|
On August 01 2013 12:09 RaspberrySC2 wrote:I haven't posted on this site in forever, but I think that Zinnia Jones can settle the most recent discussion. Frankly, being a trans woman who has the (dis)pleasure of getting to watch these discussions take place gets old real quick: I'm not sure what the particular rules of the thread are, but here's a couple of her videos that lay it out pretty succinctly: + Show Spoiler +
Video 1: I can follow the train of logic, but I disagree with the conclusion she came to, and I'll try to distinguish where I disagree. The observation of "please stop," I think, is very astute and makes a lot of sense. It is a social imperative, and always has been, to not be too big of a douchebag lest you be attacked or simply have no friends or social ties, but in modern times, as the person stated, the notion has become a catch all to stop any behavior that not only hurts or offends, but is inconvenient. The analogy of the Muslim fallacy (Quran burning justifies terrorism) is spot on as I see it, because there are many other recourses to retaliatory action that does not include violence and engenders people to one's cause, but I think it is at this point that I stop agreeing. Sex is a very, very intimate thing that I don't think ought to be taken lightly, and this intimacy is far more personal to a person than any holy book. I'm not saying that a violent reaction to a man finding out the "girl" he just slept with was at one point a man, because in my opinion violence is almost never justifiable and this situation is most certainly one where violence is not appropriate. Nevertheless, I don't perceive these two situations as similar. Every person of every faith will at some point be exposed to those who disagree with their religious beliefs, sometimes extremely. Every Christian in the United States has experienced Athiests/Agnostics. Muslims in what was once the Ottoman Empire are commonly experiencing Christians and Athiests (especially online), etc etc, but not every heterosexual person is guaranteed to encounter a transsexual, and even less will sleep with a transsexual.
Video 2: Fortunately she picked up exactly where I left off for my last thought. Her argument, as I understand it, stays strictly carnal, which is to say that men like trans women's bodies before knowing they were trans, and thus should have no objection because they enjoyed the experience during, and would have always enjoyed it if she was a "true" woman. As I mentioned in my response to the first video though, sex isn't simply a carnal act. If it were, rape shouldn't have the backlash it (rightly) does either, because nothing more than physicality is being violated. But people get deeply damaged, requiring therapy (sometimes years or even decades) because they feel like their very person-ness was violated. I've explained it this way so that I'm as clear as I can be when I say that sex is a spiritual integration to the degree it is also a carnal integration. Her clarified argument in the second video makes perfect sense so long as sex is nothing but a physical act, but everyone I've ever met, and the perceived implication of many of the comments I've read on this forum indicate to me that universally sex is considered to be something spiritual as much as carnal. At the end of my rather lengthy contemplation (and response) on this subject I've decided to stick with my original stance: if one seeks one night stands they lose the backing of a "moral high ground" and open themselves to the risks of STDs, pregnancy, and sleeping with someone whom they would have serious reservations (such as creed, ancestry, political views, or whether or not the person is trans) about if they knew the person intimately. Because of these risks, one should be proactive in making sure they are safe from undesirable consequences, but, understanding that the other party can lie, is better off avoiding promiscuity altogether. It is also desirable that someone who has one of these problems/traits is up front about it to their potential partner in a setting that if violence is possible the chance of it actualizing is highly diminished or made impossible because sex is more than just having a physical experience, but I'm not convinced that I can make a strong argument to demand disclosure in all circumstances, nor could I enforce it even if I could.
|
On August 01 2013 12:46 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 11:44 KnowNothing wrote:
DISCLAIMER: I know that my views will be seen as radical, wrongly discriminatory, ignorant, insensitive and offensive by some, but I bring them to this discussion honestly and have no intention of any sort of harassment or abuse nor to engage in some kind of text fight with anyone. Please keep this in mind and I will attempt to open my mind to any response. I admit up front that I find the concept of gender alteration hard to accept despite my support for other groups usually discriminated against. My question:
What is the limit to which a person can define themselves vis-a-vis sexuality? If it were feasible, would it be acceptable for me to surgically attach, for example, an additional penis to my pelvis? Does it matter whether that penis is made from my own cells? What if I preferred instead to have it, or perhaps several of them attached to my chest and elsewhere? Does it matter if this result could be achieved through the use of drugs rather than surgery? Would I have a sound argument to be free from any discrimination against my person based on what I termed my sexuality, as such?
Because my instinctive response to this is that a person's sexuality is largely defined by their "natural" physical gender. Another portion of sexuality is mental. The mental side fluctuates inherently, but altering the physical part of things, while not out of the question, is obviously not natural, that is to say it's impossible without medical science. Since gender exists as part of the basis of a person's physical nature, altering gender would mean a kind of "artificial nature", which is a paradoxical concept. As such, the gender of an individual must be a description of their physical nature and thus no person can actually alter their gender under this definition.
