|
On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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. 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).
You guys should really listen to yourselves talk, its quite unbelievable. Look, get off your liberal I love everything horses, yes you have transphobic attitudes. You don't see them as women. You first say "I like real breasts, not fake ones" and then go on to claim that you see transwoman as equals with woman, yet you clearly think they are fake woman or else you wouldn't have compared them to fake breasts. Read what you are freaking writing. Don't worry, once the gay marriage debate dies down everyone will jump on transpeople and you will feel at home with all the others that "just aren't into trans woman but are totally down with their cause" and it will cause trans woman immense pain, but w.e hopefully enough guys are not like you.
All of this goes for trans men as well.
|
On July 31 2013 09:35 Roe 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. 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.
There are differences, but none that you can identify. What differences do you think you would be able to identify?
|
On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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. 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).
...i think you should have realized that comparing the a person's decision or realization that they are transgendered to the decision to get breast implants is just really, really bad.
but i am actually wondering where kwark got the info that the gospels were written down third-hand etc.
|
On July 31 2013 13:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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: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). ...i think you should have realized that comparing the a person's decision or realization that they are transgendered to the decision to get breast implants is just really, really bad. but i am actually wondering where kwark got the info that the gospels were written down third-hand etc.
If I'm not mistaken, the Gospels were dictated and recorded. Depending how you want to look at that, it's second or third hand accounts. Regardless, the mentions of homosexuality and promiscuity don't come along until Paul's letters, so the argument that "Jesus condemned homosexuality" is moot/wrong.
|
On July 31 2013 12:35 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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: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). You guys should really listen to yourselves talk, its quite unbelievable. Look, get off your liberal I love everything horses, yes you have transphobic attitudes. You don't see them as women. You first say "I like real breasts, not fake ones" and then go on to claim that you see transwoman as equals with woman, yet you clearly think they are fake woman or else you wouldn't have compared them to fake breasts. Read what you are freaking writing. Don't worry, once the gay marriage debate dies down everyone will jump on transpeople and you will feel at home with all the others that "just aren't into trans woman but are totally down with their cause" and it will cause trans woman immense pain, but w.e hopefully enough guys are not like you. All of this goes for trans men as well.
On July 31 2013 13:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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: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). ...i think you should have realized that comparing the a person's decision or realization that they are transgendered to the decision to get breast implants is just really, really bad. but i am actually wondering where kwark got the info that the gospels were written down third-hand etc.
Maybe both of you should READ what i said instead of making stuff up i never wrote.
I made an ANALOGY i didnt say transwomen = fake breasts.
I said that i do not like fake breasts no matter if they look real or not, that wasnt a reference to transwomen but a reference that the MIND is also factor in sexuality. That is why i brought up an example that wasnt related to transwomen (at least i thought so) but to preferences in real women where the MIND plays an important role.
So to make it clear: It was an analogy to explain preferences arent always logic and they dont have to be logic. So i brought up an example to show (at least from my point of view) this which wasnt specifically related to transwomen.
It is not "logic" to fap to a women with fake breasts (where you dont know they are fake) and then delete all the stuff once you found out that she has fake breasts. I m not transphobic if i do that since the women were not trans in the first place.
The difference is that i now know she has fake breasts and the fantasy is destroyed.
I wanted to show that "fantasy" and the "mind" also plays a role in sexuality.
I wonder who are you to tell other people what they should like or not? It is not your fantasy and it is not your loss.
If somebody likes the colour green and not red then there is no fucking explanation needed. Tolerance means that you accept something, it doesnt mean you have to like it, or embrace it or be positive about it. It just means you ACCEPT it.
