, and you think it could endanger you. The middle point is false, but the other two have merit(if you really think you convenience outweighs their right to know who they're doing). However then you (and whoever the other transwoman was that posted a lot was), eventually degrade your own argument to "Fuck everyone, I'm gonna sleep with whoever I feel like and I don't need to tell them a damn thing". Kwark, being a hardcore feminist, who very much likes the idea of real consent, thinks this is a very bad thing. KwarK likes to call himself a hardcore feminist, but if he actually were, he'd know not to try to place morality on people's sexuality. He'd be aware of the imbalance in sexual power and negotiation and he'd be aware of things like survival sex work. If he is indeed aware of these things and still chooses to pass judgment, then he truly is an awful person. I've given him a pass based off of assumed ignorance. Just in case any of you needed any more reason to dislike me, get this: I don't let wedding rings stop me either. Why? Because I have had a culmination of experiences ranging from women wearing them just so they can have an easy go-to to get men to leave them alone while they prowl around to people being in open relationships to people just flat out cheating on their spouse. I'm still not responsible for them. I reject the basis of his argument because it's not my problem and not my hangup. I reject it because I do not make myself responsible for another person's hangups. I reject it because I stand up for my right to not *have* to be responsible for someone else's feelings - a responsibility that is demanded of no other group of people. You all strike me as pretty sheltered in your sexual experiences. My first four sexual partners came from a leather fetish background and stressed to me the importance of personal responsibility and how to navigate human sexuality. How to stay safe with my physical body and how to protect my mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being. What it boiled down to is this: The radical notion that only you are responsible for your own life. Nobody owes you anything and don't let anyone else demand that you owe them anything. Only you are responsible for constructing your reality and if you fail to maintain it, that is your own fault. Learn, and move on. You're rejecting it because you don't like it is all it comes down to. An easy comparison is to compare this to a situation with an 18 year old and 15 year old. Let's say the 18 year old is really into the 15 year old, and the 15 year old *appears* to be 18. Is it the 15 year old's responsibility to correct the 18 year old's assumption? If the 15 year old wants sex, obviously they won't want to tell the 18 year old. After all, they want to do it, and the 18 year old will more than likely be put off by the fact this person is in fact 15 if told. So, obviously it's in the interest of the 15 year old to try and justify not telling them. This would be even more true if they knew the 18 would react violently if told. The situation with transgenders is similar, in that the one party knowingly withholds information they know will affect how the other party feels, for their own benefit. All you "justifications" for not telling them are just self-serving. Morally you're certainly in the wrong here, you just don't care, because it benefits of not telling vs the repercussions of telling make the obvious better choice for you, to not tell. Until you tell them you are in fact a transwoman, you're just taking advantage of the false pretense they are under. I mean, I can sympathize with you to an extent, and truthfully I disagree with a good portion of what Kwark is saying (like all that rape stuff), but you're saying it's better for you to not tell, and because it's better for you it's the right thing to do. Which morally makes no sense. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that I was having sex with children. What a great straw man comeback. Not that I expected anything intellectual from you at this point.
Comparing me to child statutory rape is intellectual?
Are you for real?
|
It's fascinating how you are able to abstract yourself as a particular singular individual apart from every other (in a fantastical and inexistent way) and yet you are unable to understand the abstracted centre of argument that people are trying to set out analogously.
|
On August 08 2013 14:21 koreasilver wrote:
It's fascinating how you are able to abstract yourself as a particular singular individual apart from every other (in a fantastical and inexistent way) and yet you are unable to understand the abstracted centre of argument that people are trying to set out analogously.
Probably because it's not a valid analogy.
Someone trying to invoke beastiality would make this circus complete.
|
On August 08 2013 14:24 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 14:21 koreasilver wrote:
It's fascinating how you are able to abstract yourself as a particular singular individual apart from every other (in a fantastical and inexistent way) and yet you are unable to understand the abstracted centre of argument that people are trying to set out analogously. Probably because it's not a valid analogy. Someone trying to invoke beastiality would make this circus complete.
