|
On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation.
I don't want to sleep with someone who is married, but they don't disclose that either. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t really feel bad for people who get surprised by something after they have a one night stand. There is a reason we do not encourage people to have those. Sure, its not nice, but that person decided to sleep with someone with limited information on who they are.
|
On August 01 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 22:18 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:15 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 22:05 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:03 Darkwhite wrote:On August 01 2013 21:55 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 21:29 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 10:22 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 08:30 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 08:27 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
I wasn't talking about relationships i was talking about criteria of disclosure for consent Yeah, that is a personal call if it comes to one night stands and so on. If you withhold the information, don't expect a positive response if they find out, but you know that. I also know there is good reason to do so, including the threat of violence. I don't envy your position at all. So like...did you actually read Scarlett's article that she posted? It's not even remotely the responsibility of the trans woman to disclose that she's trans. If someone has a hangup about sex or a list of deal breakers, the onus is on them to ask about them. I read it and I disagreed with it. If transgenders were a significant portion of the population then it'd be reasonable to interpret not asking directly as not caring but they are not. It is not a reasonable interpretation to make, it is much more likely they are simply assuming a trans woman is a cis woman because the vast, vast majority are. In this context the trans woman has far more information than her partner, she knows she's an outlier where the question could realistically be relevant. In that situation it is reasonable to place the onus for bringing it up on her. I'm going to have to disagree with you via analogy, reconstructing your argument through reductio ad absurdum. If biracials were a significant portion of the population then it'd be reasonable to interpret not asking directly as not caring but they are not. It is not a reasonable interpretation to make, it is much more likely that they are simply assuming a biracial woman is a single race woman because the vast, vast majority are. In this context the biracial woman has far more information than her partner, she knows she's an outlier where the question could realistically be relevant. In that situation it is reasonable to place the onus for bringing it up on her.If we reconstruct the argument in this way, we can see that your real argument is not at all about how prevalent transsexualism is. Rather, there is a sort of hidden view here that there is something wrong with trans women, and therefore they ought to disclose. Without the hidden premise 'there is something wrong with trans women, and they need to disclose it' this argument makes no sense. It is not nearly as innocent as it appears. You are not reconstructing the argument. You are making a false analogy, where you substitute something a lot of people care strongly about - i.e. transsexuality - with something very few people care about, namely mixed race. If it were true that equally many people would feel cheated, if they post hoc discovered that their partner was of mixed rather than pure heritage, as if they discovered they were transsexuals, the analogy would be accurate - I strongly doubt if this is true, unless you are from a Neo-Nazi suburb. They did used to care about it - therefore, not a false analogy, at least not on that front. People used to have their marriages annulled for deception because they did not disclose their racial status and were assumed white. edit: You would have to be *extremely* ignorant to think that this was never something that a lot of people cared strongly about. And back then not disclosing that information, no matter how unfair, arbitrary or unreasonable that "deal breaker" might be, would be taking advantage of the said person. As Snusmumriken said, two wrongs don't make a right. So as long as we're clear then, the argument seems to be: As long as the majority of the population finds something to be distasteful and it would cause them to not sleep with you, you *must* disclose your status of this distasteful thing. It does not matter if it is being a natural blonde, being biracial, liking peanutbutter, or transsexualism - the important thing is that we must not cause inconvenience to the majority of the population. Am I getting this right? Because to me this sounds completely absurd. The argument is very, very simple: If you have good reason to believe that your partner might change his mind, given information you can choose whether or not to disclose, then you have an obligation to tell your partner and let him make the call. It has nothing to do with inconveniencing the majority. Similarly, if I were to become part of a transsexual dating site, where the default assumptions would be that everybody is transsexual, I would consider myself obligated to let my partners know that I am not a transsexual myself, because they have a right to make an informed decision. On a regular dating site, where transsexuality is not the norm, the obligation would lie with the transsexuals.
Except that without the 'majority' premise, the entire argument falls apart. The only reason I'm supposed to disclose to everyone I sleep with is because of the belief that the 'majority' is transphobic. Without this belief I would have no reason to believe the person is transphobic without additional evidence. You're basically asking me to assume that everyone is transphobic, ergo, the majority premise matters. Basically, if the majority of the population has a hangup about something, then it's my obligation to inform all potential partners, because that is evidence that the person might change their mind.