On the other hand it is highly intolerant if you call another person "xy-phobic" if they dont share the same point of view about what is sexy and what is not. If somebody doesnt want to have sex with transwomen then it is their business not yours. And it doesnt mean you can insult them with "transphobic". It just shows that you arent any better than other people you criticize.
|
On July 31 2013 13:24 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 12:35 Smat wrote:On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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. 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). You guys should really listen to yourselves talk, its quite unbelievable. Look, get off your liberal I love everything horses, yes you have transphobic attitudes. You don't see them as women. You first say "I like real breasts, not fake ones" and then go on to claim that you see transwoman as equals with woman, yet you clearly think they are fake woman or else you wouldn't have compared them to fake breasts. Read what you are freaking writing. Don't worry, once the gay marriage debate dies down everyone will jump on transpeople and you will feel at home with all the others that "just aren't into trans woman but are totally down with their cause" and it will cause trans woman immense pain, but w.e hopefully enough guys are not like you. All of this goes for trans men as well. Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 13:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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. 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). ...i think you should have realized that comparing the a person's decision or realization that they are transgendered to the decision to get breast implants is just really, really bad. but i am actually wondering where kwark got the info that the gospels were written down third-hand etc. Maybe both of you should READ what i said instead of making stuff up i never wrote. I made an ANALOGY i didnt say transwomen = fake breasts. I said that i do not like fake breasts no matter if they look real or not, that wasnt a reference to transwomen but a reference that the MIND is also factor in sexuality. That is why i brought up an example that wasnt related to transwomen (at least i thought so) but to preferences in real women where the MIND plays an important role. So to make it clear: It was an analogy to explain preferences arent always logic and they dont have to be logic. So i brought up an example to show (at least from my point of view) this which wasnt specifically related to transwomen. It is not "logic" to fap to a women with fake breasts (where you dont know they are fake) and then delete all the stuff once you found out that she has fake breasts. I m not transphobic if i do that since the women were not trans in the first place. The difference is that i now know she has fake breasts and the fantasy is destroyed. I wanted to show that "fantasy" and the "mind" also plays a role in sexuality. I wonder who are you to tell other people what they should like or not? It is not your fantasy and it is not your loss. If somebody likes the colour green and not red then there is no fucking explanation needed. Tolerance means that you accept something, it doesnt mean you have to like it, or embrace it or be positive about it. It just means you ACCEPT it. On the other hand it is highly intolerant if you call another person "xy-phobic" if they dont share the same point of view about what is sexy and what is not. If somebody doesnt want to have sex with transwomen then it is their business not yours. And it doesnt mean you can insult them with "transphobic". It just shows that you arent any better than other people you criticize.
Are you saying that if you dated a woman who you believed to have real breasts and then found out she had fake ones you wouldn't be able to find her attractive? That's really fucking weird. Your analogy is very close to the often used pedophilia/gay analogy where the homophobe claims over and over again that he isnt equating being gay with crimes and sick behavior he just happened to use it as analogy. Its a very very bad analogy and frankly its offensive.
|
|
|
On July 31 2013 15:34 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 13:24 Sokrates wrote:On July 31 2013 12:35 Smat wrote:On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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. 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). You guys should really listen to yourselves talk, its quite unbelievable. Look, get off your liberal I love everything horses, yes you have transphobic attitudes. You don't see them as women. You first say "I like real breasts, not fake ones" and then go on to claim that you see transwoman as equals with woman, yet you clearly think they are fake woman or else you wouldn't have compared them to fake breasts. Read what you are freaking writing. Don't worry, once the gay marriage debate dies down everyone will jump on transpeople and you will feel at home with all the others that "just aren't into trans woman but are totally down with their cause" and it will cause trans woman immense pain, but w.e hopefully enough guys are not like you. All of this goes for trans men as well. On July 31 2013 13:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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. 