I'll express this in a way you'll understand then:
![[image loading]](http://i493.photobucket.com/albums/rr299/bayside4528/mds/tumblr_llvcz7Hwyc1qzb9vso1_400.jpg)
|
On August 08 2013 14:24 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 14:21 koreasilver wrote:
It's fascinating how you are able to abstract yourself as a particular singular individual apart from every other (in a fantastical and inexistent way) and yet you are unable to understand the abstracted centre of argument that people are trying to set out analogously. Probably because it's not a valid analogy. Someone trying to invoke beastiality would make this circus complete.
This reminds me of the main character in 1984 describing Double Think. What did he say it was... something about at one moment arguing and rationalizing with the utmost elegance and cleverness... and the very next resorting to the most bull-headed ignorance of the most basic truths.
|
On August 08 2013 14:15 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 14:11 killa_robot wrote:On August 08 2013 12:54 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 08 2013 12:10 killa_robot wrote:On August 08 2013 11:50 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
The basis of Kwark's consent argument is that it is a "reasonable assumption" that most people would not be ok having sex with a trans person,
I do not agree that this is a reasonable assumption on the basis that it is not my experience and that the invocation of "reasonable assumption" has the same flaws as the invocation of "common sense" in that it is highly subjective.
The demand is that I accept a different experience that is not my own as my basis of "reasonable assumption."
That is not reasonable. You're wrong actually. The basis of his argument is that it's a reasonable assumption that most people would consider having sex with a trans person something different from having sex with a cis one, and so they should have the right to choose if they wish to or not. The other part is that everyone is under the assumption they are having sex with a cis individual by default, your case is different, and due to it being different you have the responsibility to make them aware that it is in fact different. You reject this because it's inconvenient for you, you feel it's irrelevant, and you think it could endanger you. The middle point is false, but the other two have merit(if you really think you convenience outweighs their right to know who they're doing). However then you (and whoever the other transwoman was that posted a lot was), eventually degrade your own argument to "Fuck everyone, I'm gonna sleep with whoever I feel like and I don't need to tell them a damn thing". Kwark, being a hardcore feminist, who very much likes the idea of real consent, thinks this is a very bad thing. KwarK likes to call himself a hardcore feminist, but if he actually were, he'd know not to try to place morality on people's sexuality. He'd be aware of the imbalance in sexual power and negotiation and he'd be aware of things like survival sex work. If he is indeed aware of these things and still chooses to pass judgment, then he truly is an awful person. I've given him a pass based off of assumed ignorance. Just in case any of you needed any more reason to dislike me, get this: I don't let wedding rings stop me either. Why? Because I have had a culmination of experiences ranging from women wearing them just so they can have an easy go-to to get men to leave them alone while they prowl around to people being in open relationships to people just flat out cheating on their spouse. I'm still not responsible for them. I reject the basis of his argument because it's not my problem and not my hangup. I reject it because I do not make myself responsible for another person's hangups. I reject it because I stand up for my right to not *have* to be responsible for someone else's feelings - a responsibility that is demanded of no other group of people. You all strike me as pretty sheltered in your sexual experiences. My first four sexual partners came from a leather fetish background and stressed to me the importance of personal responsibility and how to navigate human sexuality. How to stay safe with my physical body and how to protect my mental, emotional, and spiritual well-being. What it boiled down to is this: The radical notion that only you are responsible for your own life. Nobody owes you anything and don't let anyone else demand that you owe them anything. Only you are responsible for constructing your reality and if you fail to maintain it, that is your own fault. Learn, and move on. You're rejecting it because you don't like it is all it comes down to. An easy comparison is to compare this to a situation with an 18 year old and 15 year old. Let's say the 18 year old is really into the 15 year old, and the 15 year old *appears* to be 18. Is it the 15 year old's responsibility to correct the 18 year old's assumption? If the 15 year old wants sex, obviously they won't want to tell the 18 year old. After all, they want to do it, and the 18 year old will more than likely be put off by the fact this person is in fact 15 if told. So, obviously it's in the interest of the 15 year old to try and justify not telling them. This would be even more true if they knew the 18 would react violently if told. The situation with transgenders is similar, in that the one party knowingly withholds information they know will affect how the other party feels, for their own benefit. All you "justifications" for not telling them are just self-serving. Morally you're certainly in the wrong here, you just don't care, because it benefits of not telling vs the repercussions of telling make the obvious better choice for you, to not tell. Until you tell them you are in fact a transwoman, you're just taking advantage of the false pretense they are under. I mean, I can sympathize with you to an extent, and truthfully I disagree with a good portion of what Kwark is saying (like all that rape stuff), but you're saying it's better for you to not tell, and because it's better for you it's the right thing to do. Which morally makes no sense. I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that I was having sex with children.