I'm just going to have to disagree ethically with this. People are responsible for their own hangups. If you dislike promiscuous people - and I don't care if *everyone* hates promiscuous people, and promiscuous people are super rare so they might assume that you're not promiscuous - I still think it's up to you to take steps to make sure your partner isn't promiscuous. Lies by omission are nonsense - especially if the only reason it's a "lie by omission" is predicated on how prevalent transphobia is. Take some personal responsibility.
|
United States44190 Posts
On August 01 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I don't want to sleep with someone who is married, but they don't disclose that either. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t really feel bad for people who get surprised by something after they have a one night stand. There is a reason we do not encourage people to have those. Sure, its not nice, but that person decided to sleep with someone with limited information on who they are.
"I didn't tell them but they're having a one night stand so it's okay".
This is known as two wrongs making a right. I don't really hold to that. Also their wrong by not asking enough questions before sex is not equivalent to your wrong of obtaining consent through omission of relevant information. Are you actually disputing whether obtaining consent through omission of relevant information is bad or are you saying that people who have one night stands deserve it or?
|
United States44190 Posts
On August 01 2013 22:42 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:On August 01 2013 22:18 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:15 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 22:05 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:03 Darkwhite wrote:On August 01 2013 21:55 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 21:29 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 10:22 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 08:30 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, that is a personal call if it comes to one night stands and so on. If you withhold the information, don't expect a positive response if they find out, but you know that. I also know there is good reason to do so, including the threat of violence. I don't envy your position at all. So like...did you actually read Scarlett's article that she posted? It's not even remotely the responsibility of the trans woman to disclose that she's trans. If someone has a hangup about sex or a list of deal breakers, the onus is on them to ask about them. I read it and I disagreed with it. If transgenders were a significant portion of the population then it'd be reasonable to interpret not asking directly as not caring but they are not. It is not a reasonable interpretation to make, it is much more likely they are simply assuming a trans woman is a cis woman because the vast, vast majority are. In this context the trans woman has far more information than her partner, she knows she's an outlier where the question could realistically be relevant. In that situation it is reasonable to place the onus for bringing it up on her. I'm going to have to disagree with you via analogy, reconstructing your argument through reductio ad absurdum. If biracials were a significant portion of the population then it'd be reasonable to interpret not asking directly as not caring but they are not. It is not a reasonable interpretation to make, it is much more likely that they are simply assuming a biracial woman is a single race woman because the vast, vast majority are. In this context the biracial woman has far more information than her partner, she knows she's an outlier where the question could realistically be relevant. In that situation it is reasonable to place the onus for bringing it up on her.If we reconstruct the argument in this way, we can see that your real argument is not at all about how prevalent transsexualism is. Rather, there is a sort of hidden view here that there is something wrong with trans women, and therefore they ought to disclose. Without the hidden premise 'there is something wrong with trans women, and they need to disclose it' this argument makes no sense. It is not nearly as innocent as it appears. You are not reconstructing the argument. You are making a false analogy, where you substitute something a lot of people care strongly about - i.e. transsexuality - with something very few people care about, namely mixed race. If it were true that equally many people would feel cheated, if they post hoc discovered that their partner was of mixed rather than pure heritage, as if they discovered they were transsexuals, the analogy would be accurate - I strongly doubt if this is true, unless you are from a Neo-Nazi suburb. They did used to care about it - therefore, not a false analogy, at least not on that front. People used to have their marriages annulled for deception because they did not disclose their racial status and were assumed white. edit: You would have to be *extremely* ignorant to think that this was never something that a lot of people cared strongly about. And back then not disclosing that information, no matter how unfair, arbitrary or unreasonable that "deal breaker" might be, would be taking advantage of the said person. As Snusmumriken said, two wrongs don't make a right. So as long as we're clear then, the argument seems to be: As long as the majority of the population finds something to be distasteful and it would cause them to not sleep with you, you *must* disclose your status of this distasteful thing. It does not matter if it is being a natural blonde, being biracial, liking peanutbutter, or transsexualism - the important thing is that we must not cause inconvenience to the majority of the population. Am I getting this right? Because to me this sounds completely absurd. The argument is very, very simple: If you have good reason to believe that your partner might change his mind, given information you can choose whether or not to disclose, then you have an obligation to tell your partner and let him make the call. It has nothing to do with inconveniencing the majority. Similarly, if I were to become part of a transsexual dating site, where the default assumptions would be that everybody is transsexual, I would consider myself obligated to let my partners know that I am not a transsexual myself, because they have a right to make an informed decision. On a regular dating site, where transsexuality is not the norm, the obligation would lie with the transsexuals. Except that without the 'majority' premise, the entire argument falls apart. The only reason I'm supposed to disclose to everyone I sleep with is because of the belief that the 'majority' is transphobic. Without this belief I would have no reason to believe the person is transphobic without additional evidence. You're basically asking me to assume that everyone is transphobic, ergo, the majority premise matters. Basically, if the majority of the population has a hangup about something, then it's my obligation to inform all potential partners, because that is evidence that the person might change their mind. I'm just going to have to disagree ethically with this. People are responsible for their own hangups. If you dislike promiscuous people - and I don't care if *everyone* hates promiscuous people, and promiscuous people are super rare so they might assume that you're not promiscuous - I still think it's up to you to take steps to make sure your partner isn't promiscuous. Lies by omission are nonsense - especially if the only reason it's a "lie by omission" is predicated on how prevalent transphobia is. Take some personal responsibility.
