|
On August 09 2013 00:56 killa_robot wrote:
I think we need a new topic here haha. We've gone no where with the whole "Trap/consent" discussion in the last like 50 pages.
So with that in mind, does anyone else find it odd gay, bisexual and trans are all lumped together? I mean being gay or bisexual is your sexual preference, like being straight, however trans isn't a sexual preference, it's a state of a being. You can be trans AND be straight/gay/bi.
I've just always thought it was odd they were all kind of put together when talking about the subject of sexuality.
The reason is because in the history of the LBGT rights movement, trans people were there from the very beginning helping gay and bisexual people fight for their rights. And because we lack numbers as others have so frequently pointed out, it is not very viable or fair to kick us out of the LBGT movement on the grounds that "transsexualism is not a sexual orientation." It's grouped together based on similarity of oppression and the fact that we have traditionally fought for LGB rights far more than LGB has helped us. And, obviously, on our own, we cannot reasonably be expected to fight against discrimination.
|
On August 09 2013 00:56 killa_robot wrote:
I think we need a new topic here haha. We've gone no where with the whole "Trap/consent" discussion in the last like 50 pages.
So with that in mind, does anyone else find it odd gay, bisexual and trans are all lumped together? I mean being gay or bisexual is your sexual preference, like being straight, however trans isn't a sexual preference, it's a state of a being. You can be trans AND be straight/gay/bi.
I've just always thought it was odd they were all kind of put together when talking about the subject of sexuality.
They are similar in that they all defy traditional gender roles/relations. And all of those categories of people are still not accepted and/or discriminated against in many parts of the world. Though being trans is ofcourse different in the way that you discussed, it seems quite natural to me to group them together.
|
On August 09 2013 01:03 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:56 killa_robot wrote:
I think we need a new topic here haha. We've gone no where with the whole "Trap/consent" discussion in the last like 50 pages.
So with that in mind, does anyone else find it odd gay, bisexual and trans are all lumped together? I mean being gay or bisexual is your sexual preference, like being straight, however trans isn't a sexual preference, it's a state of a being. You can be trans AND be straight/gay/bi.
I've just always thought it was odd they were all kind of put together when talking about the subject of sexuality. The reason is because in the history of the LBGT rights movement, trans people were there from the very beginning helping gay and bisexual people fight for their rights. And because we lack numbers as others have so frequently pointed out, it is not very viable or fair to kick us out of the LBGT movement on the grounds that "transsexualism is not a sexual orientation." It's grouped together based on similarity of oppression and the fact that we have traditionally fought for LGB rights far more than LGB has helped us. And, obviously, on our own, we cannot reasonably be expected to fight against discrimination.
Kick you out? I never said or even implied that, I've just never seen the connection between people being gay or bi, and people being trans.
On August 09 2013 01:04 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:56 killa_robot wrote:
I think we need a new topic here haha. We've gone no where with the whole "Trap/consent" discussion in the last like 50 pages.
So with that in mind, does anyone else find it odd gay, bisexual and trans are all lumped together? I mean being gay or bisexual is your sexual preference, like being straight, however trans isn't a sexual preference, it's a state of a being. You can be trans AND be straight/gay/bi.
I've just always thought it was odd they were all kind of put together when talking about the subject of sexuality. They are similar in that they all defy traditional gender roles/relations. And all of those categories of people are still not accepted and/or discriminated against in many parts of the world. Though being trans is ofcourse different in the way that you discussed, it seems quite natural to me to group them together.
Hmm, I can see the angle when you put it like that.
|
On August 09 2013 01:06 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 01:03 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:56 killa_robot wrote:
I think we need a new topic here haha. We've gone no where with the whole "Trap/consent" discussion in the last like 50 pages.
So with that in mind, does anyone else find it odd gay, bisexual and trans are all lumped together? I mean being gay or bisexual is your sexual preference, like being straight, however trans isn't a sexual preference, it's a state of a being. You can be trans AND be straight/gay/bi.
I've just always thought it was odd they were all kind of put together when talking about the subject of sexuality. The reason is because in the history of the LBGT rights movement, trans people were there from the very beginning helping gay and bisexual people fight for their rights. And because we lack numbers as others have so frequently pointed out, it is not very viable or fair to kick us out of the LBGT movement on the grounds that "transsexualism is not a sexual orientation." It's grouped together based on similarity of oppression and the fact that we have traditionally fought for LGB rights far more than LGB has helped us. And, obviously, on our own, we cannot reasonably be expected to fight against discrimination. Kick you out? I never said or even implied that, I've just never seen the connection between people being gay or bi, and people being trans.
someone earlier said the connection is the nature of the oppression and i think that's a good answer
|
i also never said that having the qualities of a man makes you a man
Forgive me, but isnt that almost verbatim the quote from the dictionary?
You know what, I dont have time for this.
Why do I always get sucked into semantics...
|
On August 09 2013 01:06 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 01:03 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:56 killa_robot wrote:
I think we need a new topic here haha. We've gone no where with the whole "Trap/consent" discussion in the last like 50 pages.
So with that in mind, does anyone else find it odd gay, bisexual and trans are all lumped together? I mean being gay or bisexual is your sexual preference, like being straight, however trans isn't a sexual preference, it's a state of a being. You can be trans AND be straight/gay/bi.
I've just always thought it was odd they were all kind of put together when talking about the subject of sexuality. The reason is because in the history of the LBGT rights movement, trans people were there from the very beginning helping gay and bisexual people fight for their rights. And because we lack numbers as others have so frequently pointed out, it is not very viable or fair to kick us out of the LBGT movement on the grounds that "transsexualism is not a sexual orientation." It's grouped together based on similarity of oppression and the fact that we have traditionally fought for LGB rights far more than LGB has helped us. And, obviously, on our own, we cannot reasonably be expected to fight against discrimination. Kick you out? I never said or even implied that, I've just never seen the connection between people being gay or bi, and people being trans.