Translation:
"I can't refute your point, but I also can't admit I'm overreaching. I'm going to act like an idiot now."
+ Show Spoiler +
|
You're not as clever as you all think you are. There is no way I can honestly entertain the presented analogy because it is inherently poorly constructed for multiple reasons. First, adults are not children. Second, the age of consent in some countries is 13.
Keep stroking yourselves though.
|
On August 08 2013 14:21 koreasilver wrote:
It's fascinating how you are able to abstract yourself as a particular singular individual apart from every other (in a fantastical and inexistent way) and yet you are unable to understand the abstracted centre of argument that people are trying to set out analogously.
It certainly is one thing to criticize an unfit analogy, and another thing entirely to make up your own analogy while refusing to understand all others.
The discussion of the ethics of consent has been good food for thought in this thread. Apart from the flippant asides, the base issue is interesting to reason through.
|
On August 08 2013 11:50 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
The basis of Kwark's consent argument is that it is a "reasonable assumption" that most people would not be ok having sex with a trans person,
I do not agree that this is a reasonable assumption on the basis that it is not my experience and that the invocation of "reasonable assumption" has the same flaws as the invocation of "common sense" in that it is highly subjective.
The demand is that I accept a different experience that is not my own as my basis of "reasonable assumption."
That is not reasonable.
Then you are one hell of a paranoid person for fearing anything could happen to you if you disclose that information. Because, according to you, people who would have a problem with having sex with a transsexual are so rare. That means people who would resort to violence upon finding out are even more rare, making your reservations not to disclose completely irrational. And weren't you one of the people claiming that irrational reasons are invalid?
|
Oops, wrong thread.
But since I am here, I guess I will try to make myself a little bit relevant before I am 100 percent ignored. We can at least be optimistic that in much of the first world that much of mainstream society as a whole is focused and discussing transgenderism rather than the conversations turning into something about Bridget or having only people like Leslie Feinberg talking about the issue.
|
Edit: Have to travel across the country, youngest brother is in hosital so won't be able to reply to anyone who responds to this for some time, sorry. Would still appreciate responses though.
Usual disclaimer before I begin this post, I always disclose because I think in the society I live in it is considered the morally right thing to do and I don't want to cause harm to others.
So, I have a question for the pro disclosure side of the argument because even though I abide by it for other people's sake, I haven't yet heard a good reason for why it should be the case during one night stands. For the purposes of this post I'm explicitly discussing two people meeting in a bar, talking for a little while then going to a bedroom together and never intending to see each other again. So far as I can tell, literally no one has made the case for not disclosing to a potential longer term partner.
So the primary argument that I've seen is the 'presumed cis' numbers one, but I'm not sure it should apply to this situation. Every single time this happens, the amount of information each side has is implicitly minimal, which is kind of the point. There are quite a lot of factors which would cause people to not want to be intimate with someone, but essentially we're talking about just stress relieving, end of the night, mechanical sex which both sides consent to and can offer. I think pre-op it makes a difference because then you don't have the expected parts, but post op the issue is solely that two people consented to a situation with known incomplete knowledge and got just that.