I believe this is roughly the feeling of many who are not entirely certain where they stand with respect to transgendered individuals. Maybe it's too difficult to explain where you disagree with me, but simply have feelings which convince you otherwise, which is sufficient justification for you to live as you see fit, but for me and for others who haven't experienced the same, is there any insight you can offer into your disagreement with this view? I'm not sure how to properly respond, but I'll try anyway. So, it's important to understand that being transgender is not a fantasy or merely a sexual thing. It is about your identity. Thing is, my gender is and was always the same. I always had a feminine identity even though I was born male looking. From my perspective, my gender never changed, I just went through a female puberty later in life. What mostly led me to transition is to get rid of gender dysphoria, the feeling your gender identity and body does not match. Gender dysphoria basically make you feel like shit, lead to depression and too often to suicide. (suicide rate among transgender are extremely high). For me, transitioning was also a cure to gender dysphoria. It allowed me to finally be myself and feels like I could live. Of course, surgery and hormone replacement aren't natural treatment, but neither is most of the treatment made possible with modern medicine and science. In the example you give, it is very unlikely that a person could have a distress so hard to have such peculiar needs that isn't merely a fantasy, though I do not think it is up to me to decide. Your gender is defined by your brain. If you were to get rid of all your physical male characteristic, chance are you would most likely still identify as male. Or let say your brain get transplanted into a robot. Do you still identify as a man ? I think the answer is yes, in my case, I would still identify as female, because being one is an extremely important part of my life and my identity. Gender and sex are two different thing. For instance, it is possible for a person to be born XX, but still be male. Or it is possible to be born intersex, which is sometime almost impossible to classify as exclusively male or female. Of course, your physical attribute are also very important and they also to some extend define yourself, this is why we need hormone replacement and sometime surgery.
Your answer is quite good. Anything which enables a person to feel themselves and live freely is hard to argue against.
If I'm going to be honest, though, something seems contradictory (from my experience) in your statement. Those born male/female actually have differences in the way their brains function as well, and these differences seem to be clearly represented in transgendered individuals. e.g. Scarlett is quite a bit better than other girls at SC2. They speak and even phrase things in characteristic ways. So a MTF person has a brain which in many ways reflects their male birth. How much of it is nature and how much nurture I must say I don't know. This is purely my own observation, but I find it pretty hard to ignore.
And if I were in a robot body, I think I would not identify as male (but who knows until it happens), unless I had to choose between male or female.
|
On August 01 2013 13:28 Foblos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 12:09 RaspberrySC2 wrote:I haven't posted on this site in forever, but I think that Zinnia Jones can settle the most recent discussion. Frankly, being a trans woman who has the (dis)pleasure of getting to watch these discussions take place gets old real quick: I'm not sure what the particular rules of the thread are, but here's a couple of her videos that lay it out pretty succinctly: + Show Spoiler + Video 1: I can follow the train of logic, but I disagree with the conclusion she came to, and I'll try to distinguish where I disagree. The observation of "please stop," I think, is very astute and makes a lot of sense. It is a social imperative, and always has been, to not be too big of a douchebag lest you be attacked or simply have no friends or social ties, but in modern times, as the person stated, the notion has become a catch all to stop any behavior that not only hurts or offends, but is inconvenient. The analogy of the Muslim fallacy (Quran burning justifies terrorism) is spot on as I see it, because there are many other recourses to retaliatory action that does not include violence and engenders people to one's cause, but I think it is at this point that I stop agreeing. Sex is a very, very intimate thing that I don't think ought to be taken lightly, and this intimacy is far more personal to a person than any holy book. I'm not saying that a violent reaction to a man finding out the "girl" he just slept with was at one point a man, because in my opinion violence is almost never justifiable and this situation is most certainly one where violence is not appropriate. Nevertheless, I don't perceive these two situations as similar. Every person of every faith will at some point be exposed to those who disagree with their religious beliefs, sometimes extremely. Every Christian in the United States has experienced Athiests/Agnostics. Muslims in what was once the Ottoman Empire are commonly experiencing Christians and Athiests (especially online), etc etc, but not every heterosexual person is guaranteed to encounter a transsexual, and even less will sleep with a transsexual. Video 2: Fortunately she picked up exactly where I left off for my last thought. Her argument, as I understand it, stays strictly carnal, which is to say that men like trans women's bodies before knowing they were trans, and thus should have no objection because they enjoyed the experience during, and would have always enjoyed it if she was a "true" woman. As I mentioned in my response to the first video though, sex isn't simply a carnal act. If it were, rape shouldn't have the backlash it (rightly) does either, because nothing more than physicality is being violated. But people get deeply damaged, requiring therapy (sometimes years or even decades) because they feel like their very person-ness was violated. I've explained it this way so that I'm as clear as I can be when I say that sex is a spiritual integration to the degree it is also a carnal integration. Her clarified argument in the second video makes perfect sense so long as sex is nothing but a physical act, but everyone I've ever met, and the perceived implication of many of the comments I've read on this forum indicate to me that universally sex is considered to be something spiritual as much as carnal. At the end of my rather lengthy contemplation (and response) on this subject I've decided to stick with my original stance: if one seeks one night stands they lose the backing of a "moral high ground" and open themselves to the risks of STDs, pregnancy, and sleeping with someone whom they would have serious reservations (such as creed, ancestry, political views, or whether or not the person is trans) about if they knew the person intimately. Because of these risks, one should be proactive in making sure they are safe from undesirable consequences, but, understanding that the other party can lie, is better off avoiding promiscuity altogether. It is also desirable that someone who has one of these problems/traits is up front about it to their potential partner in a setting that if violence is possible the chance of it actualizing is highly diminished or made impossible because sex is more than just having a physical experience, but I'm not convinced that I can make a strong argument to demand disclosure in all circumstances, nor could I enforce it even if I could.