I wasn't trying to imply that you wanted to kick us out. But it occurs often enough that someone argues that trans people have no place in LGBT movements, so I was pointing out A) why trans people have historically been grouped with LGB's and B) why it is important that they continue to be grouped with them.
|
On August 09 2013 01:09 Killscreen wrote:Forgive me, but isnt that almost verbatim the quote from the dictionary? You know what, I dont have time for this. Why do I always get sucked into semantics...
thats the third time you told me you would stop arguing please stop teasing me.
EDIT: upon further reflection the fact that it uses a "she" obviously helps my point more than if they had chose to use a "he"
the point is that gender and sex are different and calling someone who is a woman a man can be offensive
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On August 09 2013 01:09 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 01:06 killa_robot wrote:On August 09 2013 01:03 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:56 killa_robot wrote:
I think we need a new topic here haha. We've gone no where with the whole "Trap/consent" discussion in the last like 50 pages.
So with that in mind, does anyone else find it odd gay, bisexual and trans are all lumped together? I mean being gay or bisexual is your sexual preference, like being straight, however trans isn't a sexual preference, it's a state of a being. You can be trans AND be straight/gay/bi.
I've just always thought it was odd they were all kind of put together when talking about the subject of sexuality. The reason is because in the history of the LBGT rights movement, trans people were there from the very beginning helping gay and bisexual people fight for their rights. And because we lack numbers as others have so frequently pointed out, it is not very viable or fair to kick us out of the LBGT movement on the grounds that "transsexualism is not a sexual orientation." It's grouped together based on similarity of oppression and the fact that we have traditionally fought for LGB rights far more than LGB has helped us. And, obviously, on our own, we cannot reasonably be expected to fight against discrimination. Kick you out? I never said or even implied that, I've just never seen the connection between people being gay or bi, and people being trans. I wasn't trying to imply that you wanted to kick us out. But it occurs often enough that someone argues that trans people have no place in LGBT movements, so I was pointing out A) why trans people have historically been grouped with LGB's and B) why it is important that they continue to be grouped with them.
Personally I feel no particular affinity or connection to trans folk; I'd argue for their rights the same as I'd argue for rights for any minority.
|
@Mercy13
Problem 2 - Effect of Consent
I think many people who were posting in the thread had an unrealistic and impractical view of consent, where they believed that consent has to be 100% fully informed in order to be valid, and this is simply not the case. For example, say a person just bought some new software, and when he gets to the EULA he doesn't read it but just clicks on "I consent to be bound by the terms of this EULA." He then goes merrily on his way, making copies of the software and selling them to all his friends and family. If the software company sues him for IP infringement based on his acceptance of the EULA, he can't say "but I didn't know there was a provision in there about IP infringement, so I didn't really consent to be bound by the license!"
Similarly, if a person consents to a one night stand, he is accepting the risk that there might be something about his partner that had he known about it, would have prevented him from consenting. He can't go back after the fact and say "I didn't know you were a trans person when I consented, therefore there is no consent and you're a rapist!"
I guess you could argue that this would be a case of ineffective consent, or misinformed consent, or consent by deception or something like that (to be clear I wouldn't argue this), but it would be wrong to say that there was no consent."
The thing is, the EULA does explicitly disclose all the information. The situation we're discussing here is closer to there being a hidden section that you agree to by virtue of signing the EULA. What you described is as if the transsexual tried to inform his potential sexual partner of his/her condition and the latter shut his/her ears and was like "Yadda, yadda, I'm not listening. I'm in."
|
On August 09 2013 00:31 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2013 13:46 Mercy13 wrote:
I promised myself that I would stop posting on this subject because I found myself getting pretty frustrated, but I couldn't resist. KwarK's argument is essentially that the value of fully informed consent is more important than any other conceivable value, and that anything less than fully informed consent is the same as no consent at all, provided that one party has reason to believe that the consent was not fully informed.
This argument does not work unless you can demonstrate that the value of fully informed consent is objectively better than every other important value. Otherwise, it is just one of many ways to ethically resolve a complicated issue.
I PM'd Kwark with what I think is a superior resolution to this dilemma. I am pasting the note below (sorry that it's long) and I would dearly appreciate it if you guys could (1) demonstrate where my thinking is flawed; or (2) stop acting like everyone who has different values from your own is a rapist.
I will un-nest the second quote to I can reply to individual paragraphs without having to wrestle the formatting. Show nested quote +Sorry for taking so long to reply, it's been a busy weekend.
In case you are interested I thought I'd summarize my view point one more time, because it may have gotten lost in thread. Or maybe you just think it's bad, in which case I would appreciate it if you could point out where you think the flaws are : )
First off, I think I have a very clear idea of what your standard for disclosure is: In order for consent to be valid when Person A is considering a sexual encounter with Person B, Person A must disclose all information about Person A that Person A has reason to believe would affect Person B's decision to have sex with Person A.
As I mentioned before, I believe this is an internally consistent and coherent standard, that provides relatively clear guidelines for behavior. Also, I am quite sure that it is in no way transphobic because it applies to everyone equally.
Not quite - Person A must disclose all information, regardless of who or what it might pertain to - even if it happened to be information about Person B which he himself is not aware of, for some strange reason. Regardless of whether the standard is consistent or not, the important thing is how it very directly works towards making sure everyone has a positive sexual experience. Show nested quote +I have two problems with it however.