The next argument I can recall was the 'then they might get bullied by transphobes if they do find out later'. This is identical to one of the main arguments against gay adoption, and is equally poor there.
Finally was the discussion that a transphobe shouldn't be 'tricked' in to any situation, and again I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. Please feel free to crrect me if I'm wrong Rasberry, but I believe you have said that if you believed someone was transphobic or took any kind of hint they had become uncomfortable you would consider that a withdrawal of consent and wouldn't attempt to deceive someone you believed to be transphobic at all. This essentially takes us back to the first two points with that established.
So, considering this, if I hook up with someone and they turn out to be bi, should they have disclosed that before hand or be morally considered rapists? They're outliers, there are a lot of homophobes who wouldn't want anything to do with them and I personally have a wholly irrational fear that a bi guy would find me attractive because he could see something male in me and I haven't yet been able to get over that. Should all bisexuals disclose before a one night stand or a one night blow job or what? Where is the line?
On August 08 2013 14:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2013 16:35 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 04 2013 14:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:On August 04 2013 12:36 shinosai wrote:I'm not trying to police anyone's sexual life. It is so completely ridiculous that this strawman keeps being made. I don't care who you sleep with. But if you come in here and say you won't sleep with a woman because she's black or a transsexual woman because she is trans, then yea, I'm going to call that indecent. Because you are being prejudiced against someone for nothing other than how they were born. That doesn't mean I'm controlling your sexual life, or that I want to. All it means is that I'm pointing out that your preferences reveal harmful underlying attitudes. I reserve the right to draw a distinction between natural born women and male to female transsexuals if this seems meaningful to me, regardless of how meaningless you might find it. And I reserve the right to point out that this distinction has no scientific basis behind it, and contributes to transphobia. Get out of my bedroom please. Because no matter how many times you say you aren't going in there, there you are, underneath the bed or in the closet or behind the drapes. Exactly what harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed by a lack of sexual attraction to a certain classifiable section of humanity. The exact same kind of crazy you're pushing can also be used against straight people for not being attracted to the same sex or gay people not being attracted to the opposite sex; what kind of harmful underlying attitudes are being revealed there? In your examples the person is never attracted to them. What is being discussed is being attracted to someone and then not when you are told they're trans. That change is based on nothing but attitudes towards and beliefs about trans people (typically for trans women - 'she's a man' or concerns about being 'gay'), and is therefore likely based in some form of transphobia. As I've said a few times though, and to repeat so no one thinks I'm trying to insult anyone, that doesn't make the individual transphobic, but the nature of that change is what was being discussed. Wait, what? So... you're not attracted to transsexuals, you find out a woman is, your attraction ends because of that, that is evidence of an unconscious transphobic attitude? Instead of being evidence that you are not attracted to transsexual women? You also dodged what I said about this being applied to heterosexuals for not being homosexual and homosexuals for not being heterosexual. Under this regime the only people who don't have some sinister unconscious prejudice are bisexuals I guess. When homophobes politicize sexual attraction it is awful and bad, yet here sexuality is being politicized because it's for a good cause or some crap. It's total bullshit that our sexuality has to get graded for how 'correct' it is according to some bullshit standard cooked up by moral busybodies. Thought that statement would only ever apply to gay-haters but nooooooooope.