I think she missed two points: The first one is that Trans women are not that common (>1%) in society. So it is a reasonable assumption that the woman I want to sleep with is not trans.
The second one is that she missed another part of the insult in asking a woman if she was trans or not: The woman might see this as if she was looking and/or acting "manly" (yes that's vague) and may thus be insulted in her gender identity.
I don't know if that's enough to put the responsibility to disclose being trans on the woman but it's def. not as easy as "just ask". most people don't think about these issues (at all).
|
[QUOTE]On August 01 2013 13:28 Foblos wrote:
[QUOTE]On August 01 2013 12:09 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
Video 1: I can follow the train of logic, but I disagree with the conclusion she came to, and I'll try to distinguish where I disagree. The observation of "please stop," I think, is very astute and makes a lot of sense. It is a social imperative, and always has been, to not be too big of a douchebag lest you be attacked or simply have no friends or social ties, but in modern times, as the person stated, the notion has become a catch all to stop any behavior that not only hurts or offends, but is inconvenient. The analogy of the Muslim fallacy (Quran burning justifies terrorism) is spot on as I see it, because there are many other recourses to retaliatory action that does not include violence and engenders people to one's cause, but I think it is at this point that I stop agreeing. Sex is a very, very intimate thing that I don't think ought to be taken lightly, and this intimacy is far more personal to a person than any holy book. I'm not saying that a violent reaction to a man finding out the "girl" he just slept with was at one point a man, because in my opinion violence is almost never justifiable and this situation is most certainly one where violence is not appropriate. Nevertheless, I don't perceive these two situations as similar. Every person of every faith will at some point be exposed to those who disagree with their religious beliefs, sometimes extremely. Every Christian in the United States has experienced Athiests/Agnostics. Muslims in what was once the Ottoman Empire are commonly experiencing Christians and Athiests (especially online), etc etc, but not every heterosexual person is guaranteed to encounter a transsexual, and even less will sleep with a transsexual.
Video 2: Fortunately she picked up exactly where I left off for my last thought. Her argument, as I understand it, stays strictly carnal, which is to say that men like trans women's bodies before knowing they were trans, and thus should have no objection because they enjoyed the experience during, and would have always enjoyed it if she was a "true" woman. As I mentioned in my response to the first video though, sex isn't simply a carnal act. If it were, rape shouldn't have the backlash it (rightly) does either, because nothing more than physicality is being violated. But people get deeply damaged, requiring therapy (sometimes years or even decades) because they feel like their very person-ness was violated. I've explained it this way so that I'm as clear as I can be when I say that sex is a spiritual integration to the degree it is also a carnal integration. Her clarified argument in the second video makes perfect sense so long as sex is nothing but a physical act, but everyone I've ever met, and the perceived implication of many of the comments I've read on this forum indicate to me that universally sex is considered to be something spiritual as much as carnal. At the end of my rather lengthy contemplation (and response) on this subject I've decided to stick with my original stance: if one seeks one night stands they lose the backing of a "moral high ground" and open themselves to the risks of STDs, pregnancy, and sleeping with someone whom they would have serious reservations (such as creed, ancestry, political views, or whether or not the person is trans) about if they knew the person intimately. Because of these risks, one should be proactive in making sure they are safe from undesirable consequences, but, understanding that the other party can lie, is better off avoiding promiscuity altogether. It is also desirable that someone who has one of these problems/traits is up front about it to their potential partner in a setting that if violence is possible the chance of it actualizing is highly diminished or made impossible because sex is more than just having a physical experience, but I'm not convinced that I can make a strong argument to demand disclosure in all circumstances, nor could I enforce it even if I could.
Our experiences with sexuality are *extremely* different.
In my case, most people I have known and have had sexual interactions with are mostly interested in the physical aspects. Then again, I have been spending my time around sex-positive queer feminists.
I can appreciate that you have spiritual feelings during sex because I also have those feelings, but those are *my* feelings and my partner(s) are not responsible for those feelings. Is the fear not that a cisgendered hetero-normative male can have all of these deeply spiritual and loving feelings with a trans woman? Is it still not the non-trans person's responsibility to communicate that they are looking for a specific spiritual experience (ESPECIALLY because that is a really complex and vague concept to presume exists in *any* given situation)? Does it not ultimately amount to fear that they can feel all of these things with *anyone* if they allow themselves to regardless of that person's body? Should that not be celebrated instead of feared and condemned?
These are all questions that pop up in my head when I read your post.
|
On August 01 2013 14:12 RaspberrySC2 wrote:
Our experiences with sexuality are *extremely* different.
In my case, most people I have known and have had sexual interactions with are mostly interested in the physical aspects. Then again, I have been spending my time around sex-positive queer feminists.
