|
On August 09 2013 03:33 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 03:26 killa_robot wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
here or in the real world, why would you really give a fuck what people think about your views on that, whether it is yes or no??? like strangers arent gonna come up to you and ask that lol if you have friends that actually give a fuck about your sexual orientation/kinks/whatever, you need to find new friends
|
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.
I agree and I appreciate the effort to move the discussions way from the Oxford dictionary.
Technically speaking LGB are all gender preferences while transgender is actually considered a mental health issue (gender identity disorder) soon to be called gender dysphoria.
There was a strong push to remove it as a mental health diagnosis which is a very interesting topic. When diagnoses ante determined not only by expert consensus but also by whether or not the particular diagnosis has an advocacy group. The context gets even more interesting and complicated due to the fact that LGB was considered mental illness in prior years.
It's a strange and dangerous topic fraught with opportunities to both offend unintentionally as we'll as opportunities to supplant medicine in favor of desire for a feeling of normalcy.
(Sorry for typos, writing on a phone)
|
On August 09 2013 04:35 Savio 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. I agree and I appreciate the effort to move the discussions way from the Oxford dictionary. Technically speaking LGB are all gender preferences while transgender is actually considered a mental health issue (gender identity disorder) soon to be called gender dysphoria. There was a strong push to remove it as a mental health diagnosis which is a very interesting topic. When diagnoses ante determined not only by expert consensus but also by whether or not the particular diagnosis has an advocacy group. The context gets even more interesting and complicated due to the fact that LGB was considered mental illness in prior years. It's a strange and dangerous topic fraught with opportunities to both offend unintentionally as we'll as opportunities to supplant medicine in favor of desire for a feeling of normalcy. (Sorry for typos, writing on a phone)
That topic has been done. Also due to that change being transgendered is no longer a mental health diagnosis. You can be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which is basically the stress that comes from identifying with one gender while looking/living as another, but being transgendered in and of itself is not a mental health issue.
|
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.
I'd also add that outsiders tend to group trans people alongside LGB people, which is why the oppression is so similar. There's plenty of ignorant people who don't really know the difference between a transwoman and a gay man, etc.
|
On August 09 2013 13:37 sunprince 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. I'd also add that outsiders tend to group trans people alongside LGB people, which is why the oppression is so similar. There's plenty of ignorant people who don't really know the difference between a transwoman and a gay man, etc.
As evidenced by the utter shock and dismay when I tell people that I like women. "Then why are you transitioning?"
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On August 09 2013 22:31 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 13:37 sunprince 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. I'd also add that outsiders tend to group trans people alongside LGB people, which is why the oppression is so similar. There's plenty of ignorant people who don't really know the difference between a transwoman and a gay man, etc. As evidenced by the utter shock and dismay when I tell people that I like women. "Then why are you transitioning?"
I knew a MtF and FtM couple at university. It was terribly confusing.
|
On August 09 2013 22:38 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 22:31 shinosai wrote:On August 09 2013 13:37 sunprince 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. I'd also add that outsiders tend to group trans people alongside LGB people, which is why the oppression is so similar. There's plenty of ignorant people who don't really know the difference between a transwoman and a gay man, etc. As evidenced by the utter shock and dismay when I tell people that I like women. "Then why are you transitioning?" I knew a MtF and FtM couple at university. It was terribly confusing.
Maybe it was this couple!
|
Well I guess that answers a question that has been nagging at me: "Is it possible to feel like a lesbian woman trapped in a man's body?"
The other question that has been nagging at me is "Is gender dysphoria the only reason someone would want to change their gender?" Surely there must be people out there who want to change their gender for other reasons.
Apologies if those questions are too personal or offensive in some way. I am just curious.
|
On August 09 2013 22:54 TheFish7 wrote:
Well I guess that answers a question that has been nagging at me: "Is it possible to feel like a lesbian woman trapped in a man's body?"
The other question that has been nagging at me is "Is gender dysphoria the only reason someone would want to change their gender?" Surely there must be people out there who want to change their gender for other reasons.
Apologies if those questions are too personal or offensive in some way. I am just curious.
Personal questions are never offensive - people who are intentionally offensive are the only people who ever bother me. As for the lesbian woman trapped in a man's body thing - I have never felt like this, and most other trans people I talk to do not either. The whole 'trapped in a man's body' thing is really more of a metaphor to help cis people understand. For me, it's more like... I like being a girl. I'm not trapped in the wrong body - my body is my body. It just needs to be fixed up a bit. I wouldn't say I was trapped in the wrong job if I didn't get the position I wanted right away.