The discussion was why the sudden change from person being attractive to person being not attractive. It is obviously based on not finding trans people attractive, but many of the reasons behind that are based on internalised transphobic feelings as has been discussed at length in this thread. Wouldn't blame you if you'd missed it though given how many posts there are, but that is the context of my reply.
|
i'm late to the party but how is this even an argument?
having sex with a transexual does not cause a health risk, so there's no comparison to people with STD. the reason you can't have sex with children is out of respect for the fact that children are typically not emotionally or socially equipped for the ramifications of sex with an adult, whereas adult transexuals are totally unrelated to that issue
so can someone explain to me one thing: if people have the right to "choose what kind of person they have sex with," where exactly is the line drawn? what if i'm disgusted by the idea of having sex with someone who has a glass eye or obsessive-compulsive disorder or an abnormally high white blood cell count? can someone please explain to me in detailed logic what separates things i have a right to know from things i don't? because by the logic people are using here, i should basically have to write a complete dossier on my biological and psychological history before having sex with someone who wants to have sex with me
having sex with someone should be an act of trust, and trusting people requires accepting that it's never 100% possible to be inside their brain and know everything about their mind and body...
|
On August 08 2013 18:53 Waise wrote:
i'm late to the party but how is this even an argument?
having sex with a transexual does not cause a health risk, so there's no comparison to people with STD. the reason you can't have sex with children is out of respect for the fact that children are typically not emotionally or socially equipped for the ramifications of sex with an adult, whereas adult transexuals are totally unrelated to that issue
so can someone explain to me one thing: if people have the right to "choose what kind of person they have sex with," where exactly is the line drawn? what if i'm disgusted by the idea of having sex with someone who has a glass eye or obsessive-compulsive disorder or an abnormally high white blood cell count? can someone please explain to me in detailed logic what separates things i have a right to know from things i don't? because by the logic people are using here, i should basically have to write a complete dossier on my biological and psychological history before having sex with someone who wants to have sex with me
having sex with someone should be an act of trust, and trusting people requires accepting that it's never 100% possible to be inside their brain and know everything about their mind and body...
The reason is fairly straight forward, it is a reasonable assumption that most people might not comfortable with it. You might not like this assumption or feel it is wrong in some way but this is how society generally feels about these things. Most of us are totally fine with transgender individuals but most of us would not necessarily be comfortable sleeping with one, a good example was the show 'There's something about Miriam' in which a very attractive trans woman was the 'goal' of a reality dating show, her trans-status wasn't disclosed until the very end and the result was all a law suit which resulted in the male contestants being given an undisclosed settlement.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be totally comfortable with this but they are not the majority. A lot of people would consider it the same as having sex with a man, which again you can say that is not justified till you're blue in the face, and I'd agree with you, but that isn't going to change how that person responds.
None of what you mentioned is relevant as it has nothing to do with sexuality, if you found out someone had a prosthetic leg you might not sleep with because it would make you uncomfortable, if you found out someone had slept with far more people than you deem reasonable you might not sleep with them or if you found out someone had a long history of STDs or had a history of domestic violence you would reconsider.
You could easily point out that a lot of what I've mentioned has negative connotations and you shouldn't feel that way about trans people and that is a valid argument in theory but in practice you are disregarding how the other person feels because you don't agree with it or feel its unjustified but that doesn't suddenly justify your own actions because that other person is more of an asshole than you, you're still deceptive.
EDIT: I'll add that I don't mean to not condone this persons actions, I completely sympathize, I can hardly claim to be a totally moral person and I've chatted up girls with false promises in the past. I'm not going to justify my actions though and that's where I draw the line, you want a moral conversation then you need to talk in a strict sense and disregard your own actions and feelings, more often than not you'll be in the wrong and as an adult you should be capable of accepting that, although it is fairly rare that people have that level of self awareness.
|
On August 08 2013 19:12 adwodon wrote:
The reason is fairly straight forward, it is a reasonable assumption that most people might not comfortable with it. You might not like this assumption or feel it is wrong in some way but this is how society generally feels about these things. i'm asking you to explain why there is a responsibility to disclose something just because "people might not be comfortable." i can claim to be uncomfortable with almost anything. everyone is different and everyone is comfortable and uncomfortable with different things based on their unique personality. since i can't predict the full extent of anyone's personality, how can i be expected to cater to all of their requisites for who is acceptable to sleep with? perhaps most importantly of all, why must the consideration be first for the person uncomfortable with sleeping with a transexual and not with the fact that a transexual may not be comfortable with disclosing it?
