|
United States41979 Posts
On August 02 2013 00:48 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:44 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:38 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:29 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:08 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 23:19 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 23:13 maybenexttime 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 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. And tricking those people into having sex with transsexuals actually makes their concerns of being tricked into the whole thing valid... Well you shouldn’t' have one night stands and then you won't have that problem. Or just ask. I don't really feel bad for you if you get surprised because you wanted to get laid and got a little more than you bargained for. Well, that simply means you're not on any moral high ground compared to the opponents of the LGBT lobby. Well I didn't really think they were on any moral highground to begin with. At the end of the day, these people are not going anywhere. If you want to avoid sleeping with someone who used to be a man, ask questions or don't have one night stands. Its your penis, make sure you know where you are putting it. Clearly, they don't consider themselves to be on a moral high ground, calling their opponents backwards savages, bigots, assholes, and so on, all the while fighting for tolerance, right... Why not flip the situation: if you don't want to risk sleeping with someone who might beat you up in case she finds out you're a transsexual, try making sure he's not that kind? Well, to be fair, there are a lot of bigots and assholes out there who oppose LGBT community. I don't really know how else you respond to people who either want you "cured", unable to marry, adopt or use the same restroom as them. Yes, they should ask about that if they care about those issues. They should also use a condom to avoid STDs. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for who they sleep with, no one else. Muslims should ask if they care about eating pork. They should cook their own meals. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for what they eat, no one else. I don't have any obligation to tell a man I know is Muslim that I am serving him a dinner with pork in it.
Except with pork it's food he thinks is unclean whereas with this it's sex he wouldn't consent to.
|
On August 02 2013 00:48 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:44 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:38 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:29 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:08 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 23:19 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 23:13 maybenexttime 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 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. And tricking those people into having sex with transsexuals actually makes their concerns of being tricked into the whole thing valid... Well you shouldn’t' have one night stands and then you won't have that problem. Or just ask. I don't really feel bad for you if you get surprised because you wanted to get laid and got a little more than you bargained for. Well, that simply means you're not on any moral high ground compared to the opponents of the LGBT lobby. Well I didn't really think they were on any moral highground to begin with. At the end of the day, these people are not going anywhere. If you want to avoid sleeping with someone who used to be a man, ask questions or don't have one night stands. Its your penis, make sure you know where you are putting it. Clearly, they don't consider themselves to be on a moral high ground, calling their opponents backwards savages, bigots, assholes, and so on, all the while fighting for tolerance, right... Why not flip the situation: if you don't want to risk sleeping with someone who might beat you up in case she finds out you're a transsexual, try making sure he's not that kind? Well, to be fair, there are a lot of bigots and assholes out there who oppose LGBT community. I don't really know how else you respond to people who either want you "cured", unable to marry, adopt or use the same restroom as them. Yes, they should ask about that if they care about those issues. They should also use a condom to avoid STDs. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for who they sleep with, no one else. Muslims should ask if they care about eating pork. They should cook their own meals. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for what they eat, no one else. I don't have any obligation to tell a man I know is Muslim that I am serving him a dinner with pork in it.
That is 100% correct. The same with food allergies and other issues involving food. People should ask about food they are putting into their mouth, because its their mouth.
But if you know the person is Muslim, it would be polite to tell them what you are making. If you are not aware, its their job to make sure they are eating food they are allowed to eat.
|
On August 02 2013 00:48 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:44 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:38 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:29 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:08 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 23:19 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 23:13 maybenexttime 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 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. And tricking those people into having sex with transsexuals actually makes their concerns of being tricked into the whole thing valid... Well you shouldn’t' have one night stands and then you won't have that problem. Or just ask. I don't really feel bad for you if you get surprised because you wanted to get laid and got a little more than you bargained for. Well, that simply means you're not on any moral high ground compared to the opponents of the LGBT lobby. Well I didn't really think they were on any moral highground to begin with. At the end of the day, these people are not going anywhere. If you want to avoid sleeping with someone who used to be a man, ask questions or don't have one night stands. Its your penis, make sure you know where you are putting it. Clearly, they don't consider themselves to be on a moral high ground, calling their opponents backwards savages, bigots, assholes, and so on, all the while fighting for tolerance, right... Why not flip the situation: if you don't want to risk sleeping with someone who might beat you up in case she finds out you're a transsexual, try making sure he's not that kind? Well, to be fair, there are a lot of bigots and assholes out there who oppose LGBT community. I don't really know how else you respond to people who either want you "cured", unable to marry, adopt or use the same restroom as them. Yes, they should ask about that if they care about those issues. They should also use a condom to avoid STDs. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for who they sleep with, no one else. Muslims should ask if they care about eating pork. They should cook their own meals. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for what they eat, no one else. I don't have any obligation to tell a man I know is Muslim that I am serving him a dinner with pork in it.
Yes. Not all muslims dont eat pork.
|
United States41979 Posts
On August 02 2013 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:28 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:19 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:12 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:02 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 23:38 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:33 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You might think what they're predicating their decision to consent on is stupid. That's fine. But that doesn't give you the right to dismiss their decision to consent. It's still theirs. Whether or not their criteria are dumb does not impact their right to have their own criteria regarding sexual consent.
[quote]
If half your partners think it's a deal breaker and half don't then I think it's reasonable to assume that half of people will think it's a dealbreaker and because you don't want a 50% chance of obtaining consent through deception you tell all of them. It doesn't have to be everyone, you're just trying not to obtain consent by deception through reasonable disclosure.
