|
On July 31 2013 08:51 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:37 jinorazi wrote:On July 31 2013 08:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:16 Shiori wrote:On July 31 2013 04:46 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 04:43 mustache wrote:On July 31 2013 04:35 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 31 2013 04:28 DinoMight wrote:On July 31 2013 04:24 Shodaa wrote:
[quote]
Except the person was actually a girl, not a man. A trans woman is a woman. Technically, a trans woman is a man who has had surgery to alter the appearance/function of his sexual organs. At the chromosome level, there is nothing we can do to change an X to a Y or a Y to an X. So while a trans woman might feel like a woman and associate with being a woman, she is still biologically different from a "real" woman (someone born a woman) even post-op. These are just scientific facts. I'm not saying that it's good or bad or making any other opinion on the matter. No, these aren't facts. A fact is that as it turns out chromosomes don't define gender and some men and some women don't share the same chromosomes as others of their gender. A trans woman is a woman who may or may not have had surgery to correct a body issue she was born with. This "it's just science" crap is used by bigots and by people who don't realise they're supporting them. It's not the reason people define trans women as men, or vica versa, it's a post hoc bastardisation of science which draws a conclusion which science clearly can not show - as we have men and women with chromosomes that differ from the norm - which is used to say trans people aren't *real* men and women. It's segregationism hiding behind scientific jargon. though you say trans women and women are the same thing the fact is that they are not. One had their body operated to be the way it is and the other was born with it. This is the problem with any kind of debate on sexism/racism etc. People always claim that everyone is the same, black = white, trans = cis etc. Its not true. there are differences and pretending they dont exist is plain stupid. How people cant even fathom the idea that it can be disturbing to someone else that their sex partner once had a the body of a man is beyond me. Even outside of gender reassignment most of us owe the bodies we have to surgery in some form or another. Were you circumcised? Had your appendix removed? Your tonsils removed? Operating on a body doesn't fundamentally change a person. You can scream difference all you want but finding meaningful differences will be a challenging task. And it's weird that you would be disturbed by their previous body because that body doesn't exist anymore. The body they have now is their body. You're scared of a shadow. I wouldn't want to have sex with a transsexual because I prefer non-artificial genitalia in my partners. I don't care much for clit/labia piercings either, but full-on transsexualism isn't physically appealing to me for similar reasons; I just don't really find artificial/not fully functional genitalia to be attractive. For me, it's kinda a deal-breaker, but I can't really help what I like sexually, can I? That aside, I'm rather skeptical of whether gender has a coherent definition, because I've never been able to locate one that isn't ultimately circular. I mean, I know that transgender people are legitimate, and I'm not trying to undermine that, but I don't "identify" as being a male in some way that extends beyond my penis and basic anatomy, so I can't really imagine what people mean by gender as an abstract concept.
You can justify your preference any way you want. I'm just explaining to you that "surgery" isn't really a good way to differentiate bodies since everyone has probably had it and that being weirded out by this theoretical body is rather irrational.
You act like there aren't varying degrees of surgery. I don't want to marry someone who has slept with 100000 men; that doesn't mean I have a problem with them sleeping with people in general (i.e. if they slept with one person). The genitalia aren't plastic. Technically they're artificial but they're still functional flesh that appears no different than naturally developed genitalia. And don't use ludicrous examples. You don't want to have sex with a woman who's had 10,000 partners because of the behavior that implies, the risk it poses to you for STD's, and the fact that her vagina probably just doesn't feel good with that much constant use. There are consequences of her sleeping around that much and things you can actually identify you don't like. There aren't any consequences to sex inherent in being trans and other than the fact that they are trans...you can't identify anything you don't like. That's what I don't buy. For every preference people can list reasons. But in this thread the "non trans" preference is justified with "just because ok!!" and that's why I'm not taking it seriously as a preference. I don't buy it when Reason says it, and I don't buy it when you say it. isnt that like if i buy a rolex and later i found out that its fake, but i paid for real price...then you telling me, it looks the same, feels the same, works the same so why care? many guys will fuck anything with tits and a hole, close your eyes and all mouths are the same, blah blah but shit...no, dude, no. Except fake Rolex's don't work nearly as well as the real thing. They don't keep time as well, they're made of much flimsier materials, and they don't look as good or feel as comfortable on the wrist. Trans women aren't fake women dude. And to answer Roe's question...yeah, I can. I Like strong jaws cause I think they look pretty, well groomed body hair and scruff because I like the texture, cut dick because I think it looks better. I can give you reasons for all of my preferences because I can both define a difference and tell you why that difference matters to me. And another thing to note is that none of my preferences are exclusive. Just because I like body hair doesn't mean I refuse to sleep with guys who have none. They are just that a preference, not a requirement. But the same can be said of Shiori: He likes certain things because he likes them. How are his preferences any different? He likes 'real' genitalia because he finds it pretty, and such.
Because those differences don't actually exist. Unless he's a cosmetic surgeon, he can't look at a vagina and tell you whether it's natural or not. He has no way of knowing which is "prettier." And I kinda feel like the "feels better" reason is a little after the fact cause in order to know that you've already stuck your dick in it...clearly everything else was ok for you. I can look at a man's chest and see if there's hair there.
|
On July 31 2013 08:53 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 08:51 Roe wrote:On July 31 2013 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:37 jinorazi wrote:On July 31 2013 08:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:16 Shiori wrote:On July 31 2013 04:46 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 04:43 mustache wrote:On July 31 2013 04:35 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 31 2013 04:28 DinoMight wrote:
[quote]
Technically, a trans woman is a man who has had surgery to alter the appearance/function of his sexual organs. At the chromosome level, there is nothing we can do to change an X to a Y or a Y to an X.
So while a trans woman might feel like a woman and associate with being a woman, she is still biologically different from a "real" woman (someone born a woman) even post-op.
These are just scientific facts. I'm not saying that it's good or bad or making any other opinion on the matter. No, these aren't facts. A fact is that as it turns out chromosomes don't define gender and some men and some women don't share the same chromosomes as others of their gender. A trans woman is a woman who may or may not have had surgery to correct a body issue she was born with. This "it's just science" crap is used by bigots and by people who don't realise they're supporting them. It's not the reason people define trans women as men, or vica versa, it's a post hoc bastardisation of science which draws a conclusion which science clearly can not show - as we have men and women with chromosomes that differ from the norm - which is used to say trans people aren't *real* men and women. It's segregationism hiding behind scientific jargon. though you say trans women and women are the same thing the fact is that they are not. One had their body operated to be the way it is and the other was born with it. This is the problem with any kind of debate on sexism/racism etc. People always claim that everyone is the same, black = white, trans = cis etc. Its not true. there are differences and pretending they dont exist is plain stupid. How people cant even fathom the idea that it can be disturbing to someone else that their sex partner once had a the body of a man is beyond me. Even outside of gender reassignment most of us owe the bodies we have to surgery in some form or another. Were you circumcised? Had your appendix removed? Your tonsils removed? Operating on a body doesn't fundamentally change a person. You can scream difference all you want but finding meaningful differences will be a challenging task. And it's weird that you would be disturbed by their previous body because that body doesn't exist anymore. The body they have now is their body. You're scared of a shadow. I wouldn't want to have sex with a transsexual because I prefer non-artificial genitalia in my partners. I don't care much for clit/labia piercings either, but full-on transsexualism isn't physically appealing to me for similar reasons; I just don't really find artificial/not fully functional genitalia to be attractive. For me, it's kinda a deal-breaker, but I can't really help what I like sexually, can I? That aside, I'm rather skeptical of whether gender has a coherent definition, because I've never been able to locate one that isn't ultimately circular. I mean, I know that transgender people are legitimate, and I'm not trying to undermine that, but I don't "identify" as being a male in some way that extends beyond my penis and basic anatomy, so I can't really imagine what people mean by gender as an abstract concept.
You can justify your preference any way you want. I'm just explaining to you that "surgery" isn't really a good way to differentiate bodies since everyone has probably had it and that being weirded out by this theoretical body is rather irrational.