I think that gender dysphoria encapsulates a wide variety of feelings, which include but are not limited to: Physical dysphoria (feeling like your body doesn't match what your brain thinks it should be), social dysphoria (feeling like people don't treat you correctly), and mental dysphoria (you feel uncomfortable mentally because of incorrect hormones).
What I think you might be suggesting, though, is perhaps people want to change their gender for perceived advantages. But I'm just gonna go ahead and say that this is nonsense, at least for now. There's no way anyone in their right mind would ever be trans for 'advantages' because the disadvantages of being trans outweigh it by a million to one. It's one of the most difficult things anyone could ever go through.
|
I don't really get the big deal. If i have sex with someone who turns out to be a post-op dude, well.. I can't really see the point of the guys having problems with that.
In the end one thing counts: did it feel good? Yes: k, would do it again. No: well something didn't work out even though you didn't know that you slept with a transgender.
As far as i'm concerned, i don't think i had sex with a transgender so far, but if she's hot, all good. Although, just post op though, because i think a penis pointing at me would be a turnoff. As far as i'm concerned (i might be wrong there, if so, please correct me) - the only difference between a transgender and a born female is that one of those had to have an operation to "function properly". Maybe i got it all wrong though, i still can't see the point of someone (actually alot of guys) having problems with sleeping with a transgender.
|
I don't really get the big deal. If i have sex with someone who turns out to be a post-op dude, well.. I can't really see the point of the guys having problems with that.
If being a transsexual is such an important thing - and it obviously is to transsexuals themselves and to modern PC culture or whatever you want to call it - then it might just be important to a potential sexual partner to know that the person they're about to sleep with is a transsexual. It's either important or it isn't, its importance being selective would be self-serving to the transsexual and unfair to the potential partner.
In the end one thing counts: did it feel good?
Yeah not everyone has the same perspective, even on (ostensibly) casual sex.
shinosai
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.
Don't think it's cool for them or cool in general? There's a big difference between the two.
I don't want to sleep with a trans woman and I don't care if anybody else does wouldn't bother me at all. Why do I not want to? Don't know other than that the thought sparks no arousal in me the way it would thinking about sleeping with a woman. I have no interest in finding out why. All that feels like is the first step in some inevitable and unstoppable externally-driven process to change myself into something I feel like I'm not and not because it would be for me but for someone else, which is never a healthy attitude to have if you're trying to change yourself. I don't think having sex with trans women is gross or that they're still men so it's gay (or that being gay is bad) or that they're inferior somehow because they're transsexual. It just doesn't do anything for me. I don't have an entitlement to have sex with anybody and no one has an entitlement to have sex with me just because my or their objections are maybe 'wrong' in some sense. I'm either aroused or I'm not and the same with everybody else.
|
On August 09 2013 13:07 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 04:35 Savio 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. I agree and I appreciate the effort to move the discussions way from the Oxford dictionary. Technically speaking LGB are all gender preferences while transgender is actually considered a mental health issue (gender identity disorder) soon to be called gender dysphoria. There was a strong push to remove it as a mental health diagnosis which is a very interesting topic. When diagnoses ante determined not only by expert consensus but also by whether or not the particular diagnosis has an advocacy group. The context gets even more interesting and complicated due to the fact that LGB was considered mental illness in prior years. It's a strange and dangerous topic fraught with opportunities to both offend unintentionally as we'll as opportunities to supplant medicine in favor of desire for a feeling of normalcy. (Sorry for typos, writing on a phone) That topic has been done. Also due to that change being transgendered is no longer a mental health diagnosis. You can be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which is basically the stress that comes from identifying with one gender while looking/living as another, but being transgendered in and of itself is not a mental health issue.
In the same sense that many other diagnoses in the DSM require the "causes distress clause" in it. Very many of them contain that requirement.
|
On August 10 2013 13:35 DeepElemBlues wrote: I don't have an entitlement to have sex with anybody and no one has an entitlement to have sex with me just because my or their objections are maybe 'wrong' in some sense.
no, but when you consent to sex with someone you think was born biologically female, you are entitling them by offering that consent. not knowing they were born biologically male does not invalidate your consent any more than not knowing who they've dated, what recreational drugs they've tried, how many times they've been in jail, what their political and religious beliefs are, or what their racial ancestry is. you are not entitled to any of that information; it is up to you and only you to make a character judgment of that person, what questions you need to ask them (if any) and whether to believe their answers. consent is buyer beware.
