|
On August 01 2013 03:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 02:48 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 01:51 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 01:46 theodorus12 wrote:
[quote]
Very bad analogy. A black women is EXACTLY the same as a white women. But a trans "women" is not, she is not capable of giving birth to a child. And because the biological desire to reproduce is in everyone of us, it's only normal, that people are more attracted to a real women than a trans person. I don't know if the attraction that you're thinking of goes down that deep. A lot of people are attracted to other things that are not evolutionarily advantageous (see homosexuals, etc.). Since you likely don't know someone is a trans woman then your attraction to them would be based solely on what you see. I can understand a viewpoint of someone saying "I want to my wife to bear my children and thus I wouldn't want a long term relationship with a trans woman" but to argue that they are inherently not attractive seems strange. As for whether the analogy is a good one or not, I guess I can't really see myself dating a black woman. I'm not sure if that's a manifestation of a prejudice, or a benign preference, but I would say that on the whole I find black women less attractive than those of other races. No, it's not strange for transsexual people not to be inherently not attractive to most heterosexual people. It stems from a very fundamental biological/evolutionary drive. I also think your example of homosexuality is counter-productive, because homosxuality is a prime example of misdirected sexual attraction. While it's not politically correct, homosexuality is abnormal. It is natural (the same way many other conditions you may be born with are), as in it is not a matter of choice, it is an aberration. As far as I know, it's rooted in an abnormal brain structure (which is potentially caused by hormonal imbalance during prenatal life, IIRC). That has been disproved in natural with several species of animals, all who display homosexual behavior that is not abnormal or due to some brain dysfunction. Any attempt to argue otherwise is silly. First of all, we're talking about human homosexuality, which, as far as I know, is rooted in abnormal brain structure. I don't see how several other species are relevant here. In case of homo sapiens, it is abnormal. Are you talking about animals for whom sex plays more than a single role? E.g. in case of chimpanzees homosexual rape is used to exert dominance. Or are you talking about species whose members are genuinely attracted to members of the same sex? Second of all, IIRC, while there are many species with some tendency towards homosexuality, they still constitute less than 1% of all species. The difference between the words abnormal and different and your willingness to use one instead of the other speaks volumes in terms of your shortsightedness and the likelihood that, at the base of your argument, there is a nasty bit of naturalistic fallacy going on. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me. Well, considering that you've just defined your supposedly non-condescending use of the word abnormal in possibly the most condescending way possible, you'll have to forgive my taking what you say with a grain of salt. And comparing transgender folk with those with mental disabilities doesn't do your case any lip service. You're saying that comparing one group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal with another group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal is somehow wrong. You're essentially implying that people with Down syndrome are somehow inferior and comparing transsexuals with them is insulting for the latter. Way to make your self look like a small-minded bigot. Reducing both transgender and mental disorder into "abnormalities" is the work of someone seeking to make a rhetorical point at the expense of both groups. I promise you that my brother with downs does not mind that I do not lump him into a category with transgenders.
No, I simply used a non-derogatory term in a non-demeaning way, and then you chose to interpret it as derogatory, accusing me of being ill-intentioned, and make a big, big deal out of it.
|
On August 01 2013 03:28 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:18 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 03:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 02:48 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 01:51 packrat386 wrote:
[quote]
I don't know if the attraction that you're thinking of goes down that deep. A lot of people are attracted to other things that are not evolutionarily advantageous (see homosexuals, etc.). Since you likely don't know someone is a trans woman then your attraction to them would be based solely on what you see. I can understand a viewpoint of someone saying "I want to my wife to bear my children and thus I wouldn't want a long term relationship with a trans woman" but to argue that they are inherently not attractive seems strange.
As for whether the analogy is a good one or not, I guess I can't really see myself dating a black woman. I'm not sure if that's a manifestation of a prejudice, or a benign preference, but I would say that on the whole I find black women less attractive than those of other races. No, it's not strange for transsexual people not to be inherently not attractive to most heterosexual people. It stems from a very fundamental biological/evolutionary drive. I also think your example of homosexuality is counter-productive, because homosxuality is a prime example of misdirected sexual attraction. While it's not politically correct, homosexuality is abnormal. It is natural (the same way many other conditions you may be born with are), as in it is not a matter of choice, it is an aberration. As far as I know, it's rooted in an abnormal brain structure (which is potentially caused by hormonal imbalance during prenatal life, IIRC). That has been disproved in natural with several species of animals, all who display homosexual behavior that is not abnormal or due to some brain dysfunction. Any attempt to argue otherwise is silly. First of all, we're talking about human homosexuality, which, as far as I know, is rooted in abnormal brain structure. I don't see how several other species are relevant here. In case of homo sapiens, it is abnormal. Are you talking about animals for whom sex plays more than a single role? E.g. in case of chimpanzees homosexual rape is used to exert dominance. Or are you talking about species whose members are genuinely attracted to members of the same sex? Second of all, IIRC, while there are many species with some tendency towards homosexuality, they still constitute less than 1% of all species. The difference between the words abnormal and different and your willingness to use one instead of the other speaks volumes in terms of your shortsightedness and the likelihood that, at the base of your argument, there is a nasty bit of naturalistic fallacy going on. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me. Well, considering that you've just defined your supposedly non-condescending use of the word abnormal in possibly the most condescending way possible, you'll have to forgive my taking what you say with a grain of salt. And comparing transgender folk with those with mental disabilities doesn't do your case any lip service. You're saying that comparing one group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal with another group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal is somehow wrong. You're essentially implying that people with Down syndrome are somehow inferior and comparing transsexuals with them is insulting for the latter. Way to make your self look like a small-minded bigot. Reducing both transgender and mental disorder into "abnormalities" is the work of someone seeking to make a rhetorical point at the expense of both groups. I promise you that my brother with downs does not mind that I do not lump him into a category with transgenders. No, I simply used a non-derogatory term in a non-demeaning way, and then you chose to interpret it as derogatory, accusing me of being ill-intentioned, and make a big, big deal out of it.
Communication is not a one way street; your intentions do not have carte blanche rule over how your words operate in a public space. With that in mind, I'm telling you that calling transgendered or gay people "abnormal" instead of "different" is going to be perceived by many to be an insult, and this is why it is better to opt for language that is a bit less problematic.
|
On August 01 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
A trans woman can not get pregnant, making it a false analogy. Additionally, and please do not take this the wrong way, but in every trans person I have met, its not a 100% conversion. There are always obvious amounts of male mixed into the female, sometimes even mostly male. I am not attracted to men, and having male attributes is very unattractive to me. A black woman looks entirely like a woman and not a man at all. And a black woman would be able to have my children. So given the fact that there are 2 different situations, how can you say its my responsibility to change what I want? I think until a man is able to 100% convert to female, its not reasonable to say people should see trans women as the same as people born as women. The differences can be quite large.
[quote]
I would define a "real" woman as you say, as someone who is 100% woman and does not have any obviously male characteristics. Every trans female I have met, you can look at them and be able to tell. You can see the male attributes. How is that the same? I can understand the cause and I fight for their equality in every regard, but you can't say a trans woman is physically equivalent to a person born a woman. Even disregarding procreation, there are very obvious physical appearance differences. What about cis-gendered women who are infertile? Are you not sexually attracted to them? I can understand why you might not want to date an infertile woman or a trans woman if you really want to have biological offspring with your partner. But that's a committed serious relationship that extends well beyond mere sexual attraction. If you're talking about plain old poppin a stiffy, I really don't think the infertile argument works. Klondikebar, at some point you have to give people the option of having personal taste. You can't force them to admit they would be attracted to someone that they don't feel they would be. They are not going to be able to make a logic argument about their personal taste, only that it is theirs and you can ALWAYS make a counter argument that they might be attracted to a transgender person. At best, you should try to make them put their preference at tactfully as possible. At the end of the day, we are all entitle to date whoever we want and we shouldn't have to justify it to people. Except that that exact logic can be applied in all sorts of bigoted ways. Like "it's just my preference to only date white people." I'm forcing the logical reasons because we have a lot of internalized "-ism's" that we don't realize we have. And confronting them and saying "huh, there really is not logical reason I wouldn't bang person X" you end up making yourself better off as a person. Now, if you meet a trans person I'm not saying you have to immediately hop into bed with them just to prove how tolerant you are. That would be moronic. They could be ugly, they could be crazy, they could just be mean. But just making blanket statements about your preferences when, in practice, we judge people individually on their attractiveness, seems rather silly and an excuse to just not admit to some internalized prejudices. Right, but in this case you are asking someone if they are willing to have sex with someone, not accept them as part of a community or give them a job. Or to put it this way, the discussion is similar to trying to force someone who is admittedly gay to say that they could date someone of the opposite sex, and accusing them of being a bigot if they say no. People have a right to be attracted to who they are attracted too and you can't call them a bigot because of their personal taste. Umm...no. Being gay is a sexual orientation by which you are attracted to the same sex. Trans women are women, they fall well within the realm of "opposite sex" for heterosexual men. And again, "personal taste" is just a hand waving argument to excuse a belief without justification. And we don't give "personal taste" a free pass. If I told you I only dated white people just because it was my "personal taste" you'd raise an eyebrow and say "uh-huh...sure." I'm applying the same logically coherent thought process here. And unless you're gonna get bent outta shape at people who think only dating white people is "personal taste" you don't get to get bent outta shape at me. But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing. Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract. Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive. If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images. I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them. So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions? More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture. At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want. Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist.