Problem 1 - Asymmetric Disclosure Obligations
One of the implications of your standard is that when two people are considering a sexual encounter, and neither of them would want to sleep with the other if the other disclosed certain information, only the one with reason to believe the information would have this effect has a moral obligation to disclose. I tend to highly (over?) value fairness, and this seems grossly unfair to me.
I don't find this unfair at all. Inequality and unfairness are not the same. It seems that you are trying to say that the person who is married or has herpes or has repulsive burn scars all over his body - undisclosed information the other party is expected to care about - should have an equal obligation as the person who has dyed hair or breast implants - undisclosed information which I imagine people in general feel less strongly about. It is unfair only in the sense that the person with more undesirably qualities is in a weaker bargaining position. Show nested quote +
Problem 2 - Effect of Consent
I think many people who were posting in the thread had an unrealistic and impractical view of consent, where they believed that consent has to be 100% fully informed in order to be valid, and this is simply not the case. For example, say a person just bought some new software, and when he gets to the EULA he doesn't read it but just clicks on "I consent to be bound by the terms of this EULA." He then goes merrily on his way, making copies of the software and selling them to all his friends and family. If the software company sues him for IP infringement based on his acceptance of the EULA, he can't say "but I didn't know there was a provision in there about IP infringement, so I didn't really consent to be bound by the license!"
Similarly, if a person consents to a one night stand, he is accepting the risk that there might be something about his partner that had he known about it, would have prevented him from consenting. He can't go back after the fact and say "I didn't know you were a trans person when I consented, therefore there is no consent and you're a rapist!"
I guess you could argue that this would be a case of ineffective consent, or misinformed consent, or consent by deception or something like that (to be clear I wouldn't argue this), but it would be wrong to say that there was no consent.
I think you are misrepresenting many people's views. I haven't seen anybody suggesting that every minor detail always needs to be disclosed - feel free to name anybody championing this view. Because exchanging information takes time, people will ultimately have to make their decisions without perfect knowledge. People will have to choose what information they disclose voluntarily, and what questions they ask. Your EULA-analogy desperately tries to compare someone closing their eyes when information is disclosed and then going on to do something practically everyone knows is criminal, to someone who is never told about his partner being a transsexual. Again, people do accept that they do not have complete information about their partners before a one-night stand. They still expect to be told about things which obviously are non-trivial. You can not hide behind the it's just a one-night stand, you don't get to think it's a big deal, I couldn't possibly have known you would care when you either: - withhold the fact that you are married - withhold the fact that you are videotaping the sex - withhold the fact that you are transsexual - withhold the fact that you have herpes Show nested quote +
In sum, I think individuals should be responsible for making informed consent, and if they consent without bothering to become informed, they can't say consent was invalid after the fact, just because they didn't get exactly what they were expecting.
See list above. Their only way to obtain this information, if you are free to not disclose anything on a whim, is to give you a two-hour questionnaire written by a lawyer. That is why you are expected to cooperate. Show nested quote +
My Standard for When there is a Moral Obligation to Disclose
As a result of the problems outlined above, I think the following standard works better, at least for a person like me who highly values personal responsibility and fairness.
In order for consent to be valid when Person A is considering a sexual encounter with Person B, Person A must disclose all information about Person A that Person A *knows* would affect Person B's decision to have sex with Person A.
I found zero problems above, short of transsexuals being upset that they can't write out details they find uncomfortable to improve their bargaining position. Knows? So any .1% doubt about whether it is relevant frees me from an obligation to inform? Should I feel free to start videotaping my one-night stands? Or is videotaped sex something which doesn't fall under consent to sex, whereas transsexual sex does? Show nested quote +
I believe that this standard addresses the two problems outlined above, as well as being internally consistent. It also puts the onus on Person B to protect himself by either making his preferences known, or by getting to know Person A before consenting to sex.
This standard just leaves the gates wide open. Any theoretical shred of doubt allows you to withhold information. It puts the onus on Person B to explicitly ask about any number of theoretical possibilities because Person A is not going to tell. It means my partner can be on birth control for six months, then suddenly stop without letting me know and get pregnant, and blame me for not making my preferences known. Show nested quote +
People seemed to think that the First Cousins Analogy and the Twins Analogy brought to light internal inconsistencies in this standard, but I disagree.
First Cousins Analogy - I do not believe that this analogy was directly applicable, because it included an additional variable: the male cousin was aware of personal information about the female cousin that she was not aware of, which could possibly effect her decision to sleep with him. I would say that in this unusual situation, there is a moral obligation separate from the one addressed by my standard to disclose the personal information before engaging in sex.
Your moral standard is allegedly internally consistent, yet it breaks down already in this simple case. Instead of focusing on the important part - where both cases involve people having sex they wouldn't have consented to, if informed about something it is reasonable to assume matters - you seem to think the technical distinction of whom the information is about makes this different. Show nested quote +
Twins Analogy - In this case, the husband's twin wouldn't just have reason to know that the wife wasn't consenting to sex with him, he would have actual knowledge. Knowledge doesn't just have to come from explicit statements, it can also come from context. When he knows that he is identical to his twin, and that he is entering the wife's room in the same manner that his twin might, and he knows that the wife would have no reason to suspect that he was any other person besides his twin, I think it is pretty clear that he had "knowledge" that she was consenting to sex with his twin, and not with him.
I think it's a bit less clear, but not by much, that an undisclosed transsexual is taking advantage of functionally identical misunderstandings. You seem to chalk up the difference to degree of certainty? What about the possibility that the couple are swingers who are perfectly fine with twin-swap sex? Show nested quote +
I appreciate it if you bothered to read through all this, and I would appreciate it even more if you could tell me whether you think that my standard is internally consistent, even if you still think yours is better for whatever reason. Also, on the slight chance that you do think my standard is internally consistent, I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge in the thread (if the topic comes up again) that reasonable minds can differ about what circumstances give rise to a moral obligation to disclose.