You act like there aren't varying degrees of surgery. I don't want to marry someone who has slept with 100000 men; that doesn't mean I have a problem with them sleeping with people in general (i.e. if they slept with one person). The genitalia aren't plastic. Technically they're artificial but they're still functional flesh that appears no different than naturally developed genitalia. And don't use ludicrous examples. You don't want to have sex with a woman who's had 10,000 partners because of the behavior that implies, the risk it poses to you for STD's, and the fact that her vagina probably just doesn't feel good with that much constant use. There are consequences of her sleeping around that much and things you can actually identify you don't like. There aren't any consequences to sex inherent in being trans and other than the fact that they are trans...you can't identify anything you don't like. That's what I don't buy. For every preference people can list reasons. But in this thread the "non trans" preference is justified with "just because ok!!" and that's why I'm not taking it seriously as a preference. I don't buy it when Reason says it, and I don't buy it when you say it. isnt that like if i buy a rolex and later i found out that its fake, but i paid for real price...then you telling me, it looks the same, feels the same, works the same so why care? many guys will fuck anything with tits and a hole, close your eyes and all mouths are the same, blah blah but shit...no, dude, no. Except fake Rolex's don't work nearly as well as the real thing. They don't keep time as well, they're made of much flimsier materials, and they don't look as good or feel as comfortable on the wrist. Trans women aren't fake women dude. And to answer Roe's question...yeah, I can. I Like strong jaws cause I think they look pretty, well groomed body hair and scruff because I like the texture, cut dick because I think it looks better. I can give you reasons for all of my preferences because I can both define a difference and tell you why that difference matters to me. And another thing to note is that none of my preferences are exclusive. Just because I like body hair doesn't mean I refuse to sleep with guys who have none. They are just that a preference, not a requirement. But the same can be said of Shiori: He likes certain things because he likes them. How are his preferences any different? He likes 'real' genitalia because he finds it pretty, and such. Because those differences don't actually exist. Unless he's a cosmetic surgeon, he can't look at a vagina and tell you whether it's natural or not. He has no way of knowing which is "prettier." And I kinda feel like the "feels better" reason is a little after the fact cause in order to know that you've already stuck your dick in it...clearly everything else was ok for you. I can look at a man's chest and see if there's hair there.
just wondering, has there been improvements on voice?
|
On July 31 2013 08:55 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 08:53 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:51 Roe wrote:On July 31 2013 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:37 jinorazi wrote:On July 31 2013 08:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:16 Shiori wrote:On July 31 2013 04:46 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 04:43 mustache wrote:On July 31 2013 04:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
[quote]
No, these aren't facts. A fact is that as it turns out chromosomes don't define gender and some men and some women don't share the same chromosomes as others of their gender. A trans woman is a woman who may or may not have had surgery to correct a body issue she was born with.
This "it's just science" crap is used by bigots and by people who don't realise they're supporting them. It's not the reason people define trans women as men, or vica versa, it's a post hoc bastardisation of science which draws a conclusion which science clearly can not show - as we have men and women with chromosomes that differ from the norm - which is used to say trans people aren't *real* men and women. It's segregationism hiding behind scientific jargon. though you say trans women and women are the same thing the fact is that they are not. One had their body operated to be the way it is and the other was born with it. This is the problem with any kind of debate on sexism/racism etc. People always claim that everyone is the same, black = white, trans = cis etc. Its not true. there are differences and pretending they dont exist is plain stupid. How people cant even fathom the idea that it can be disturbing to someone else that their sex partner once had a the body of a man is beyond me. Even outside of gender reassignment most of us owe the bodies we have to surgery in some form or another. Were you circumcised? Had your appendix removed? Your tonsils removed? Operating on a body doesn't fundamentally change a person. You can scream difference all you want but finding meaningful differences will be a challenging task. And it's weird that you would be disturbed by their previous body because that body doesn't exist anymore. The body they have now is their body. You're scared of a shadow. I wouldn't want to have sex with a transsexual because I prefer non-artificial genitalia in my partners. I don't care much for clit/labia piercings either, but full-on transsexualism isn't physically appealing to me for similar reasons; I just don't really find artificial/not fully functional genitalia to be attractive. For me, it's kinda a deal-breaker, but I can't really help what I like sexually, can I? That aside, I'm rather skeptical of whether gender has a coherent definition, because I've never been able to locate one that isn't ultimately circular. I mean, I know that transgender people are legitimate, and I'm not trying to undermine that, but I don't "identify" as being a male in some way that extends beyond my penis and basic anatomy, so I can't really imagine what people mean by gender as an abstract concept.
You can justify your preference any way you want. I'm just explaining to you that "surgery" isn't really a good way to differentiate bodies since everyone has probably had it and that being weirded out by this theoretical body is rather irrational.
You act like there aren't varying degrees of surgery. I don't want to marry someone who has slept with 100000 men; that doesn't mean I have a problem with them sleeping with people in general (i.e. if they slept with one person). The genitalia aren't plastic. Technically they're artificial but they're still functional flesh that appears no different than naturally developed genitalia. And don't use ludicrous examples. You don't want to have sex with a woman who's had 10,000 partners because of the behavior that implies, the risk it poses to you for STD's, and the fact that her vagina probably just doesn't feel good with that much constant use. There are consequences of her sleeping around that much and things you can actually identify you don't like. There aren't any consequences to sex inherent in being trans and other than the fact that they are trans...you can't identify anything you don't like. That's what I don't buy. For every preference people can list reasons. But in this thread the "non trans" preference is justified with "just because ok!!" and that's why I'm not taking it seriously as a preference. I don't buy it when Reason says it, and I don't buy it when you say it. isnt that like if i buy a rolex and later i found out that its fake, but i paid for real price...then you telling me, it looks the same, feels the same, works the same so why care? many guys will fuck anything with tits and a hole, close your eyes and all mouths are the same, blah blah but shit...no, dude, no. Except fake Rolex's don't work nearly as well as the real thing. They don't keep time as well, they're made of much flimsier materials, and they don't look as good or feel as comfortable on the wrist. Trans women aren't fake women dude. And to answer Roe's question...yeah, I can. I Like strong jaws cause I think they look pretty, well groomed body hair and scruff because I like the texture, cut dick because I think it looks better. I can give you reasons for all of my preferences because I can both define a difference and tell you why that difference matters to me. And another thing to note is that none of my preferences are exclusive. Just because I like body hair doesn't mean I refuse to sleep with guys who have none. They are just that a preference, not a requirement. But the same can be said of Shiori: He likes certain things because he likes them. How are his preferences any different? He likes 'real' genitalia because he finds it pretty, and such. Because those differences don't actually exist. Unless he's a cosmetic surgeon, he can't look at a vagina and tell you whether it's natural or not. He has no way of knowing which is "prettier." And I kinda feel like the "feels better" reason is a little after the fact cause in order to know that you've already stuck your dick in it...clearly everything else was ok for you. I can look at a man's chest and see if there's hair there. just wondering, has there been improvements on voice?
If they start the therapy soon enough they go through puberty as their transitioned gender so...it'd be a perfectly female voice.
|
On July 31 2013 08:33 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 08:16 Shiori wrote:On July 31 2013 04:46 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 04:43 mustache wrote:On July 31 2013 04:35 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 31 2013 04:28 DinoMight wrote:On July 31 2013 04:24 Shodaa wrote:On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption Except the person was actually a girl, not a man. A trans woman is a woman. Technically, a trans woman is a man who has had surgery to alter the appearance/function of his sexual organs. At the chromosome level, there is nothing we can do to change an X to a Y or a Y to an X. So while a trans woman might feel like a woman and associate with being a woman, she is still biologically different from a "real" woman (someone born a woman) even post-op. These are just scientific facts. I'm not saying that it's good or bad or making any other opinion on the matter. No, these aren't facts. A fact is that as it turns out chromosomes don't define gender and some men and some women don't share the same chromosomes as others of their gender. A trans woman is a woman who may or may not have had surgery to correct a body issue she was born with. This "it's just science" crap is used by bigots and by people who don't realise they're supporting them. It's not the reason people define trans women as men, or vica versa, it's a post hoc bastardisation of science which draws a conclusion which science clearly can not show - as we have men and women with chromosomes that differ from the norm - which is used to say trans people aren't *real* men and women. It's segregationism hiding behind scientific jargon. though you say trans women and women are the same thing the fact is that they are not. One had their body operated to be the way it is and the other was born with it. This is the problem with any kind of debate on sexism/racism etc. People always claim that everyone is the same, black = white, trans = cis etc. Its not true. there are differences and pretending they dont exist is plain stupid. How people cant even fathom the idea that it can be disturbing to someone else that their sex partner once had a the body of a man is beyond me. Even outside of gender reassignment most of us owe the bodies we have to surgery in some form or another. Were you circumcised? Had your appendix removed? Your tonsils removed? Operating on a body doesn't fundamentally change a person. You can scream difference all you want but finding meaningful differences will be a challenging task. And it's weird that you would be disturbed by their previous body because that body doesn't exist anymore. The body they have now is their body. You're scared of a shadow. I wouldn't want to have sex with a transsexual because I prefer non-artificial genitalia in my partners. I don't care much for clit/labia piercings either, but full-on transsexualism isn't physically appealing to me for similar reasons; I just don't really find artificial/not fully functional genitalia to be attractive. For me, it's kinda a deal-breaker, but I can't really help what I like sexually, can I? That aside, I'm rather skeptical of whether gender has a coherent definition, because I've never been able to locate one that isn't ultimately circular. I mean, I know that transgender people are legitimate, and I'm not trying to undermine that, but I don't "identify" as being a male in some way that extends beyond my penis and basic anatomy, so I can't really imagine what people mean by gender as an abstract concept.