[quote]
The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. Your criteria for consent are your own. If being trans is a deal breaker or that's something you want to know, you have to ask that. You're right, it's not really rational to assume that every woman is possibly trans because they're such a small part of the population. But it's not the woman's job to assume that's your deal breaker. If it's not on your mind enough to ask, then it's probably not a deal breaker. And I'm not saying people aren't allowed to have random, dumbass criteria. I'm saying that you shouldn't expect your partner to assume criteria that don't affect you in the slightest. If you never had sex with people who owned Volkswagons, I wouldn't volunteer that I own a Jetta. Not because I'm lying by omission, but because I why on earth would I think it mattered? Sure sure, transphobia is a lot more common than volksphobia so we might just assume every man is transphobic and that it's a common enough deal breaker that trans women should volunteer the information. But do you not see a problem with just assuming that everyone is an asshole? If a trans woman is just supposed to assume everyone who is sexually attracted to her is transphobic...how is that healthy? How is that normal? And how is that not just as oppressive as calling by their original sex? They don't have to assume that everyone is transphobic, they have to recognise that there is a strong possibility, a very real conceivable chance, that the prospective partner is. Because right now, there is. There is a lot of transphobia. Hopefully that will change to the point where the assumption that the partner is definitely not transphobic will be as reasonable as the assumption that a partner isn't volksphobic. I'm not sure why it's anything like calling her by her born sex. Ok yes technically there's a difference between assuming 60% of people are transphobic and assuming 100% of people are transphobic but only on paper. That still manifests itself as suspicion and fear for a trans woman every single time a man shows interest in her. When you're talking about accounting for probability in our behavior, "likely" and "most definitely" aren't that different. And it's the same as calling her by her born sex because it's just saying "there is something about you that other people find weird and if you try to pretend you aren't weird you're even weirder." Look, bottom line: If you're really so averse to fucking a trans woman, ask the woman if she's trans. The human brain works by overplaying probability. So even if only 2% of the population is trans, if your brain really thinks it's something bad that might happen to you, it will inflate that probability to the point that it'll be on your mind every time you have sex. The same way you wonder if your plane is going to crash every time you fly even though statistically it's nigh impossible. It's not just going to not occur to you if it's really an issue for you. If it's on your mind...ask. I suspect that most transphobic men don't want to ask that before sex not because it's not on their mind, but because they know it will be a mood killer because *shocker* it's actually a pretty offensive question. So they're just relying on the trans woman to enable their transphobia while still not making them accountable for it. I know it's a little presumptuous to play mind reader but people really are dragging their heels on taking responsibility for information that's a big deal to them but wouldn't be to their partner. A sexual act is about to happen because informed consent is not there and instead both partners are making poorly informed assumptions about the other. The transphobic person is assuming their partner is cis. The trans person is assuming their partner isn't transphobic. If either party revealed the information they knew that the other person would find relevant then the situation could be avoided. However the two failures to reveal information are not statistically equivalent. The transphobic person's assumption that most people are cis is going to be correct far, far more often that the trans person's assumption that a given person isn't transphobic. They are the one who knows they are an outlier, the lack of informed consent hinges upon their information. This is called majority privilege and it's bad. The fact that, simply because the cis partner is in the majority means they have no responsibility to find out what's important to them is stupid. You care, you ask. It's just taking responsibility for what's important to you. It's no one else's job to worry about your hangups. Literally no other hangup gets this kind of treatment. For every non consequential deal breaker you can think of, the onus is on the person for whom it is a problem, to find out about it. Everything from smoking, to occupation, to sexual history...we never expect people to voluntarily divulge that information even though the thought of having sex with a promiscuous woman might absolutely disgust you, we still expect YOU to ask. Unless you're assuming that having sex with a trans person actually has consequences that would put it in the category of an STD or possibly affect a third party...your argument that "trans" is a special kind of hangup just doesn't work. It's majority privilege and it's statistics. It's easier being the majority. Houses have stairs in them which is fucking great for people who can walk and sucks for people in wheelchairs. Signs have writing on them which is awesome for most and bad for the blind. It's the way a world is made, it's numbers, it's no-ones fault and outliers have to deal with it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help them but it doesn't mean it's not the case or that it's somehow bad. Except in this case your majority privilege expects to be catered to in a way that isn't reasonable or right. Again, unless you can prove that "trans" is a special kind of hangup that makes it comparable to an STD, then you don't get to treat it any differently than any of the non consequential hangups which we universally expect the person with said hangups to ask about themselves. Your STD argument makes no sense and relies upon the assumption that the only potential harm done from sex is disease, consensual or otherwise. Clearly this is not the case. My majority privilege expects that I am forgiven for assuming something which is the case 99.9% of the time is the case while simultaneously demanding the minority not assume that something which is the case 30% of the time (example) is not the case. In fact, majority privilege doesn't even come into this. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I said "hangups with consequences" and used STD's as an example, not the crux of the argument. Not wanting to fuck someone with an STD is a hangup because of consequences so I would expect the person with the STD to divulge that information. Not wanting to have sex with a trans person isn't a hangup that carries any consequences with it so I don't expect that information to be voluntarily divulged. And, as of yet, you've been unable to demonstrate any consequences of said hangup so I fail to see how it's any different than a hangup about not wanting to have sex with people who own Jetta's. Why would I volunteer that I own a Jetta when it carries absolutely zero consequences for the other person? "That's just common sense. That's just numbers." God you sound like Bill Oreilly.
You in no way addressed my argument. It is reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 99.9% of the time as true. It is not reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 30% of the time as untrue. That's just common sense. That's just numbers.
|
On August 02 2013 00:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:48 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 00:44 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:38 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:29 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:08 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 23:19 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 23:13 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
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. And tricking those people into having sex with transsexuals actually makes their concerns of being tricked into the whole thing valid... Well you shouldn’t' have one night stands and then you won't have that problem. Or just ask. I don't really feel bad for you if you get surprised because you wanted to get laid and got a little more than you bargained for. Well, that simply means you're not on any moral high ground compared to the opponents of the LGBT lobby. Well I didn't really think they were on any moral highground to begin with. At the end of the day, these people are not going anywhere. If you want to avoid sleeping with someone who used to be a man, ask questions or don't have one night stands. Its your penis, make sure you know where you are putting it. Clearly, they don't consider themselves to be on a moral high ground, calling their opponents backwards savages, bigots, assholes, and so on, all the while fighting for tolerance, right... Why not flip the situation: if you don't want to risk sleeping with someone who might beat you up in case she finds out you're a transsexual, try making sure he's not that kind? Well, to be fair, there are a lot of bigots and assholes out there who oppose LGBT community. I don't really know how else you respond to people who either want you "cured", unable to marry, adopt or use the same restroom as them. Yes, they should ask about that if they care about those issues. They should also use a condom to avoid STDs. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for who they sleep with, no one else. Muslims should ask if they care about eating pork. They should cook their own meals. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for what they eat, no one else. I don't have any obligation to tell a man I know is Muslim that I am serving him a dinner with pork in it. That is 100% correct. The same with food allergies and other issues involving food. People should ask about food they are putting into their mouth, because its their mouth. But if you know the person is Muslim, it would be polite to tell them what you are making. If you are not aware, its their job to make sure they are eating food they are allowed to eat.