On August 08 2013 19:12 adwodon wrote:None of what you mentioned is relevant as it has nothing to do with sexuality, who makes that determination? you? i don't think there is a relevant scientific distinction between the reproductive system and other aspects of my body's physiology, i'd like to hear you prove why there should be. putting your penis inside someone does not entitle you to information that doesn't pose a risk to you. do i get to know if someone has had a tonsilectomy before kissing them? again, who decides that information about sexual organs must be disclosed? why must it be disclosed? "i wouldn't be comfortable" is not sufficient, because of reasons i have already explained about how anyone can be uncomfortable with anything.
On August 08 2013 19:12 adwodon wrote:if you found out someone had a prosthetic leg you might not sleep with because it would make you uncomfortable, if you found out someone had slept with far more people than you deem reasonable you might not sleep with them same question, so what? how does that introduce a responsibility for disclosure? people have the right to privacy about their history, and when you agree to have sex with someone, any mature adult should already be aware that they don't know everything about that person. disclosing information is the kind and considerate thing to do, but that is a far, far cry from saying it's immoral not to do so
On August 08 2013 19:12 adwodon wrote:or if you found out someone had a long history of STDs or had a history of domestic violence you would reconsider. already addressed STDs, it's offensive for you to even make this comparison because STDs pose a legitimate health risk whereas sleeping with a transexual alone does not
On August 08 2013 19:12 adwodon wrote:You could easily point out that a lot of what I've mentioned has negative connotations and you shouldn't feel that way about trans people and that is a valid argument in theory but in practice you are disregarding how the other person feels because you don't agree with it or feel its unjustified but that doesn't suddenly justify your own actions because that other person is more of an asshole than you, you're still deceptive. keeping things private about my history is "deceptive"? why? how does it somehow become deceptive through the act of sex? if you have a criminal record and your friends don't know and you don't tell them, is that "deceptive"? no one is obligated to provide information about themselves or about their history unless failing to do so poses a risk to others
BTW, because of the way i'm approaching this argument i want to make clear that i'm a cissexual male, not trans, and i have no direct experience on the matter. not saying this because i would be ashamed to be transexual but only to avoid causing confusion
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On August 08 2013 19:21 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 19:12 adwodon wrote:
The reason is fairly straight forward, it is a reasonable assumption that most people might not comfortable with it. You might not like this assumption or feel it is wrong in some way but this is how society generally feels about these things. i'm asking you to explain why there is a responsibility to disclose something just because "people might not be comfortable." i can claim to be uncomfortable with almost anything. everyone is different and everyone is comfortable and uncomfortable with different things based on their unique personality. since i can't predict the full extent of anyone's personality, how can i be expected to cater to all of their requisites for who is acceptable to sleep with? perhaps most importantly of all, why must the consideration be first for the person uncomfortable with sleeping with a transexual and not with the fact that a transexual may not be comfortable with disclosing it?
Did you read what Kwark had to say about numbers?
You can claim to be uncomfortable with anything, but is your discomfort shared by many, many other people?
|
On August 08 2013 19:23 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 19:21 Waise wrote:On August 08 2013 19:12 adwodon wrote:
The reason is fairly straight forward, it is a reasonable assumption that most people might not comfortable with it. You might not like this assumption or feel it is wrong in some way but this is how society generally feels about these things. i'm asking you to explain why there is a responsibility to disclose something just because "people might not be comfortable." i can claim to be uncomfortable with almost anything. everyone is different and everyone is comfortable and uncomfortable with different things based on their unique personality. since i can't predict the full extent of anyone's personality, how can i be expected to cater to all of their requisites for who is acceptable to sleep with? perhaps most importantly of all, why must the consideration be first for the person uncomfortable with sleeping with a transexual and not with the fact that a transexual may not be comfortable with disclosing it? Did you read what Kwark had to say about numbers? You can claim to be uncomfortable with anything, but is your discomfort shared by many, many other people?