You can justify your preference any way you want. I'm just explaining to you that "surgery" isn't really a good way to differentiate bodies since everyone has probably had it and that being weirded out by this theoretical body is rather irrational.
You act like there aren't varying degrees of surgery. I don't want to marry someone who has slept with 100000 men; that doesn't mean I have a problem with them sleeping with people in general (i.e. if they slept with one person). The genitalia aren't plastic. Technically they're artificial but they're still functional flesh that appears no different than naturally developed genitalia. And don't use ludicrous examples. You don't want to have sex with a woman who's had 10,000 partners because of the behavior that implies, the risk it poses to you for STD's, and the fact that her vagina probably just doesn't feel good with that much constant use. There are consequences of her sleeping around that much and things you can actually identify you don't like. There aren't any consequences to sex inherent in being trans and other than the fact that they are trans...you can't identify anything you don't like. That's what I don't buy. For every preference people can list reasons. But in this thread the "non trans" preference is justified with "just because ok!!" and that's why I'm not taking it seriously as a preference. I don't buy it when Reason says it, and I don't buy it when you say it. Babylon's reason of "I don't think I could properly deal with any emotional baggage" is more believable. Although I'd venture that there are probably trans women out there who have made the transition with minimal stress and, if there aren't many now, hopefully there will be in the future, and I'd ask how that preference holds up then.
I have enough gender-related baggage of my own to deal with, lol. No way I'm taking on any more than necessary. It's like, when you're a stressed out college student, and all your roommates are students, and you just don't want to talk about school all the time anymore. Sure, there is a sort of camaraderie and understanding, but at the same time, there are plenty of problems as well. This is not to say that I wouldn't get into a relationship with a trans woman, just that I doubt my ability to stand up well under extensive amounts of baggage, and people with gender dysphoria tend to have a lot of baggage. (I apply this criteria to everyone. Too much baggage of any sort is a huge no.)
Re: Shiori's reason. It's really difficult to tell if a woman is a trans woman if the surgery is done well iirc? Genitals will pretty much look and feel the same, though depth may take a hit depending on the individual and post-op complications. I am not sure about the lubrication, so if any MTFs like to elaborate, feel free too! I believe it is different for FTMs though; a well-done SRS on FTM is not going to look like nor function like a normal penis. There are plenty of gay guys, who won't have sex with an FTM, because "artificial penis," "doesn't look natural," etc. Some people (both FTMs and MTFs) do actually lose sensitivity down there too due to surgery, so his reason isn't completely unreasonable.
|
On July 31 2013 08:55 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 08:53 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:51 Roe wrote:On July 31 2013 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:37 jinorazi wrote:On July 31 2013 08:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:16 Shiori wrote:On July 31 2013 04:46 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 04:43 mustache wrote:On July 31 2013 04:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
[quote]
No, these aren't facts. A fact is that as it turns out chromosomes don't define gender and some men and some women don't share the same chromosomes as others of their gender. A trans woman is a woman who may or may not have had surgery to correct a body issue she was born with.
This "it's just science" crap is used by bigots and by people who don't realise they're supporting them. It's not the reason people define trans women as men, or vica versa, it's a post hoc bastardisation of science which draws a conclusion which science clearly can not show - as we have men and women with chromosomes that differ from the norm - which is used to say trans people aren't *real* men and women. It's segregationism hiding behind scientific jargon. though you say trans women and women are the same thing the fact is that they are not. One had their body operated to be the way it is and the other was born with it. This is the problem with any kind of debate on sexism/racism etc. People always claim that everyone is the same, black = white, trans = cis etc. Its not true. there are differences and pretending they dont exist is plain stupid. How people cant even fathom the idea that it can be disturbing to someone else that their sex partner once had a the body of a man is beyond me. Even outside of gender reassignment most of us owe the bodies we have to surgery in some form or another. Were you circumcised? Had your appendix removed? Your tonsils removed? Operating on a body doesn't fundamentally change a person. You can scream difference all you want but finding meaningful differences will be a challenging task. And it's weird that you would be disturbed by their previous body because that body doesn't exist anymore. The body they have now is their body. You're scared of a shadow. I wouldn't want to have sex with a transsexual because I prefer non-artificial genitalia in my partners. I don't care much for clit/labia piercings either, but full-on transsexualism isn't physically appealing to me for similar reasons; I just don't really find artificial/not fully functional genitalia to be attractive. For me, it's kinda a deal-breaker, but I can't really help what I like sexually, can I? That aside, I'm rather skeptical of whether gender has a coherent definition, because I've never been able to locate one that isn't ultimately circular. I mean, I know that transgender people are legitimate, and I'm not trying to undermine that, but I don't "identify" as being a male in some way that extends beyond my penis and basic anatomy, so I can't really imagine what people mean by gender as an abstract concept.
You can justify your preference any way you want. I'm just explaining to you that "surgery" isn't really a good way to differentiate bodies since everyone has probably had it and that being weirded out by this theoretical body is rather irrational.
You act like there aren't varying degrees of surgery. I don't want to marry someone who has slept with 100000 men; that doesn't mean I have a problem with them sleeping with people in general (i.e. if they slept with one person). The genitalia aren't plastic. Technically they're artificial but they're still functional flesh that appears no different than naturally developed genitalia. And don't use ludicrous examples. You don't want to have sex with a woman who's had 10,000 partners because of the behavior that implies, the risk it poses to you for STD's, and the fact that her vagina probably just doesn't feel good with that much constant use. There are consequences of her sleeping around that much and things you can actually identify you don't like. There aren't any consequences to sex inherent in being trans and other than the fact that they are trans...you can't identify anything you don't like. That's what I don't buy. For every preference people can list reasons. But in this thread the "non trans" preference is justified with "just because ok!!" and that's why I'm not taking it seriously as a preference. I don't buy it when Reason says it, and I don't buy it when you say it. isnt that like if i buy a rolex and later i found out that its fake, but i paid for real price...then you telling me, it looks the same, feels the same, works the same so why care? many guys will fuck anything with tits and a hole, close your eyes and all mouths are the same, blah blah but shit...no, dude, no. Except fake Rolex's don't work nearly as well as the real thing. They don't keep time as well, they're made of much flimsier materials, and they don't look as good or feel as comfortable on the wrist. Trans women aren't fake women dude. And to answer Roe's question...yeah, I can. I Like strong jaws cause I think they look pretty, well groomed body hair and scruff because I like the texture, cut dick because I think it looks better. I can give you reasons for all of my preferences because I can both define a difference and tell you why that difference matters to me. And another thing to note is that none of my preferences are exclusive. Just because I like body hair doesn't mean I refuse to sleep with guys who have none. They are just that a preference, not a requirement. But the same can be said of Shiori: He likes certain things because he likes them. How are his preferences any different? He likes 'real' genitalia because he finds it pretty, and such. Because those differences don't actually exist. Unless he's a cosmetic surgeon, he can't look at a vagina and tell you whether it's natural or not. He has no way of knowing which is "prettier." And I kinda feel like the "feels better" reason is a little after the fact cause in order to know that you've already stuck your dick in it...clearly everything else was ok for you. I can look at a man's chest and see if there's hair there. just wondering, has there been improvements on voice?
For trans woman, if they transition before puberty, voice isn't a problem. Post puberty, estrogen does not affect voice at all. It's all about training. Takes time, but it is very possible to have a girl voice even if you went through male puberty.