Thats ridiculous. If you know a person is muslim and youre feeding them pork, youre being immoral. It doesnt matter if they should ask or not, your action is still immoral.
Same goes for the issue at hand. If you know someone doesnt want to have sex with a person whos transgender, and you do it anyway, youre being immoral. If you have reasons to believe a person doesnt want to, but you do it anyway, youre being immoral. If you have reason to believe a person doesnt want to, but you fail to realize that this is the case and you do it anyway, youre being stupid. You can insert whatever you like instead of transgender, the same applies.
|
On August 02 2013 00:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:28 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:19 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:12 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:02 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 23:38 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:33 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Your criteria for consent are your own. If being trans is a deal breaker or that's something you want to know, you have to ask that. You're right, it's not really rational to assume that every woman is possibly trans because they're such a small part of the population. But it's not the woman's job to assume that's your deal breaker. If it's not on your mind enough to ask, then it's probably not a deal breaker.
And I'm not saying people aren't allowed to have random, dumbass criteria. I'm saying that you shouldn't expect your partner to assume criteria that don't affect you in the slightest. If you never had sex with people who owned Volkswagons, I wouldn't volunteer that I own a Jetta. Not because I'm lying by omission, but because I why on earth would I think it mattered?
Sure sure, transphobia is a lot more common than volksphobia so we might just assume every man is transphobic and that it's a common enough deal breaker that trans women should volunteer the information. But do you not see a problem with just assuming that everyone is an asshole? If a trans woman is just supposed to assume everyone who is sexually attracted to her is transphobic...how is that healthy? How is that normal? And how is that not just as oppressive as calling by their original sex? They don't have to assume that everyone is transphobic, they have to recognise that there is a strong possibility, a very real conceivable chance, that the prospective partner is. Because right now, there is. There is a lot of transphobia. Hopefully that will change to the point where the assumption that the partner is definitely not transphobic will be as reasonable as the assumption that a partner isn't volksphobic. I'm not sure why it's anything like calling her by her born sex. Ok yes technically there's a difference between assuming 60% of people are transphobic and assuming 100% of people are transphobic but only on paper. That still manifests itself as suspicion and fear for a trans woman every single time a man shows interest in her. When you're talking about accounting for probability in our behavior, "likely" and "most definitely" aren't that different. And it's the same as calling her by her born sex because it's just saying "there is something about you that other people find weird and if you try to pretend you aren't weird you're even weirder." Look, bottom line: If you're really so averse to fucking a trans woman, ask the woman if she's trans. The human brain works by overplaying probability. So even if only 2% of the population is trans, if your brain really thinks it's something bad that might happen to you, it will inflate that probability to the point that it'll be on your mind every time you have sex. The same way you wonder if your plane is going to crash every time you fly even though statistically it's nigh impossible. It's not just going to not occur to you if it's really an issue for you. If it's on your mind...ask. I suspect that most transphobic men don't want to ask that before sex not because it's not on their mind, but because they know it will be a mood killer because *shocker* it's actually a pretty offensive question. So they're just relying on the trans woman to enable their transphobia while still not making them accountable for it. I know it's a little presumptuous to play mind reader but people really are dragging their heels on taking responsibility for information that's a big deal to them but wouldn't be to their partner. A sexual act is about to happen because informed consent is not there and instead both partners are making poorly informed assumptions about the other. The transphobic person is assuming their partner is cis. The trans person is assuming their partner isn't transphobic. If either party revealed the information they knew that the other person would find relevant then the situation could be avoided. However the two failures to reveal information are not statistically equivalent. The transphobic person's assumption that most people are cis is going to be correct far, far more often that the trans person's assumption that a given person isn't transphobic. They are the one who knows they are an outlier, the lack of informed consent hinges upon their information. This is called majority privilege and it's bad. The fact that, simply because the cis partner is in the majority means they have no responsibility to find out what's important to them is stupid. You care, you ask. It's just taking responsibility for what's important to you. It's no one else's job to worry about your hangups. Literally no other hangup gets this kind of treatment. For every non consequential deal breaker you can think of, the onus is on the person for whom it is a problem, to find out about it. Everything from smoking, to occupation, to sexual history...we never expect people to voluntarily divulge that information even though the thought of having sex with a promiscuous woman might absolutely disgust you, we still expect YOU to ask. Unless you're assuming that having sex with a trans person actually has consequences that would put it in the category of an STD or possibly affect a third party...your argument that "trans" is a special kind of hangup just doesn't work. It's majority privilege and it's statistics. It's easier being the majority. Houses have stairs in them which is fucking great for people who can walk and sucks for people in wheelchairs. Signs have writing on them which is awesome for most and bad for the blind. It's the way a world is made, it's numbers, it's no-ones fault and outliers have to deal with it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help them but it doesn't mean it's not the case or that it's somehow bad. Except in this case your majority privilege expects to be catered to in a way that isn't reasonable or right. Again, unless you can prove that "trans" is a special kind of hangup that makes it comparable to an STD, then you don't get to treat it any differently than any of the non consequential hangups which we universally expect the person with said hangups to ask about themselves. Your STD argument makes no sense and relies upon the assumption that the only potential harm done from sex is disease, consensual or otherwise. Clearly this is not the case. My majority privilege expects that I am forgiven for assuming something which is the case 99.9% of the time is the case while simultaneously demanding the minority not assume that something which is the case 30% of the time (example) is not the case. In fact, majority privilege doesn't even come into this. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I said "hangups with consequences" and used STD's as an example, not the crux of the argument. Not wanting to fuck someone with an STD is a hangup because of consequences so I would expect the person with the STD to divulge that information. Not wanting to have sex with a trans person isn't a hangup that carries any consequences with it so I don't expect that information to be voluntarily divulged. And, as of yet, you've been unable to demonstrate any consequences of said hangup so I fail to see how it's any different than a hangup about not wanting to have sex with people who own Jetta's. Why would I volunteer that I own a Jetta when it carries absolutely zero consequences for the other person? "That's just common sense. That's just numbers." God you sound like Bill Oreilly. You in no way addressed my argument. It is reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 99.9% of the time as true. It is not reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 30% of the time as untrue. That's just common sense. That's just numbers.