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). ...i think you should have realized that comparing the a person's decision or realization that they are transgendered to the decision to get breast implants is just really, really bad. but i am actually wondering where kwark got the info that the gospels were written down third-hand etc. Maybe both of you should READ what i said instead of making stuff up i never wrote. I made an ANALOGY i didnt say transwomen = fake breasts. I said that i do not like fake breasts no matter if they look real or not, that wasnt a reference to transwomen but a reference that the MIND is also factor in sexuality. That is why i brought up an example that wasnt related to transwomen (at least i thought so) but to preferences in real women where the MIND plays an important role. So to make it clear: It was an analogy to explain preferences arent always logic and they dont have to be logic. So i brought up an example to show (at least from my point of view) this which wasnt specifically related to transwomen. It is not "logic" to fap to a women with fake breasts (where you dont know they are fake) and then delete all the stuff once you found out that she has fake breasts. I m not transphobic if i do that since the women were not trans in the first place. The difference is that i now know she has fake breasts and the fantasy is destroyed. I wanted to show that "fantasy" and the "mind" also plays a role in sexuality. I wonder who are you to tell other people what they should like or not? It is not your fantasy and it is not your loss. If somebody likes the colour green and not red then there is no fucking explanation needed. Tolerance means that you accept something, it doesnt mean you have to like it, or embrace it or be positive about it. It just means you ACCEPT it. On the other hand it is highly intolerant if you call another person "xy-phobic" if they dont share the same point of view about what is sexy and what is not. If somebody doesnt want to have sex with transwomen then it is their business not yours. And it doesnt mean you can insult them with "transphobic". It just shows that you arent any better than other people you criticize. Are you saying that if you dated a woman who you believed to have real breasts and then found out she had fake ones you wouldn't be able to find her attractive? That's really fucking weird. Your analogy is very close to the often used pedophilia/gay analogy where the homophobe claims over and over again that he isnt equating being gay with crimes and sick behavior he just happened to use it as analogy. Its a very very bad analogy and frankly its offensive.
1.Yes i wouldnt find that attractive. Where is your problem?
2.Explain to me how this analogy fits to the gay/pedophilia thing?
Your comparison is so wrong on so many levels.
a)i m not trying to take away anyones rights or hinder/be against them in having equal rights (because people with the gay/pedophilia analogy do that to make a point).
b)you are again mixing this stuff up. I m not trying to say what YOU have to find attractive or not, instead you are trying to tell me what i have to find attractive or not. So you take offense in what i like or dislike, that is really weird.
If i like green and you like red, you are offended? Logic at its finest.
|
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. Sorry for giving you a hard time. Didn't mean to sound like a smartass, but apologies anyways. 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.
Well, of course they are. From evolutionary point of view, attraction is largely based on fertility (and genetic diversity), so a woman having had a sex-change is a pretty major turn off on a very fundamental, biological, level. What you said is akin to saying that you're not attracted to fat women is degrading to fat women. No, it's not, and if someone is offended by the fact that they might not be attractive to someone else, they should grow up.
On July 31 2013 08:42 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +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: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. 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? It is mostly considered common sense to tell your partner your trans status before committing to a relationship for various reasons.And trans person aren't fake either, neither is their genital. A better analogy would be paying for a certain model of Rolex but then finding out you have a different model.
And that's why Klondikebar's whole reasoning is moot. He made a premise that Reason's preference of non-trans women is senseless because he couldn't tell the difference, but it's actually expected to of trans people to tell their potential partners about their condition.
On July 31 2013 13:18 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 13:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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. 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). ...i think you should have realized that comparing the a person's decision or realization that they are transgendered to the decision to get breast implants is just really, really bad. but i am actually wondering where kwark got the info that the gospels were written down third-hand etc. If I'm not mistaken, the Gospels were dictated and recorded. Depending how you want to look at that, it's second or third hand accounts. Regardless, the mentions of homosexuality and promiscuity don't come along until Paul's letters, so the argument that "Jesus condemned homosexuality" is moot/wrong.
This is blatantly wrong. Jesus condemned any sexual activity outside of marriage, even freaking dirty thoughts (he said that "If your right eye causes you to sin, poke it out and throw it away. Your eye is only one part of your body. It is better to lose it than for your whole body to be thrown into hell" when discussing looking lustfully on a woman), and defined marriage as between a man and a woman. You may disagree with it, but there's no way you can twist it to mean something else. That would be intelectually dishonest.