I can appreciate that you have spiritual feelings during sex because I also have those feelings, but those are *my* feelings and my partner(s) are not responsible for those feelings. Is the fear not that a cisgendered hetero-normative male can have all of these deeply spiritual and loving feelings with a trans woman? Is it still not the non-trans person's responsibility to communicate that they are looking for a specific spiritual experience (ESPECIALLY because that is a really complex and vague concept to presume exists in *any* given situation)? Does it not ultimately amount to fear that they can feel all of these things with *anyone* if they allow themselves to regardless of that person's body? Should that not be celebrated instead of feared and condemned?
These are all questions that pop up in my head when I read your post.
I don't disagree with your points, especially that the trans person isn't obligated to be upfront with every person they desire to have sex with, but my point in bringing up the spiritual aspect is that if damage is taken, the damage is very, very severe. Let me return to rape; in most non-brutal rape situations, the womans body returns to its normal rather quickly, but her person-ness/spirituality has been severely damaged and if it ever heals it often takes many many years and even then there is serious scaring. In a mutually-consensual one night stand I'm not terribly sympathetic to anyone because both parties are knowingly exposing themselves to several dangers, but if this one night stand ends up becoming a relationship and the non-trans ends up finding out their partner is trans and isn't okay with it serious trust issues could arise, and there is likely to be a great deal of suffering in regards to it. Although I'm not sympathetic to wanton promiscuity, the same can happen in a one night stand situation. Because of this example, and other conceivable things like it, as well as what I believe is a moral imperative to care for your fellow human, I included that I think it is ideal that a trans person would be upfront and unashamed about their choices and journey, but because I've taken to heart what other trans persons have said in this thread about fearing for their safety, and because I'm relatively unsympathetic to people who knowingly put themselves in situations that can turn out terrible, I'm not willing to make a demand that trans persons should oust themselves at every opportunity if they're uncomfortable with it.
Mass edits to get formating right
|
Northern Ireland23792 Posts
How prevalent is being a transgendered person? I realise there quite possibly aren't stats, but it seems to be a relatively well-covered topic in the media and online, especially regarding the difficulties it can bring.
I must confess as to never having met an openly transgendered person, hell I only know a few gay people so it got me to thinking how big a segment they constitute.
|
On August 01 2013 14:11 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 13:28 Foblos wrote:On August 01 2013 12:09 RaspberrySC2 wrote:I haven't posted on this site in forever, but I think that Zinnia Jones can settle the most recent discussion. Frankly, being a trans woman who has the (dis)pleasure of getting to watch these discussions take place gets old real quick: I'm not sure what the particular rules of the thread are, but here's a couple of her videos that lay it out pretty succinctly: + Show Spoiler + Video 1: I can follow the train of logic, but I disagree with the conclusion she came to, and I'll try to distinguish where I disagree. The observation of "please stop," I think, is very astute and makes a lot of sense. It is a social imperative, and always has been, to not be too big of a douchebag lest you be attacked or simply have no friends or social ties, but in modern times, as the person stated, the notion has become a catch all to stop any behavior that not only hurts or offends, but is inconvenient. The analogy of the Muslim fallacy (Quran burning justifies terrorism) is spot on as I see it, because there are many other recourses to retaliatory action that does not include violence and engenders people to one's cause, but I think it is at this point that I stop agreeing. Sex is a very, very intimate thing that I don't think ought to be taken lightly, and this intimacy is far more personal to a person than any holy book. I'm not saying that a violent reaction to a man finding out the "girl" he just slept with was at one point a man, because in my opinion violence is almost never justifiable and this situation is most certainly one where violence is not appropriate. Nevertheless, I don't perceive these two situations as similar. Every person of every faith will at some point be exposed to those who disagree with their religious beliefs, sometimes extremely. Every Christian in the United States has experienced Athiests/Agnostics. Muslims in what was once the Ottoman Empire are commonly experiencing Christians and Athiests (especially online), etc etc, but not every heterosexual person is guaranteed to encounter a transsexual, and even less will sleep with a transsexual. Video 2: Fortunately she picked up exactly where I left off for my last thought. Her argument, as I understand it, stays strictly carnal, which is to say that men like trans women's bodies before knowing they were trans, and thus should have no objection because they enjoyed the experience during, and would have always enjoyed it if she was a "true" woman. As I mentioned in my response to the first video though, sex isn't simply a carnal act. If it were, rape shouldn't have the backlash it (rightly) does either, because nothing more than physicality is being violated. But people get deeply damaged, requiring therapy (sometimes years or even decades) because they feel like their very person-ness was violated. I've explained it this way so that I'm as clear as I can be when I say that sex is a spiritual integration to the degree it is also a carnal integration. Her clarified argument in the second video makes perfect sense so long as sex is nothing but a physical act, but everyone I've ever met, and the perceived implication of many of the comments I've read on this forum indicate to me that universally sex is considered to be something spiritual as much as carnal. At the end of my rather lengthy contemplation (and response) on this subject I've decided to stick with my original stance: if one seeks one night stands they lose the backing of a "moral high ground" and open themselves to the risks of STDs, pregnancy, and sleeping with someone whom they would have serious reservations (such as creed, ancestry, political views, or whether or not the person is trans) about if they knew the person intimately. Because of these risks, one should be proactive in making sure they are safe from undesirable consequences, but, understanding that the other party can lie, is better off avoiding promiscuity altogether. It is also desirable that someone who has one of these problems/traits is up front about it to their potential partner in a setting that if violence is possible the chance of it actualizing is highly diminished or made impossible because sex is more than just having a physical experience, but I'm not convinced that I can make a strong argument to demand disclosure in all circumstances, nor could I enforce it even if I could. I think she missed two points: The first one is that Trans women are not that common (>1%) in society. So it is a reasonable assumption that the woman I want to sleep with is not trans. The second one is that she missed another part of the insult in asking a woman if she was trans or not: The woman might see this as if she was looking and/or acting "manly" (yes that's vague) and may thus be insulted in her gender identity. I don't know if that's enough to put the responsibility to disclose being trans on the woman but it's def. not as easy as "just ask". most people don't think about these issues (at all).