I just don't like having to lean my neck back to kiss, its not that weird. I am also pretty tall myself. I am sure there one tall girl out there that would change my mind. But personal preference is personal preference and you don't need to say someone is 'sort of eugenicist" if they state what it is.
|
On August 01 2013 03:23 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 01 2013 03:14 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 03:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 02:48 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
No, it's not strange for transsexual people not to be inherently not attractive to most heterosexual people. It stems from a very fundamental biological/evolutionary drive.
I also think your example of homosexuality is counter-productive, because homosxuality is a prime example of misdirected sexual attraction. While it's not politically correct, homosexuality is abnormal. It is natural (the same way many other conditions you may be born with are), as in it is not a matter of choice, it is an aberration. As far as I know, it's rooted in an abnormal brain structure (which is potentially caused by hormonal imbalance during prenatal life, IIRC). That has been disproved in natural with several species of animals, all who display homosexual behavior that is not abnormal or due to some brain dysfunction. Any attempt to argue otherwise is silly. First of all, we're talking about human homosexuality, which, as far as I know, is rooted in abnormal brain structure. I don't see how several other species are relevant here. In case of homo sapiens, it is abnormal. Are you talking about animals for whom sex plays more than a single role? E.g. in case of chimpanzees homosexual rape is used to exert dominance. Or are you talking about species whose members are genuinely attracted to members of the same sex? Second of all, IIRC, while there are many species with some tendency towards homosexuality, they still constitute less than 1% of all species. The difference between the words abnormal and different and your willingness to use one instead of the other speaks volumes in terms of your shortsightedness and the likelihood that, at the base of your argument, there is a nasty bit of naturalistic fallacy going on. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me. Well, considering that you've just defined your supposedly non-condescending use of the word abnormal in possibly the most condescending way possible, you'll have to forgive my taking what you say with a grain of salt. And comparing transgender folk with those with mental disabilities doesn't do your case any lip service. You're saying that comparing one group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal with another group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal is somehow wrong. You're essentially implying that people with Down syndrome are somehow inferior and comparing transsexuals with them is insulting for the latter. Way to make your self look like a small-minded bigot. Can everybody chill for a minute? farv was saying that its probably not a good idea to compare transgendered people to those with mental illnesses because its a classification they have fought against for a really long time. No need to call people bigots. My question is why have they have fought against said classification? Large and informative thread that you can find on that here. I don't really want to have to copy paste a bunch of arguments I made a year ago 
The problem here that I have is with the "cissexual privilege" section.
Try this example: Suppose you (a cissexual male) wake up tomorrow in the same mind and body that you are in right now. You feel exactly as you always have. You drive to the store to do some shopping. While in the men's clothing section, someone says: "Excuse me, madam, you are in the wrong section." You use the restroom, they say: "It's against the law to use the wrong restroom. Please leave." You walk around in your male clothes, and people say things like: "You're not REALLY a man. Stop pretending you sick fuck."
Only one of the examples given could even come close to being classified as legal prejudice, and honestly, I don't think transgenders need to be using the other bathroom. Born a man? Use the man's bathroom.
+ Show Spoiler +
-A staggering 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6% of the general population, with rates rising for those who lost a job due to bias (55%), were harassed/bullied in school (51%), had low household income, or were the victim of physical assault (61%) or sexual assault (64%).
-Those who expressed a transgender identity or gender non-conformity while in grades K-12 reported alarming rates of harassment (78%), physical assault (35%) and sexual violence (12%); harassment was so severe that it led almost one-sixth (15%) to leave a school in K-12 settings or in higher education.
-Widespread mistreatment at work: Ninety percent (90%) of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment, mistreatment or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it.
-Forty-seven percent (47%) said they had experienced an adverse job outcome, such as being fired, not hired or denied a promotion because of being transgender or gender non-conforming.
-Overall, 16% said they had been compelled to work in the underground economy for income (such as doing sex work or selling drugs).
-One-fifth (19%) reported experiencing homelessness at some point in their lives because they were transgender or gender non-conforming; the majority of those trying to access a homeless shelter were harassed by shelter staff or residents (55%), 29% were turned away altogether, and 22% were sexually assaulted by residents or staff.
-Respondents who have experienced homelessness were highly vulnerable to mistreatment in public settings, police abuse and negative health outcomes.
-Fifty-three percent (53%) of respondents reported being verbally harassed or disrespected in a place of public accommodation, including hotels, restaurants, buses, airports and government agencies.
-Refusal of care: 19% of our sample reported being refused medical care due to their transgender or gender non-conforming status, with even higher numbers among people of color in the survey.
-Uninformed doctors: 50% of the sample reported having to teach their medical providers about transgender care.
-Postponed care: Survey participants reported that when they were sick or injured, many postponed medical care due to discrimination (28%) or inability to afford it (48%).
-Forty-three percent (43%) maintained most of their family bonds, while 57% experienced significant family rejection.
First, I am always wary of self-reporting, but let's take these at face value. A lot of them are not instances of legal discrimination at all. They are instances of personal/societal discrimination. And honestly, that kind of shit, while disgusting, is not something that I think refusing to call a disorder a disorder is going to solve. Do you really think the bully is gonna care when you throw the APA report in his face?
Now, I guess you could say: well I could sue people for discriminating against me now. However, in most of the cases given, the possibility of filing suit/seeking legal recourse already exists. In the few where it doesn't, it probably shouldn't, and in the few where it doesn't but should, none of that requires an APA report that ignores Shakespeare's immortal quote about roses by other names.
Basically, the whole idea behind not calling it what it is: a disorder (be it mental, physical, or genetic, or all three) is that this will somehow magically make people more tolerant or make transgenders/homosexuals somehow less likely to be discriminated against. It won't.
But what it does do? Well, it forbids any kind of treatment.
|
On August 01 2013 03:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:13 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
What about cis-gendered women who are infertile? Are you not sexually attracted to them? I can understand why you might not want to date an infertile woman or a trans woman if you really want to have biological offspring with your partner. But that's a committed serious relationship that extends well beyond mere sexual attraction. If you're talking about plain old poppin a stiffy, I really don't think the infertile argument works. Klondikebar, at some point you have to give people the option of having personal taste. You can't force them to admit they would be attracted to someone that they don't feel they would be. They are not going to be able to make a logic argument about their personal taste, only that it is theirs and you can ALWAYS make a counter argument that they might be attracted to a transgender person. At best, you should try to make them put their preference at tactfully as possible. At the end of the day, we are all entitle to date whoever we want and we shouldn't have to justify it to people. Except that that exact logic can be applied in all sorts of bigoted ways. Like "it's just my preference to only date white people." I'm forcing the logical reasons because we have a lot of internalized "-ism's" that we don't realize we have. And confronting them and saying "huh, there really is not logical reason I wouldn't bang person X" you end up making yourself better off as a person. Now, if you meet a trans person I'm not saying you have to immediately hop into bed with them just to prove how tolerant you are. That would be moronic. They could be ugly, they could be crazy, they could just be mean. But just making blanket statements about your preferences when, in practice, we judge people individually on their attractiveness, seems rather silly and an excuse to just not admit to some internalized prejudices. Right, but in this case you are asking someone if they are willing to have sex with someone, not accept them as part of a community or give them a job. Or to put it this way, the discussion is similar to trying to force someone who is admittedly gay to say that they could date someone of the opposite sex, and accusing them of being a bigot if they say no. People have a right to be attracted to who they are attracted too and you can't call them a bigot because of their personal taste. Umm...no. Being gay is a sexual orientation by which you are attracted to the same sex. Trans women are women, they fall well within the realm of "opposite sex" for heterosexual men. And again, "personal taste" is just a hand waving argument to excuse a belief without justification. And we don't give "personal taste" a free pass. If I told you I only dated white people just because it was my "personal taste" you'd raise an eyebrow and say "uh-huh...sure." I'm applying the same logically coherent thought process here. And unless you're gonna get bent outta shape at people who think only dating white people is "personal taste" you don't get to get bent outta shape at me. But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing. Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract. Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive. If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images. I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them. So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions? More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture. At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want. Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist. I just don't like having to lean my neck back to kiss, its not that weird. I am also pretty tall myself. I am sure there one tall girl out there that would change my mind. But personal preference is personal preference and you don't need to say someone is 'sort of eugenicist" if they state what it is.
Uh, yeah, I'm going to. Because you just admitted that being tall alone is not enough to make a girl unattractive. And if tall alone is really enough, by itself, to make a girl unattractive to you...you're an asshole. If you're going to shield yourself from any sort of criticism with "personal preference is personal preference" (a moronic tautology by the way) then there's no more discussion to be had. I just call you an asshole and move on.
And for future reference, if you're going to offer up your point of view and then immediately shield it with "personal preference is personal preference" then you haven't offered anything of value because the discussion can't continue from it. It can't be evaluated in any way because it's completely subjective.