|
On July 31 2013 13:24 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 12:35 Smat wrote:On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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. 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). You guys should really listen to yourselves talk, its quite unbelievable. Look, get off your liberal I love everything horses, yes you have transphobic attitudes. You don't see them as women. You first say "I like real breasts, not fake ones" and then go on to claim that you see transwoman as equals with woman, yet you clearly think they are fake woman or else you wouldn't have compared them to fake breasts. Read what you are freaking writing. Don't worry, once the gay marriage debate dies down everyone will jump on transpeople and you will feel at home with all the others that "just aren't into trans woman but are totally down with their cause" and it will cause trans woman immense pain, but w.e hopefully enough guys are not like you. All of this goes for trans men as well. Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 13:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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. 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). ...i think you should have realized that comparing the a person's decision or realization that they are transgendered to the decision to get breast implants is just really, really bad. but i am actually wondering where kwark got the info that the gospels were written down third-hand etc. Maybe both of you should READ what i said instead of making stuff up i never wrote. I made an ANALOGY i didnt say transwomen = fake breasts. I said that i do not like fake breasts no matter if they look real or not, that wasnt a reference to transwomen but a reference that the MIND is also factor in sexuality. That is why i brought up an example that wasnt related to transwomen (at least i thought so) but to preferences in real women where the MIND plays an important role. So to make it clear: It was an analogy to explain preferences arent always logic and they dont have to be logic. So i brought up an example to show (at least from my point of view) this which wasnt specifically related to transwomen. It is not "logic" to fap to a women with fake breasts (where you dont know they are fake) and then delete all the stuff once you found out that she has fake breasts. I m not transphobic if i do that since the women were not trans in the first place. The difference is that i now know she has fake breasts and the fantasy is destroyed. I wanted to show that "fantasy" and the "mind" also plays a role in sexuality. I wonder who are you to tell other people what they should like or not? It is not your fantasy and it is not your loss. If somebody likes the colour green and not red then there is no fucking explanation needed. Tolerance means that you accept something, it doesnt mean you have to like it, or embrace it or be positive about it. It just means you ACCEPT it. On the other hand it is highly intolerant if you call another person "xy-phobic" if they dont share the same point of view about what is sexy and what is not. If somebody doesnt want to have sex with transwomen then it is their business not yours. And it doesnt mean you can insult them with "transphobic". It just shows that you arent any better than other people you criticize.
If you're trying to prove you're not transphobic, don't say stuff like "real women" please. With your analogy you're literally saying cis women are better because they are real. I get that feeling too with your color example; red being women, and trans women being not red. Of course it's not 100% the same (no reproduction, menstruation, etc), but at least you could have implied trans woman were a (slightly) different shade of red instead of green. I may be putting a bit of word into your month, but you do seem to imply trans woman are either not women or different from cis women.
Nobody is telling who to love or what, but the truth is you most likely already fapped or fantasized about a trans girl without knowing it. If knowing after that this person was trans make you feels repulsed, then yes this is transphobia (or homophobia). I'm not saying you're bigot or anything, but like most people you most likely have some internalized transphobia.
It has nothing to do with sexyness or fantasy. Both cis and trans woman have the potential to be attractive.
|
Sry for the real women thing, didnt sleep the whole night and i m still awake.
This fake boobs vs real boob thing had nothing to do with trans women in particular. For me 80% of all women are not attractive because of my fetish, doesnt matter if cis or trans women.
Like i said i made this analogy not to say trans women are different to cis women in attractiveness(that is why i brought up the fake breast thing with cis women) but to show that sometimes it is not just about "attractiveness" but also about the mind and fantasy.
And no i never fapped to a transwomen because this fakeboob thing only happened once to me, and i always do my research (to be on the save side) if the breasts are real or not before i fap. Like i said you have to meet a lot of criterias to make a breast appear natural (means large, saggy breasts to begin with and a special operation technique + special implant).
And if she was trans than this doesnt worry me, the only thing that worries me is if the breasts are real or not. And i m not repulsed, that is such a strong word, i just dont like it.
And i dont do this research because i m afraid of transwomen but because i m afraid of implants. This stuff didnt even come to my mind before i read this topic lol, mb thats why i thought this analogy is fitting and couldnt be missunderstood.
|
United States41964 Posts
On July 31 2013 13:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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: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). ...i think you should have realized that comparing the a person's decision or realization that they are transgendered to the decision to get breast implants is just really, really bad. but i am actually wondering where kwark got the info that the gospels were written down third-hand etc.