Hmm, but that's your assumption. Yes, it is statistically reasonable to assume that the woman you are chatting up is not trans, but why should it really ever be her responsibility to answer to your unvoiced assumption?
I think the video touched upon the second point, actually. The logic is this: If you perceive such great harm in sleeping with a trans woman, then it should, by all rights, outweigh your desire to get off. Therefore, you should take efforts to make sure you are not sleeping with a trans woman, even if it means you may end up getting slapped and going home alone. But that's a cost/benefit analysis there for you to judge. If you decide to forgo asking, then you have effectively decided that your need to get off outweighs the harm of sleeping with a transsexual, in which case, it does not seem as great a harm as you are making it out to be. ("You" used here in a general sense.)
Having said that, I'd still consider it common courtesy to disclose, even for a one-night stand, but I wouldn't judge any trans woman for not disclosing. Nobody should be forced to put themselves in danger of physical violence.
|
On August 01 2013 14:32 Foblos wrote:
I don't disagree with your points, especially that the trans person isn't obligated to be upfront with every person they desire to have sex with, but my point in bringing up the spiritual aspect is that if damage is taken, the damage is very, very severe. Let me return to rape; in most non-brutal rape situations, the womans body returns to its normal rather quickly, but her person-ness/spirituality has been severely damaged and if it ever heals it often takes many many years and even then there is serious scaring. In a mutually-consensual one night stand I'm not terribly sympathetic to anyone because both parties are knowingly exposing themselves to several dangers, but if this one night stand ends up becoming a relationship and the non-trans ends up finding out their partner is trans and isn't okay with it serious trust issues could arise, and there is likely to be a great deal of suffering in regards to it. Because of this example, and other conceivable things like it, as well as what I believe is a moral imperative to care for your fellow human, I included that I think it is ideal that a trans person would be upfront and unashamed about their choices and journey, but because I've taken to heart what other trans persons have said in this thread about fearing for their safety, and because I'm relatively unsympathetic to people who knowingly put themselves in situations that can turn out terrible, I'm not willing to make a demand that trans persons should oust themselves at every opportunity if they're uncomfortable with it.
All that stuff you just listed that could potentially be damaging is completely new to me. Like, really really. I've never heard that invoked before. If the possibility of that much damage happening based off of after-the-fact knowledge about something that hadn't mattered up to that point is possible, I think that it would be imperative upon the person to be damaged in such an ethereal way to protect themselves by making sure they have the adequate knowledge before the fact.
I don't sleep with people whose careers are in marketing and/or advertising and I make sure that I find out what a person's job or career is before I get sexual with them because it is important to me. I'm very serious and honest that I actually do that. I don't have as many problems as other trans women do because as much as I am curious about what it's like to have sex with a man, I avoid them in general because they typically can't relate to me in ways that are important to me other than the penis and those other ways are important enough that they outweigh me having a casual encounter just for the penis. I don't even spend time around hetero-normative men unless I have to be around them for school or work. In my experience talking with other trans women, they can pick up on who wouldn't be ok with them and the trans women avoid those people. Most of us know how dangerous it is to exist as a transsexual woman and are very aware that "should" doesn't matter if someone assaults or kills us. I feel pretty bad for hetero women who are transsexuals. Every potential partner could be a tragedy waiting to happen and living "out" as a trans woman is not the answer.
|
Northern Ireland23792 Posts
On August 01 2013 14:47 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 14:32 Foblos wrote:
I don't disagree with your points, especially that the trans person isn't obligated to be upfront with every person they desire to have sex with, but my point in bringing up the spiritual aspect is that if damage is taken, the damage is very, very severe. Let me return to rape; in most non-brutal rape situations, the womans body returns to its normal rather quickly, but her person-ness/spirituality has been severely damaged and if it ever heals it often takes many many years and even then there is serious scaring. In a mutually-consensual one night stand I'm not terribly sympathetic to anyone because both parties are knowingly exposing themselves to several dangers, but if this one night stand ends up becoming a relationship and the non-trans ends up finding out their partner is trans and isn't okay with it serious trust issues could arise, and there is likely to be a great deal of suffering in regards to it. Because of this example, and other conceivable things like it, as well as what I believe is a moral imperative to care for your fellow human, I included that I think it is ideal that a trans person would be upfront and unashamed about their choices and journey, but because I've taken to heart what other trans persons have said in this thread about fearing for their safety, and because I'm relatively unsympathetic to people who knowingly put themselves in situations that can turn out terrible, I'm not willing to make a demand that trans persons should oust themselves at every opportunity if they're uncomfortable with it.