For trans man, testosterone will easily give them a male voice, pretty much the same thing as going through a male puberty.
|
Which reminds me...the people who don't wanna have sex with a trans woman, ya'll know she essentially went through female puberty right?
|
On July 31 2013 08:58 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 08:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:16 Shiori wrote:On July 31 2013 04:46 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 04:43 mustache wrote:On July 31 2013 04:35 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 31 2013 04:28 DinoMight wrote:On July 31 2013 04:24 Shodaa wrote:On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption Except the person was actually a girl, not a man. A trans woman is a woman. Technically, a trans woman is a man who has had surgery to alter the appearance/function of his sexual organs. At the chromosome level, there is nothing we can do to change an X to a Y or a Y to an X. So while a trans woman might feel like a woman and associate with being a woman, she is still biologically different from a "real" woman (someone born a woman) even post-op. These are just scientific facts. I'm not saying that it's good or bad or making any other opinion on the matter. No, these aren't facts. A fact is that as it turns out chromosomes don't define gender and some men and some women don't share the same chromosomes as others of their gender. A trans woman is a woman who may or may not have had surgery to correct a body issue she was born with. This "it's just science" crap is used by bigots and by people who don't realise they're supporting them. It's not the reason people define trans women as men, or vica versa, it's a post hoc bastardisation of science which draws a conclusion which science clearly can not show - as we have men and women with chromosomes that differ from the norm - which is used to say trans people aren't *real* men and women. It's segregationism hiding behind scientific jargon. though you say trans women and women are the same thing the fact is that they are not. One had their body operated to be the way it is and the other was born with it. This is the problem with any kind of debate on sexism/racism etc. People always claim that everyone is the same, black = white, trans = cis etc. Its not true. there are differences and pretending they dont exist is plain stupid. How people cant even fathom the idea that it can be disturbing to someone else that their sex partner once had a the body of a man is beyond me. Even outside of gender reassignment most of us owe the bodies we have to surgery in some form or another. Were you circumcised? Had your appendix removed? Your tonsils removed? Operating on a body doesn't fundamentally change a person. You can scream difference all you want but finding meaningful differences will be a challenging task. And it's weird that you would be disturbed by their previous body because that body doesn't exist anymore. The body they have now is their body. You're scared of a shadow. I wouldn't want to have sex with a transsexual because I prefer non-artificial genitalia in my partners. I don't care much for clit/labia piercings either, but full-on transsexualism isn't physically appealing to me for similar reasons; I just don't really find artificial/not fully functional genitalia to be attractive. For me, it's kinda a deal-breaker, but I can't really help what I like sexually, can I? That aside, I'm rather skeptical of whether gender has a coherent definition, because I've never been able to locate one that isn't ultimately circular. I mean, I know that transgender people are legitimate, and I'm not trying to undermine that, but I don't "identify" as being a male in some way that extends beyond my penis and basic anatomy, so I can't really imagine what people mean by gender as an abstract concept.
You can justify your preference any way you want. I'm just explaining to you that "surgery" isn't really a good way to differentiate bodies since everyone has probably had it and that being weirded out by this theoretical body is rather irrational.
You act like there aren't varying degrees of surgery. I don't want to marry someone who has slept with 100000 men; that doesn't mean I have a problem with them sleeping with people in general (i.e. if they slept with one person). The genitalia aren't plastic. Technically they're artificial but they're still functional flesh that appears no different than naturally developed genitalia. And don't use ludicrous examples. You don't want to have sex with a woman who's had 10,000 partners because of the behavior that implies, the risk it poses to you for STD's, and the fact that her vagina probably just doesn't feel good with that much constant use. There are consequences of her sleeping around that much and things you can actually identify you don't like. There aren't any consequences to sex inherent in being trans and other than the fact that they are trans...you can't identify anything you don't like. That's what I don't buy. For every preference people can list reasons. But in this thread the "non trans" preference is justified with "just because ok!!" and that's why I'm not taking it seriously as a preference. I don't buy it when Reason says it, and I don't buy it when you say it. Babylon's reason of "I don't think I could properly deal with any emotional baggage" is more believable. Although I'd venture that there are probably trans women out there who have made the transition with minimal stress and, if there aren't many now, hopefully there will be in the future, and I'd ask how that preference holds up then. I have enough gender-related baggage of my own to deal with, lol. No way I'm taking on any more than necessary. It's like, when you're a stressed out college student, and all your roommates are students, and you just don't want to talk about school all the time anymore. Sure, there is a sort of camaraderie and understanding, but at the same time, there are plenty of problems as well. This is not to say that I wouldn't get into a relationship with a trans woman, just that I doubt my ability to stand up well under extensive amounts of baggage, and people with gender dysphoria tend to have a lot of baggage. (I apply this criteria to everyone. Too much baggage of any sort is a huge no.) Re: Shiori's reason. It's really difficult to tell if a woman is a trans woman if the surgery is done well iirc? Genitals will pretty much look and feel the same, though depth may take a hit depending on the individual and post-op complications. I am not sure about the lubrication, so if any MTFs like to elaborate, feel free too! I believe it is different for FTMs though; a well-done SRS on FTM is not going to look like nor function like a normal penis. There are plenty of gay guys, who won't have sex with an FTM, because "artificial penis," "doesn't look natural," etc. Some people (both FTMs and MTFs) do actually lose sensitivity down there too due to surgery, so his reason isn't completely unreasonable.
You are correct, neo vagina can self lubricate. Unfortunately, not always.
Also, it seems like neo vagina eventually acts exactly like a cis woman vagina:
From a post on /r/transgender earlier this month: http://www.gendercare.com/library/italiano_paper1.html
"Those post-operative male-to-female transsexuals who amuse themselves with the peculiar statement that they still have a penis, but that it's just turned inside-out should note that not only do they not have a penis, but they don't even have skin of the penis any more. The histology of the tissue has changed. It also responds to hormones in an identical way as does a normal vagina, with "cyclic cornification and mucification"
Basically, a neovagina develops smooth cell layers to support penetration, and excretes the same energy molecules to support the same bacteria that protect and regulate the environment in a cisgender woman's vagina.
|
On July 31 2013 08:25 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 07:37 Reason wrote:On July 31 2013 07:23 babylon wrote:On July 31 2013 07:19 Reason wrote:On July 31 2013 07:03 babylon wrote:On July 31 2013 06:53 Reason wrote:On July 31 2013 06:38 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 06:37 Reason wrote:On July 31 2013 06:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 06:18 Reason wrote:
[quote]
Language evolves over time. Nowadays sex refers to biologically male or female and gender refers to gender identification.
Since their gender identification is not dependent upon biological sex, telling someone they are not a particular gender when they identify with being that particular gender makes you an asshole, yes.
[quote]
Struggling with basic definitions? This is becoming ridiculous.
If presented with two options then I have an alternative.