I didn't address your argument because it doesn't matter. Ok, yeah it's reasonable to assume that a person is cis. But if you have a hangup about sleeping with a non-cis person, the only way you can put the onus on the non-cis person to divulge that information is if there are any consequences from having sex with them by virtue of them being non-cis. There are none. It's not a relevant piece of information for making an informed decision about a hookup. Now, if you feel that it is relevant, then it is your job to ask. Assuming it's relevant is moronic because there are zero consequences of it.
It's reasonable to assume that most women aren't horribly promiscuous but I don't expect a promiscuous woman to divulge that she was promiscuous just because her partner might have an issue with it. It's just not relevant. And if the partner has a hangup about it, the onus is on him to ask.
|
On August 02 2013 00:48 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:44 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:38 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:29 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:08 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 23:19 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 23:13 maybenexttime 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 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. And tricking those people into having sex with transsexuals actually makes their concerns of being tricked into the whole thing valid... Well you shouldn’t' have one night stands and then you won't have that problem. Or just ask. I don't really feel bad for you if you get surprised because you wanted to get laid and got a little more than you bargained for. Well, that simply means you're not on any moral high ground compared to the opponents of the LGBT lobby. Well I didn't really think they were on any moral highground to begin with. At the end of the day, these people are not going anywhere. If you want to avoid sleeping with someone who used to be a man, ask questions or don't have one night stands. Its your penis, make sure you know where you are putting it. Clearly, they don't consider themselves to be on a moral high ground, calling their opponents backwards savages, bigots, assholes, and so on, all the while fighting for tolerance, right... Why not flip the situation: if you don't want to risk sleeping with someone who might beat you up in case she finds out you're a transsexual, try making sure he's not that kind? Well, to be fair, there are a lot of bigots and assholes out there who oppose LGBT community. I don't really know how else you respond to people who either want you "cured", unable to marry, adopt or use the same restroom as them. Yes, they should ask about that if they care about those issues. They should also use a condom to avoid STDs. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for who they sleep with, no one else. Muslims should ask if they care about eating pork. They should cook their own meals. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for what they eat, no one else. I don't have any obligation to tell a man I know is Muslim that I am serving him a dinner with pork in it.
I think the better analogy would be if you didn't know the person was a Muslim. Do you have an obligation to ask every person you serve pork to whether they are a Muslim, just in case? I don't think anyone in the thread has argued that it's ok for a trans person to not disclose when they KNOW that their potential sexual partner would not sleep with a trans person.
|
On August 02 2013 00:57 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:52 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:28 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:19 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:12 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:02 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 23:38 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
They don't have to assume that everyone is transphobic, they have to recognise that there is a strong possibility, a very real conceivable chance, that the prospective partner is. Because right now, there is. There is a lot of transphobia. Hopefully that will change to the point where the assumption that the partner is definitely not transphobic will be as reasonable as the assumption that a partner isn't volksphobic.
I'm not sure why it's anything like calling her by her born sex. Ok yes technically there's a difference between assuming 60% of people are transphobic and assuming 100% of people are transphobic but only on paper. That still manifests itself as suspicion and fear for a trans woman every single time a man shows interest in her. When you're talking about accounting for probability in our behavior, "likely" and "most definitely" aren't that different. And it's the same as calling her by her born sex because it's just saying "there is something about you that other people find weird and if you try to pretend you aren't weird you're even weirder." Look, bottom line: If you're really so averse to fucking a trans woman, ask the woman if she's trans. The human brain works by overplaying probability. So even if only 2% of the population is trans, if your brain really thinks it's something bad that might happen to you, it will inflate that probability to the point that it'll be on your mind every time you have sex. The same way you wonder if your plane is going to crash every time you fly even though statistically it's nigh impossible. It's not just going to not occur to you if it's really an issue for you. If it's on your mind...ask. I suspect that most transphobic men don't want to ask that before sex not because it's not on their mind, but because they know it will be a mood killer because *shocker* it's actually a pretty offensive question. So they're just relying on the trans woman to enable their transphobia while still not making them accountable for it. I know it's a little presumptuous to play mind reader but people really are dragging their heels on taking responsibility for information that's a big deal to them but wouldn't be to their partner. A sexual act is about to happen because informed consent is not there and instead both partners are making poorly informed assumptions about the other. The transphobic person is assuming their partner is cis. The trans person is assuming their partner isn't transphobic. If either party revealed the information they knew that the other person would find relevant then the situation could be avoided. However the two failures to reveal information are not statistically equivalent. The transphobic person's assumption that most people are cis is going to be correct far, far more often that the trans person's assumption that a given person isn't transphobic. They are the one who knows they are an outlier, the lack of informed consent hinges upon their information. This is called majority privilege and it's bad. The fact that, simply because the cis partner is in the majority means they have no responsibility to find out what's important to them is stupid. You care, you ask. It's just taking responsibility for what's important to you. It's no one else's job to worry about your hangups. Literally no other hangup gets this kind of treatment. For every non consequential deal breaker you can think of, the onus is on the person for whom it is a problem, to find out about it. Everything from smoking, to occupation, to sexual history...we never expect people to voluntarily divulge that information even though the thought of having sex with a promiscuous woman might absolutely disgust you, we still expect YOU to ask. Unless you're assuming that having sex with a trans person actually has consequences that would put it in the category of an STD or possibly affect a third party...your argument that "trans" is a special kind of hangup just doesn't work. It's majority privilege and it's statistics. It's easier being the majority. Houses have stairs in them which is fucking great for people who can walk and sucks for people in wheelchairs. Signs have writing on them which is awesome for most and bad for the blind. It's the way a world is made, it's numbers, it's no-ones fault and outliers have to deal with it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help them but it doesn't mean it's not the case or that it's somehow bad. Except in this case your majority privilege expects to be catered to in a way that isn't reasonable or right. Again, unless you can prove that "trans" is a special kind of hangup that makes it comparable to an STD, then you don't get to treat it any differently than any of the non consequential hangups which we universally expect the person with said hangups to ask about themselves. Your STD argument makes no sense and relies upon the assumption that the only potential harm done from sex is disease, consensual or otherwise. Clearly this is not the case. My majority privilege expects that I am forgiven for assuming something which is the case 99.9% of the time is the case while simultaneously demanding the minority not assume that something which is the case 30% of the time (example) is not the case. In fact, majority privilege doesn't even come into this. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I said "hangups with consequences" and used STD's as an example, not the crux of the argument. Not wanting to fuck someone with an STD is a hangup because of consequences so I would expect the person with the STD to divulge that information. Not wanting to have sex with a trans person isn't a hangup that carries any consequences with it so I don't expect that information to be voluntarily divulged. And, as of yet, you've been unable to demonstrate any consequences of said hangup so I fail to see how it's any different than a hangup about not wanting to have sex with people who own Jetta's. Why would I volunteer that I own a Jetta when it carries absolutely zero consequences for the other person? "That's just common sense. That's just numbers." God you sound like Bill Oreilly. You in no way addressed my argument. It is reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 99.9% of the time as true. It is not reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 30% of the time as untrue. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I didn't address your argument because it doesn't matter. Ok, yeah it's reasonable to assume that a person is cis. But if you have a hangup about sleeping with a non-cis person, the only way you can put the onus on the non-cis person to divulge that information is if there are any consequences from having sex with them by virtue of them being non-cis. There are none. It's not a relevant piece of information for making an informed decision about a hookup. Now, if you feel that it is relevant, then it is your job to ask. Assuming it's relevant is moronic because there are zero consequences of it. It's reasonable to assume that most women aren't horribly promiscuous but I don't expect a promiscuous woman to divulge that she was promiscuous just because her partner might have an issue with it. It's just not relevant. And if the partner has a hangup about it, the onus is on him to ask.