All that stuff you just listed that could potentially be damaging is completely new to me. Like, really really. I've never heard that invoked before. If the possibility of that much damage happening based off of after-the-fact knowledge about something that hadn't mattered up to that point is possible, I think that it would be imperative upon the person to be damaged in such an ethereal way to protect themselves by making sure they have the adequate knowledge before the fact. I don't sleep with people whose careers are in marketing and/or advertising and I make sure that I find out what a person's job or career is before I get sexual with them because it is important to me. I'm very serious and honest that I actually do that. I don't have as many problems as other trans women do because as much as I am curious about what it's like to have sex with a man, I avoid them in general because they typically can't relate to me in ways that are important to me other than the penis and those other ways are important enough that they outweigh me having a casual encounter just for the penis. I don't even spend time around hetero-normative men unless I have to be around them for school or work. In my experience talking with other trans women, they can pick up on who wouldn't be ok with them and the trans women avoid those people. Most of us know how dangerous it is to exist as a transsexual woman and are very aware that "should" doesn't matter if someone assaults or kills us. I feel pretty bad for hetero women who are transsexuals. Every potential partner could be a tragedy waiting to happen and living "out" as a trans woman is not the answer.
May you elaborate? I have a fair idea in my mind but your rationale might be entirely different from what I expect.
|
On August 01 2013 14:46 Wombat_NI wrote:
How prevalent is being a transgendered person? I realise there quite possibly aren't stats, but it seems to be a relatively well-covered topic in the media and online, especially regarding the difficulties it can bring.
I must confess as to never having met an openly transgendered person, hell I only know a few gay people so it got me to thinking how big a segment they constitute.
Transgender is a huge umbrella. It basically means non-cis. So you have people who are FTMs, MTFs, FTNs, MTNs, androgynes, genderqueer, intersex, etc. Tbh, I really hate that it's become such an all-encompassing term -- I'll just flat-out say that I think certain groups included under this umbrella have it way easier than other groups, and that using the same term for all of them makes me feel as if there is definitely some kind of co-opting going on -- but that's just me being cranky. 
As for numbers, a recent (2011?) survey suggests ~700,000 in the USA. [source] You probably don't care about the USA though, haha. I can't find any solid numbers for Ireland; there seems to be an assumption that 10% of people in Ireland are LGBT, but no word on any definitive research (from my quick skim through Google).
|
On August 01 2013 14:53 Wombat_NI wrote:
May you elaborate? I have a fair idea in my mind but your rationale might be entirely different from what I expect.
To try to keep it short, I don't like getting involved with people whose career it is to manipulate others. I understand the importance of marketing. I get how it can be a "good" thing in certain situations (such as raising awareness for charities or social issues)... but it's still a career in influence and manipulation. It makes me *very* uncomfortable getting in bed with someone like that. I actually did have a conversation with a woman and we were thinking of hooking up with each other, but in the middle of our coffee, she goes and buys some girl scout cookies and starts criticizing how they did their marketing and started going into details about how she would have used different family pictures to invoke more powerful emotional responses and explained how leveraging the halo effect can sell more cookies. I shit you not, this was during time that we were spending together prior to potential sexy times. Ew.
|
Northern Ireland23792 Posts
On August 01 2013 15:03 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 14:46 Wombat_NI wrote:
How prevalent is being a transgendered person? I realise there quite possibly aren't stats, but it seems to be a relatively well-covered topic in the media and online, especially regarding the difficulties it can bring.
I must confess as to never having met an openly transgendered person, hell I only know a few gay people so it got me to thinking how big a segment they constitute. Transgender is a huge umbrella. It basically means non-cis. So you have people who are FTMs, MTFs, FTNs, MTNs, androgynes, genderqueer, intersex, etc. Tbh, I really hate that it's become such an all-encompassing term -- I'll just flat-out say that I think certain groups included under this umbrella have it way easier than other groups, and that using the same term for all of them makes me feel as if there is definitely some kind of co-opting going on -- but that's just me being cranky. As for numbers, a recent (2011?) survey suggests ~700,000 in the USA. [ source] You probably don't care about the USA though, haha. I can't find any solid numbers for Ireland; there seems to be an assumption that 10% of people in Ireland are LGBT, but no word on any definitive research (from my quick skim through Google).
Well you are posting in a thread under the LGBT banner Well, I see the 'gender dysmorphia' (not sure of the exact term) issue as being likely to be in similar ratios across the board, the difference being in certain countries you can get hormonal treatment/sex changes and in others you can't. I'd imagine the USA is relatively enlightened on this, so I suppose it's a good value to maybe extrapolate from.
Speaking of the idea of being under an umbrella, do LGBT people like being a 'community' or what? Is it a necessary evil to achieve goals, or something that you value, being part of a wider collective? I've tried to articulate my thoughts to others, but I hate a subsection of my identity defining me in certain ways. It's not exactly an equally important issue, but I love my metal music, yet I hate being called a 'metaller' or expected to act in certain ways.