My hypothetical situation was two identical woman but
1. is trans
2. is not
1 /= 2
Therefore I have an alternative, therefore think about what you're saying to me before you say it. How do you not understand that is there is no "is trans." There's just: 1. is woman 2. is woman I think what you're trying to do here is imply that the trans woman will have some sort of emotional baggage or surgical scars and that is what you don't prefer...but those things aren't implied by the "trans" modifier. What you're actually saying is that you prefer someone who was a certain way in the past...even though their past has no consequences for who they are now (at least in the context of just banging them). You really don't understand how "this person changed" is not actually a characteristic of them but rather a description of how a old characteristic went away and new one came to be? I'm not going to be able to explain this any better. So if you're still confused, someone else is gonna have to take over. I think you just don't understand what trans actually means. I told you that if you presented me with two identical people except one of them is trans and the other isn't trans then I want the person who isn't trans. My sexual preferences are my own. You don't need to understand them, you don't need to rationalise them, all you need to do is respect them. But you have absolutely no way of knowing if one is trans. How can you act on a preference if you can't even identify it? I have trouble respecting this because you're claiming a difference that just really doesn't exist and basing it on "preference" when in reality your hormones have absolutely no way to distinguish between the two...especially if they look identical. It sounds like veiled transphobia. Particularly if you're only looking to bang one of these chicks. Of course I can't act on a preference if I can't identify it, that doesn't mean that I don't have the preference. If you are presented with two identical women but one supports the same political party as you and the other doesn't then perhaps you would prefer the one with the same views because you have something in common. Perhaps you would prefer the other one because opposites attract. Perhaps political orientation plays no part in your sexual preferences. That's your business. You can't identify this difference at a glance but it exists and it's possible that you have a preference. Is it so difficult for you to understand that I might have a preference if the person I'm about to have sex with is a trans person or not? Conflating sexual attraction with other factors. You would be sexually attracted to both women if they are both identical (except one is trans and the other isn't, even if you can't tell), but given more information, you'd prefer to be with the cis woman for whatever reason (i.e. lack of trust, desire for children, desire for no baggage, etc.). I admittedly do not know how your brain works re: sexual attraction, but my understanding is that for most people it works on a physical level, which may/may not be augmented based on other factors (e.g. emotional, intellectual, etc.). But if you don't know the difference, then the trans factor honestly wouldn't come into play. I don't mean to dictate any of this to you -- I don't believe in telling people, oh, they should be attracted to X or Y, there are plenty of reasons why someone would not want to be with a trans person -- just trying to explain a bit. I'm not conflating anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_attractionSexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest. Sexual attractiveness or sex appeal refers to an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interest of another person, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice. The attraction can be to the physical or other qualities or traits of a person, or to such qualities in the context in which they appear. The attraction may be to a person's looks or movements or to their voice or smell, besides other factors. The attraction may be enhanced by a person's adornments, clothing, perfume, hair length and style, and anything else which can attract the sexual interest of another person . It can also be influenced by individual genetic, psychological, or cultural factors, or to other, more amorphous qualities of the person. Sexual attraction is also a response to another person that depends on a combination of the person possessing the traits and also on the criteria of the person who is attracted. I'm asking you, not Wikipedia. Sexual attraction is different for different people. When you see a 10/10 (on your scale, whatever that is), would you sleep with her? EDIT: I should rephrase that to "would you feel the desire to sleep with her?" Attraction is not action. You accused me of conflating sexual attraction with other factors and instead of just replying "you're wrong" I decided to quote wikipedia to back up my assertion that you're wrong. If you disagree with my interpretation of that passage or my own understanding of sexual attraction then please, explain, but there's no need to act like a smartass. Physical attraction is *part* of sexual attraction. Although I've made this abundantly clear but haven't stated it directly allow me to do so now; if I see a person who is a 10/10 on my scale and isn't identifiable as a trans person then yes obviously I would feel a desire to sleep with her, just like I would feel a desire to sleep with an attractive five dollar hooker with aids before finding out some more information about her. When I find out that the person is trans I might even still have sex with this person, I don't know as I've never been faced with this situation and I'm certainly not repulsed by trans people nor am I a transphobe, I simply have the preference that they not be trans. Faced with the choice, I prefer not trans to trans. For some people physical attraction doesn't have anything to do with sexual attraction, for others it does, etc. Sexual attraction develops differently depending on the individual. It could be physical at first, emotional, intellectual, etc. Just trying to establish which one it is for you and to look at how it develops. Not calling you a transphobe. There are many legitimate reasons why someone may not want to get together with a trans person (e.g. Shiori's reason, my own reason is very simply "baggage"). Klondike was just trying to root out a particular reason for why you would prefer one over the other, and to say that "I just prefer cis women to trans women" without any other explanation unfortunately sounds degrading to trans women, as if cis women are more desirable by nature of being cis -- all this in light of the fact that the movement all along has been to push the idea that trans women are just as, well, women as cis women. Whether or not people take that to be transphobic is something for others to decide. It's always better to be more explicit (even stupidly so, sometimes) than to be vague in these discussions.
No worries, I know you weren't calling me a transphobe, but Klondikebar is. He's also failed to ignore the fact that I never said my preference was exclusive and I've also explicitly stated it wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker. He wasn't trying to root out a particular reason for why I prefer one over the over, he was trying to prove I am a transphobe by claiming that there is no other possible reason to hold this preference.
On July 31 2013 07:00 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 06:53 Reason wrote:
Is it so difficult for you to understand that I might have a preference if the person I'm about to have sex with is a trans person or not? If you can't even tell them apart from someone who was born a woman, then what's guiding that preference? The only possibility is transphobia since there's no actual difference between the women.
Anyway...
On July 31 2013 08:25 babylon wrote:
"to say that "I just prefer cis women to trans women" without any other explanation unfortunately sounds degrading to trans women, as if cis women are more desirable by nature of being cis -- all this in light of the fact that the movement all along has been to push the idea that trans women are just as, well, women as cis women. "
Does saying I prefer blonde women to brunette women unfortunately sound degrading to brunette women? No it doesn't. Does it make them less women than blonde women? No it doesn't. It's a personal preference that doesn't require justification. Why should it be any different for preferring cis gendered people? People are so damn butthurt about LGBT rights that they can't even see straight anymore.
|
On July 31 2013 09:17 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 08:25 babylon wrote:On July 31 2013 07:37 Reason wrote:On July 31 2013 07:23 babylon wrote:On July 31 2013 07:19 Reason wrote:On July 31 2013 07:03 babylon wrote:On July 31 2013 06:53 Reason wrote:On July 31 2013 06:38 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 06:37 Reason wrote:On July 31 2013 06:25 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
How do you not understand that is there is no "is trans." There's just:
1. is woman
2. is woman
I think what you're trying to do here is imply that the trans woman will have some sort of emotional baggage or surgical scars and that is what you don't prefer...but those things aren't implied by the "trans" modifier. What you're actually saying is that you prefer someone who was a certain way in the past...even though their past has no consequences for who they are now (at least in the context of just banging them).
You really don't understand how "this person changed" is not actually a characteristic of them but rather a description of how a old characteristic went away and new one came to be?
I'm not going to be able to explain this any better. So if you're still confused, someone else is gonna have to take over. I think you just don't understand what trans actually means. I told you that if you presented me with two identical people except one of them is trans and the other isn't trans then I want the person who isn't trans. My sexual preferences are my own. You don't need to understand them, you don't need to rationalise them, all you need to do is respect them. But you have absolutely no way of knowing if one is trans. How can you act on a preference if you can't even identify it? I have trouble respecting this because you're claiming a difference that just really doesn't exist and basing it on "preference" when in reality your hormones have absolutely no way to distinguish between the two...especially if they look identical. It sounds like veiled transphobia. Particularly if you're only looking to bang one of these chicks. Of course I can't act on a preference if I can't identify it, that doesn't mean that I don't have the preference. If you are presented with two identical women but one supports the same political party as you and the other doesn't then perhaps you would prefer the one with the same views because you have something in common. Perhaps you would prefer the other one because opposites attract. Perhaps political orientation plays no part in your sexual preferences. That's your business. You can't identify this difference at a glance but it exists and it's possible that you have a preference. Is it so difficult for you to understand that I might have a preference if the person I'm about to have sex with is a trans person or not? Conflating sexual attraction with other factors. You would be sexually attracted to both women if they are both identical (except one is trans and the other isn't, even if you can't tell), but given more information, you'd prefer to be with the cis woman for whatever reason (i.e. lack of trust, desire for children, desire for no baggage, etc.). I admittedly do not know how your brain works re: sexual attraction, but my understanding is that for most people it works on a physical level, which may/may not be augmented based on other factors (e.g. emotional, intellectual, etc.). But if you don't know the difference, then the trans factor honestly wouldn't come into play. I don't mean to dictate any of this to you -- I don't believe in telling people, oh, they should be attracted to X or Y, there are plenty of reasons why someone would not want to be with a trans person -- just trying to explain a bit. I'm not conflating anything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_attractionSexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest. Sexual