the two examples i see people giving in analogy to justify why they feel entitled to disclosure are are 1) lying about your age to a sexual partner and 2) not disclosing that you have an STD. there's a problem with both
1) if you lie about your age to someone who's underage to get them to consent, the lie isn't what makes your actions wrong. statutory rape is statutory rape whether you lie or not. the crime is having sex with someone who's not of age. lying to them doesn't affect their responsibility for what happened (which is always zero because they're underage). if you lie about BEING underage to someone who is of age, guess what - the person who had sex with you is still legally responsible, because statutory rape is statutory rape
2) an STD is a very real, physiological health risk, and people have a right to know a risk to their body. contracting an STD can seriously limit your ability to live your life in health, freedom and happiness, and that's why it's immoral not to disclose an STD to a future partner. the "risk" of "feeling icky when you find out you once had sex with a transexual" is neither tangible nor reasonable, so it has no moral gravity at all. essentially, the terrifying consequence people are claiming will result from uninformed consent to sex with a transexual is called "regret". that people are actually comparing feeling regret to being raped is astounding
|
United States41957 Posts
You don't get to decide how valid someone else's experience is. If the harm from rape was purely physical then you'd discount a bunch of rape cases but it's not. Furthermore sex with a transgender person in a transphobic society can result in bullying, ridicule, physical violence etc.
The argument "I don't think the distinction is important so I'll make the decision for them regardless of whether they place value on it" does not hold up to any moral standard. The "regret" argument is particularly shitty of you given that a lot of actual rape is also dismissed as simply regretting it afterwards by society.
|
On August 09 2013 23:03 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2013 22:54 TheFish7 wrote:
Well I guess that answers a question that has been nagging at me: "Is it possible to feel like a lesbian woman trapped in a man's body?"
The other question that has been nagging at me is "Is gender dysphoria the only reason someone would want to change their gender?" Surely there must be people out there who want to change their gender for other reasons.
Apologies if those questions are too personal or offensive in some way. I am just curious. Personal questions are never offensive - people who are intentionally offensive are the only people who ever bother me. As for the lesbian woman trapped in a man's body thing - I have never felt like this, and most other trans people I talk to do not either. The whole 'trapped in a man's body' thing is really more of a metaphor to help cis people understand. For me, it's more like... I like being a girl. I'm not trapped in the wrong body - my body is my body. It just needs to be fixed up a bit. I wouldn't say I was trapped in the wrong job if I didn't get the position I wanted right away. I think that gender dysphoria encapsulates a wide variety of feelings, which include but are not limited to: Physical dysphoria (feeling like your body doesn't match what your brain thinks it should be), social dysphoria (feeling like people don't treat you correctly), and mental dysphoria (you feel uncomfortable mentally because of incorrect hormones). What I think you might be suggesting, though, is perhaps people want to change their gender for perceived advantages. But I'm just gonna go ahead and say that this is nonsense, at least for now. There's no way anyone in their right mind would ever be trans for 'advantages' because the disadvantages of being trans outweigh it by a million to one. It's one of the most difficult things anyone could ever go through.
This right here is 100% correct. Transitioning fucking sucks, very very hard. Anyone that was trying to do it for the shits or whatever would (very likely) back out when they realize how bad it sucks.
Actually, tons of people that are doing it for gender dysphoria back out because of how bad it sucks.
|
On August 11 2013 22:15 KwarK wrote:
You don't get to decide how valid someone else's experience is. If the harm from rape was purely physical then you'd discount a bunch of rape cases but it's not. Furthermore sex with a transgender person in a transphobic society can result in bullying, ridicule, physical violence etc.
The argument "I don't think the distinction is important so I'll make the decision for them regardless of whether they place value on it" does not hold up to any moral standard. The "regret" argument is particularly shitty of you given that a lot of actual rape is also dismissed as simply regretting it afterwards by society.
i don't get to make moral value judgments? so anything another person tells me about what is morally necessary or acceptable is something i have to accept blindly conform to? this is kind of a nonsense argument. if you don't have to explain why your experience of trauma from having slept with a transperson merits disclosure, the transperson doesn't have to explain why the trauma involved in telling you merits nondisclosure. it cuts both ways; you can't simply say "my arbitrary morals must be respected but i'm not going to respect yours".