it doesn't matter because the point is that discomfort does not entitle you to information. the right to privacy about your history supersedes the "right" to information about a person you put your penis into. moreover, "many people agree" is an absolutely godawful argument in favor of anything concerning morality
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On August 08 2013 19:27 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 19:23 marvellosity wrote:On August 08 2013 19:21 Waise wrote:On August 08 2013 19:12 adwodon wrote:
The reason is fairly straight forward, it is a reasonable assumption that most people might not comfortable with it. You might not like this assumption or feel it is wrong in some way but this is how society generally feels about these things. i'm asking you to explain why there is a responsibility to disclose something just because "people might not be comfortable." i can claim to be uncomfortable with almost anything. everyone is different and everyone is comfortable and uncomfortable with different things based on their unique personality. since i can't predict the full extent of anyone's personality, how can i be expected to cater to all of their requisites for who is acceptable to sleep with? perhaps most importantly of all, why must the consideration be first for the person uncomfortable with sleeping with a transexual and not with the fact that a transexual may not be comfortable with disclosing it? Did you read what Kwark had to say about numbers? You can claim to be uncomfortable with anything, but is your discomfort shared by many, many other people? it doesn't matter because the point is that discomfort does not entitle you to information. the right to privacy about your history supersedes the "right" to information about a person you put your penis into. moreover, "many people agree" is an absolutely godawful argument in favor of anything concerning morality
Sure, but the path you're doing down is that you're witholding information, information which has a high likelihood of making the person not want to sleep with you. You're ok with that deception?
|
On August 08 2013 19:30 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 19:27 Waise wrote:On August 08 2013 19:23 marvellosity wrote:On August 08 2013 19:21 Waise wrote:On August 08 2013 19:12 adwodon wrote:
The reason is fairly straight forward, it is a reasonable assumption that most people might not comfortable with it. You might not like this assumption or feel it is wrong in some way but this is how society generally feels about these things. i'm asking you to explain why there is a responsibility to disclose something just because "people might not be comfortable." i can claim to be uncomfortable with almost anything. everyone is different and everyone is comfortable and uncomfortable with different things based on their unique personality. since i can't predict the full extent of anyone's personality, how can i be expected to cater to all of their requisites for who is acceptable to sleep with? perhaps most importantly of all, why must the consideration be first for the person uncomfortable with sleeping with a transexual and not with the fact that a transexual may not be comfortable with disclosing it? Did you read what Kwark had to say about numbers? You can claim to be uncomfortable with anything, but is your discomfort shared by many, many other people? it doesn't matter because the point is that discomfort does not entitle you to information. the right to privacy about your history supersedes the "right" to information about a person you put your penis into. moreover, "many people agree" is an absolutely godawful argument in favor of anything concerning morality Sure, but the path you're doing down is that you're witholding information, information which has a high likelihood of making the person not want to sleep with you. You're ok with that deception?
to me the word "deception" implies that you have a moral need to know the information in the first place. not telling people things they don't have a right to know doesn't fit my definition of "deception". if you're talking about a friendship or a relationship where people have mutual trust and expect each other to share information, that starts to get a little muddy and it would depend on the specific relationship. but as far as i know we're only talking about sex and the "right to know who you're having sex with," which is not a right i recognize
if you categorize it as "deception," then yes, i'm absolutely okay with that deception
look, i do think ideally that people should be open and honest with each other, but transexuals are in a unique position of being uncomfortable with disclosing their biological history because of a fear that has been put into them by the same society demanding to know about their genitals, and for the same reasons that that society would be repulsed by the truth. i'm not talking about being senselessly cavalier with honesty and trust, i'm talking about weighing the discomfort of the transexual and the reasons for their discomfort against the discomfort of the transphobe and being able to understand the motivations for avoiding the truth
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