It doesn't have to be everyone, nor a majority. If you think there's a 20% chance you're obtaining consent through deception and an 80% chance they don't care about it you should still tell them because a 20% chance of deceiving someone into sex is too high. Consent is important.
The reason it's a lie of omission is because of their assumption you are cis whereas you are are aware that you are not. This is nothing to do with transphobia, this is to do with numbers. There are far, far more cis people than trans. The assumption that a given person is cis rather than trans is a reasonable assumption to make. I'm not sure why you think that assumption is in any way transphobic, it's not, it's just statistics.
|
On August 01 2013 22:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I don't want to sleep with someone who is married, but they don't disclose that either. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t really feel bad for people who get surprised by something after they have a one night stand. There is a reason we do not encourage people to have those. Sure, its not nice, but that person decided to sleep with someone with limited information on who they are. "I didn't tell them but they're having a one night stand so it's okay". This is known as two wrongs making a right. I don't really hold to that. Also their wrong by not asking enough questions before sex is not equivalent to your wrong of obtaining consent through omission of relevant information. Are you actually disputing whether obtaining consent through omission of relevant information is bad or are you saying that people who have one night stands deserve it or?
I am saying everyone involved is a grown up and knows what they are getting into. On some level, we can make the argument that one party betrayed the others trust be not being 100% honest. Maybe the transgender person could feel a little bit bad about deceiving someone, but I am not going to shame them over it or pass judgment on them for it. At the end of the day, that both parties decided to become involved in a sexual encounter with someone they knew little about. The transgender person could sleep with a man who beats his wife on a weekly basis and they would be disgusted by it.
When the point of the encounter is to sleep with someone you will never see again, both parties know what they are getting into. If you don't like the outcome when you find out you slept with someone that makes your skin crawl(for whatever reason), there was an easy way to avoid the issue in the first place.
|
If I went to an entirely trans gathering where the assumed status of everyone was trans, and used that to my advantage to bed someone who only wanted to attract other trans people by simply not telling them I wasn't one myself, would there be a problem with that?
|
United States44190 Posts
On August 01 2013 22:53 RockIronrod wrote:
If I went to an entirely trans gathering where the assumed status of everyone was trans, and used that to my advantage to bed someone who only wanted to attract other trans people by simply not telling them I wasn't one myself, would there be a problem with that?
yes
|
On August 01 2013 17:18 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 16:59 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 16:49 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 16:03 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 04:58 maybenexttime wrote: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. While racism is acquired, implying that feeling uncomfortable in the said situation is, too, is just an unfounded assumption. We can flip the issue and say that transsexuals need to learn some compassion and empathy because they, likewise, seem to have no regard for other people's feelings (you can see that clearly from transsexuals here saying that they have absolutely no obligation to disclose that part of their identity to people they get intimate with because, apparently, it's none of their business). Should a slave have regard for the moral feelings held by his master about letting blacks roam free across the country side when he takes into account his own freedom? Yes extreme, I know. Its an analogy. Feeling justified about being wrongfully enslaved does not give the slave a moral justification for doing anything he wants to the master, but it does give him the necessary perspective judge slavery. Trans people are people and they abide by the same rules of courtesy as everyone else in society until those values conflict with their very essence and quality of life, then there is a problem. Like I said, racism is acquired. Your analogy hinges on the assumption that feeling uncomfortable in the said situation is also acquired. What if it's as innate as the transsexual's identity?