So if you have tastes that you don't want criticized, don't offer them up in a public discussion.
|
On August 01 2013 03:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:45 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Klondikebar, at some point you have to give people the option of having personal taste. You can't force them to admit they would be attracted to someone that they don't feel they would be. They are not going to be able to make a logic argument about their personal taste, only that it is theirs and you can ALWAYS make a counter argument that they might be attracted to a transgender person. At best, you should try to make them put their preference at tactfully as possible.
At the end of the day, we are all entitle to date whoever we want and we shouldn't have to justify it to people. Except that that exact logic can be applied in all sorts of bigoted ways. Like "it's just my preference to only date white people." I'm forcing the logical reasons because we have a lot of internalized "-ism's" that we don't realize we have. And confronting them and saying "huh, there really is not logical reason I wouldn't bang person X" you end up making yourself better off as a person. Now, if you meet a trans person I'm not saying you have to immediately hop into bed with them just to prove how tolerant you are. That would be moronic. They could be ugly, they could be crazy, they could just be mean. But just making blanket statements about your preferences when, in practice, we judge people individually on their attractiveness, seems rather silly and an excuse to just not admit to some internalized prejudices. Right, but in this case you are asking someone if they are willing to have sex with someone, not accept them as part of a community or give them a job. Or to put it this way, the discussion is similar to trying to force someone who is admittedly gay to say that they could date someone of the opposite sex, and accusing them of being a bigot if they say no. People have a right to be attracted to who they are attracted too and you can't call them a bigot because of their personal taste. Umm...no. Being gay is a sexual orientation by which you are attracted to the same sex. Trans women are women, they fall well within the realm of "opposite sex" for heterosexual men. And again, "personal taste" is just a hand waving argument to excuse a belief without justification. And we don't give "personal taste" a free pass. If I told you I only dated white people just because it was my "personal taste" you'd raise an eyebrow and say "uh-huh...sure." I'm applying the same logically coherent thought process here. And unless you're gonna get bent outta shape at people who think only dating white people is "personal taste" you don't get to get bent outta shape at me. But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing. Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract. Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive. If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images. I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them. So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions? More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture. At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want. Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist. I just don't like having to lean my neck back to kiss, its not that weird. I am also pretty tall myself. I am sure there one tall girl out there that would change my mind. But personal preference is personal preference and you don't need to say someone is 'sort of eugenicist" if they state what it is. Uh, yeah, I'm going to. Because you just admitted that being tall alone is not enough to make a girl unattractive. And if tall alone is really enough, by itself, to make a girl unattractive to you...you're an asshole. If you're going to shield yourself from any sort of criticism with "personal preference is personal preference" (a moronic tautology by the way) then there's no more discussion to be had. I just call you an asshole and move on. And for future reference, if you're going to offer up your point of view and then immediately shield it with "personal preference is personal preference" then you haven't offered anything of value because the discussion can't continue from it. It can't be evaluated in any way because it's completely subjective. So if you have tastes that you don't want criticized, don't offer them up in a public discussion.
it seems you're against anyone having preference o.O
dont like fat girls? asshole. dont like tall girls? asshole. dont like perfectly fine "real" woman trans? asshole.
|
On August 01 2013 03:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:23 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 03:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 01 2013 03:14 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 03:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 02:48 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That has been disproved in natural with several species of animals, all who display homosexual behavior that is not abnormal or due to some brain dysfunction. Any attempt to argue otherwise is silly. First of all, we're talking about human homosexuality, which, as far as I know, is rooted in abnormal brain structure. I don't see how several other species are relevant here. In case of homo sapiens, it is abnormal. Are you talking about animals for whom sex plays more than a single role? E.g. in case of chimpanzees homosexual rape is used to exert dominance. Or are you talking about species whose members are genuinely attracted to members of the same sex? Second of all, IIRC, while there are many species with some tendency towards homosexuality, they still constitute less than 1% of all species. The difference between the words abnormal and different and your willingness to use one instead of the other speaks volumes in terms of your shortsightedness and the likelihood that, at the base of your argument, there is a nasty bit of naturalistic fallacy going on. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me. Well, considering that you've just defined your supposedly non-condescending use of the word abnormal in possibly the most condescending way possible, you'll have to forgive my taking what you say with a grain of salt. And comparing transgender folk with those with mental disabilities doesn't do your case any lip service. You're saying that comparing one group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal with another group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal is somehow wrong. You're essentially implying that people with Down syndrome are somehow inferior and comparing transsexuals with them is insulting for the latter. Way to make your self look like a small-minded bigot. Can everybody chill for a minute? farv was saying that its probably not a good idea to compare transgendered people to those with mental illnesses because its a classification they have fought against for a really long time. No need to call people bigots. My question is why have they have fought against said classification? Large and informative thread that you can find on that here. I don't really want to have to copy paste a bunch of arguments I made a year ago The problem here that I have is with the "cissexual privilege" section. Show nested quote +Try this example: Suppose you (a cissexual male) wake up tomorrow in the same mind and body that you are in right now. You feel exactly as you always have. You drive to the store to do some shopping. While in the men's clothing section, someone says: "Excuse me, madam, you are in the wrong section." You use the restroom, they say: "It's against the law to use the wrong restroom. Please leave." You walk around in your male clothes, and people say things like: "You're not REALLY a man. Stop pretending you sick fuck." Only one of the examples given could even come close to being classified as legal prejudice, and honestly, I don't think transgenders need to be using the other bathroom. Born a man? Use the man's bathroom. Show nested quote ++ Show Spoiler +
-A staggering 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6% of the general population, with rates rising for those who lost a job due to bias (55%), were harassed/bullied in school (51%), had low household income, or were the victim of physical assault (61%) or sexual assault (64%).
-Those who expressed a transgender identity or gender non-conformity while in grades K-12 reported alarming rates of harassment (78%), physical assault (35%) and sexual violence (12%); harassment was so severe that it led almost one-sixth (15%) to leave a school in K-12 settings or in higher education.
-Widespread mistreatment at work: Ninety percent (90%) of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment, mistreatment or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it.
-Forty-seven percent (47%) said they had experienced an adverse job outcome, such as being fired, not hired or denied a promotion because of being transgender or gender non-conforming.
-Overall, 16% said they had been compelled to work in the underground economy for income (such as doing sex work or selling drugs).
-One-fifth (19%) reported experiencing homelessness at some point in their lives because they were transgender or gender non-conforming; the majority of those trying to access a homeless shelter were harassed by shelter staff or residents (55%), 29% were turned away altogether, and 22% were sexually assaulted by residents or staff.
-Respondents who have experienced homelessness were highly vulnerable to mistreatment in public settings, police abuse and negative health outcomes.
-Fifty-three percent (53%) of respondents reported being verbally harassed or disrespected in a place of public accommodation, including hotels, restaurants, buses, airports and government agencies.
-Refusal of care: 19% of our sample reported being refused medical care due to their transgender or gender non-conforming status, with even higher numbers among people of color in the survey.
-Uninformed doctors: 50% of the sample reported having to teach their medical providers about transgender care.
-Postponed care: Survey participants reported that when they were sick or injured, many postponed medical care due to discrimination (28%) or inability to afford it (48%).
-Forty-three percent (43%) maintained most of their family bonds, while 57% experienced significant family rejection.
First, I am always wary of self-reporting, but let's take these at face value. A lot of them are not instances of legal discrimination at all. They are instances of personal/societal discrimination. And honestly, that kind of shit, while disgusting, is not something that I think refusing to call a disorder a disorder is going to solve. Do you really think the bully is gonna care when you throw the APA report in his face? Now, I guess you could say: well I could sue people for discriminating against me now. However, in most of the cases given, the possibility of filing suit/seeking legal recourse already exists. In the few where it doesn't, it probably shouldn't, and in the few where it doesn't but should, none of that requires an APA report that ignores Shakespeare's immortal quote about roses by other names. Basically, the whole idea behind not calling it what it is: a disorder (be it mental, physical, or genetic, or all three) is that this will somehow magically make people more tolerant or make transgenders/homosexuals somehow less likely to be discriminated against. It won't. But what it does do? Well, it forbids any kind of treatment.
Its a huge step toward making them more integrated in society since the goal of treatment will no longer be to "cure" them by making them deny part of their identity. In the past I could dismiss someone who identifies as transgendered by merely saying that they only feel that way because they are sick. Now I'm forced to contend with the fact that someone who identifies as male or female is not "wrong" if their identification doesn't correspond to the gender they were assigned at birth.
Also it doesn't forbid treatment. Those who are transgendered and feel distressed because of it can be treated for Gender Dysphoria, which is revulsion or depression stemming from the incongruity between your body and who you think you are. An important difference is that the goal in this case is to make the patient feel comfortable with who they are and help them to change their body if they so desire (HRT, surgery, etc.).
As for male and female restrooms. Gender is between your ears, not your legs. When you say someone is "born a man" what you really mean is that a doctor decided to classify them as male because of their genitalia. That classification doesn't always fit and I see no reason to compel people to stick by it if it makes them uncomfortable.
|
On August 01 2013 02:12 heliusx wrote:
Transgender are literally the worse when it comes to playing the bigot-card. Anyone at all who doesn't agree with their opinions on gender and sexuality are instantly attacked and labeled. And then in the same breath are confused by the fact that no one understands them. For me there are obvious differences between a born and trans female and it should come at no surprise that most heterosexual males feel the same.