They were written a full generation after the death of Christ. They may have spoken to people who were there or had the facts accurately carried to them through the collective teachings of the early Church but it's unlikely given life expectancy and the dating that these people were reporting on things they had witnessed. This isn't me Christian bashing, this is me attempting to recall parts of a religious philosophy course I did at school 9 years ago covering shit like the author of Acts, dating Acts and the gospels and so forth. Given Jesus died in his early 30s and a tentative dating for the gospels in the 50s and 60s (Luke can't be 70s because Titus hasn't destroyed Jerusalem yet but Nero is mentioned which places it post 60, John came after Luke, Mark was likely a source for Luke so maybe 50s for that, Matthew mentioned as being early but no evidence) we have people who saw Jesus as children being beyond the life expectancy at the time of authorship. I don't doubt that they recorded what people told them and the traditions of the Church diligently but it is very, very unlikely that they were recording things they saw with their own eyes. Luke, Acts and John definitely were not, Luke is sourced heavily on Mark and the dates simply don't work for John.
|
On July 31 2013 18:56 Sokrates wrote:
Sry for the real women thing, didnt sleep the whole night and i m still awake.
This fake boobs vs real boob thing had nothing to do with trans women in particular. For me 80% of all women are not attractive because of my fetish, doesnt matter if cis or trans women.
Like i said i made this analogy not to say trans women are different to cis women in attractiveness(that is why i brought up the fake breast thing with cis women) but to show that sometimes it is not just about "attractiveness" but also about the mind and fantasy.
And no i never fapped to a transwomen because this fakeboob thing only happened once to me, and i always do my research (to be on the save side) if the breasts are real or not before i fap. Like i said you have to meet a lot of criterias to make a breast appear natural (means large, saggy breasts to begin with and a special operation technique + special implant).
And if she was trans than this doesnt worry me, the only thing that worries me is if the breasts are real or not. And i m not repulsed, that is such a strong word, i just dont like it.
And i dont do this research because i m afraid of transwomen but because i m afraid of implants. This stuff didnt even come to my mind before i read this topic lol, mb thats why i thought this analogy is fitting and couldnt be missunderstood.
Oh ok, wasn't aware your fetish was this strong lol.
Fantasy/preference/attraction stills come from somewhere. I don't believe they are fully innate because of cultural diversity.
But I guess what I'm trying to say is that a lot of people can interpret their transphobic feeling/behavior/though as being normal, or just what they believe, while in fact I think they were just really influenced by our culture and society.
|
On July 31 2013 19:21 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 18:56 Sokrates wrote:
Sry for the real women thing, didnt sleep the whole night and i m still awake.
This fake boobs vs real boob thing had nothing to do with trans women in particular. For me 80% of all women are not attractive because of my fetish, doesnt matter if cis or trans women.
Like i said i made this analogy not to say trans women are different to cis women in attractiveness(that is why i brought up the fake breast thing with cis women) but to show that sometimes it is not just about "attractiveness" but also about the mind and fantasy.
And no i never fapped to a transwomen because this fakeboob thing only happened once to me, and i always do my research (to be on the save side) if the breasts are real or not before i fap. Like i said you have to meet a lot of criterias to make a breast appear natural (means large, saggy breasts to begin with and a special operation technique + special implant).
And if she was trans than this doesnt worry me, the only thing that worries me is if the breasts are real or not. And i m not repulsed, that is such a strong word, i just dont like it.
And i dont do this research because i m afraid of transwomen but because i m afraid of implants. This stuff didnt even come to my mind before i read this topic lol, mb thats why i thought this analogy is fitting and couldnt be missunderstood.
Oh ok, wasn't aware your fetish was this strong lol. Fantasy/preference/attraction stills come from somewhere. I don't believe they are fully innate because of cultural diversity. But I guess what I'm trying to say is that a lot of people can interpret their transphobic feeling/behavior/though as being normal, or just what they believe, while in fact I think they were just really influenced by our culture and society.