Its not innate as evidenced by the thousands of heterosexually identifying men in relationships wwith trans woman, not counting the fetishists.
|
On August 01 2013 22:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I don't want to sleep with someone who is married, but they don't disclose that either. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t really feel bad for people who get surprised by something after they have a one night stand. There is a reason we do not encourage people to have those. Sure, its not nice, but that person decided to sleep with someone with limited information on who they are. "I didn't tell them but they're having a one night stand so it's okay". This is known as two wrongs making a right. I don't really hold to that. Also their wrong by not asking enough questions before sex is not equivalent to your wrong of obtaining consent through omission of relevant information. Are you actually disputing whether obtaining consent through omission of relevant information is bad or are you saying that people who have one night stands deserve it or?
I'd dispute the "obtaining consent through omission of relevant information." How is trans status relevant to a hookup? In what way is hooking up with a trans woman any different than hooking up with a cis woman? Other than "it makes me feel icky after the fact" what demonstrable difference is there?
During typical hookups no one discloses completely irrelevant information about themselves. I don't submit a credit report to my hookups. I'd have to let them know if I had an STD because that could actually affect them. But simply being trans doesn't affect the partner in any way shape or form when it comes to a hookup.
Also, caring about something that not only doesn't affect you but you can't even identify is patently stupid. In the scenario where you're hooking up with a trans woman who you find attractive and would not know that she was trans unless she told you, you don't get to pretend you care about trans status.
|
On August 01 2013 22:58 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 17:18 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 16:59 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 16:49 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 16:03 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 04:58 maybenexttime wrote: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. While racism is acquired, implying that feeling uncomfortable in the said situation is, too, is just an unfounded assumption. We can flip the issue and say that transsexuals need to learn some compassion and empathy because they, likewise, seem to have no regard for other people's feelings (you can see that clearly from transsexuals here saying that they have absolutely no obligation to disclose that part of their identity to people they get intimate with because, apparently, it's none of their business). Should a slave have regard for the moral feelings held by his master about letting blacks roam free across the country side when he takes into account his own freedom? Yes extreme, I know. Its an analogy. Feeling justified about being wrongfully enslaved does not give the slave a moral justification for doing anything he wants to the master, but it does give him the necessary perspective judge slavery. Trans people are people and they abide by the same rules of courtesy as everyone else in society until those values conflict with their very essence and quality of life, then there is a problem. Like I said, racism is acquired. Your analogy hinges on the assumption that feeling uncomfortable in the said situation is also acquired. What if it's as innate as the transsexual's identity? Its not innate as evidenced by the thousands of heterosexually identifying men in relationships wwith trans woman, not counting the fetishists.
lol, what a ridiculous way of reasoning. First of all, some level of racism is likely inherent in our species, and more importantly just because thousands of people in a group containing billions do something or feel something that doesnt mean it applies to the rest. Its as ridiculous as arguing since some people want to be transgender then everyone wants to be transgender. "Heterosexual male" is not a homogenous category. At all.
|
On August 01 2013 22:42 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:On August 01 2013 22:18 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:15 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 22:05 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:03 Darkwhite wrote:On August 01 2013 21:55 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 21:29 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 10:22 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 08:30 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, that is a personal call if it comes to one night stands and so on. If you withhold the information, don't expect a positive response if they find out, but you know that. I also know there is good reason to do so, including the threat of violence. I don't envy your position at all. So like...did you actually read Scarlett's article that she posted? It's not even remotely the responsibility of the trans woman to disclose that she's trans. If someone has a hangup about sex or a list of deal breakers, the onus is on them to ask about them. I read it and I disagreed with it. If transgenders were a significant portion of the population then it'd be reasonable to interpret not asking directly as not caring but they are not. It is not a reasonable interpretation to make, it is much more likely they are simply assuming a trans woman is a cis woman because the vast, vast majority are. In this context the trans woman has far more information than her partner, she knows she's an outlier where the question could realistically be relevant. In that situation it is reasonable to place the onus for bringing it up on her. I'm going to have to disagree with you via analogy, reconstructing your argument through reductio ad absurdum. If biracials were a significant portion of the population then it'd be reasonable to interpret not asking directly as not caring but they are not. It is not a reasonable interpretation to make, it is much more likely that they are simply assuming a biracial woman is a single race woman because the vast, vast majority are. In this context the biracial woman has far more information than her partner, she knows she's an outlier where the question could realistically be relevant. In that situation it is reasonable to place the onus for bringing it up on her.If we reconstruct the argument in this way, we can see that your real argument is not at all about how prevalent transsexualism is. Rather, there is a sort of hidden view here that there is something wrong with trans women, and therefore they ought to disclose. Without the hidden premise 'there is something wrong with trans women, and