I think your standard is an absurd hodgepodge, specifically tailored to give transsexuals a loophole where you admit first-cousins none. I think the only way to arrive at this nonsense is to write the bottom-line first and then work your way backwards.
Sorry if this seems like a cop out, but I think it's probably time we moved past this issue. If shinosai's willing to concede then I suppose I should as well; I'm pretty sure she is way smarter than I am : )
For the record, I would like to clear up two misunderstandings just so you don't think I'm a total idiot. First, I do not think knowledge =/= certainty. I believe it's a higher standard than "reason to believe" but less than certainty, and it has to be based on specific information rather than what you suspect is going on inside the other person's head.
Second, the EULA thing was meant to demonstrate that consent based on imperfect information =/= lack of consent. I was not trying to say that it was analogous to the disclosure hypothetical.
|
On August 09 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:37 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2013 00:18 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 23:56 shinosai wrote:On August 08 2013 23:45 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 08 2013 23:40 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:38 Plansix wrote:On August 08 2013 23:34 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
But you didn't achieve anything, this isn't a points scoring exercise. Getting people to go away and stop saying jerky things is its own reward. So guess what, you convinced me to stay! :D Everything I said is factually correct. You're really arguing with the oxford dictionary? alright lets move on to the next thing you said that was wrong the girl knew I would be pissed ( or she would tell me ) there are many reasons someone wouldn't disclose other than knowing you would be pissed Sure.. It's still deceptive and wrong though, regardless of her reason not to disclose it. Hey, stop ignoring me. You're deceptive, too. Why aren't you disclosing? If it was reasonable to assume that transphobic status was a dealbreaker for the other party and that being transphobic was so unlikely that they had no reason to ask if you were transphobic you should absolutely disclose. Come up with a hypothetical in which that is the case and I'll back you up on a moral obligation to disclose transphobic status. I don't think it's based in reality though. I think transphobic status is something that the other person can reasonably anticipate, unlike trans status which is really, really rare. Look, neither of us actually have any evidence on the percentage of people where people are transphobic is a deal breaker, or being trans is a deal breaker. However, I do have a hypothetical for you. Suppose that from now on, with every woman you dated, you at some point went into an anecdote about how your brother is dating a completely passable post-op trans woman. Let's presume you interject this story tactfully, so that it does not seem absurdly out of place. Make sure to let her know that you would never date "him" because you think that "he" is a man, no matter what "he" does to "his" body. Do you think that a reasonable amount of women would be turned off by this? If so, then it is reasonable that transphobia is a dealbreaker and you should disclose. Anecdotal evidence from this topic would seem to suggest that for a lot of people trans status is a dealbreaker. There might be actual numbers on it, although as I'm not trans I've never had to look them up. That said, if everyone a trans person met was fine with it and they didn't know people were transphobic I'd argue they did nothing morally wrong, it's knowingly exploiting the lack of information for sex you suspect they would not want if they knew that I take issue with. Statistical occurrence rates for trans people is, I believe, around 0.01% so we do have numbers on that. I would argue that that rate is so low that the assumption that a given person is not trans is reasonable and that lack of asking "are you trans?" cannot be taken as an acceptance of their trans status. You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude. There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations. Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose. Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose. Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose. You know what. You're right. I concede the point.
regarding anecdotal evidence. I asked my friends if theyd care had they found out afterwards that their ons was trans. All of them said no. Not sure if the general population of semi-young people where I live really would care, and among those who would only a small minority would consider it a huge deal.
While I think its the moral thing to tell if one has reasons to believe it matters, its not a huge deal either (unless you have reason to believe it would cause great harm). A little immorality is ok in my book.
|
United States41958 Posts
On August 09 2013 02:31 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:37 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2013 00:18 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 23:56 shinosai wrote:On August 08 2013 23:45 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 08 2013 23:40 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:38 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Getting people to go away and stop saying jerky things is its own reward. So guess what, you convinced me to stay! :D Everything I said is factually correct. You're really arguing with the oxford dictionary? alright lets move on to the next thing you said that was wrong the girl knew I would be pissed ( or she would tell me ) there are many reasons someone wouldn't disclose other than knowing you would be pissed Sure.. It's still deceptive and wrong though, regardless of her reason not to disclose it. Hey, stop ignoring me. You're deceptive, too. Why aren't you disclosing? If it was reasonable to assume that transphobic status was a dealbreaker for the other party and that being transphobic was so unlikely that they had no reason to ask if you were transphobic you should absolutely disclose. Come up with a hypothetical in which that is the case and I'll back you up on a moral obligation to disclose transphobic status. I don't think it's based in reality though. I think transphobic status is something that the other person can reasonably anticipate, unlike trans status which is really, really rare. Look, neither of us actually have any evidence on the percentage of people where people are transphobic is a deal breaker, or being trans is a deal breaker. However, I do have a hypothetical for you. Suppose that from now on, with every woman you dated, you at some point went into an anecdote about how your brother is dating a completely passable post-op trans woman. Let's presume you interject this story tactfully, so that it does not seem absurdly out of place. Make sure to let her know that you would never date "him" because you think that "he" is a man, no matter what "he" does to "his" body. Do you think that a reasonable amount of women would be turned off by this? If so, then it is reasonable that transphobia is a dealbreaker and you should disclose. Anecdotal evidence from this topic would seem to suggest that for a lot of people trans status is a dealbreaker. There might be actual numbers on it, although as I'm not trans I've never had to look them up. That said, if everyone a trans person met was fine with it and they didn't know people were transphobic I'd argue they did nothing morally wrong, it's knowingly exploiting the lack of information for sex you suspect they would not want if they knew that I take issue with. Statistical occurrence rates for trans people is, I believe, around 0.01% so we do have numbers on that. I would argue that that rate is so low that the assumption that a given person is not trans is reasonable and that lack of asking "are you trans?" cannot be taken as an acceptance of their trans status. You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude. There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations. Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose. Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose. Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose. You know what. You're right. I concede the point. regarding anecdotal evidence. I asked my friends if theyd care had they found out afterwards that their ons was trans. All of them said no. Not sure if the general population of semi-young people where I live really would care, and among those who would only a small minority would consider it a huge deal. While I think its the moral thing to tell if one has reasons to believe it matters, its not a huge deal either (unless you have reason to believe it would cause great harm). A little immorality is ok in my book.