attractiveness or sex appeal refers to an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interest of another person, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice. The attraction can be to the physical or other qualities or traits of a person, or to such qualities in the context in which they appear. The attraction may be to a person's looks or movements or to their voice or smell, besides other factors. The attraction may be enhanced by a person's adornments, clothing, perfume, hair length and style, and anything else which can attract the sexual interest of another person . It can also be influenced by individual genetic, psychological, or cultural factors, or to other, more amorphous qualities of the person. Sexual attraction is also a response to another person that depends on a combination of the person possessing the traits and also on the criteria of the person who is attracted. I'm asking you, not Wikipedia. Sexual attraction is different for different people. When you see a 10/10 (on your scale, whatever that is), would you sleep with her? EDIT: I should rephrase that to "would you feel the desire to sleep with her?" Attraction is not action. You accused me of conflating sexual attraction with other factors and instead of just replying "you're wrong" I decided to quote wikipedia to back up my assertion that you're wrong. If you disagree with my interpretation of that passage or my own understanding of sexual attraction then please, explain, but there's no need to act like a smartass. Physical attraction is *part* of sexual attraction. Although I've made this abundantly clear but haven't stated it directly allow me to do so now; if I see a person who is a 10/10 on my scale and isn't identifiable as a trans person then yes obviously I would feel a desire to sleep with her, just like I would feel a desire to sleep with an attractive five dollar hooker with aids before finding out some more information about her. When I find out that the person is trans I might even still have sex with this person, I don't know as I've never been faced with this situation and I'm certainly not repulsed by trans people nor am I a transphobe, I simply have the preference that they not be trans. Faced with the choice, I prefer not trans to trans. For some people physical attraction doesn't have anything to do with sexual attraction, for others it does, etc. Sexual attraction develops differently depending on the individual. It could be physical at first, emotional, intellectual, etc. Just trying to establish which one it is for you and to look at how it develops. Not calling you a transphobe. There are many legitimate reasons why someone may not want to get together with a trans person (e.g. Shiori's reason, my own reason is very simply "baggage"). Klondike was just trying to root out a particular reason for why you would prefer one over the other, and to say that "I just prefer cis women to trans women" without any other explanation unfortunately sounds degrading to trans women, as if cis women are more desirable by nature of being cis -- all this in light of the fact that the movement all along has been to push the idea that trans women are just as, well, women as cis women. Whether or not people take that to be transphobic is something for others to decide. It's always better to be more explicit (even stupidly so, sometimes) than to be vague in these discussions. I know you weren't calling me a transphobe, but Klondikebar is. He's also failed to ignore the fact that I didn't say my preference was exclusive and I've explicitly stated it wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker. He wasn't trying to root out a particular reason for why I prefer one over the over, he was trying to prove I am a transphobe by claiming that there is no other possible reason to hold this preference. Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 07:00 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 06:53 Reason wrote:
Is it so difficult for you to understand that I might have a preference if the person I'm about to have sex with is a trans person or not? If you can't even tell them apart from someone who was born a woman, then what's guiding that preference? The only possibility is transphobia since there's no actual difference between the women. "to say that "I just prefer cis women to trans women" without any other explanation unfortunately sounds degrading to trans women, as if cis women are more desirable by nature of being cis -- all this in light of the fact that the movement all along has been to push the idea that trans women are just as, well, women as cis women. " Does saying I prefer blonde women to brunette women unfortunately sound degrading to brunette women? No it doesn't. Does it make them less women than blonde women? No it doesn't. It's a personal preference that doesn't require justification. Why should it be any different for preferring cis gendered people? People are so damn butthurt about LGBT rights that they can't even see straight anymore.
I bet you can find blonde women you think are ugly and I bet you can find brunette women you'd want to bang. That preference isn't exclusive. You're "non-trans" preference seems pretty damn exclusive.
If you never had sex with brunette women simply because they were brunette...yeah, I'd find you pretty moronic. But here's a mind fuck, what if they were born brunette but dyed their hair blond?!
|
Klondikebar pay attention for the love of God....
On July 31 2013 07:37 Reason wrote:
When I find out that the person is trans I might even still have sex with this person, I don't know as I've never been faced with this situation and I'm certainly not repulsed by trans people nor am I a transphobe, I simply have the preference that they not be trans. Faced with the choice, I'd prefer not trans to trans.
Also, in the very post that you just quoted:
On July 31 2013 09:17 Reason wrote:
I know you weren't calling me a transphobe, but Klondikebar is. He's also failed to ignore the fact that I didn't say my preference was exclusive and I've explicitly stated it wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker.
You're not even responding to what I'm saying anymore. You're arguing with a work of fiction that is your own creation. Goodnight everyone =/
|
On July 31 2013 09:17 Reason wrote:No worries, I know you weren't calling me a transphobe, but Klondikebar is. He's also failed to ignore the fact that I never said my preference was exclusive and I've also explicitly stated it wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker. He wasn't trying to root out a particular reason for why I prefer one over the over, he was trying to prove I am a transphobe by claiming that there is no other possible reason to hold this preference. Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 07:00 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 06:53 Reason wrote:
Is it so difficult for you to understand that I might have a preference if the person I'm about to have sex with is a trans person or not? If you can't even tell them apart from someone who was born a woman, then what's guiding that preference? The only possibility is transphobia since there's no actual difference between the women. Anyway... Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 08:25 babylon wrote:
"to say that "I just prefer cis women to trans women" without any other explanation unfortunately sounds degrading to trans women, as if cis women are more desirable by nature of being cis -- all this in light of the fact that the movement all along has been to push the idea that trans women are just as, well, women as cis women. " Does saying I prefer blonde women to brunette women unfortunately sound degrading to brunette women? No it doesn't. Does it make them less women than blonde women? No it doesn't. It's a personal preference that doesn't require justification. Why should it be any different for preferring cis gendered people? People are so damn butthurt about LGBT rights that they can't even see straight anymore.
Given that transphobia is so prevalent today -- even in LGB circles, even in feminist circles (the academic discussion around it is ridiculous) -- I'd say it's pretty understandable why it's a sensitive topic. D:
On July 31 2013 09:20 Klondikebar wrote:
If you never had sex with brunette women simply because they were brunette...yeah, I'd find you pretty moronic. But here's a mind fuck, what if they were born brunette but dyed their hair blond?!
Lol.
@ Shodaa: That link was fascinating, thank you. It's too bad FTM SRS doesn't seem to go as smoothly.
|
On July 31 2013 08:33 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 08:16 Shiori wrote:On July 31 2013 04:46 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 04:43 mustache wrote:On July 31 2013 04:35 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 31 2013 04:28 DinoMight wrote:On July 31 2013 04:24 Shodaa wrote:On July 31 2013 04:09 theodorus12 wrote:
I think everyone should have equal* rights. But it is also my right to find gays etc disgusting.
And I really don't get the anger about that Family Guy episode, of course a straight male would be disgusted, if he finds out the "girl" he just had sex with is actually a man....
*with the exceptions of child adoption Except the person was actually a girl, not a man. A trans woman is a woman. Technically, a trans woman is a man who has had surgery to alter the appearance/function of his sexual organs. At the chromosome level, there is nothing we can do to change an X to a Y or a Y to an X. So while a trans woman might feel like a woman and associate with being a woman, she is still biologically different from a "real" woman (someone born a woman) even post-op. These are just scientific facts. I'm not saying that it's good or bad or making any other opinion on the matter. No, these aren't facts. A fact is that as it turns out chromosomes don't define gender and some men and some women don't share the same chromosomes as others of their gender. A trans woman is a woman who may or may not have had surgery to correct a body issue she was born with. This "it's just science" crap is used by bigots and by people who don't realise they're supporting them. It's not the reason people define trans women as men, or vica versa, it's a post hoc bastardisation of science which draws a conclusion which science clearly can not show - as we have men and women with chromosomes that differ from the norm - which is used to say trans people aren't *real* men and women. It's segregationism hiding behind scientific jargon. though you say trans women and women are the same thing the fact is that they are not. One had their body operated to be the way it is and the other was born with it. This is the problem with any kind of debate on sexism/racism etc. People always claim that everyone is the same, black = white, trans = cis etc. Its not true. there are differences and pretending they dont exist is plain stupid. How people cant even fathom the idea that it can be disturbing to someone else that their sex partner once had a the body of a man is beyond me. Even outside of gender reassignment most of us owe the bodies we have to surgery in some form or another. Were you circumcised? Had your appendix removed? Your tonsils removed? Operating on a body doesn't fundamentally change a person. You can scream difference all you want but finding meaningful differences will be a challenging task. And it's weird that you would be disturbed by their previous body because that body doesn't exist anymore. The body they have now is their body. You're scared of a shadow. I wouldn't want to have sex with a transsexual because I prefer non-artificial genitalia in my partners. I don't care much for clit/labia piercings either, but full-on transsexualism isn't physically appealing to me for similar reasons; I just don't really find artificial/not fully functional genitalia to be attractive. For me, it's kinda a deal-breaker, but I can't really help what I like sexually, can I? That aside, I'm rather skeptical of whether gender has a coherent definition, because I've never been able to locate one that isn't ultimately circular. I mean, I know that transgender people are legitimate, and I'm not trying to undermine that, but I don't "identify" as being a male in some way that extends beyond my penis and basic anatomy, so I can't really imagine what people mean by gender as an abstract concept.