they need to disclose it' this argument makes no sense. It is not nearly as innocent as it appears. You are not reconstructing the argument. You are making a false analogy, where you substitute something a lot of people care strongly about - i.e. transsexuality - with something very few people care about, namely mixed race. If it were true that equally many people would feel cheated, if they post hoc discovered that their partner was of mixed rather than pure heritage, as if they discovered they were transsexuals, the analogy would be accurate - I strongly doubt if this is true, unless you are from a Neo-Nazi suburb. They did used to care about it - therefore, not a false analogy, at least not on that front. People used to have their marriages annulled for deception because they did not disclose their racial status and were assumed white. edit: You would have to be *extremely* ignorant to think that this was never something that a lot of people cared strongly about. And back then not disclosing that information, no matter how unfair, arbitrary or unreasonable that "deal breaker" might be, would be taking advantage of the said person. As Snusmumriken said, two wrongs don't make a right. So as long as we're clear then, the argument seems to be: As long as the majority of the population finds something to be distasteful and it would cause them to not sleep with you, you *must* disclose your status of this distasteful thing. It does not matter if it is being a natural blonde, being biracial, liking peanutbutter, or transsexualism - the important thing is that we must not cause inconvenience to the majority of the population. Am I getting this right? Because to me this sounds completely absurd. The argument is very, very simple: If you have good reason to believe that your partner might change his mind, given information you can choose whether or not to disclose, then you have an obligation to tell your partner and let him make the call. It has nothing to do with inconveniencing the majority. Similarly, if I were to become part of a transsexual dating site, where the default assumptions would be that everybody is transsexual, I would consider myself obligated to let my partners know that I am not a transsexual myself, because they have a right to make an informed decision. On a regular dating site, where transsexuality is not the norm, the obligation would lie with the transsexuals. Except that without the 'majority' premise, the entire argument falls apart. The only reason I'm supposed to disclose to everyone I sleep with is because of the belief that the 'majority' is transphobic. Without this belief I would have no reason to believe the person is transphobic without additional evidence. You're basically asking me to assume that everyone is transphobic, ergo, the majority premise matters. Basically, if the majority of the population has a hangup about something, then it's my obligation to inform all potential partners, because that is evidence that the person might change their mind. I'm just going to have to disagree ethically with this. People are responsible for their own hangups. If you dislike promiscuous people - and I don't care if *everyone* hates promiscuous people, and promiscuous people are super rare so they might assume that you're not promiscuous - I still think it's up to you to take steps to make sure your partner isn't promiscuous. Lies by omission are nonsense - especially if the only reason it's a "lie by omission" is predicated on how prevalent transphobia is. Take some personal responsibility.
No, the majority premise does not enter into the ethics, the only thing which matters ethically is respecting your partner's preferences and right to make an informed decision. The majority premise enters into the equation when you try to make inferences about what your partner might and might not care about without better information. The reverse assumption - nobody cares whether you are transsexual - is just a very poor guess given the society we live in - so poor, indeed, that the only way to arrive at it is to not want to disclose your transsexuality for personal gain.
Do you also think it's okay to feed a Muslim pork and just not telling him about it? Is it not reasonable for him to expect you, when you know he's Muslim, to tell him, instead of having him ask you every single meal?
Towards the end of the last paragraph, it it seems you finally reduce your argument to disliking transsexuals is a dumb preference, so I don't need to respect it. Which is ironically closely related to wanting to surgically alter your genitals is fucked up, so I don't need to respect you, which I'm sure you agree is a disgraceful opinion.
Taking personal responsibility is fine, but it is not an excuse for being dishonest with other people.
|
On August 01 2013 22:53 RockIronrod wrote:
If I went to an entirely trans gathering where the assumed status of everyone was trans, and used that to my advantage to bed someone who only wanted to attract other trans people by simply not telling them I wasn't one myself, would there be a problem with that?
Yes.
|
On August 01 2013 22:58 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 17:18 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 16:59 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 16:49 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 16:03 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 04:58 maybenexttime wrote: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. While racism is acquired, implying that feeling uncomfortable in the said situation is, too, is just an unfounded assumption. We can flip the issue and say that transsexuals need to learn some compassion and empathy because they, likewise, seem to have no regard for other people's feelings (you can see that clearly from transsexuals here saying that they have absolutely no obligation to disclose that part of their identity to people they get intimate with because, apparently, it's none of their business). Should a slave have regard for the moral feelings held by his master about letting blacks roam free across the country side when he takes into account his own freedom? Yes extreme, I know. Its an analogy. Feeling justified about being wrongfully enslaved does not give the slave a moral justification for doing anything he wants to the master, but it does give him the necessary perspective judge slavery. Trans people are people and they abide by the same rules of courtesy as everyone else in society until those values conflict with their very essence and quality of life, then there is a problem. Like I said, racism is acquired. Your analogy hinges on the assumption that feeling uncomfortable in the said situation is also acquired. What if it's as innate as the transsexual's identity? Its not innate as evidenced by the thousands of heterosexually identifying men in relationships wwith trans woman, not counting the fetishists.