Completetely egocentric reasoning. Stop assuming that what you consider relevant or irrelevant applies to everyone else.
|
On August 02 2013 00:57 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:50 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:48 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 00:44 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:38 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:29 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:08 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 23:19 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. And tricking those people into having sex with transsexuals actually makes their concerns of being tricked into the whole thing valid... Well you shouldn’t' have one night stands and then you won't have that problem. Or just ask. I don't really feel bad for you if you get surprised because you wanted to get laid and got a little more than you bargained for. Well, that simply means you're not on any moral high ground compared to the opponents of the LGBT lobby. Well I didn't really think they were on any moral highground to begin with. At the end of the day, these people are not going anywhere. If you want to avoid sleeping with someone who used to be a man, ask questions or don't have one night stands. Its your penis, make sure you know where you are putting it. Clearly, they don't consider themselves to be on a moral high ground, calling their opponents backwards savages, bigots, assholes, and so on, all the while fighting for tolerance, right... Why not flip the situation: if you don't want to risk sleeping with someone who might beat you up in case she finds out you're a transsexual, try making sure he's not that kind? Well, to be fair, there are a lot of bigots and assholes out there who oppose LGBT community. I don't really know how else you respond to people who either want you "cured", unable to marry, adopt or use the same restroom as them. Yes, they should ask about that if they care about those issues. They should also use a condom to avoid STDs. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for who they sleep with, no one else. Muslims should ask if they care about eating pork. They should cook their own meals. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for what they eat, no one else. I don't have any obligation to tell a man I know is Muslim that I am serving him a dinner with pork in it. That is 100% correct. The same with food allergies and other issues involving food. People should ask about food they are putting into their mouth, because its their mouth. But if you know the person is Muslim, it would be polite to tell them what you are making. If you are not aware, its their job to make sure they are eating food they are allowed to eat. Thats ridiculous. If you know a person is muslim and youre feeding them pork, youre being immoral. It doesnt matter if they should ask or not, your action is still immoral. Same goes for the issue at hand. If you know someone doesnt want to have sex with a person whos transgender, and you do it anyway, youre being immoral. If you have reasons to believe a person doesnt want to, but you do it anyway, youre being immoral. If you have reason to believe a person doesnt want to, but you fail to realize that this is the case and you do it anyway, youre being stupid. You can insert whatever you like instead of transgender, the same applies.
In what world would I be feeding people food and suprising them that it contained pork? What chain of events would lead to me providing food to someone that was Muslim and they would be totally unaware of what is in the food? The only way this happens is if I am an ass hole and feel them pork on purpose and don't tell them in the intent of tricking them. The rest of the time, I am just making food and they are asking for some. Its not my job to remember every single thing someone can and cannot eat.
|
On August 02 2013 00:57 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:48 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 00:44 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:38 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:29 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:08 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 23:19 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 23:13 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
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. And tricking those people into having sex with transsexuals actually makes their concerns of being tricked into the whole thing valid... Well you shouldn’t' have one night stands and then you won't have that problem. Or just ask. I don't really feel bad for you if you get surprised because you wanted to get laid and got a little more than you bargained for. Well, that simply means you're not on any moral high ground compared to the opponents of the LGBT lobby. Well I didn't really think they were on any moral highground to begin with. At the end of the day, these people are not going anywhere. If you want to avoid sleeping with someone who used to be a man, ask questions or don't have one night stands. Its your penis, make sure you know where you are putting it. Clearly, they don't consider themselves to be on a moral high ground, calling their opponents backwards savages, bigots, assholes, and so on, all the while fighting for tolerance, right... Why not flip the situation: if you don't want to risk sleeping with someone who might beat you up in case she finds out you're a transsexual, try making sure he's not that kind? Well, to be fair, there are a lot of bigots and assholes out there who oppose LGBT community. I don't really know how else you respond to people who either want you "cured", unable to marry, adopt or use the same restroom as them. Yes, they should ask about that if they care about those issues. They should also use a condom to avoid STDs. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for who they sleep with, no one else. Muslims should ask if they care about eating pork. They should cook their own meals. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for what they eat, no one else. I don't have any obligation to tell a man I know is Muslim that I am serving him a dinner with pork in it. I think the better analogy would be if you didn't know the person was a Muslim. Do you have an obligation to ask every person you serve pork to whether they are a Muslim, just in case? I don't think anyone in the thread has argued that it's ok for a trans person to not disclose when they KNOW that their potential sexual partner would not sleep with a trans person.
I don't think that works. I always ask any new people I cook for whether they have any dietary requirements.
I don't think I would say "Do you have any sexual requirements" if in a ons situation and I would be slightly put off if someone asked me (although I would appreciate their openness!)
|
United States41979 Posts
On August 02 2013 00:57 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:52 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:28 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:19 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:12 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:02 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 23:38 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
They don't have to assume that everyone is transphobic, they have to recognise that there is a strong possibility, a very real conceivable chance, that the prospective partner is. Because right now, there is. There is a lot of transphobia. Hopefully that will change to the point where the assumption that the partner is definitely not transphobic will be as reasonable as the assumption that a partner isn't volksphobic.