Hmm i agree to a certain extend. But it is a bit vague.
Hard to find the right words here but i ll try to explain my point:
I think it is innate to like certain trades in men and women (for example hourglass form for women and V-shape for men, facial symmetry etc. etc.) for the _general_ population (statistically speaking). And there are also specific personal preferences that are innate for example colour of the hair, certain body type etc.
I do not think it is innate or just to a small extend to not like (in a sexual way) trans women if they have the same traits/looks as a cis women . I think that could be culture and society (but i m not so sure about that it is hard to describe it).
I dont think it matters if the women is able to reproduce or menstruate if you want to have just sex.
BUT i do not like the word xy-phobic regarding that specific topic because that means a strong dislike or hate against a certain group. It isnt something that you can change, i dont think it is possible (at least for most people) to enjoy it all of a sudden if they would feel bad about it before or if somebody tells them they are "xy-phobic" and now all of a sudden they are enlightened.
What you can change is being less of an asshole towards a person if she/he belongs to a certain group. That doesnt imply you have to have sex with the person. It just means you treat them with respect like anybody else.
And it certainly doesnt help if somebody is insulting someone (this works both ways).
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
To start off, just reposting this because I liked it:
On July 31 2013 06:20 Iyerbeth wrote:
Edit: Actually, my first line of this wasn't necessary. Sorry to the person in question.
For those who might wonder about the definition of gender and sex, I'd like to present an example.
Imagine I clone a body without a brain. That body might be male or female, but it is neither a man nor a woman, it is a body. When I insert a brain in that body, that brain might be male or it might be female and the result would be a man or a woman. This is completely independant of the body, which has the sex traits but none of the gender traits.
And babylon reflecting my semi-stunnednessnessness that people kept arguing with theodorus:
On July 31 2013 07:10 babylon wrote:
Internet 101: don't attempt to educate those who do not display the willingness to be open-minded enough to learn.
Seriously, there's nothing to say to that guy at all.
Generally speaking, there's waaaaay too much jumping on people's asses in this thread. Apart from Sokrates' slip of saying 'real' woman which he clearly didn't intend, I understood his analogy as he later clarified, a 'mental' thing rather than a pure physical thing. I don't really see the problem. I'm gay and I've used pedophilia as an analogy before, not because I'm equating them (as 99% of idiots do) but because I had a point within the analogy to make.
The language surrounding trans stuff is often very delicate, and someone making a mistake or two doesn't make them totally ignorant or transphobic.
I'd say the majority of users on TL are open-minded and tolerant, and willing to listen. But people are never going to learn and listen and be educated if every time they post on the subject they're pounced upon. Some people deserve to be pounced on, but there definitely seems to be an overabundance of general pounciness. Give people the benefit of the doubt first, especially on a tricksy subject.
|
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol
|
On July 31 2013 08:45 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 08:43 Shiori 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: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. Um, technically the feeling of a man giving me oral sex is equivalent to that of a woman giving me oral sex, but that doesn't mean I don't prefer one to the other... I'm not saying that trans women aren't women, btw; this is just an example and nothing more. All sexual preferences are pretty much arbitrary at the bottom of things. As long as it's between consenting adults, who gives a fuck who we want to fuck? It's not like we're obligated to fuck anyone. I mean, I couldn't tell you while I like women with long (head) hair; I just do. Doesn't mean I hate women with short hair. If the feeling of a man giving you oral sex is the same as a woman giving you oral sex...I recommend you find different women or rethink how you label your orientation. They ain't the same yo.
Mouths are mouths bro. Hell, sodomizing a male is physiologically almost the same as sodomizing a female..