One of many depressing posts in this thread : / Anyway, after lurking in this thread for a while I thought I'd share my two cents.
On Gender vs. Sex
Lots of posters keep referring to "real women/real men" as if those terms have any objective meaning. They do not, and using them as if they do makes you appear foolish. In order for a statement about "real women/real men" to have meaning, you have to define the terms. For example, from context several posters seem to believe that "real man" = person born with a penis.
This is a bad definition, that, in my opinion, is rooted in the fact that most cultures (but not all) traditionally conflate sex with gender, and recognize a binary view of sex, i.e. that there are only two kinds of people: males and females. I think a better way is to view biological sex as a spectrum, where on one end there are XY males who have a male gender identity, and on the other end there are XX females with a female gender identity. In between, there are literally (heliusx - please note the correct use of the term "literally" here) at least hundreds of different combinations of chromosomes and gender identities.
This view is better because science. Multiple peer reviewed studies have concluded that there are significant similarities between trans people, and the biological sex they identify with. For example, studies have shown that trans-women have brain chemistry that has more in common with cis women than with cis men. Additionally, there are many variations on the standard XX/XY chromosome configuration. People can be born X0, XXX, XXY, XXXY and many many others. A binary definition of sex simply doesn't fit with reality, which is far more complicated.
Therefore I think it is reasonable to conclude that gender identity and biological sex are at least somewhat independent. So, what does this mean for the definition of real man and real woman? People obtain their identity primarily from their brains, not their bodies. If you were to somehow switch your brain with someone else, consider whether you would believe that you are still you, just in someone else's body. Therefore, since your brain determines your gender identity, a "real woman" is a person with a female gender identity, and a "real man" is a person with a male gender identity. Note that this definition has nothing to do with the plumbing : )
On Attraction to Trans People
I have to admit that I do feel vaguely uncomfortable at the thought of dating a trans person. Does this make me transphobic? Yes, probably a bit. I am a product of my society after all, and transphobia is deeply rooted in that society. Still, I'd like to think that if I had true feelings for a person I was in a relationship with, that I wouldn't throw that relationship away just because my partner told me that she was a trans person.
On Why it Matters
In the previous paragraph I mentioned that transphobia is deeply rooted in our society. If you don't believe me, I suggest you look up some of the statistics describing the crap trans people have to deal with. It is truly heartbreaking, and brings to light the hypocrisy of a society that claims to believe in equality of opportunity and tolerance. In addition to all this stuff, trans people have gender dysphoria to deal with, a term which is used "to describe persons who experience significant dysphoria (discontent) with the sex they were assigned at birth and/or the gender roles associated with that sex."
Honestly, I have no idea what gender dysphoria feels like. I was lucky enough to be born with a gender identity that reflects my biological sex, and I don't really know what it means to feel "male." This is called cis privilege, and it is a privilege that is enjoyed by so many people that many of us don't even realize it exists. However, according to accounts by trans people, gender dysphoria feels terrible. So terrible in fact, that the number of trans people who attempt suicide approaches 50%. Take a moment to think about that. In light of this fact, I am prepared to give trans people the benefit of the doubt when they say that it is a real thing to have a gender identity that is different from one's biological sex, even though I am unable to relate to what that must feel like.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because YOU might not be able to understand what it feels like to have a biological sex that is different from your gender identity, doesn't mean that gender dysphoria isn't a thing. ~50% of trans people don't attempt suicide because gender dysphoria made up or exaggerated. As a result, please be respectful to trans people. If you choose to disregard scientific evidence and logic by believing that "has a penis = male, has a vagina = female" then that is your right. It is not your right (or shouldn't be) to deliberately hurt fellow human beings because of some misguided sense of "honesty."
|
On August 01 2013 03:53 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:49 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:45 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Except that that exact logic can be applied in all sorts of bigoted ways. Like "it's just my preference to only date white people." I'm forcing the logical reasons because we have a lot of internalized "-ism's" that we don't realize we have. And confronting them and saying "huh, there really is not logical reason I wouldn't bang person X" you end up making yourself better off as a person.
Now, if you meet a trans person I'm not saying you have to immediately hop into bed with them just to prove how tolerant you are. That would be moronic. They could be ugly, they could be crazy, they could just be mean. But just making blanket statements about your preferences when, in practice, we judge people individually on their attractiveness, seems rather silly and an excuse to just not admit to some internalized prejudices.
Right, but in this case you are asking someone if they are willing to have sex with someone, not accept them as part of a community or give them a job. Or to put it this way, the discussion is similar to trying to force someone who is admittedly gay to say that they could date someone of the opposite sex, and accusing them of being a bigot if they say no. People have a right to be attracted to who they are attracted too and you can't call them a bigot because of their personal taste. Umm...no. Being gay is a sexual orientation by which you are attracted to the same sex. Trans women are women, they fall well within the realm of "opposite sex" for heterosexual men. And again, "personal taste" is just a hand waving argument to excuse a belief without justification. And we don't give "personal taste" a free pass. If I told you I only dated white people just because it was my "personal taste" you'd raise an eyebrow and say "uh-huh...sure." I'm applying the same logically coherent thought process here. And unless you're gonna get bent outta shape at people who think only dating white people is "personal taste" you don't get to get bent outta shape at me. But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing. Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract. Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive. If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images. I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them. So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions? More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture. At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want. Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist. I just don't like having to lean my neck back to kiss, its not that weird. I am also pretty tall myself. I am sure there one tall girl out there that would change my mind. But personal preference is personal preference and you don't need to say someone is 'sort of eugenicist" if they state what it is. Uh, yeah, I'm going to. Because you just admitted that being tall alone is not enough to make a girl unattractive. And if tall alone is really enough, by itself, to make a girl unattractive to you...you're an asshole. If you're going to shield yourself from any sort of criticism with "personal preference is personal preference" (a moronic tautology by the way) then there's no more discussion to be had. I just call you an asshole and move on. And for future reference, if you're going to offer up your point of view and then immediately shield it with "personal preference is personal preference" then you haven't offered anything of value because the discussion can't continue from it. It can't be evaluated in any way because it's completely subjective. So if you have tastes that you don't want criticized, don't offer them up in a public discussion. it seems you're against anyone having preference o.O dont like fat girls? asshole. dont like tall girls? asshole. dont like perfectly fine "real" woman trans? asshole.
Well I'm certainly against people posting in threads who have zero reading comprehension. At no point have I ever said that preferences were bad, in fact, I even listed some of my own.
I think that reducing someone's attractiveness to one quality and judging them based entirely on that is stupid. "I do not prefer tall people" is not the same as saying "tall people are unattractive." In the former, you evaluate the person as a whole and their height contributes negatively to your overall perception of their attractiveness. In the latter, you've ignored everything else about their appearance and judged them as unattractive based on one quality.
See, if I were to evaluate you, I would say I do not prefer dumbasses who can't read. This would contribute negatively to my perception of your attractiveness since you have, in fact, been a dumbass. See how that works?
|
On August 01 2013 03:54 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:45 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 01 2013 03:23 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 03:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:On August 01 2013 03:14 packrat386 wrote:On August 01 2013 03:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:59 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 02:48 farvacola wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
First of all, we're talking about human homosexuality, which, as far as I know, is rooted in abnormal brain structure. I don't see how several other species are relevant here. In case of homo sapiens, it is abnormal. Are you talking about animals for whom sex plays more than a single role? E.g. in case of chimpanzees homosexual rape is used to exert dominance. Or are you talking about species whose members are genuinely attracted to members of the same sex?
Second of all, IIRC, while there are many species with some tendency towards homosexuality, they still constitute less than 1% of all species. The difference between the words abnormal and different and your willingness to use one instead of the other speaks volumes in terms of your shortsightedness and the likelihood that, at the base of your argument, there is a nasty bit of naturalistic fallacy going on. I'm not using the word "abnormal" in any condecensing way so I couldn't give a crap about your overly politically correct sensivity. People with Down syndrome are not simply different. Their condition makes them abnormal. Does that make them less deserving of respect? Somehow inferior? No, but using euphemisms when none are needed seems absurd to me. Well, considering that you've just defined your supposedly non-condescending use of the word abnormal in possibly the most condescending way possible, you'll have to forgive my taking what you say with a grain of salt. And comparing transgender folk with those with mental disabilities doesn't do your case any lip service. You're saying that comparing one group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal with another group of people with a condition that makes them abnormal is somehow wrong. You're essentially implying that people with Down syndrome are somehow inferior and comparing transsexuals with them is insulting for the latter. Way to make your self look like a small-minded bigot. Can everybody chill for a minute? farv was saying that its probably not a good idea to compare transgendered people to those with mental illnesses because its a classification they have fought against for a really long time. No need to call people bigots. My question is why have they have fought against said classification? Large and informative thread that you can find on that here. I don't really want to have to copy paste a bunch of arguments I made a year ago The problem here that I have is with the "cissexual privilege" section. Try this example: Suppose you (a cissexual male) wake up tomorrow in the same mind and body that you are in right now. You feel exactly as you always have. You drive to the store to do some shopping. While in the men's clothing section, someone says: "Excuse me, madam, you are in the wrong section." You use the restroom, they say: "It's against the law to use the wrong restroom. Please leave." You walk around in your male clothes, and people say things like: "You're not REALLY a man. Stop pretending you sick fuck." Only one of the examples given could even come close to being classified as legal prejudice, and honestly, I don't think transgenders need to be using the other bathroom. Born a man? Use the man's bathroom. + Show Spoiler +
-A staggering 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide compared to 1.6% of the general population, with rates rising for those who lost a job due to bias (55%), were harassed/bullied in school (51%), had low household income, or were the victim of physical assault (61%) or sexual assault (64%).