lol, what a ridiculous way of reasoning. First of all, some level of racism is likely inherent in our species, and more importantly just because thousands of people in a group containing billions do something or feel something that doesnt mean it applies to the rest. Its as ridiculous as arguing since some people want to be transgender then everyone wants to be transgender. "Heterosexual male" is not a homogenous category. At all.
It doesn't have to be everyone, nor a majority. If you think there's a 20% chance you're obtaining consent through deception and an 80% chance they don't care about it you should still tell them because a 20% chance of deceiving someone into sex is too high. Consent is important.
The reason it's a lie of omission is because of their assumption you are cis whereas you are are aware that you are not. This is nothing to do with transphobia, this is to do with numbers. There are far, far more cis people than trans. The assumption that a given person is cis rather than trans is a reasonable assumption to make. I'm not sure why you think that assumption is in any way transphobic, it's not, it's just statistics.
I would add that the important thing here is that the transgender person is working under the assumption that it is indeed important information. That is the only way in which "majority-rule" comes into it whatsoever. It really doesnt matter HOW person x knows that fact A is a dealbreaker for person y, what matters is that they have reason to believe so and that theyre then withholding this information deliberately. That is the only thing that matters. What that information is doesnt matter, nor WHY person x has reasons to believe person y considers fact A a dealbreaker, the only thing that matters is that person a is being deliberately dishonest.
|
On August 01 2013 22:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 22:38 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I don't want to sleep with someone who is married, but they don't disclose that either. In the grand scheme of things, I can’t really feel bad for people who get surprised by something after they have a one night stand. There is a reason we do not encourage people to have those. Sure, its not nice, but that person decided to sleep with someone with limited information on who they are. "I didn't tell them but they're having a one night stand so it's okay". This is known as two wrongs making a right. I don't really hold to that. Also their wrong by not asking enough questions before sex is not equivalent to your wrong of obtaining consent through omission of relevant information. Are you actually disputing whether obtaining consent through omission of relevant information is bad or are you saying that people who have one night stands deserve it or?
How are you suppose to know what exactly would not be acceptable to your one night stand partnee. There seems to be this idea that most men care. What if the trans woman told some peope a few times and they didnt care (this happens a lot) shouldnt she assume from her.experience that most people wouldnt care? If half your partners think its a deal breaker and half dont why do you have to assume that everyone thinks its a deal breaker?
|
On August 01 2013 22:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 22:42 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:On August 01 2013 22:18 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:15 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 22:05 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:03 Darkwhite wrote:On August 01 2013 21:55 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 21:29 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 10:22 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
So like...did you actually read Scarlett's article that she posted? It's not even remotely the responsibility of the trans woman to disclose that she's trans. If someone has a hangup about sex or a list of deal breakers, the onus is on them to ask about them. I read it and I disagreed with it. If transgenders were a significant portion of the population then it'd be reasonable to interpret not asking directly as not caring but they are not. It is not a reasonable interpretation to make, it is much more likely they are simply assuming a trans woman is a cis woman because the vast, vast majority are. In this context the trans woman has far more information than her partner, she knows she's an outlier where the question could realistically be relevant. In that situation it is reasonable to place the onus for bringing it up on her. I'm going to have to disagree with you via analogy, reconstructing your argument through reductio ad absurdum. If biracials were a significant portion of the population then it'd be reasonable to interpret not asking directly as not caring but they are not. It is not a reasonable interpretation to make, it is much more likely that they are simply assuming a biracial woman is a single race woman because the vast, vast majority are. In this context the biracial woman has far more information than her partner, she knows she's an outlier where the question could realistically be relevant. In that situation it is reasonable to place the onus for bringing it up on her.If we reconstruct the argument in this way, we can see that your real argument is not at all about how prevalent transsexualism is. Rather, there is a sort of hidden view here that there is something wrong with trans women, and therefore they ought to disclose. Without the hidden premise 'there is something wrong with trans women, and they need to disclose