i DON'T think everyone's moral distinctions are important, and those distinctions which affect another person (such as a distinction requiring someone to disclose extremely private and sensitive information) need to be evaluated because two people's feelings are involved. talking to me as if my argument is "fuck anyone else's feelings, do whatever you want, hooah" is intellectually dishonest and insulting
your insinuation that my desire to protect transpeople from the trauma of being forced to disclose if they ever want to have a sex life is akin to rape apologia Is probably the worst of all, though. you took a shady, superficial association with the word "regret" and pretty much intentionally used it to strawman me into some nonexistent statement about actual rape - which is sex without consent, not sex without consent on the condition that you would still consent given clairvoyant knowledge of your partner. you should honestly apologize for that, because it was uncalled for weasel debate
|
United States41957 Posts
Trans people don't have a right to sex with strangers, nobody does. People do have a right to consent and, when lacking information that impacts their consent, informed consent (although I understand that you might not know what impacts them and what assumptions they're making). If you don't want to disclose then simply don't fuck strangers. Going "but how am I meant to fuck strangers if I can't deliberately exploit their knowledge of my status for personal gain according to your ethical system?!?!?" is not an argument because the ethical system is not built around letting you fuck strangers.
Trans status is something a lot of people do not want to fuck. If someone doesn't want to have sex with you then the goal is not to find a way to trick them into it, the goal is to not have sex with them.
|
i don't get to make moral value judgments?
No. What he said was:
You don't get to decide how valid someone else's experience is.
I don't see how you could possibly confuse the two, or how you got that at all from what Kwark said. The two ideas are completely unrelated. Read what Kwark said again.
|
On August 11 2013 18:21 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2013 13:35 DeepElemBlues wrote: I don't have an entitlement to have sex with anybody and no one has an entitlement to have sex with me just because my or their objections are maybe 'wrong' in some sense. no, but when you consent to sex with someone you think was born biologically female, you are entitling them by offering that consent. not knowing they were born biologically male does not invalidate your consent any more than not knowing who they've dated, what recreational drugs they've tried, how many times they've been in jail, what their political and religious beliefs are, or what their racial ancestry is. you are not entitled to any of that information; it is up to you and only you to make a character judgment of that person, what questions you need to ask them (if any) and whether to believe their answers. consent is buyer beware. the two examples i see people giving in analogy to justify why they feel entitled to disclosure are are 1) lying about your age to a sexual partner and 2) not disclosing that you have an STD. there's a problem with both 1) if you lie about your age to someone who's underage to get them to consent, the lie isn't what makes your actions wrong. statutory rape is statutory rape whether you lie or not. the crime is having sex with someone who's not of age. lying to them doesn't affect their responsibility for what happened (which is always zero because they're underage). if you lie about BEING underage to someone who is of age, guess what - the person who had sex with you is still legally responsible, because statutory rape is statutory rape 2) an STD is a very real, physiological health risk, and people have a right to know a risk to their body. contracting an STD can seriously limit your ability to live your life in health, freedom and happiness, and that's why it's immoral not to disclose an STD to a future partner. the "risk" of "feeling icky when you find out you once had sex with a transexual" is neither tangible nor reasonable, so it has no moral gravity at all. essentially, the terrifying consequence people are claiming will result from uninformed consent to sex with a transexual is called "regret". that people are actually comparing feeling regret to being raped is astounding
Informed consent is what is important. If a girl says you can have sex with her but only if you wear a condom and you take off the condom when she isn't looking then she didn't consent to your actions. Even if you videotape it and can prove she enjoyed it and "consented" if you tricked her into doing something she didn't want to do then you can't really claim you have that persons consent. The law on this type of thing varies and declaring this type of scenario "does not invalidate your consent" is merely your personal opinion on the matter which I absolutely disagree with. Consent essentially means you've struck a deal, if we make a deal to exchange your $10 for my ticket to the cinema then I give you an expired ticket or just don't give you the ticket at all, do you think it's appropriate for me to be spouting "but he consented to giving me that money". You only consented under certain conditions, once those conditions are broken the deal is void and informed consent is lost.
Your declaration that "feeling icky" when you find out you had sex with a transexual is neither tangible nor reasonable is insulting. The effects of being raped aren't tangible either but that doesn't mean a damn thing. Whether a feeling or effect is tangible has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether it has "moral gravity" so using these useless statements to try and back up your opinions isn't going to achieve much other than demonstrate how poorly founded your beliefs are.
|
United States41957 Posts
Hell, that's the argument that makes me okay with trans. Trans women are born with dicks but they tell me, and experts whom I trust to be reliable, that they are women. If we start invalidating experiences which we don't know or understand then being trans just got thrown out the window. Trans people tell me that they're a gender which seems odd given their bodies at birth but I accept their experience is valid and trust them on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