If you believe the demographic you're likely to come into contact with don't care about it then there is no reason to disclose. I guess the simplest way of doing it would simply be to run your own little survey so you can get an idea of the feelings of the people you typically fuck. Disclose until you have a statistically significant sample, if a decent proportion of those choose not to have sex with you upon disclosure then, in the interests of protecting them, continue to do so.
|
On August 09 2013 02:31 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:37 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2013 00:18 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 23:56 shinosai wrote:On August 08 2013 23:45 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 08 2013 23:40 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:38 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Getting people to go away and stop saying jerky things is its own reward. So guess what, you convinced me to stay! :D Everything I said is factually correct. You're really arguing with the oxford dictionary? alright lets move on to the next thing you said that was wrong the girl knew I would be pissed ( or she would tell me ) there are many reasons someone wouldn't disclose other than knowing you would be pissed Sure.. It's still deceptive and wrong though, regardless of her reason not to disclose it. Hey, stop ignoring me. You're deceptive, too. Why aren't you disclosing? If it was reasonable to assume that transphobic status was a dealbreaker for the other party and that being transphobic was so unlikely that they had no reason to ask if you were transphobic you should absolutely disclose. Come up with a hypothetical in which that is the case and I'll back you up on a moral obligation to disclose transphobic status. I don't think it's based in reality though. I think transphobic status is something that the other person can reasonably anticipate, unlike trans status which is really, really rare. Look, neither of us actually have any evidence on the percentage of people where people are transphobic is a deal breaker, or being trans is a deal breaker. However, I do have a hypothetical for you. Suppose that from now on, with every woman you dated, you at some point went into an anecdote about how your brother is dating a completely passable post-op trans woman. Let's presume you interject this story tactfully, so that it does not seem absurdly out of place. Make sure to let her know that you would never date "him" because you think that "he" is a man, no matter what "he" does to "his" body. Do you think that a reasonable amount of women would be turned off by this? If so, then it is reasonable that transphobia is a dealbreaker and you should disclose. Anecdotal evidence from this topic would seem to suggest that for a lot of people trans status is a dealbreaker. There might be actual numbers on it, although as I'm not trans I've never had to look them up. That said, if everyone a trans person met was fine with it and they didn't know people were transphobic I'd argue they did nothing morally wrong, it's knowingly exploiting the lack of information for sex you suspect they would not want if they knew that I take issue with. Statistical occurrence rates for trans people is, I believe, around 0.01% so we do have numbers on that. I would argue that that rate is so low that the assumption that a given person is not trans is reasonable and that lack of asking "are you trans?" cannot be taken as an acceptance of their trans status. You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude. There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations. Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose. Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose. Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose. You know what. You're right. I concede the point. regarding anecdotal evidence. I asked my friends if theyd care had they found out afterwards that their ons was trans. All of them said no. Not sure if the general population of semi-young people where I live really would care, and among those who would only a small minority would consider it a huge deal. While I think its the moral thing to tell if one has reasons to believe it matters, its not a huge deal either (unless you have reason to believe it would cause great harm). A little immorality is ok in my book.
People have a tendency to lie to there friends to make themselves look better. I'd assume that's largely the case here.
Who knows though, maybe they're just super horny or really open.
|
On August 09 2013 03:11 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 02:31 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 09 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:37 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2013 00:18 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 23:56 shinosai wrote:On August 08 2013 23:45 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:43 ComaDose wrote:On August 08 2013 23:40 Killscreen wrote:
[quote]
So guess what, you convinced me to stay! :D
Everything I said is factually correct. You're really arguing with the oxford dictionary?
alright lets move on to the next thing you said that was wrong the girl knew I would be pissed ( or she would tell me ) there are many reasons someone wouldn't disclose other than knowing you would be pissed Sure.. It's still deceptive and wrong though, regardless of her reason not to disclose it. Hey, stop ignoring me. You're deceptive, too. Why aren't you disclosing? If it was reasonable to assume that transphobic status was a dealbreaker for the other party and that being transphobic was so unlikely that they had no reason to ask if you were transphobic you should absolutely disclose. Come up with a hypothetical in which that is the case and I'll back you up on a moral obligation to disclose transphobic status. I don't think it's based in reality though. I think transphobic status is something that the other person can reasonably anticipate, unlike trans status which is really, really rare. Look, neither of us actually have any evidence on the percentage of people where people are transphobic is a deal breaker, or being trans is a deal breaker. However, I do have a hypothetical for you. Suppose that from now on, with every woman you dated, you at some point went into an anecdote about how your brother is dating a completely passable post-op trans woman. Let's presume you interject this story tactfully, so that it does not seem absurdly out of place. Make sure to let her know that you would never date "him" because you think that "he" is a man, no matter what "he" does to "his" body. Do you think that a reasonable amount of women would be turned off by this? If so, then it is reasonable that transphobia is a dealbreaker and you should disclose. Anecdotal evidence from this topic would seem to suggest that for a lot of people trans status is a dealbreaker. There might be actual numbers on it, although as I'm not trans I've never had to look them up. That said, if everyone a trans person met was fine with it and they didn't know people were transphobic I'd argue they did nothing morally wrong, it's knowingly exploiting the lack of information for sex you suspect they would not want if they knew that I take issue with. Statistical occurrence rates for trans people is, I believe, around 0.01% so we do have numbers on that. I would argue that that rate is so low that the assumption that a given person is not trans is reasonable and that lack of asking "are you trans?" cannot be taken as an acceptance of their trans status. You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude. There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations. Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose. Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose. Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose. You know what. You're right. I concede the point. regarding anecdotal evidence. I asked my friends if theyd care had they found out afterwards that their ons was trans. All of them said no. Not sure if the general population of semi-young people where I live really would care, and among those who would only a small minority would consider it a huge deal. While I think its the moral thing to tell if one has reasons to believe it matters, its not a huge deal either (unless you have reason to believe it would cause great harm). A little immorality is ok in my book. People have a tendency to lie to there friends to make themselves look better. I'd assume that's largely the case here. Who knows though, maybe they're just super horny or really open.