I'm not sure why it's anything like calling her by her born sex. Ok yes technically there's a difference between assuming 60% of people are transphobic and assuming 100% of people are transphobic but only on paper. That still manifests itself as suspicion and fear for a trans woman every single time a man shows interest in her. When you're talking about accounting for probability in our behavior, "likely" and "most definitely" aren't that different. And it's the same as calling her by her born sex because it's just saying "there is something about you that other people find weird and if you try to pretend you aren't weird you're even weirder." Look, bottom line: If you're really so averse to fucking a trans woman, ask the woman if she's trans. The human brain works by overplaying probability. So even if only 2% of the population is trans, if your brain really thinks it's something bad that might happen to you, it will inflate that probability to the point that it'll be on your mind every time you have sex. The same way you wonder if your plane is going to crash every time you fly even though statistically it's nigh impossible. It's not just going to not occur to you if it's really an issue for you. If it's on your mind...ask. I suspect that most transphobic men don't want to ask that before sex not because it's not on their mind, but because they know it will be a mood killer because *shocker* it's actually a pretty offensive question. So they're just relying on the trans woman to enable their transphobia while still not making them accountable for it. I know it's a little presumptuous to play mind reader but people really are dragging their heels on taking responsibility for information that's a big deal to them but wouldn't be to their partner. A sexual act is about to happen because informed consent is not there and instead both partners are making poorly informed assumptions about the other. The transphobic person is assuming their partner is cis. The trans person is assuming their partner isn't transphobic. If either party revealed the information they knew that the other person would find relevant then the situation could be avoided. However the two failures to reveal information are not statistically equivalent. The transphobic person's assumption that most people are cis is going to be correct far, far more often that the trans person's assumption that a given person isn't transphobic. They are the one who knows they are an outlier, the lack of informed consent hinges upon their information. This is called majority privilege and it's bad. The fact that, simply because the cis partner is in the majority means they have no responsibility to find out what's important to them is stupid. You care, you ask. It's just taking responsibility for what's important to you. It's no one else's job to worry about your hangups. Literally no other hangup gets this kind of treatment. For every non consequential deal breaker you can think of, the onus is on the person for whom it is a problem, to find out about it. Everything from smoking, to occupation, to sexual history...we never expect people to voluntarily divulge that information even though the thought of having sex with a promiscuous woman might absolutely disgust you, we still expect YOU to ask. Unless you're assuming that having sex with a trans person actually has consequences that would put it in the category of an STD or possibly affect a third party...your argument that "trans" is a special kind of hangup just doesn't work. It's majority privilege and it's statistics. It's easier being the majority. Houses have stairs in them which is fucking great for people who can walk and sucks for people in wheelchairs. Signs have writing on them which is awesome for most and bad for the blind. It's the way a world is made, it's numbers, it's no-ones fault and outliers have to deal with it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help them but it doesn't mean it's not the case or that it's somehow bad. Except in this case your majority privilege expects to be catered to in a way that isn't reasonable or right. Again, unless you can prove that "trans" is a special kind of hangup that makes it comparable to an STD, then you don't get to treat it any differently than any of the non consequential hangups which we universally expect the person with said hangups to ask about themselves. Your STD argument makes no sense and relies upon the assumption that the only potential harm done from sex is disease, consensual or otherwise. Clearly this is not the case. My majority privilege expects that I am forgiven for assuming something which is the case 99.9% of the time is the case while simultaneously demanding the minority not assume that something which is the case 30% of the time (example) is not the case. In fact, majority privilege doesn't even come into this. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I said "hangups with consequences" and used STD's as an example, not the crux of the argument. Not wanting to fuck someone with an STD is a hangup because of consequences so I would expect the person with the STD to divulge that information. Not wanting to have sex with a trans person isn't a hangup that carries any consequences with it so I don't expect that information to be voluntarily divulged. And, as of yet, you've been unable to demonstrate any consequences of said hangup so I fail to see how it's any different than a hangup about not wanting to have sex with people who own Jetta's. Why would I volunteer that I own a Jetta when it carries absolutely zero consequences for the other person? "That's just common sense. That's just numbers." God you sound like Bill Oreilly. You in no way addressed my argument. It is reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 99.9% of the time as true. It is not reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 30% of the time as untrue. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I didn't address your argument because it doesn't matter. Ok, yeah it's reasonable to assume that a person is cis. But if you have a hangup about sleeping with a non-cis person, the only way you can put the onus on the non-cis person to divulge that information is if there are any consequences from having sex with them by virtue of them being non-cis. There are none. It's not a relevant piece of information for making an informed decision about a hookup. Now, if you feel that it is relevant, then it is your job to ask. Assuming it's relevant is moronic because there are zero consequences of it. It's reasonable to assume that most women aren't horribly promiscuous but I don't expect a promiscuous woman to divulge that she was promiscuous just because her partner might have an issue with it. It's just not relevant. And if the partner has a hangup about it, the onus is on him to ask.
No. The onus is on them if they have reasonable cause to believe that your sex might be conditional on their cis status which, assuming a relatively transphobic population, there is. You don't get to decide what consequences are relevant and important regarding other people, particularly regarding the harm resulting from non consensual sex.
The onus is on the party who is better informed to divulge the information.
|
On August 02 2013 01:01 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:57 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:52 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:28 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:19 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:12 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:02 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:50 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Ok yes technically there's a difference between assuming 60% of people are transphobic and assuming 100% of people are transphobic but only on paper. That still manifests itself as suspicion and fear for a trans woman every single time a man shows interest in her. When you're talking about accounting for probability in our behavior, "likely" and "most definitely" aren't that different.
And it's the same as calling her by her born sex because it's just saying "there is something about you that other people find weird and if you try to pretend you aren't weird you're even weirder."
Look, bottom line: If you're really so averse to fucking a trans woman, ask the woman if she's trans. The human brain works by overplaying probability. So even if only 2% of the population is trans, if your brain really thinks it's something bad that might happen to you, it will inflate that probability to the point that it'll be on your mind every time you have sex. The same way you wonder if your plane is going to crash every time you fly even though statistically it's nigh impossible. It's not just going to not occur to you if it's really an issue for you. If it's on your mind...ask.
I suspect that most transphobic men don't want to ask that before sex not because it's not on their mind, but because they know it will be a mood killer because *shocker* it's actually a pretty offensive question. So they're just relying on the trans woman to enable their transphobia while still not making them accountable for it. I know it's a little presumptuous to play mind reader but people really are dragging their heels on taking responsibility for information that's a big deal to them but wouldn't be to their partner.