it' this argument makes no sense. It is not nearly as innocent as it appears. You are not reconstructing the argument. You are making a false analogy, where you substitute something a lot of people care strongly about - i.e. transsexuality - with something very few people care about, namely mixed race. If it were true that equally many people would feel cheated, if they post hoc discovered that their partner was of mixed rather than pure heritage, as if they discovered they were transsexuals, the analogy would be accurate - I strongly doubt if this is true, unless you are from a Neo-Nazi suburb. They did used to care about it - therefore, not a false analogy, at least not on that front. People used to have their marriages annulled for deception because they did not disclose their racial status and were assumed white. edit: You would have to be *extremely* ignorant to think that this was never something that a lot of people cared strongly about. And back then not disclosing that information, no matter how unfair, arbitrary or unreasonable that "deal breaker" might be, would be taking advantage of the said person. As Snusmumriken said, two wrongs don't make a right. So as long as we're clear then, the argument seems to be: As long as the majority of the population finds something to be distasteful and it would cause them to not sleep with you, you *must* disclose your status of this distasteful thing. It does not matter if it is being a natural blonde, being biracial, liking peanutbutter, or transsexualism - the important thing is that we must not cause inconvenience to the majority of the population. Am I getting this right? Because to me this sounds completely absurd. The argument is very, very simple: If you have good reason to believe that your partner might change his mind, given information you can choose whether or not to disclose, then you have an obligation to tell your partner and let him make the call. It has nothing to do with inconveniencing the majority. Similarly, if I were to become part of a transsexual dating site, where the default assumptions would be that everybody is transsexual, I would consider myself obligated to let my partners know that I am not a transsexual myself, because they have a right to make an informed decision. On a regular dating site, where transsexuality is not the norm, the obligation would lie with the transsexuals. Except that without the 'majority' premise, the entire argument falls apart. The only reason I'm supposed to disclose to everyone I sleep with is because of the belief that the 'majority' is transphobic. Without this belief I would have no reason to believe the person is transphobic without additional evidence. You're basically asking me to assume that everyone is transphobic, ergo, the majority premise matters. Basically, if the majority of the population has a hangup about something, then it's my obligation to inform all potential partners, because that is evidence that the person might change their mind. I'm just going to have to disagree ethically with this. People are responsible for their own hangups. If you dislike promiscuous people - and I don't care if *everyone* hates promiscuous people, and promiscuous people are super rare so they might assume that you're not promiscuous - I still think it's up to you to take steps to make sure your partner isn't promiscuous. Lies by omission are nonsense - especially if the only reason it's a "lie by omission" is predicated on how prevalent transphobia is. Take some personal responsibility. It doesn't have to be everyone, nor a majority. If you think there's a 20% chance you're obtaining consent through deception and an 80% chance they don't care about it you should still tell them because a 20% chance of deceiving someone into sex is too high. Consent is important. The reason it's a lie of omission is because of their assumption you are cis whereas you are are aware that you are not. This is nothing to do with transphobia, this is to do with numbers. There are far, far more cis people than trans. The assumption that a given person is cis rather than trans is a reasonable assumption to make. I'm not sure why you think that assumption is in any way transphobic, it's not, it's just statistics.
The prevalence of transphobia matters here (the argument is predicated upon it) because, within the context of the argument, the ethical criteria for disclosure is whether or not the person is transphobic. The only evidence we have to assume that the person is transphobic is 'it seems like most people are transphobic.' Therefore, the argument is predicated upon the prevalence of transphobia.
To me, if the ethics of disclosure is merely based on population and is inconsistent otherwise, then there is no real imperative as the ethic is weak.
You frame it as statistics, but this is a bit disingenuous. You make it sound like it's simply "most people are cis, few people are trans, therefore trans people must inform cis people". But this obfuscates the point. Trans people wouldn't have to inform cis people that they are trans *unless* the cis people are transphobic. Therefore, the argument hinges upon the prevalence of transphobia.
I think that if the ethics of disclosure is ever predicated upon something as arbitrary as the beliefs of a population at a particular time, then the ethical imperative is rather weak and unconvincing. If not informing someone that I'm trans is okay in the future because transphobia dies off, then I'm going to be rather skeptical that I have an ethic to disclose in the present.
|
On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation.