-Those who expressed a transgender identity or gender non-conformity while in grades K-12 reported alarming rates of harassment (78%), physical assault (35%) and sexual violence (12%); harassment was so severe that it led almost one-sixth (15%) to leave a school in K-12 settings or in higher education.
-Widespread mistreatment at work: Ninety percent (90%) of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment, mistreatment or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it.
-Forty-seven percent (47%) said they had experienced an adverse job outcome, such as being fired, not hired or denied a promotion because of being transgender or gender non-conforming.
-Overall, 16% said they had been compelled to work in the underground economy for income (such as doing sex work or selling drugs).
-One-fifth (19%) reported experiencing homelessness at some point in their lives because they were transgender or gender non-conforming; the majority of those trying to access a homeless shelter were harassed by shelter staff or residents (55%), 29% were turned away altogether, and 22% were sexually assaulted by residents or staff.
-Respondents who have experienced homelessness were highly vulnerable to mistreatment in public settings, police abuse and negative health outcomes.
-Fifty-three percent (53%) of respondents reported being verbally harassed or disrespected in a place of public accommodation, including hotels, restaurants, buses, airports and government agencies.
-Refusal of care: 19% of our sample reported being refused medical care due to their transgender or gender non-conforming status, with even higher numbers among people of color in the survey.
-Uninformed doctors: 50% of the sample reported having to teach their medical providers about transgender care.
-Postponed care: Survey participants reported that when they were sick or injured, many postponed medical care due to discrimination (28%) or inability to afford it (48%).
-Forty-three percent (43%) maintained most of their family bonds, while 57% experienced significant family rejection.
First, I am always wary of self-reporting, but let's take these at face value. A lot of them are not instances of legal discrimination at all. They are instances of personal/societal discrimination. And honestly, that kind of shit, while disgusting, is not something that I think refusing to call a disorder a disorder is going to solve. Do you really think the bully is gonna care when you throw the APA report in his face? Now, I guess you could say: well I could sue people for discriminating against me now. However, in most of the cases given, the possibility of filing suit/seeking legal recourse already exists. In the few where it doesn't, it probably shouldn't, and in the few where it doesn't but should, none of that requires an APA report that ignores Shakespeare's immortal quote about roses by other names. Basically, the whole idea behind not calling it what it is: a disorder (be it mental, physical, or genetic, or all three) is that this will somehow magically make people more tolerant or make transgenders/homosexuals somehow less likely to be discriminated against. It won't. But what it does do? Well, it forbids any kind of treatment. Its a huge step toward making them more integrated in society since the goal of treatment will no longer be to "cure" them by making them deny part of their identity. In the past I could dismiss someone who identifies as transgendered by merely saying that they only feel that way because they are sick. Now I'm forced to contend with the fact that someone who identifies as male or female is not "wrong" if their identification doesn't correspond to the gender they were assigned at birth.
No it's not a huge step to anything. The same people that feel like they can be dismissed as being "sick" still think that, regardless of what the APA says. They will always still think that. You can cry facts all you want, but the funny part is that you aren't arguing facts here. You're saying we should specifically misrepresent the facts because the facts lead ugly people to do ugly things. You're arguing interpretations and feelings as facts, at best you've given theories and called them facts. The fact is that either it is a disorder of some sort, or it is a choice.
Also it doesn't forbid treatment. Those who are transgendered and feel distressed because of it can be treated for Gender Dysphoria, which is revulsion or depression stemming from the incongruity between your body and who you think you are. An important difference is that the goal in this case is to make the patient feel comfortable with who they are and help them to change their body if they so desire (HRT, surgery, etc.).
That isn't treatment. A schizophrenic isn't being treated by being taught how to listen to the voices they hear, nor are they being treated if they are told that no, those voices are entirely normal and perfectly fine and there is nothing wrong with hearing them.
As for male and female restrooms. Gender is between your ears, not your legs. When you say someone is "born a man" what you really mean is that a doctor decided to classify them as male because of their genitalia. That classification doesn't always fit and I see no reason to compel people to stick by it if it makes them uncomfortable.
Yes, we've somehow come to the conclusion in the absence of evidence that gender is entirely constructed from societal pressures. I don't buy it, and won't until I see some actual evidence. And since obtaining actual evidence could only be done through what I would consider child abuse, I don't think we'll be getting very valid evidence any time soon. I have no problem with people doing what makes them comfortable, to a certain degree, but I have a serious problem with saying: "calling this a disorder makes me uncomfortable, so call it something else."
|
On August 01 2013 03:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:45 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Klondikebar, at some point you have to give people the option of having personal taste. You can't force them to admit they would be attracted to someone that they don't feel they would be. They are not going to be able to make a logic argument about their personal taste, only that it is theirs and you can ALWAYS make a counter argument that they might be attracted to a transgender person. At best, you should try to make them put their preference at tactfully as possible.
At the end of the day, we are all entitle to date whoever we want and we shouldn't have to justify it to people. Except that that exact logic can be applied in all sorts of bigoted ways. Like "it's just my preference to only date white people." I'm forcing the logical reasons because we have a lot of internalized "-ism's" that we don't realize we have. And confronting them and saying "huh, there really is not logical reason I wouldn't bang person X" you end up making yourself better off as a person. Now, if you meet a trans person I'm not saying you have to immediately hop into bed with them just to prove how tolerant you are. That would be moronic. They could be ugly, they could be crazy, they could just be mean. But just making blanket statements about your preferences when, in practice, we judge people individually on their attractiveness, seems rather silly and an excuse to just not admit to some internalized prejudices. Right, but in this case you are asking someone if they are willing to have sex with someone, not accept them as part of a community or give them a job. Or to put it this way, the discussion is similar to trying to force someone who is admittedly gay to say that they could date someone of the opposite sex, and accusing them of being a bigot if they say no. People have a right to be attracted to who they are attracted too and you can't call them a bigot because of their personal taste. Umm...no. Being gay is a sexual orientation by which you are attracted to the same sex. Trans women are women, they fall well within the realm of "opposite sex" for heterosexual men. And again, "personal taste" is just a hand waving argument to excuse a belief without justification. And we don't give "personal taste" a free pass. If I told you I only dated white people just because it was my "personal taste" you'd raise an eyebrow and say "uh-huh...sure." I'm applying the same logically coherent thought process here. And unless you're gonna get bent outta shape at people who think only dating white people is "personal taste" you don't get to get bent outta shape at me. But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing. Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract. Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive. If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images. I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them. So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions? More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture. At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want. Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist. I just don't like having to lean my neck back to kiss, its not that weird. I am also pretty tall myself. I am sure there one tall girl out there that would change my mind. But personal preference is personal preference and you don't need to say someone is 'sort of eugenicist" if they state what it is. Uh, yeah, I'm going to. Because you just admitted that being tall alone is not enough to make a girl unattractive. And if tall alone is really enough, by itself, to make a girl unattractive to you...you're an asshole. If you're going to shield yourself from any sort of criticism with "personal preference is personal preference" (a moronic tautology by the way) then there's no more discussion to be had. I just call you an asshole and move on. And for future reference, if you're going to offer up your point of view and then immediately shield it with "personal preference is personal preference" then you haven't offered anything of value because the discussion can't continue from it. It can't be evaluated in any way because it's completely subjective. So if you have tastes that you don't want criticized, don't offer them up in a public discussion.