You can justify your preference any way you want. I'm just explaining to you that "surgery" isn't really a good way to differentiate bodies since everyone has probably had it and that being weirded out by this theoretical body is rather irrational.
You act like there aren't varying degrees of surgery. I don't want to marry someone who has slept with 100000 men; that doesn't mean I have a problem with them sleeping with people in general (i.e. if they slept with one person). The genitalia aren't plastic. Technically they're artificial but they're still functional flesh that appears no different than naturally developed genitalia. And don't use ludicrous examples. You don't want to have sex with a woman who's had 10,000 partners because of the behavior that implies, the risk it poses to you for STD's, and the fact that her vagina probably just doesn't feel good with that much constant use. There are consequences of her sleeping around that much and things you can actually identify you don't like. There aren't any consequences to sex inherent in being trans and other than the fact that they are trans...you can't identify anything you don't like. That's what I don't buy. For every preference people can list reasons. But in this thread the "non trans" preference is justified with "just because ok!!" and that's why I'm not taking it seriously as a preference. I don't buy it when Reason says it, and I don't buy it when you say it.
Hmm hard to explain but i try to bring up an example:
I m a huge natural breast fetishist, i only like huge natural breasts, and i really DISLIKE fake breasts. If a girl has fake breasts she is not sexually attractive to me in any way.
If i see a non nude picture of a nice girl with huge breasts (like big cleavage and stuff) i wont fap to it since it is not "safe". Means: if i cannot tell if the breasts are fake or real (sometimes it is really hard to spot fake breasts in clothing). It doesnt change the picture or anything but i just do not like fapping to possible fake breasts even if i cant tell if they are fake or not.
There are also examples of really well done boobjobs where it is really really hard to see if they are fake or not when nude, if some criterias are met, for example: Pretty large saggy breasts to begin with, a special surgery method and weight gain.
Once i found out that a porn actress had fake breasts (when she lost a lot of weight and was laying on her back you could see the implant ripple) i instantly deleted all the stuff i had of her from my harddrive.
It doesnt matter if i initially thought they were real (they looked very very real and some natural big boob sites had her listed as "natural" you could trust 99,9% of the time), once i found out i deleted all the stuff.
It sounds fucking stupid but that is the way i think. This example could fit the "i wont have sex with a trasnwomen".
It doesnt mean you see them as a lesser women (i also dont see women with fake breasts as lesser women i just do not like it).
|
On July 31 2013 08:53 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 08:51 Roe wrote:On July 31 2013 08:44 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:37 jinorazi wrote:On July 31 2013 08:33 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 08:16 Shiori wrote:On July 31 2013 04:46 Klondikebar wrote:On July 31 2013 04:43 mustache wrote:On July 31 2013 04:35 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 31 2013 04:28 DinoMight wrote:
[quote]
Technically, a trans woman is a man who has had surgery to alter the appearance/function of his sexual organs. At the chromosome level, there is nothing we can do to change an X to a Y or a Y to an X.
So while a trans woman might feel like a woman and associate with being a woman, she is still biologically different from a "real" woman (someone born a woman) even post-op.
These are just scientific facts. I'm not saying that it's good or bad or making any other opinion on the matter. No, these aren't facts. A fact is that as it turns out chromosomes don't define gender and some men and some women don't share the same chromosomes as others of their gender. A trans woman is a woman who may or may not have had surgery to correct a body issue she was born with. This "it's just science" crap is used by bigots and by people who don't realise they're supporting them. It's not the reason people define trans women as men, or vica versa, it's a post hoc bastardisation of science which draws a conclusion which science clearly can not show - as we have men and women with chromosomes that differ from the norm - which is used to say trans people aren't *real* men and women. It's segregationism hiding behind scientific jargon. though you say trans women and women are the same thing the fact is that they are not. One had their body operated to be the way it is and the other was born with it. This is the problem with any kind of debate on sexism/racism etc. People always claim that everyone is the same, black = white, trans = cis etc. Its not true. there are differences and pretending they dont exist is plain stupid. How people cant even fathom the idea that it can be disturbing to someone else that their sex partner once had a the body of a man is beyond me. Even outside of gender reassignment most of us owe the bodies we have to surgery in some form or another. Were you circumcised? Had your appendix removed? Your tonsils removed? Operating on a body doesn't fundamentally change a person. You can scream difference all you want but finding meaningful differences will be a challenging task. And it's weird that you would be disturbed by their previous body because that body doesn't exist anymore. The body they have now is their body. You're scared of a shadow. I wouldn't want to have sex with a transsexual because I prefer non-artificial genitalia in my partners. I don't care much for clit/labia piercings either, but full-on transsexualism isn't physically appealing to me for similar reasons; I just don't really find artificial/not fully functional genitalia to be attractive. For me, it's kinda a deal-breaker, but I can't really help what I like sexually, can I? That aside, I'm rather skeptical of whether gender has a coherent definition, because I've never been able to locate one that isn't ultimately circular. I mean, I know that transgender people are legitimate, and I'm not trying to undermine that, but I don't "identify" as being a male in some way that extends beyond my penis and basic anatomy, so I can't really imagine what people mean by gender as an abstract concept.
You can justify your preference any way you want. I'm just explaining to you that "surgery" isn't really a good way to differentiate bodies since everyone has probably had it and that being weirded out by this theoretical body is rather irrational.
You act like there aren't varying degrees of surgery. I don't want to marry someone who has slept with 100000 men; that doesn't mean I have a problem with them sleeping with people in general (i.e. if they slept with one person). The genitalia aren't plastic. Technically they're artificial but they're still functional flesh that appears no different than naturally developed genitalia. And don't use ludicrous examples. You don't want to have sex with a woman who's had 10,000 partners because of the behavior that implies, the risk it poses to you for STD's, and the fact that her vagina probably just doesn't feel good with that much constant use. There are consequences of her sleeping around that much and things you can actually identify you don't like. There aren't any consequences to sex inherent in being trans and other than the fact that they are trans...you can't identify anything you don't like. That's what I don't buy. For every preference people can list reasons. But in this thread the "non trans" preference is justified with "just because ok!!" and that's why I'm not taking it seriously as a preference. I don't buy it when Reason says it, and I don't buy it when you say it. isnt that like if i buy a rolex and later i found out that its fake, but i paid for real price...then you telling me, it looks the same, feels the same, works the same so why care? many guys will fuck anything with tits and a hole, close your eyes and all mouths are the same, blah blah but shit...no, dude, no. Except fake Rolex's don't work nearly as well as the real thing. They don't keep time as well, they're made of much flimsier materials, and they don't look as good or feel as comfortable on the wrist. Trans women aren't fake women dude. And to answer Roe's question...yeah, I can. I Like strong jaws cause I think they look pretty, well groomed body hair and scruff because I like the texture, cut dick because I think it looks better. I can give you reasons for all of my preferences because I can both define a difference and tell you why that difference matters to me. And another thing to note is that none of my preferences are exclusive. Just because I like body hair doesn't mean I refuse to sleep with guys who have none. They are just that a preference, not a requirement. But the same can be said of Shiori: He likes certain things because he likes them. How are his preferences any different? He likes 'real' genitalia because he finds it pretty, and such. Because those differences don't actually exist. Unless he's a cosmetic surgeon, he can't look at a vagina and tell you whether it's natural or not. He has no way of knowing which is "prettier." And I kinda feel like the "feels better" reason is a little after the fact cause in order to know that you've already stuck your dick in it...clearly everything else was ok for you. I can look at a man's chest and see if there's hair there.
Hmm are you sure about all that being true? :p I feel like this isn't going anywhere so I'll leave it at that.
|
Thing is, our whole culture is transphobic. It almost seems like the default point of view of most people is being transphobic.
I even had some internalized transphobia before coming out to myself.
You might have some internalized transphobia that make you say that you prefer cis women, like most people really. That's not really important, because you are clearly not a bigot and you seem open minded.