I'm not sure you have to be super horny or really open to be okay with having sex with a post op trans woman.
|
On August 09 2013 03:12 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 03:11 killa_robot wrote:On August 09 2013 02:31 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 09 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:37 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2013 00:18 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 23:56 shinosai wrote:On August 08 2013 23:45 Killscreen wrote:On August 08 2013 23:43 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
alright lets move on to the next thing you said that was wrong
[quote]
there are many reasons someone wouldn't disclose other than knowing you would be pissed Sure.. It's still deceptive and wrong though, regardless of her reason not to disclose it. Hey, stop ignoring me. You're deceptive, too. Why aren't you disclosing? If it was reasonable to assume that transphobic status was a dealbreaker for the other party and that being transphobic was so unlikely that they had no reason to ask if you were transphobic you should absolutely disclose. Come up with a hypothetical in which that is the case and I'll back you up on a moral obligation to disclose transphobic status. I don't think it's based in reality though. I think transphobic status is something that the other person can reasonably anticipate, unlike trans status which is really, really rare. Look, neither of us actually have any evidence on the percentage of people where people are transphobic is a deal breaker, or being trans is a deal breaker. However, I do have a hypothetical for you. Suppose that from now on, with every woman you dated, you at some point went into an anecdote about how your brother is dating a completely passable post-op trans woman. Let's presume you interject this story tactfully, so that it does not seem absurdly out of place. Make sure to let her know that you would never date "him" because you think that "he" is a man, no matter what "he" does to "his" body. Do you think that a reasonable amount of women would be turned off by this? If so, then it is reasonable that transphobia is a dealbreaker and you should disclose. Anecdotal evidence from this topic would seem to suggest that for a lot of people trans status is a dealbreaker. There might be actual numbers on it, although as I'm not trans I've never had to look them up. That said, if everyone a trans person met was fine with it and they didn't know people were transphobic I'd argue they did nothing morally wrong, it's knowingly exploiting the lack of information for sex you suspect they would not want if they knew that I take issue with. Statistical occurrence rates for trans people is, I believe, around 0.01% so we do have numbers on that. I would argue that that rate is so low that the assumption that a given person is not trans is reasonable and that lack of asking "are you trans?" cannot be taken as an acceptance of their trans status. You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude. There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations. Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose. Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose. Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose. You know what. You're right. I concede the point. regarding anecdotal evidence. I asked my friends if theyd care had they found out afterwards that their ons was trans. All of them said no. Not sure if the general population of semi-young people where I live really would care, and among those who would only a small minority would consider it a huge deal. While I think its the moral thing to tell if one has reasons to believe it matters, its not a huge deal either (unless you have reason to believe it would cause great harm). A little immorality is ok in my book. People have a tendency to lie to there friends to make themselves look better. I'd assume that's largely the case here. Who knows though, maybe they're just super horny or really open. I'm not sure you have to be super horny or really open to be okay with having sex with a post op trans woman.
Just a bit of an anecdotal story here... but I do recall when I was about 15 years old in high school (when I completely identified as a cis straight white male), hearing a bunch of people talking about post-op trans women. The general sentiment was, "Yea, I don't think I could do that with someone who used to be a man."
But I pondered the question for a moment, and decided, well, there doesn't seem to be a meaningful difference. I don't think that I was trying to be really open or really horny - I'm just a practical person. If I can't tell the difference, then as far as I'm concerned, I just slept with a really attractive woman.
In any case, I don't think anyone ever admits that they'd sleep with a trans woman because it will "make them look better".
|
On August 09 2013 03:18 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 03:12 ComaDose wrote:On August 09 2013 03:11 killa_robot wrote:On August 09 2013 02:31 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 09 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:37 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2013 00:18 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 23:56 shinosai wrote:On August 08 2013 23:45 Killscreen wrote:
[quote]
Sure..