I think the only ass hole in this thread is you, thank you very much. You need to stop looking for reasons to call people bigots or to pass judgment on them. You know full well that I am a very open minded and not at all the "eugenicist" you called me. You are not perfect and you need to stop grinding your ax on people who agree with you. Your personal baggage is your own, stop dumping it on others.
|
On August 01 2013 03:58 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:53 jinorazi wrote:On August 01 2013 03:49 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:45 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Right, but in this case you are asking someone if they are willing to have sex with someone, not accept them as part of a community or give them a job. Or to put it this way, the discussion is similar to trying to force someone who is admittedly gay to say that they could date someone of the opposite sex, and accusing them of being a bigot if they say no. People have a right to be attracted to who they are attracted too and you can't call them a bigot because of their personal taste. Umm...no. Being gay is a sexual orientation by which you are attracted to the same sex. Trans women are women, they fall well within the realm of "opposite sex" for heterosexual men. And again, "personal taste" is just a hand waving argument to excuse a belief without justification. And we don't give "personal taste" a free pass. If I told you I only dated white people just because it was my "personal taste" you'd raise an eyebrow and say "uh-huh...sure." I'm applying the same logically coherent thought process here. And unless you're gonna get bent outta shape at people who think only dating white people is "personal taste" you don't get to get bent outta shape at me. But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing. Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract. Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive. If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images. I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them. So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions? More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture. At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want. Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist. I just don't like having to lean my neck back to kiss, its not that weird. I am also pretty tall myself. I am sure there one tall girl out there that would change my mind. But personal preference is personal preference and you don't need to say someone is 'sort of eugenicist" if they state what it is. Uh, yeah, I'm going to. Because you just admitted that being tall alone is not enough to make a girl unattractive. And if tall alone is really enough, by itself, to make a girl unattractive to you...you're an asshole. If you're going to shield yourself from any sort of criticism with "personal preference is personal preference" (a moronic tautology by the way) then there's no more discussion to be had. I just call you an asshole and move on. And for future reference, if you're going to offer up your point of view and then immediately shield it with "personal preference is personal preference" then you haven't offered anything of value because the discussion can't continue from it. It can't be evaluated in any way because it's completely subjective. So if you have tastes that you don't want criticized, don't offer them up in a public discussion. it seems you're against anyone having preference o.O dont like fat girls? asshole. dont like tall girls? asshole. dont like perfectly fine "real" woman trans? asshole. Well I'm certainly against people posting in threads who have zero reading comprehension. At no point have I ever said that preferences were bad, in fact, I even listed some of my own. I think that reducing someone's attractiveness to one quality and judging them based entirely on that is stupid. "I do not prefer tall people" is not the same as saying "tall people are unattractive." In the former, you evaluate the person as a whole and their height contributes negatively to your overall perception of their attractiveness. In the latter, you've ignored everything else about their appearance and judged them as unattractive based on one quality. See, if I were to evaluate you, I would say I do not prefer dumbasses who can't read. This would contribute negatively to my perception of your attractiveness since you have, in fact, been a dumbass. See how that works?
you should take a break, your words are loaded with frustration and they come off like an asshole.
from what i've seen you attacked every person who does not prefer trans woman over regular woman, saying if they all look the same why does it matter, even giving moot examples like "would guys fuck trans woman if there is no difference" (i mean, answer is pretty fucking obvious and if someone were to refuse it'll be based on how they were raised and not their own understanding of it, even refusing after understanding it, theres nothing wrong with that too..but noooo, according to you, he is an asshole)
my bad if i'm mixing up quotes from what i've read but i just remember klondikebar attacking anyone that does not see trans woman = real woman
|
On August 01 2013 04:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:49 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:45 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:37 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Except that that exact logic can be applied in all sorts of bigoted ways. Like "it's just my preference to only date white people." I'm forcing the logical reasons because we have a lot of internalized "-ism's" that we don't realize we have. And confronting them and saying "huh, there really is not logical reason I wouldn't bang person X" you end up making yourself better off as a person.
Now, if you meet a trans person I'm not saying you have to immediately hop into bed with them just to prove how tolerant you are. That would be moronic. They could be ugly, they could be crazy, they could just be mean. But just making blanket statements about your preferences when, in practice, we judge people individually on their attractiveness, seems rather silly and an excuse to just not admit to some internalized prejudices.
Right, but in this case you are asking someone if they are willing to have sex with someone, not accept them as part of a community or give them a job. Or to put it this way, the discussion is similar to trying to force someone who is admittedly gay to say that they could date someone of the opposite sex, and accusing them of being a bigot if they say no. People have a right to be attracted to who they are attracted too and you can't call them a bigot because of their personal taste. Umm...no. Being gay is a sexual orientation by which you are attracted to the same sex. Trans women are women, they fall well within the realm of "opposite sex" for heterosexual men. And again, "personal taste" is just a hand waving argument to excuse a belief without justification. And we don't give "personal taste" a free pass. If I told you I only dated white people just because it was my "personal taste" you'd raise an eyebrow and say "uh-huh...sure." I'm applying the same logically coherent thought process here. And unless you're gonna get bent outta shape at people who think only dating white people is "personal taste" you don't get to get bent outta shape at me. But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing. Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract. Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive. If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images. I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them. So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions? More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture. At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want. Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist. I just don't like having to lean my neck back to kiss, its not that weird. I am also pretty tall myself. I am sure there one tall girl out there that would change my mind. But personal preference is personal preference and you don't need to say someone is 'sort of eugenicist" if they state what it is. Uh, yeah, I'm going to. Because you just admitted that being tall alone is not enough to make a girl unattractive. And if tall alone is really enough, by itself, to make a girl unattractive to you...you're an asshole. If you're going to shield yourself from any sort of criticism with "personal preference is personal preference" (a moronic tautology by the way) then there's no more discussion to be had. I just call you an asshole and move on. And for future reference, if you're going to offer up your point of view and then immediately shield it with "personal preference is personal preference" then you haven't offered anything of value because the discussion can't continue from it. It can't be evaluated in any way because it's completely subjective. So if you have tastes that you don't want criticized, don't offer them up in a public discussion. I think the only ass hole in this thread is you, thank you very much. You need to stop looking for reasons to call people bigots or to pass judgment on them. You know full well that I am a very open minded and not at all the "eugenicist" you called me. You are not perfect and you need to stop grinding your ax on people who agree with you. Your personal baggage is your own, stop dumping it on others.
I love how calling people out on their weird and shallow prejudices is more offensive than actually having the prejudice. Never said you weren't tolerant dude. Just said you need to rethink how you evaluate people so that you're not reducing them to one and only one characteristic. You're getting pretty defensive dude. If I'm so mean and so obviously wrong, quit responding.
Don't just offer up an opinion, say it's completely immune to criticism and discussion, and then get pissy when I tell you how dumb that is.
|
On August 01 2013 04:14 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 03:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:53 jinorazi wrote:On August 01 2013 03:49 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:45 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 02:45 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Umm...no. Being gay is a sexual orientation by which you are attracted to the same sex. Trans women are women, they fall well within the realm of "opposite sex" for heterosexual men.
And again, "personal taste" is just a hand waving argument to excuse a belief without justification. And we don't give "personal taste" a free pass. If I told you I only dated white people just because it was my "personal taste" you'd raise an eyebrow and say "uh-huh...sure." I'm applying the same logically coherent thought process here. And unless you're gonna get bent outta shape at people who think only dating white people is "personal taste" you don't get to get bent outta shape at me.
But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing. Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract. Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive. If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images. I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them. So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions? More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture. At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want. Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist. I just don't like having to lean my neck back to kiss, its not that weird. I am also pretty tall myself. I am sure there one tall girl out there that would change my mind. But personal preference is personal preference and you don't need to say someone is 'sort of eugenicist" if they state what it is. Uh, yeah, I'm going to. Because you just admitted that being tall alone is not enough to make a girl unattractive. And if tall alone is really enough, by itself, to make a girl unattractive to you...you're an asshole. If you're going to shield yourself from any sort of criticism with "personal preference is personal preference" (a moronic tautology by the way) then there's no more discussion to be had. I just call you an asshole and move on. And for future reference, if you're going to offer up your point of view and then immediately shield it with "personal preference is personal preference" then you haven't offered anything of value because the discussion can't continue from it. It can't be evaluated in any way because it's completely subjective. So if you have tastes that you don't want criticized, don't offer them up in a public discussion. it seems you're against anyone having preference o.O dont like fat girls? asshole. dont like tall girls? asshole. dont like perfectly fine "real" woman trans? asshole. Well I'm certainly against people posting in threads who have zero reading comprehension. At no point have I ever said that preferences were bad, in fact, I even listed some of my own. I think that reducing someone's attractiveness to one quality and judging them based entirely on that is stupid. "I do not prefer tall people" is not the same as saying "tall people are unattractive." In the former, you evaluate the person as a whole and their height contributes negatively to your overall perception of their attractiveness. In the latter, you've ignored everything else about their appearance and judged them as unattractive based on one quality. See, if I were to evaluate you, I would say I do not prefer dumbasses who can't read. This would contribute negatively to my perception of your attractiveness since you have, in fact, been a dumbass. See how that works? you should take a break, your words are loaded with frustration and they come off like an asshole. from what i've seen you attacked every person who does not prefer trans woman over regular woman, saying if they all look the same why does it matter, even giving moot examples like "would guys fuck trans woman if there is no difference" (i mean, answer is pretty fucking obvious and if someone were to refuse it'll be based on how they were raised and not their own understanding of it, even refusing after understanding it, theres nothing wrong with that too..but noooo, according to you, he is an asshole) my bad if i'm mixing up quotes from what i've read but i just remember klondikebar attacking anyone that does not see trans woman = real woman
Lots of people in this very thread would disagree with you saying that trans women aren't real women. That wasn't just me. I was getting ornery with the morons who insisted that they'd still call them "he." And I'm ornery with you because you thought you were being super clever with your sarcastic little post...even though you contributed nothing and clearly didn't think it through.
|
On August 01 2013 04:20 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 04:14 jinorazi wrote:On August 01 2013 03:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:53 jinorazi wrote:On August 01 2013 03:49 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:45 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing.
Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract. Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive. If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images. I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them. So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions? More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture. At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want. Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist. I just don't like having to lean my neck back to kiss, its not that weird. I am also pretty tall myself. I am sure there one tall girl out there that would change my mind. But personal preference is personal preference and you don't need to say someone is 'sort of eugenicist" if they state what it is. Uh, yeah, I'm going to. Because you just admitted that being tall alone is not enough to make a girl unattractive. And if tall alone is really enough, by itself, to make a girl unattractive to you...you're an asshole. If you're going to shield yourself from any sort of criticism with "personal preference is personal preference" (a moronic tautology by the way) then there's no more discussion to be had. I just call you an asshole and move on. And for future reference, if you're going to offer up your point of view and then immediately shield it with "personal preference is personal preference" then you haven't offered anything of value because the discussion can't continue from it. It can't be evaluated in any way because it's completely subjective. So if you have tastes that you don't want criticized, don't offer them up in a public discussion. it seems you're against anyone having preference o.O dont like fat girls? asshole. dont like tall girls? asshole. dont like perfectly fine "real" woman trans? asshole. Well I'm certainly against people posting in threads who have zero reading comprehension. At no point have I ever said that preferences were bad, in fact, I even listed some of my own. I think that reducing someone's attractiveness to one quality and judging them based entirely on that is stupid. "I do not prefer tall people" is not the same as saying "tall people are unattractive." In the former, you evaluate the person as a whole and their height contributes negatively to your overall perception of their attractiveness. In the latter, you've ignored everything else about their appearance and judged them as unattractive based on one quality. See, if I were to evaluate you, I would say I do not prefer dumbasses who can't read. This would contribute negatively to my perception of your attractiveness since you have, in fact, been a dumbass. See how that works? you should take a break, your words are loaded with frustration and they come off like an asshole. from what i've seen you attacked every person who does not prefer trans woman over regular woman, saying if they all look the same why does it matter, even giving moot examples like "would guys fuck trans woman if there is no difference" (i mean, answer is pretty fucking obvious and if someone were to refuse it'll be based on how they were raised and not their own understanding of it, even refusing after understanding it, theres nothing wrong with that too..but noooo, according to you, he is an asshole) my bad if i'm mixing up quotes from what i've read but i just remember klondikebar attacking anyone that does not see trans woman = real woman Lots of people in this very thread would disagree with you saying that trans women aren't real women. That wasn't just me. I was getting ornery with the morons who insisted that they'd still call them "he." And I'm ornery with you because you thought you were being super clever with your sarcastic little post...even though you contributed nothing and clearly didn't think it through.
lots of people think otherwise too and it isnt simply because of shallowness and culture plays a huge part in it like or not. not everyone thinks like the liberals of USA, huge portion of rest of the world would call you crazy for calling trans woman a real woman, however you ignore all that just so you can say you're right and they're wrong. for what reasons? medical advancements that happened the last couple of decades? because of that anyone can become woman? some people like to hold on to tradition and you should respect that the same way you demand respect. you said it yourself dating situation and fucking situation is different. ever thought some cultures think one or the other is of the same? and in that sense trans wife/daughter in law is unthinkable? and that naturally transition into how a person prefers woman.
|
On August 01 2013 04:25 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 04:20 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 04:14 jinorazi wrote:On August 01 2013 03:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:53 jinorazi wrote:On August 01 2013 03:49 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:45 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive.
If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images.
I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them.
So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions? More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture. At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want. Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist. I just don't like having to lean my neck back to kiss, its not that weird. I am also pretty tall myself. I am sure there one tall girl out there that would change my mind. But personal preference is personal preference and you don't need to say someone is 'sort of eugenicist" if they state what it is. Uh, yeah, I'm going to. Because you just admitted that being tall alone is not enough to make a girl unattractive. And if tall alone is really enough, by itself, to make a girl unattractive to you...you're an asshole. If you're going to shield yourself from any sort of criticism with "personal preference is personal preference" (a moronic tautology by the way) then there's no more discussion to be had. I just call you an asshole and move on. And for future reference, if you're going to offer up your point of view and then immediately shield it with "personal preference is personal preference" then you haven't offered anything of value because the discussion can't continue from it. It can't be evaluated in any way because it's completely subjective. So if you have tastes that you don't want criticized, don't offer them up in a public discussion. it seems you're against anyone having preference o.O dont like fat girls? asshole. dont like tall girls? asshole. dont like perfectly fine "real" woman trans? asshole. Well I'm certainly against people posting in threads who have zero reading comprehension. At no point have I ever said that preferences were bad, in fact, I even listed some of my own. I think that reducing someone's attractiveness to one quality and judging them based entirely on that is stupid. "I do not prefer tall people" is not the same as saying "tall people are unattractive." In the former, you evaluate the person as a whole and their height contributes negatively to your overall perception of their attractiveness. In the latter, you've ignored everything else about their appearance and judged them as unattractive based on one quality. See, if I were to evaluate you, I would say I do not prefer dumbasses who can't read. This would contribute negatively to my perception of your attractiveness since you have, in fact, been a dumbass. See how that works? you should take a break, your words are loaded with frustration and they come off like an asshole. from what i've seen you attacked every person who does not prefer trans woman over regular woman, saying if they all look the same why does it matter, even giving moot examples like "would guys fuck trans woman if there is no difference" (i mean, answer is pretty fucking obvious and if someone were to refuse it'll be based on how they were raised and not their own understanding of it, even refusing after understanding it, theres nothing wrong with that too..but noooo, according to you, he is an asshole) my bad if i'm mixing up quotes from what i've read but i just remember klondikebar attacking anyone that does not see trans woman = real woman Lots of people in this very thread would disagree with you saying that trans women aren't real women. That wasn't just me. I was getting ornery with the morons who insisted that they'd still call them "he." And I'm ornery with you because you thought you were being super clever with your sarcastic little post...even though you contributed nothing and clearly didn't think it through. lots of people think otherwise too and it isnt simply because of shallowness and culture plays a huge part in it like or not. not everyone thinks like the liberals of USA, huge portion of rest of the world would call you crazy for calling trans woman a real woman, however you ignore all that just so you can say you're right and they're wrong. for what reasons? medical advancements that happened the last couple of decades? because of that anyone can become woman? some people like to hold on to tradition and you should respect that the same way you demand respect. you said it yourself dating situation and fucking situation is different. ever thought some cultures think one or the other is of the same? and in that sense trans wife/daughter in law is unthinkable? and that naturally transition into how a person prefers woman.
"Tradition" is part of what allowed us to treat people as property. I'm not going to respect idiotic and oppressive beliefs just because other people sincerely believe them.
If they aren't up to speed on how to be nice to trans people I'm more than happy to calmly explain it to them. But when they then argue that, no, they should still be allowed to treat them as less than people, I'm not going to treat their views as having any merit. They're just idiots who don't want to better themselves.
I don't care if the rest of the world is a backwater, uneducated cesspool. Simple majority opinion isn't enough to make me respect idiots.
|
Let me try and throw in a post that hopefully, correct me if I'm wrong, represents mine, and Klondikes view to an extent. The problem isn't so much that you don't find the idea of a trans women attractive. All that needs to be done is for people to recognize that prejudice. The fact is, society will fill you with prejudice, and it is very difficult to avoid it. No matter how hard you try to be fair, it is often the case that you cannot get rid of some deep seated prejudices you may have. I am very open to trans, homosexual, and bisexuality, however, I would find it very difficult to have a relationship with a trans women. Does this make them any less a women? No, in fact, I am at fault for having the prejudice against them.
Put it in another context: I would be more scared if a black group of young men was walking down the street towards me then a group of white men. Does this mean there is anything wrong with black males? No. Instead, I recognize that I have a prejudice against them, and I try my best to better myself, and get rid of the prejudice as best I can.
|
Being trans and mentally disabled makes reading these arguments very uncomfortable. Believe it or not, telling a trans person that they're infertile/not real/mentally challenged/disgusting/ugly is a really mean thing to do. You don't walk up to some cancer patient and point out their infertility do you? Why do so many people think it's okay to tell trans people, to their face, things you'd never tell any other individual?
Whether you believe it's 'right' or 'wrong' for me to use the bathroom I feel comfortable in, or to wear the clothes I think are cute, date the people I am attracted to is not going to stop me. Your discomfort is a product of your own design and I'm not responsible for it.
As for all the understanding people posting, thank you, I wish others were more like you.
|
On August 01 2013 04:20 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 04:14 jinorazi wrote:On August 01 2013 03:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:53 jinorazi wrote:On August 01 2013 03:49 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:45 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
But if someone says, "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" when the person in question is totally abstract and they can't even see them, its not really fair. I mean, think about what you are attempting to do. You are attempting to force someone to admit they would be attracted to someone they feel they might not be attracted to. You can replace the word "transgender" with "over weight" or "tall" and its about the same thing.