A sexual act is about to happen because informed consent is not there and instead both partners are making poorly informed assumptions about the other. The transphobic person is assuming their partner is cis. The trans person is assuming their partner isn't transphobic. If either party revealed the information they knew that the other person would find relevant then the situation could be avoided. However the two failures to reveal information are not statistically equivalent. The transphobic person's assumption that most people are cis is going to be correct far, far more often that the trans person's assumption that a given person isn't transphobic. They are the one who knows they are an outlier, the lack of informed consent hinges upon their information. This is called majority privilege and it's bad. The fact that, simply because the cis partner is in the majority means they have no responsibility to find out what's important to them is stupid. You care, you ask. It's just taking responsibility for what's important to you. It's no one else's job to worry about your hangups. Literally no other hangup gets this kind of treatment. For every non consequential deal breaker you can think of, the onus is on the person for whom it is a problem, to find out about it. Everything from smoking, to occupation, to sexual history...we never expect people to voluntarily divulge that information even though the thought of having sex with a promiscuous woman might absolutely disgust you, we still expect YOU to ask. Unless you're assuming that having sex with a trans person actually has consequences that would put it in the category of an STD or possibly affect a third party...your argument that "trans" is a special kind of hangup just doesn't work. It's majority privilege and it's statistics. It's easier being the majority. Houses have stairs in them which is fucking great for people who can walk and sucks for people in wheelchairs. Signs have writing on them which is awesome for most and bad for the blind. It's the way a world is made, it's numbers, it's no-ones fault and outliers have to deal with it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help them but it doesn't mean it's not the case or that it's somehow bad. Except in this case your majority privilege expects to be catered to in a way that isn't reasonable or right. Again, unless you can prove that "trans" is a special kind of hangup that makes it comparable to an STD, then you don't get to treat it any differently than any of the non consequential hangups which we universally expect the person with said hangups to ask about themselves. Your STD argument makes no sense and relies upon the assumption that the only potential harm done from sex is disease, consensual or otherwise. Clearly this is not the case. My majority privilege expects that I am forgiven for assuming something which is the case 99.9% of the time is the case while simultaneously demanding the minority not assume that something which is the case 30% of the time (example) is not the case. In fact, majority privilege doesn't even come into this. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I said "hangups with consequences" and used STD's as an example, not the crux of the argument. Not wanting to fuck someone with an STD is a hangup because of consequences so I would expect the person with the STD to divulge that information. Not wanting to have sex with a trans person isn't a hangup that carries any consequences with it so I don't expect that information to be voluntarily divulged. And, as of yet, you've been unable to demonstrate any consequences of said hangup so I fail to see how it's any different than a hangup about not wanting to have sex with people who own Jetta's. Why would I volunteer that I own a Jetta when it carries absolutely zero consequences for the other person? "That's just common sense. That's just numbers." God you sound like Bill Oreilly. You in no way addressed my argument. It is reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 99.9% of the time as true. It is not reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 30% of the time as untrue. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I didn't address your argument because it doesn't matter. Ok, yeah it's reasonable to assume that a person is cis. But if you have a hangup about sleeping with a non-cis person, the only way you can put the onus on the non-cis person to divulge that information is if there are any consequences from having sex with them by virtue of them being non-cis. There are none. It's not a relevant piece of information for making an informed decision about a hookup. Now, if you feel that it is relevant, then it is your job to ask. Assuming it's relevant is moronic because there are zero consequences of it. It's reasonable to assume that most women aren't horribly promiscuous but I don't expect a promiscuous woman to divulge that she was promiscuous just because her partner might have an issue with it. It's just not relevant. And if the partner has a hangup about it, the onus is on him to ask. Completetely egocentric reasoning. Stop assuming that what you consider relevant or irrelevant applies to everyone else.
I'm not being egocentric. I'm saying that it's not relevant by virtue of having consequences. Which it doesn't have consequences. If it's relevant to you for personal reasons, then it's up to you to ask. We only require people to voluntarily divulge information that has consequences for their partner.
|
On August 02 2013 01:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:57 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 02 2013 00:50 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:48 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 00:44 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:38 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:29 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:08 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
And tricking those people into having sex with transsexuals actually makes their concerns of being tricked into the whole thing valid... Well you shouldn’t' have one night stands and then you won't have that problem. Or just ask. I don't really feel bad for you if you get surprised because you wanted to get laid and got a little more than you bargained for. Well, that simply means you're not on any moral high ground compared to the opponents of the LGBT lobby. Well I didn't really think they were on any moral highground to begin with. At the end of the day, these people are not going anywhere. If you want to avoid sleeping with someone who used to be a man, ask questions or don't have one night stands. Its your penis, make sure you know where you are putting it. Clearly, they don't consider themselves to be on a moral high ground, calling their opponents backwards savages, bigots, assholes, and so on, all the while fighting for tolerance, right... Why not flip the situation: if you don't want to risk sleeping with someone who might beat you up in case she finds out you're a transsexual, try making sure he's not that kind? Well, to be fair, there are a lot of bigots and assholes out there who oppose LGBT community. I don't really know how else you respond to people who either want you "cured", unable to marry, adopt or use the same restroom as them. Yes, they should ask about that if they care about those issues. They should also use a condom to avoid STDs. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for who they sleep with, no one else. Muslims should ask if they care about eating pork. They should cook their own meals. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for what they eat, no one else. I don't have any obligation to tell a man I know is Muslim that I am serving him a dinner with pork in it. That is 100% correct. The same with food allergies and other issues involving food. People should ask about food they are putting into their mouth, because its their mouth. But if you know the person is Muslim, it would be polite to tell them what you are making. If you are not aware, its their job to make sure they are eating food they are allowed to eat. Thats ridiculous. If you know a person is muslim and youre feeding them pork, youre being immoral. It doesnt matter if they should ask or not, your action is still immoral. Same goes for the issue at hand. If you know someone doesnt want to have sex with a person whos transgender, and you do it anyway, youre being immoral. If you have reasons to believe a person doesnt want to, but you do it anyway, youre being immoral. If you have reason to believe a person doesnt want to, but you fail to realize that this is the case and you do it anyway, youre being stupid. You can insert whatever you like instead of transgender, the same applies. In what world would I be feeding people food and suprising them that it contained pork? What chain of events would lead to me providing food to someone that was Muslim and they would be totally unaware of what is in the food? The only way this happens is if I am an ass hole and feel them pork on purpose and don't tell them in the intent of tricking them. The rest of the time, I am just making food and they are asking for some. Its not my job to remember every single thing someone can and cannot eat.