It's still deceptive and wrong though, regardless of her reason not to disclose it. Hey, stop ignoring me. You're deceptive, too. Why aren't you disclosing? If it was reasonable to assume that transphobic status was a dealbreaker for the other party and that being transphobic was so unlikely that they had no reason to ask if you were transphobic you should absolutely disclose. Come up with a hypothetical in which that is the case and I'll back you up on a moral obligation to disclose transphobic status. I don't think it's based in reality though. I think transphobic status is something that the other person can reasonably anticipate, unlike trans status which is really, really rare. Look, neither of us actually have any evidence on the percentage of people where people are transphobic is a deal breaker, or being trans is a deal breaker. However, I do have a hypothetical for you. Suppose that from now on, with every woman you dated, you at some point went into an anecdote about how your brother is dating a completely passable post-op trans woman. Let's presume you interject this story tactfully, so that it does not seem absurdly out of place. Make sure to let her know that you would never date "him" because you think that "he" is a man, no matter what "he" does to "his" body. Do you think that a reasonable amount of women would be turned off by this? If so, then it is reasonable that transphobia is a dealbreaker and you should disclose. Anecdotal evidence from this topic would seem to suggest that for a lot of people trans status is a dealbreaker. There might be actual numbers on it, although as I'm not trans I've never had to look them up. That said, if everyone a trans person met was fine with it and they didn't know people were transphobic I'd argue they did nothing morally wrong, it's knowingly exploiting the lack of information for sex you suspect they would not want if they knew that I take issue with. Statistical occurrence rates for trans people is, I believe, around 0.01% so we do have numbers on that. I would argue that that rate is so low that the assumption that a given person is not trans is reasonable and that lack of asking "are you trans?" cannot be taken as an acceptance of their trans status. You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude. There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations. Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose. Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose. Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose. You know what. You're right. I concede the point. regarding anecdotal evidence. I asked my friends if theyd care had they found out afterwards that their ons was trans. All of them said no. Not sure if the general population of semi-young people where I live really would care, and among those who would only a small minority would consider it a huge deal. While I think its the moral thing to tell if one has reasons to believe it matters, its not a huge deal either (unless you have reason to believe it would cause great harm). A little immorality is ok in my book. People have a tendency to lie to there friends to make themselves look better. I'd assume that's largely the case here. Who knows though, maybe they're just super horny or really open. I'm not sure you have to be super horny or really open to be okay with having sex with a post op trans woman. Just a bit of an anecdotal story here... but I do recall when I was about 15 years old in high school (when I completely identified as a cis straight white male), hearing a bunch of people talking about post-op trans women. The general sentiment was, "Yea, I don't think I could do that with someone who used to be a man." But I pondered the question for a moment, and decided, well, there doesn't seem to be a meaningful difference. I don't think that I was trying to be really open or really horny - I'm just a practical person. If I can't tell the difference, then as far as I'm concerned, I just slept with a really attractive woman.
I arrived at the same logical conclusion.
|
On August 09 2013 03:18 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 03:12 ComaDose wrote:On August 09 2013 03:11 killa_robot wrote:On August 09 2013 02:31 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 09 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:37 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2013 00:18 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 23:56 shinosai wrote:On August 08 2013 23:45 Killscreen wrote:
[quote]
Sure..
It's still deceptive and wrong though, regardless of her reason not to disclose it. Hey, stop ignoring me. You're deceptive, too. Why aren't you disclosing? If it was reasonable to assume that transphobic status was a dealbreaker for the other party and that being transphobic was so unlikely that they had no reason to ask if you were transphobic you should absolutely disclose. Come up with a hypothetical in which that is the case and I'll back you up on a moral obligation to disclose transphobic status. I don't think it's based in reality though. I think transphobic status is something that the other person can reasonably anticipate, unlike trans status which is really, really rare. Look, neither of us actually have any evidence on the percentage of people where people are transphobic is a deal breaker, or being trans is a deal breaker. However, I do have a hypothetical for you. Suppose that from now on, with every woman you dated, you at some point went into an anecdote about how your brother is dating a completely passable post-op trans woman. Let's presume you interject this story tactfully, so that it does not seem absurdly out of place. Make sure to let her know that you would never date "him" because you think that "he" is a man, no matter what "he" does to "his" body. Do you think that a reasonable amount of women would be turned off by this? If so, then it is reasonable that transphobia is a dealbreaker and you should disclose. Anecdotal evidence from this topic would seem to suggest that for a lot of people trans status is a dealbreaker. There might be actual numbers on it, although as I'm not trans I've never had to look them up. That said, if everyone a trans person met was fine with it and they didn't know people were transphobic I'd argue they did nothing morally wrong, it's knowingly exploiting the lack of information for sex you suspect they would not want if they knew that I take issue with. Statistical occurrence rates for trans people is, I believe, around 0.01% so we do have numbers on that. I would argue that that rate is so low that the assumption that a given person is not trans is reasonable and that lack of asking "are you trans?" cannot be taken as an acceptance of their trans status. You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude. There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations. Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose. Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose. Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose. You know what. You're right. I concede the point. regarding anecdotal evidence. I asked my friends if theyd care had they found out afterwards that their ons was trans. All of them said no. Not sure if the general population of semi-young people where I live really would care, and among those who would only a small minority would consider it a huge deal. While I think its the moral thing to tell if one has reasons to believe it matters, its not a huge deal either (unless you have reason to believe it would cause great harm). A little immorality is ok in my book. People have a tendency to lie to there friends to make themselves look better. I'd assume that's largely the case here. Who knows though, maybe they're just super horny or really open. I'm not sure you have to be super horny or really open to be okay with having sex with a post op trans woman. Just a bit of an anecdotal story here... but I do recall when I was about 15 years old in high school (when I completely identified as a cis straight white male), hearing a bunch of people talking about post-op trans women. The general sentiment was, "Yea, I don't think I could do that with someone who used to be a man." But I pondered the question for a moment, and decided, well, there doesn't seem to be a meaningful difference. I don't think that I was trying to be really open or really horny - I'm just a practical person. If I can't tell the difference, then as far as I'm concerned, I just slept with a really attractive woman. In any case, I don't think anyone ever admits that they'd sleep with a trans woman because it will "make them look better".
Saying they'd sleep with a trans woman makes them appear to be more open, and to some people NOT wanting to sleep with a trans woman makes you seem a bigot and a transphobic (see many of the posts in this thread). Given the incredibly low odds of you ACTUALLY being called on if you'd sleep with a trans woman or not, the "better" answer is to just say yes.