So really, I guess if I had the choice too between 2 girls, one cis and one trans, I would most likely chose the cis one, even though I am trans. But it's just hypothetical, in the real world, love is not really choice and if I happen to meet a trans girl that I like and find attractive, I would most likely fall in love with her without any issue.
|
On July 31 2013 09:22 Reason wrote:Klondikebar pay attention for the love of God.... Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 07:37 Reason wrote:
When I find out that the person is trans I might even still have sex with this person, I don't know as I've never been faced with this situation and I'm certainly not repulsed by trans people nor am I a transphobe, I simply have the preference that they not be trans. Faced with the choice, I'd prefer not trans to trans. Also, in the very post that you just quoted: Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 09:17 Reason wrote:
I know you weren't calling me a transphobe, but Klondikebar is. He's also failed to ignore the fact that I didn't say my preference was exclusive and I've explicitly stated it wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker. You're not even responding to what I'm saying anymore. You're arguing with a work of fiction that is your own creation. Goodnight everyone =/
Pay attention to what? You said those in response to a completely different train of thought. I didn't read those posts. If it's not an exclusive preference I'll drop the transphobia accusation.
|
There was always a reason why I gave up talking about transgender/transsexual rights and issues with people who have incredibly shallow views on sexuality.
|
On July 31 2013 09:38 Shodaa wrote:
Thing is, our whole culture is transphobic. It almost seems like the default point of view of most people is being transphobic.
I even had some internalized transphobia before coming out to myself.
You might have some internalized transphobia that make you say that you prefer cis women, like most people really. That's not really important, because you are clearly not a bigot and you seem open minded.
So really, I guess if I had the choice too between 2 girls, one cis and one trans, I would most likely chose the cis one, even though I am trans. But it's just hypothetical, in the real world, love is not really choice and if I happen to meet a trans girl that I like and find attractive, I would most likely fall in love with her without any issue.
wouldn't that point to some biological rather than social reason?
|
On July 31 2013 11:26 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 09:38 Shodaa wrote:
Thing is, our whole culture is transphobic. It almost seems like the default point of view of most people is being transphobic.
I even had some internalized transphobia before coming out to myself.
You might have some internalized transphobia that make you say that you prefer cis women, like most people really. That's not really important, because you are clearly not a bigot and you seem open minded.
So really, I guess if I had the choice too between 2 girls, one cis and one trans, I would most likely chose the cis one, even though I am trans. But it's just hypothetical, in the real world, love is not really choice and if I happen to meet a trans girl that I like and find attractive, I would most likely fall in love with her without any issue. wouldn't that point to some biological rather than social reason?
In our culture it's more ingrained, but there's more. In some ways there really is reason to want a cis woman over a trans woman, if all else held equal: (chance for?) biological children in a M/F pairing; part alignment depending on surgical status (important to some people) for sex; social stigma in certain regions. Throw that into the fact that many trans people are pretty fucked up from dealing with gender dysphoria, and in many cases being disowned from their loved ones etc.
I'm trans myself, something I don't really hide but don't exactly promote in my personal life, but I'm not entirely sure I'd date someone trans on much of a whim myself. The amount of support and stuff I lean on my boyfriend for about all sorts of stuff... It's probably pretty taxing, and I think I handle a lot of the social stress and stuff a fair bit above average.
But meh, at the end of the day you can't choose who you fall in love with.
edit; would be nice to have equal rights in the U.S. though. I'd like that. I'm pretty sure I pay taxes just like everyone else.
|
On July 30 2013 07:10 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2013 06:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 30 2013 04:01 KwarK wrote:On July 30 2013 03:59 radscorpion9 wrote:I'm really curious as to whether the church will ever fully support gays in spite of what is written in the bible. Will they eventually just gloss over what was written and focus more heavily on what Jesus said in context "X"? They already seem to be ignoring the old testament, but it would be interesting to see them take it a step further. It will be funny then to inquire what their religion really is, except a string of their own personal interpretations and not the word of God  . I don't want to start a religious debate, but I think the future of the church in the light of progressive secular humanist values is really fascinating. Jesus never condemned gays, he was actually pretty good about not condemning people. No further steps are needed for Catholics to stop hating gays, in fact, not hating people is pretty much the core message of Jesus. Jesus did say that homosexual sex is a sin. This is inarguable. Actually, it's totally arguable since Jesus literally did not say that at all: "He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” This is in response to the question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” Interpreting this as an implicit condemnation of homosexuality is interesting to me in a lot of ways, because you are twisting an answer to a specific kind of question and trying to make a universal out of it. No shit someone is going to reply to a question about men divorcing women by talking about marriage between men and women. Interpreting it as saying anything about homosexuality is like saying that, when Jesus says “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs” he's actually saying that nobody other than that particular group of first-century Jewish children is able to "own" the kingdom of heaven.
Well, I would definitely say that those are obviously two different things:
"for it is SUCH AS THESE" cannot possibly be interpreted as saying: "Only these and no others". Now, if we were to take his words as they were spoken in that case, we learn that only to those who ARE LIKE children, approaching God with innocent faith and purity, does the kingdom of heaven belong.
Are we really to suppose that Jesus forbid casting the first stone against ONLY that prostitute? He was speaking of a specific woman, for a specific crime. Or when he says "forgive your brother." does he ONLY mean your male sibling? It is foolish to think that when Jesus gave an instruction that he was only giving specific instructions that can only mean one thing or be taken one way. When Jesus defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and forbids sexual activity (and even sexual thinking) outside of that marriage, who are we to quibble over what precise sexual activity he actually meant?
Like, that'd be ridiculous, because it'd totally invalidate the notion that Jesus was a human being who existed in a particular historical context (which is integral to his resurrection being important). Jesus was a Jewish man living in the first century. He was not immediately aware of every philosophical conundrum that would ever be invented, no more than he was aware of quantum mechanics.
He was God. Do you really believe that the son of God, the divine presence himself, the King of Heaven, the only being who knows the Father, who existed before Moses and Abraham... didn't know about quantum mechanics? That he was incapable of understanding any possible philosophy that you or I or anyone else could ever come up with? He conquered death with a word. I think philosophical conundrums wouldn't even register to him. Was he ever confounded, by anything? There is no such thing as a conundrum with Christ. You should go look up Bishop Fulton Sheen's lecture on Kenosis. Jesus was man, sure, but he was also Divine. Intellectually, we would be fleas to him.
Now, believing that homosexual sex is a sin and that homosexual marriage is a sinful practice is not "hating" gays.
I agree. It's hating God for being such a total imbecile that God would deign it reasonable to create a large group of mentally stable adults that have sexual orientations identical to those possessed by everyone else (just differing in terms of target) and then saying "you know what, I've arbitrarily decide that this completely unchangeable, totally natural and healthy sexual orientation, which informs the identities of all these people, is basically useless, and that trying to participate in it is necessarily sinful.[/quote]
He created sociopaths. He created psychopaths. He created imbeciles. God has no problem creating a person with a problem and still expecting them to follow the rules. Obviously homosexuality does not imply sociopathy, psychopathy, or imbecility, that's not the point so please don't cry about equivocation when I'm not making one. The point is that when you are complaining to the God who sent His only son to suffer and die on a cross, you need to check yourself and your pride. God will give us challenges, sure. But to expect that because one is challenged that suddenly the rules don't apply is ridiculous and has no Scriptural basis whatsoever.
Asking gay people to deny this (universally) when it is functionally equivalent to heterosexuality (in the sense that a homosexual man is somewhat like a heterosexual woman in terms of orientation) for no other reason than that "God said so" is absolutely and completely absurd.
Do you honestly need any other reason than "God says so?" If you do, I suggest you practice humility.
The Catholic Church does not teach that gays should be hated. In fact, they teach the opposite. Homosexuals should be loved just like any other sinner (we are all sinners).
Okay, but I'm pretty sure the Catholic Church doesn't demand that, say, all men become priests and swear oaths of celibacy, because it recognizes that the denial of sexuality isn't something that all people are able (or willing) to do healthily. On the other hand, the CC asserts that homosexuals are universally called to be celibate, notwithstanding the fact that the same reasons we don't force straight people to be celibate (i.e. that it's pretty much impossible and that coercing someone to mute harmless sexual intercourse with consenting adults has negative effects on their mental health in the best of cases) all apply to homosexuals.
[/QUOTE]
The Catholic Church does say that all sexuality outside of marriage is unacceptable and is sinful. Marriage cannot occur unless it is between a man and a woman. Arguing otherwise has no basis in Scripture, has no basis in faith, and has no basis in God. It is putting a secular opinion before the commandment of God. Now, God forgives, and loves. He died for the sinners. But don't go to Him complaining that His words are unfair because where in the world did you get the idea that God was ever fair?
|
I must have missed the Sermon on Sexual Relations Jesus gave to his followers/disciples...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