I'm not implying that I've experienced both; I'm just implying that the mouths of male and female humans are pretty damn similar.
|
On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol
I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else.
|
On July 31 2013 19:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 13:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 31 2013 09:34 Sokrates 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. 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). ...i think you should have realized that comparing the a person's decision or realization that they are transgendered to the decision to get breast implants is just really, really bad. but i am actually wondering where kwark got the info that the gospels were written down third-hand etc. They were written a full generation after the death of Christ. They may have spoken to people who were there or had the facts accurately carried to them through the collective teachings of the early Church but it's unlikely given life expectancy and the dating that these people were reporting on things they had witnessed. This isn't me Christian bashing, this is me attempting to recall parts of a religious philosophy course I did at school 9 years ago covering shit like the author of Acts, dating Acts and the gospels and so forth. Given Jesus died in his early 30s and a tentative dating for the gospels in the 50s and 60s (Luke can't be 70s because Titus hasn't destroyed Jerusalem yet but Nero is mentioned which places it post 60, John came after Luke, Mark was likely a source for Luke so maybe 50s for that, Matthew mentioned as being early but no evidence) we have people who saw Jesus as children being beyond the life expectancy at the time of authorship. I don't doubt that they recorded what people told them and the traditions of the Church diligently but it is very, very unlikely that they were recording things they saw with their own eyes. Luke, Acts and John definitely were not, Luke is sourced heavily on Mark and the dates simply don't work for John.
According to the Wiki link on life expectancy throughout history, the biggest danger was dying in early childhood. In Classical Rome, one would have an average age of 52 if they survived to 15. That's not too shabby, if you ask me. When you factor in that the Jews were an exceptionally clean/hygenic people as a result of their various beliefs about diets, animals, and blood, it's quite plausible that there could still be at least some people around who experienced, if nothing else, the words/actions of Jesus or one of his disciples.
You general point is correct, though. The NT in its present form was generally written after 60AD. That said, it's pretty obvious that there was strong oral tradition predating the writings themselves, since that would have been the primary means to promulgating a message.
This is blatantly wrong. Jesus condemned any sexual activity outside of marriage, even freaking dirty thoughts (he said that "If your right eye causes you to sin, poke it out and throw it away. Your eye is only one part of your body. It is better to lose it than for your whole body to be thrown into hell" when discussing looking lustfully on a woman), and defined marriage as between a man and a woman. You may disagree with it, but there's no way you can twist it to mean something else. That would be intelectually dishonest.
Jesus didn't define marriage explicitly. Also, your mentioning of the poking out your eye things is totally missing the point; it's a metaphor for eliminating behaviours that seem to result in your being immoral.
The way Jesus meant lust wasn't in the sense of merely seeing an attractive woman. He meant it in the sense that one desired to possess another person. That's just what lust means. It's about diminishing the dignity of the person for the sake of objectification.
|
On July 31 2013 16:04 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2013 13:18 aksfjh wrote:
Regardless, the mentions of homosexuality and promiscuity don't come along until Paul's letters, so the argument that "Jesus condemned homosexuality" is moot/wrong. This is blatantly wrong. Jesus condemned any sexual activity outside of marriage, even freaking dirty thoughts (he said that "If your right eye causes you to sin, poke it out and throw it away. Your eye is only one part of your body. It is better to lose it than for your whole body to be thrown into hell" when discussing looking lustfully on a woman), and defined marriage as between a man and a woman. You may disagree with it, but there's no way you can twist it to mean something else. That would be intelectually dishonest.
You mean this passage?
[27] “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ [28] But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [29] If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. [30] And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Source
Looks like he condemned adultery. If you want to argue the larger "tone" of Matthew 5, you would do better with verses 17-20
[17] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [18] For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. [19] Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
That pretty much states "all laws are still valid." This would include the laws on "mixed fabric clothing" people like to throw around, and every other law in Leviticus (which includes such gems as Sabbath holiness, unclean animals, hiding women during their period, etc.).
In the much more reasonable interpretation of Matthew 5:17-20, where you take into context the rest of the chapter and the major laws, homosexuality doesn't come up. You have the major commandments covered, murder, adultery, lying, and then the major cultural laws, "eye for an eye" and the good ol' war slogan, "love thy neighbor, hate thy enemy."
There's really no way to interpret the scripture to justify some specific hate/condemnation of homosexuals without doing so to 90-99% of the Christian population as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