As a white male, it's quite hard to think of examples (hence the aformentioned) in which I am taken for anything other than me, and my personality. The ironic exception being when I got interested in feminism
|
Northern Ireland23792 Posts
On August 01 2013 15:07 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 14:53 Wombat_NI wrote:
May you elaborate? I have a fair idea in my mind but your rationale might be entirely different from what I expect. To try to keep it short, I don't like getting involved with people whose career it is to manipulate others. I understand the importance of marketing. I get how it can be a "good" thing in certain situations (such as raising awareness for charities or social issues)... but it's still a career in influence and manipulation. It makes me *very* uncomfortable getting in bed with someone like that. I actually did have a conversation with a woman and we were thinking of hooking up with each other, but in the middle of our coffee, she goes and buys some girl scout cookies and starts criticizing how they did their marketing and started going into details about how she would have used different family pictures to invoke more powerful emotional responses and explained how leveraging the halo effect can sell more cookies. I shit you not, this was during time that we were spending together prior to potential sexy times. Ew.
Ah, we're on the same page then. I admire your principles. To paraphrase somebody-
'Marketing either raises serious ethical issues or it's the biggest waste of money in human history'.
|
On August 01 2013 15:12 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 15:07 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 01 2013 14:53 Wombat_NI wrote:
May you elaborate? I have a fair idea in my mind but your rationale might be entirely different from what I expect. To try to keep it short, I don't like getting involved with people whose career it is to manipulate others. I understand the importance of marketing. I get how it can be a "good" thing in certain situations (such as raising awareness for charities or social issues)... but it's still a career in influence and manipulation. It makes me *very* uncomfortable getting in bed with someone like that. I actually did have a conversation with a woman and we were thinking of hooking up with each other, but in the middle of our coffee, she goes and buys some girl scout cookies and starts criticizing how they did their marketing and started going into details about how she would have used different family pictures to invoke more powerful emotional responses and explained how leveraging the halo effect can sell more cookies. I shit you not, this was during time that we were spending together prior to potential sexy times. Ew. Ah, we're on the same page then. I admire your principles. To paraphrase somebody- 'Marketing either raises serious ethical issues or it's the biggest waste of money in human history'.
I remember after I told her "goodbye" wondering if they just can't help themselves. This was a *date* and at first I thought she wasn't into me by getting up and leaving, but she really did just want to get some cookies before the girls left and she really just was that excited about her job.
|
On July 31 2013 18:56 Sokrates wrote:
Sry for the real women thing, didnt sleep the whole night and i m still awake.
This fake boobs vs real boob thing had nothing to do with trans women in particular. For me 80% of all women are not attractive because of my fetish, doesnt matter if cis or trans women.
Like i said i made this analogy not to say trans women are different to cis women in attractiveness(that is why i brought up the fake breast thing with cis women) but to show that sometimes it is not just about "attractiveness" but also about the mind and fantasy.
And no i never fapped to a transwomen because this fakeboob thing only happened once to me, and i always do my research (to be on the save side) if the breasts are real or not before i fap. Like i said you have to meet a lot of criterias to make a breast appear natural (means large, saggy breasts to begin with and a special operation technique + special implant).
And if she was trans than this doesnt worry me, the only thing that worries me is if the breasts are real or not. And i m not repulsed, that is such a strong word, i just dont like it.
And i dont do this research because i m afraid of transwomen but because i m afraid of implants. This stuff didnt even come to my mind before i read this topic lol, mb thats why i thought this analogy is fitting and couldnt be missunderstood.
You do realize that many many trans woman grow their breasts naturally through hormones and never get implants. God your ignorance is really annoying.
|
Northern Ireland23792 Posts
On August 01 2013 15:21 RaspberrySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 15:12 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 01 2013 15:07 RaspberrySC2 wrote:On August 01 2013 14:53 Wombat_NI wrote:
May you elaborate? I have a fair idea in my mind but your rationale might be entirely different from what I expect. To try to keep it short, I don't like getting involved with people whose career it is to manipulate others. I understand the importance of marketing. I get how it can be a "good" thing in certain situations (such as raising awareness for charities or social issues)... but it's still a career in influence and manipulation. It makes me *very* uncomfortable getting in bed with someone like that. I actually did have a conversation with a woman and we were thinking of hooking up with each other, but in the middle of our coffee, she goes and buys some girl scout cookies and starts criticizing how they did their marketing and started going into details about how she would have used different family pictures to invoke more powerful emotional responses and explained how leveraging the halo effect can sell more cookies. I shit you not, this was during time that we were spending together prior to potential sexy times. Ew. Ah, we're on the same page then. I admire your principles. To paraphrase somebody- 'Marketing either raises serious ethical issues or it's the biggest waste of money in human history'. I remember after I told her "goodbye" wondering if they just can't help themselves. This was a *date* and at first I thought she wasn't into me by getting up and leaving, but she really did just want to get some cookies before the girls left and she really just was that excited about her job.