Of course, how the question is actually asked matters too.
|
On August 09 2013 03:26 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 03:18 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 03:12 ComaDose wrote:On August 09 2013 03:11 killa_robot wrote:On August 09 2013 02:31 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 09 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:37 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2013 00:18 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 08 2013 23:56 shinosai wrote:
[quote]
Hey, stop ignoring me. You're deceptive, too. Why aren't you disclosing? If it was reasonable to assume that transphobic status was a dealbreaker for the other party and that being transphobic was so unlikely that they had no reason to ask if you were transphobic you should absolutely disclose. Come up with a hypothetical in which that is the case and I'll back you up on a moral obligation to disclose transphobic status. I don't think it's based in reality though. I think transphobic status is something that the other person can reasonably anticipate, unlike trans status which is really, really rare. Look, neither of us actually have any evidence on the percentage of people where people are transphobic is a deal breaker, or being trans is a deal breaker. However, I do have a hypothetical for you. Suppose that from now on, with every woman you dated, you at some point went into an anecdote about how your brother is dating a completely passable post-op trans woman. Let's presume you interject this story tactfully, so that it does not seem absurdly out of place. Make sure to let her know that you would never date "him" because you think that "he" is a man, no matter what "he" does to "his" body. Do you think that a reasonable amount of women would be turned off by this? If so, then it is reasonable that transphobia is a dealbreaker and you should disclose. Anecdotal evidence from this topic would seem to suggest that for a lot of people trans status is a dealbreaker. There might be actual numbers on it, although as I'm not trans I've never had to look them up. That said, if everyone a trans person met was fine with it and they didn't know people were transphobic I'd argue they did nothing morally wrong, it's knowingly exploiting the lack of information for sex you suspect they would not want if they knew that I take issue with. Statistical occurrence rates for trans people is, I believe, around 0.01% so we do have numbers on that. I would argue that that rate is so low that the assumption that a given person is not trans is reasonable and that lack of asking "are you trans?" cannot be taken as an acceptance of their trans status. You are not seeming to understand that transphobia is sufficiently common for it to be a reasonable assumption that a given partner could be transphobic. The entire issue here is based on a massive disparity of information, the trans person knows they are an extreme outlier which the other party would have no reason to suspect them of being. In your hypothetical you keep proposing disclosure of common statuses, common statuses are reasonable for the other person to specifically ask about and exclude. There are two relevant numbers here. How common the hangup is and how rare the status is. I'll explain it for you in terms of the four potential situations. Hangup is common, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is rare, status is common, person with hangup can anticipate the status, should ask. Failure to ask can be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Hangup is common, status is rare, person with hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. Failure to ask cannot be interpreted as not having an issue with the status. Person with the status can however anticipate the hangup, should disclose. Hangup is rare, status is rare, person with a hangup cannot anticipate the status, has no reason to ask. However person with the status cannot anticipate the hangup, has no reason to disclose. Only in the common hangup, status rare does the disparity in information create a moral obligation. In the first two the other party can be reasonably expected to look after their own interests, in the fourth one their interests are not known to the trans person so there is no obligation, in the third one however, the trans person suspects there might be a consent issue which their partner is unaware of. At that point they disclose. You know what. You're right. I concede the point. regarding anecdotal evidence. I asked my friends if theyd care had they found out afterwards that their ons was trans. All of them said no. Not sure if the general population of semi-young people where I live really would care, and among those who would only a small minority would consider it a huge deal. While I think its the moral thing to tell if one has reasons to believe it matters, its not a huge deal either (unless you have reason to believe it would cause great harm). A little immorality is ok in my book. People have a tendency to lie to there friends to make themselves look better. I'd assume that's largely the case here. Who knows though, maybe they're just super horny or really open. I'm not sure you have to be super horny or really open to be okay with having sex with a post op trans woman. Just a bit of an anecdotal story here... but I do recall when I was about 15 years old in high school (when I completely identified as a cis straight white male), hearing a bunch of people talking about post-op trans women. The general sentiment was, "Yea, I don't think I could do that with someone who used to be a man." But I pondered the question for a moment, and decided, well, there doesn't seem to be a meaningful difference. I don't think that I was trying to be really open or really horny - I'm just a practical person. If I can't tell the difference, then as far as I'm concerned, I just slept with a really attractive woman. In any case, I don't think anyone ever admits that they'd sleep with a trans woman because it will "make them look better". Saying they'd sleep with a trans woman makes them appear to be more open, and to some people NOT wanting to sleep with a trans woman makes you seem a bigot and a transphobic (see many of the posts in this thread). Given the incredibly low odds of you ACTUALLY being called on if you'd sleep with a trans woman or not, the "better" answer is to just say yes. Of course, how the question is actually asked matters too.
If you really want to selectively lie in order to increase your reputation in Team Liquid of all places, I think you'd find yourself in good company to say that you don't want to sleep with trans women. Team Liquid is also a really liberal place, and even then, there are tons of people here that don't think it's cool. Out in the world, I don't think saying you'd sleep with trans women gives you any street cred at all. At best, a neutral reaction, at worst, you'd be called a faggot or something.
|
United States41958 Posts
I typically avoid the type of company who calls anyone faggots so I have that going for me. Being a cis person I don't know what it's like to be trans but I am reliably informed by experts that they really are the gender they present as and that's good enough for me.
|
I consider myself to be quite liberal and open, but I very much doubt I would be comfortable having sex with a trans person. It would almost certainly be something I would need to ''get over'', which means it would certainly not be worth it for a one night stand or something similar, because we probably would both have a bad time. If I found out after I wouldnt mind at all though, I think. I don't know why I would be embarassed about this, it is not like I have much control over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