Once again, you need to make the call if they are being trans-phobic or just expressing that they are unsure if they would be attracted to someone who is transgender in the abstract. Check my last post cause it's relevant. But this abstract person is attractive to them in every other way. They question we're asking is whether or not the fact that they are trans overrides everything else and suddenly makes them unattractive. If Charlize Theron told you she was trans, would you suddenly not be attracted to her? Literally nothing else about her has changed. I mean, sure, this woman is abstract, but we can still get pretty solid images. I'm saying it's not fair to say "I don't think I would be attracted to someone who is transgender" because you've taken a person you've already admitted is attractive if they were cis-gendered, reducing their attractiveness to the completely binary scale of trans or not-trans, and then saying that overwrites everything else about them. So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions? More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture. At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want. Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist. I just don't like having to lean my neck back to kiss, its not that weird. I am also pretty tall myself. I am sure there one tall girl out there that would change my mind. But personal preference is personal preference and you don't need to say someone is 'sort of eugenicist" if they state what it is. Uh, yeah, I'm going to. Because you just admitted that being tall alone is not enough to make a girl unattractive. And if tall alone is really enough, by itself, to make a girl unattractive to you...you're an asshole. If you're going to shield yourself from any sort of criticism with "personal preference is personal preference" (a moronic tautology by the way) then there's no more discussion to be had. I just call you an asshole and move on. And for future reference, if you're going to offer up your point of view and then immediately shield it with "personal preference is personal preference" then you haven't offered anything of value because the discussion can't continue from it. It can't be evaluated in any way because it's completely subjective. So if you have tastes that you don't want criticized, don't offer them up in a public discussion. it seems you're against anyone having preference o.O dont like fat girls? asshole. dont like tall girls? asshole. dont like perfectly fine "real" woman trans? asshole. Well I'm certainly against people posting in threads who have zero reading comprehension. At no point have I ever said that preferences were bad, in fact, I even listed some of my own. I think that reducing someone's attractiveness to one quality and judging them based entirely on that is stupid. "I do not prefer tall people" is not the same as saying "tall people are unattractive." In the former, you evaluate the person as a whole and their height contributes negatively to your overall perception of their attractiveness. In the latter, you've ignored everything else about their appearance and judged them as unattractive based on one quality. See, if I were to evaluate you, I would say I do not prefer dumbasses who can't read. This would contribute negatively to my perception of your attractiveness since you have, in fact, been a dumbass. See how that works? you should take a break, your words are loaded with frustration and they come off like an asshole. from what i've seen you attacked every person who does not prefer trans woman over regular woman, saying if they all look the same why does it matter, even giving moot examples like "would guys fuck trans woman if there is no difference" (i mean, answer is pretty fucking obvious and if someone were to refuse it'll be based on how they were raised and not their own understanding of it, even refusing after understanding it, theres nothing wrong with that too..but noooo, according to you, he is an asshole) my bad if i'm mixing up quotes from what i've read but i just remember klondikebar attacking anyone that does not see trans woman = real woman Lots of people in this very thread would disagree with you saying that trans women aren't real women. That wasn't just me. I was getting ornery with the morons who insisted that they'd still call them "he." And I'm ornery with you because you thought you were being super clever with your sarcastic little post...even though you contributed nothing and clearly didn't think it through.
I think the big issue with your term "real women" is that it implies complete and total equivalence. It implies, to me at least, that this woman is just as much a woman as every other woman. But every woman who was born a woman does not have left over male features. They also have a genuine vagina. These are not true for trans women.
I really don't understand why you are so insistent that a transexual person is totally equal. You have to understand that there is quite a bit of macgyver'ing going on. Its not that they are able to form a caccoon, wait 4 days, and be totally reborn into a female body. Everything that goes into making a transexual woman is done by surgery and gene therapy. As such, its obviously not 100% perfect. I haven't met a trans woman who looked more than maybe 70% female. I've seen some really convincing ones online in female clothing and all fixed up, but if I had sex with this person with their surgery-formed vagina, would it feel the exact same as a female-born vagina? Probably not.
I suppose what I am trying to get at is that we can respect transexuals and encourage them to be themselves, but its just not accurate to say its entirely the same. It just isn't. Science doesn't allow for a man to perfectly transform into a woman. I'm sure it'll happen some day, but why the obsession with viewing them as totally equal today? Its not true yet.
|
On August 01 2013 04:30 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 04:25 jinorazi wrote:On August 01 2013 04:20 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 04:14 jinorazi wrote:On August 01 2013 03:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:53 jinorazi wrote:On August 01 2013 03:49 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:45 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 03:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
So by that note, I can't say that I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is 'tall" for the same reasons? I don't like people who are blonde, where does that factor in? Are you going to force me to admit that there is some weird chance I might find someone who is blonde attractive just to make sure I treat everyone equally in my relationship decisions?
More importantly, rather than trying to use the whole fertility augment, why not just say, "Are you sure, some transgender people look like super models? Is it really going to bother you that much if they look like this?" and provide a picture.
At the end of the day, the best you can hope for it a "maybe" or, "I don't know, I haven't been attracted to any transgender person I have meet" I am all about equality and for people to treat other equally, but there comes a point when people can date or be in relationships with who they want. Believe it or not...that's all you have to say. The people in the thread with whom I was disagreeing were saying they'd never be attracted to a trans-woman. And don't you see how silly it is to say "I wouldn't be attracted to someone who is tall?" Like...that's such a tiny part of their physical appearance. If you are not attracted to someone the fact that they're tall might contribute to that. But to just say "Oh, they're tall, nah not interested" makes you sound like some sort of eugenicist. I just don't like having to lean my neck back to kiss, its not that weird. I am also pretty tall myself. I am sure there one tall girl out there that would change my mind. But personal preference is personal preference and you don't need to say someone is 'sort of eugenicist" if they state what it is. Uh, yeah, I'm going to. Because you just admitted that being tall alone is not enough to make a girl unattractive. And if tall alone is really enough, by itself, to make a girl unattractive to you...you're an asshole. If you're going to shield yourself from any sort of criticism with "personal preference is personal preference" (a moronic tautology by the way) then there's no more discussion to be had. I just call you an asshole and move on. And for future reference, if you're going to offer up your point of view and then immediately shield it with "personal preference is personal preference" then you haven't offered anything of value because the discussion can't continue from it. It can't be evaluated in any way because it's completely subjective. So if you have tastes that you don't want criticized, don't offer them up in a public discussion. it seems you're against anyone having preference o.O dont like fat girls? asshole. dont like tall girls? asshole. dont like perfectly fine "real" woman trans? asshole. Well I'm certainly against people posting in threads who have zero reading comprehension. At no point have I ever said that preferences were bad, in fact, I even listed some of my own. I think that reducing someone's attractiveness to one quality and judging them based entirely on that is stupid. "I do not prefer tall people" is not the same as saying "tall people are unattractive." In the former, you evaluate the person as a whole and their height contributes negatively to your overall perception of their attractiveness. In the latter, you've ignored everything else about their appearance and judged them as unattractive based on one quality. See, if I were to evaluate you, I would say I do not prefer dumbasses who can't read. This would contribute negatively to my perception of your attractiveness since you have, in fact, been a dumbass. See how that works? you should take a break, your words are loaded with frustration and they come off like an asshole. from what i've seen you attacked every person who does not prefer trans woman over regular woman, saying if they all look the same why does it matter, even giving moot examples like "would guys fuck trans woman if there is no difference" (i mean, answer is pretty fucking obvious and if someone were to refuse it'll be based on how they were raised and not their own understanding of it, even refusing after understanding it, theres nothing wrong with that too..but noooo, according to you, he is an asshole) my bad if i'm mixing up quotes from what i've read but i just remember klondikebar attacking anyone that does not see trans woman = real woman Lots of people in this very thread would disagree with you saying that trans women aren't real women. That wasn't just me. I was getting ornery with the morons who insisted that they'd still call them "he." And I'm ornery with you because you thought you were being super clever with your sarcastic little post...even though you contributed nothing and clearly didn't think it through. lots of people think otherwise too and it isnt simply because of shallowness and culture plays a huge part in it like or not. not everyone thinks like the liberals of USA, huge portion of rest of the world would call you crazy for calling trans woman a real woman, however you ignore all that just so you can say you're right and they're wrong. for what reasons? medical advancements that happened the last couple of decades? because of that anyone can become woman? some people like to hold on to tradition and you should respect that the same way you demand respect. you said it yourself dating situation and fucking situation is different. ever thought some cultures think one or the other is of the same? and in that sense trans wife/daughter in law is unthinkable? and that naturally transition into how a person prefers woman. "Tradition" is part of what allowed us to treat people as property. I'm not going to respect idiotic and oppressive beliefs just because other people sincerely believe them. If they aren't up to speed on how to be nice to trans people I'm more than happy to calmly explain it to them. But when they then argue that, no, they should still be allowed to treat them as less than people, I'm not going to treat their views as having any merit. They're just idiots who don't want to better themselves. I don't care if the rest of the world is a backwater, uneducated cesspool. Simple majority opinion isn't enough to make me respect idiots.
well, you'll be up against a lot of people. we live in a world of prejudice, USA got its black president, korea's got its female president, shit unthinkable just decade ago. people are the way they are without choice, they're raised into it, try to understand that culture shapes people and culture takes a long time to change. this perfect trans woman i hear about is something very new, i wouldnt expect any different reaction from people; not preferring them over real woman and you reacting negatively to this term "real woman", when in fact, i see it correct to use that term...since one is natural, born into it meanwhile the other impossible without money and modern technology.
keep fighting since thats how all the changes happened. dont be surprised that people dont agree with you, while you attack them personally when culture is at fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