I admire your principles because I share them, but I find myself feeling a sneaking admiration. That girl, what a dedicated professional!
|
On August 01 2013 01:46 theodorus12 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 01:38 Shodaa wrote:On August 01 2013 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On August 01 2013 00:09 theodorus12 wrote:
How can you get so mad over the fact, that someone prefers CIS women over a trans person? It's in our nature to reproduce, so of course, most people would find a real women, capable of giving birth more attractive than one who can't.
Some people really need to get off their liberal high horse and stop thinking everyone has to like everything or else he is a close minded bigot lol I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is transgendered. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else. "I consider myself a pretty damn socially liberal person, but I'd never consider dating someone who is black. I'm all for them having all the rights as everyone else, but people shouldn't be expected to date them just the same as they'd date anyone else." Sorry, just too easy. But say that you don't want to date transgender, I don't care, that's your choice I guess. but don't go and generalize that we should expect the majority of people to not date us. Lots of people with strict sexuality, either heterosexual or homosexual date or are fine with dating trans people. 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.
Why are you singling out trans woman then? Why not just say that you will not date woman who cannot reproduce? Is it because you are a hypocrite and its about more than if she can pop out babies?
|
On August 01 2013 15:11 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 15:03 babylon wrote:On August 01 2013 14:46 Wombat_NI wrote:
How prevalent is being a transgendered person? I realise there quite possibly aren't stats, but it seems to be a relatively well-covered topic in the media and online, especially regarding the difficulties it can bring.
I must confess as to never having met an openly transgendered person, hell I only know a few gay people so it got me to thinking how big a segment they constitute. Transgender is a huge umbrella. It basically means non-cis. So you have people who are FTMs, MTFs, FTNs, MTNs, androgynes, genderqueer, intersex, etc. Tbh, I really hate that it's become such an all-encompassing term -- I'll just flat-out say that I think certain groups included under this umbrella have it way easier than other groups, and that using the same term for all of them makes me feel as if there is definitely some kind of co-opting going on -- but that's just me being cranky. As for numbers, a recent (2011?) survey suggests ~700,000 in the USA. [ source] You probably don't care about the USA though, haha. I can't find any solid numbers for Ireland; there seems to be an assumption that 10% of people in Ireland are LGBT, but no word on any definitive research (from my quick skim through Google). Well you are posting in a thread under the LGBT banner Well, I see the 'gender dysmorphia' (not sure of the exact term) issue as being likely to be in similar ratios across the board, the difference being in certain countries you can get hormonal treatment/sex changes and in others you can't. I'd imagine the USA is relatively enlightened on this, so I suppose it's a good value to maybe extrapolate from. Speaking of the idea of being under an umbrella, do LGBT people like being a 'community' or what? Is it a necessary evil to achieve goals, or something that you value, being part of a wider collective? I've tried to articulate my thoughts to others, but I hate a subsection of my identity defining me in certain ways. It's not exactly an equally important issue, but I love my metal music, yet I hate being called a 'metaller' or expected to act in certain ways. As a white male, it's quite hard to think of examples (hence the aformentioned) in which I am taken for anything other than me, and my personality. The ironic exception being when I got interested in feminism
*gender dysphoria ^^
I am not much involved in the LGBTQ community, so I can't say. Like you, I really hate to be defined by a subsection, and when you join a community, you are typically defined more by that subsection when interacting with others in the community, since it's the common trait you share with the community members. And, really, despite what it may seem like on this forum, I don't like to talk about LGBTQ (or even feminist) issues all the damn time.
As for what I know: it really depends. I understand that some people are fine with LGBTQ being all lumped together, others think that trans issues are so different they should be fought for separately. I'm not sure about the common consensus these days, though I expect some of it really is "okay, let's just get gay marriage legalized first and then we'll worried about everything else, baby steps." Obviously, you throw that many people together, and there's going to be some conflict. Bisexuals used to be discriminated against by lesbians and gays as well, and even today, they still face substantial acceptance issues within the community (e.g. erasure, biphobia, etc.). In my experience, there are also some radical feminists in LGB circles who like to say that the existence of trans people is threatening to the movement. I won't pretend to be too much of an expert though; again, my lack of involvement in the community itself (and also the fact that the LGBTQ community in my area is attached to a very liberal college and is thus very accepting of anyone) gives me a skewed view. Wikipedia's article on the LGBT culture isn't too bad a summary though, I think.
|
Oh yeah, I can definitely tell you stories about transphobic feminists. And as much as I love many second wave feminists, their critique on transgenderism makes me very sad at times. However, within my circle of social justice buddies, pretty much all of us have put transgenderism as the number one issue for the LGBT movement.
|
On August 01 2013 04:58 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 04:39 fugs wrote:
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. No offence, but how is you not feeling comfortable using a bathroom dedicated for a sex you don't identify with any different from people not being comfortable with you using a bathroom they might not identify you with? I think you're being just as insensitive towards their feelings as they are towards yours. Why is that a vast majority should accommodate you and not the other way around?
This argument is so shit. Do you know why the majority of people have to accommodate a minority? Because we write it into our laws that the majority should not have tyranny over the minority. That's why we forced white Southern woman to share bathrooms with black southern woman, because those white southern women needed to sit down and learn some compassion and empathy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