I strongly believe that if thinking it's okay not to disclose such information was not as prevalent (since it seems to be, for various reasons), then there would be much less violence in that regard. The reason why I'm saying that is because those people are not aggressive because they have anger management problems, but because (assuming sex did happen or was about to happen), they indeed were tricked into sex they did not consent to.
|
On August 01 2013 23:02 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 22:58 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 17:18 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 16:59 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 16:49 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 16:03 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 04:58 maybenexttime wrote: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. While racism is acquired, implying that feeling uncomfortable in the said situation is, too, is just an unfounded assumption. We can flip the issue and say that transsexuals need to learn some compassion and empathy because they, likewise, seem to have no regard for other people's feelings (you can see that clearly from transsexuals here saying that they have absolutely no obligation to disclose that part of their identity to people they get intimate with because, apparently, it's none of their business). Should a slave have regard for the moral feelings held by his master about letting blacks roam free across the country side when he takes into account his own freedom? Yes extreme, I know. Its an analogy. Feeling justified about being wrongfully enslaved does not give the slave a moral justification for doing anything he wants to the master, but it does give him the necessary perspective judge slavery. Trans people are people and they abide by the same rules of courtesy as everyone else in society until those values conflict with their very essence and quality of life, then there is a problem. Like I said, racism is acquired. Your analogy hinges on the assumption that feeling uncomfortable in the said situation is also acquired. What if it's as innate as the transsexual's identity? Its not innate as evidenced by the thousands of heterosexually identifying men in relationships wwith trans woman, not counting the fetishists. lol, what a ridiculous way of reasoning. First of all, some level of racism is likely inherent in our species, and more importantly just because thousands of people in a group containing billions do something or feel something that doesnt mean it applies to the rest. Its as ridiculous as arguing since some people want to be transgender then everyone wants to be transgender. "Heterosexual male" is not a homogenous category. At all.
Racism is not inherent and can be conditioned out of society. So can the popular culture of.disgust and fear surrounding transgender people. Why should i assume that every guy is a transphobe when many are not. I dont know the number of.partners, who knows what actual number is. I do know that nearly every attractive trans woman i know has a partner and gets as much attention as an attractice cis woman, the incidence of the guys staying.into them drops if they find out but not as much as you may think. In their limited experience most people dont care so why shouls they assume that everyone would care therefore they should HAVE to tell before hand.
|
On August 01 2013 22:53 RockIronrod wrote:
If I went to an entirely trans gathering where the assumed status of everyone was trans, and used that to my advantage to bed someone who only wanted to attract other trans people by simply not telling them I wasn't one myself, would there be a problem with that?
Yes, because the way you framed the hypothetical suggests that you knew that the person you slept with only wanted to sleep with other trans people. Similarly, if a trans person is aware that a potential sexual partner would not sleep with them if the partner knew of the trans status it would be wrong not to tell them.
However, if a trans person does not know that a potential sexual partner would not sleep with them if the partner knew of the trans status, I don't see why the onus is on the trans person to disclose... The trans person isn't using "deception," they are just being themselves and the partner is free to draw their own conclusions.
If a person is into one-night stands they put themselves at risk that they will end up sleeping with people with all sorts of traits they may find undesirable. They could end up sleeping with a person who is biracial, a racist, or even (God forbid) a Republican! I don't feel much sympathy for such people. If they are sensitive to a particular trait they can avoid exposure to it by, among other things, not having one-night stands.
I am aware that my grammar here is terrible, but it's my language's fault!
|
On August 01 2013 23:13 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I strongly believe that if thinking it's okay not to disclose such information was not as prevalent (since it seems to be, for various reasons), then there would be much less violence in that regard. The reason why I'm saying that is because those people are not aggressive because they have anger management problems, but because (assuming sex did happen or was about to happen), they indeed were tricked into sex they did not consent to.
Your a fool if you think even something as significant as a plurality of trans people dont disclose before sex. Men beat the shit out.of and kill transgender people because society is basically saying its ok to treat them as subhuman.
|
On August 01 2013 23:13 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2013 22:31 KwarK wrote:
And it really, really sucks that violent homophobes do horrible things to trans people but tricking them into what they would view as gay sex is not going to help the situation. I strongly believe that if thinking it's okay not to disclose such information was not as prevalent (since it seems to be, for various reasons), then there would be much less violence in that regard. The reason why I'm saying that is because those people are not aggressive because they have anger management problems, but because (assuming sex did happen or was about to happen), they indeed were tricked into sex they did not consent to.
There is no evidence to back that up and I find that to be unlikely. The type of person who is going to become violent when they find out the woman they were flirting with was at one time male, is not going to change due to more honest from people who are transgender. At the end of the day, once they find out, they feel they have been tricked into being attracted man and want to take out that frustration and embarrassment through violence. You cannot blame the transgender person for being honest and then being confronted by violence because the other party is an ass hole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