In any hypothetical world which is at all relevant to the topic.
|
On August 02 2013 00:12 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:02 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 23:38 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:33 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 23:20 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:59 Klondikebar wrote:On August 01 2013 22:43 KwarK wrote: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. You might think what they're predicating their decision to consent on is stupid. That's fine. But that doesn't give you the right to dismiss their decision to consent. It's still theirs. Whether or not their criteria are dumb does not impact their right to have their own criteria regarding sexual consent. On August 01 2013 23:07 Smat wrote:On August 01 2013 22:43 KwarK wrote: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? If half your partners think it's a deal breaker and half don't then I think it's reasonable to assume that half of people will think it's a dealbreaker and because you don't want a 50% chance of obtaining consent through deception you tell all of them. It doesn't have to be everyone, you're just trying not to obtain consent by deception through reasonable disclosure. On August 01 2013 23:09 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:47 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 22:42 shinosai wrote:On August 01 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:
[quote]
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. The ethics of disclosure are constant. If you believe that consent is predicated upon a lack of a fact that you are withholding then the consent has been obtained through deception and there is a moral imperative to disclose the fact. Failure to do so is simply dismissing their right to freely consent to sex and is pretty damn immoral. It doesn't matter what the fact is, it doesn't matter that they care because they're transphobic, two wrongs don't make a right. If less people are transphobic in the future then it will be less likely that consent is predicated upon the lack of disclosing this particular fact. The argument will no longer be relevant to trans people. But the argument will not cease to be valid. Not informing someone of something upon which their consent to sex hinges will always be wrong, it may not apply to trans people in the future but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. Your criteria for consent are your own. If being trans is a deal breaker or that's something you want to know, you have to ask that. You're right, it's not really rational to assume that every woman is possibly trans because they're such a small part of the population. But it's not the woman's job to assume that's your deal breaker. If it's not on your mind enough to ask, then it's probably not a deal breaker. And I'm not saying people aren't allowed to have random, dumbass criteria. I'm saying that you shouldn't expect your partner to assume criteria that don't affect you in the slightest. If you never had sex with people who owned Volkswagons, I wouldn't volunteer that I own a Jetta. Not because I'm lying by omission, but because I why on earth would I think it mattered? Sure sure, transphobia is a lot more common than volksphobia so we might just assume every man is transphobic and that it's a common enough deal breaker that trans women should volunteer the information. But do you not see a problem with just assuming that everyone is an asshole? If a trans woman is just supposed to assume everyone who is sexually attracted to her is transphobic...how is that healthy? How is that normal? And how is that not just as oppressive as calling by their original sex? They don't have to assume that everyone is transphobic, they have to recognise that there is a strong possibility, a very real conceivable chance, that the prospective partner is. Because right now, there is. There is a lot of transphobia. Hopefully that will change to the point where the assumption that the partner is definitely not transphobic will be as reasonable as the assumption that a partner isn't volksphobic. I'm not sure why it's anything like calling her by her born sex. Ok yes technically there's a difference between assuming 60% of people are transphobic and assuming 100% of people are transphobic but only on paper. That still manifests itself as suspicion and fear for a trans woman every single time a man shows interest in her. When you're talking about accounting for probability in our behavior, "likely" and "most definitely" aren't that different. And it's the same as calling her by her born sex because it's just saying "there is something about you that other people find weird and if you try to pretend you aren't weird you're even weirder." Look, bottom line: If you're really so averse to fucking a trans woman, ask the woman if she's trans. The human brain works by overplaying probability. So even if only 2% of the population is trans, if your brain really thinks it's something bad that might happen to you, it will inflate that probability to the point that it'll be on your mind every time you have sex. The same way you wonder if your plane is going to crash every time you fly even though statistically it's nigh impossible. It's not just going to not occur to you if it's really an issue for you. If it's on your mind...ask. I suspect that most transphobic men don't want to ask that before sex not because it's not on their mind, but because they know it will be a mood killer because *shocker* it's actually a pretty offensive question. So they're just relying on the trans woman to enable their transphobia while still not making them accountable for it. I know it's a little presumptuous to play mind reader but people really are dragging their heels on taking responsibility for information that's a big deal to them but wouldn't be to their partner. A sexual act is about to happen because informed consent is not there and instead both partners are making poorly informed assumptions about the other. The transphobic person is assuming their partner is cis. The trans person is assuming their partner isn't transphobic. If either party revealed the information they knew that the other person would find relevant then the situation could be avoided. However the two failures to reveal information are not statistically equivalent. The transphobic person's assumption that most people are cis is going to be correct far, far more often that the trans person's assumption that a given person isn't transphobic. They are the one who knows they are an outlier, the lack of informed consent hinges upon their information. This is called majority privilege and it's bad. The fact that, simply because the cis partner is in the majority means they have no responsibility to find out what's important to them is stupid. You care, you ask. It's just taking responsibility for what's important to you. It's no one else's job to worry about your hangups. Literally no other hangup gets this kind of treatment. For every non consequential deal breaker you can think of, the onus is on the person for whom it is a problem, to find out about it. Everything from smoking, to occupation, to sexual history...we never expect people to voluntarily divulge that information even though the thought of having sex with a promiscuous woman might absolutely disgust you, we still expect YOU to ask. Unless you're assuming that having sex with a trans person actually has consequences that would put it in the category of an STD or possibly affect a third party...your argument that "trans" is a special kind of hangup just doesn't work.
Funny how you're so eager to insult other people and call them assholes, but consider essentially getting raped (being tricked into having sex you would knowingly not consent to) non-consequential. For most men I know it would be truly traumatic. That's equivalent of saying that a woman who was raped by means of a rape pill is making a big deal out of nothing - after all she's hardly physically damaged and she doesn't even remember a thing!
Or we can flip sides and say that a transsexual person who got beaten up after their sexual partner discovered their condition asked for it because they did not put any effort into verifying whether their prospect sexual partner might be traumatized/feel raped if they find out, and seek revenge - all because both parties wanted to have some casual sex. I would consider that very reckless, to say the least, on both parts. The thing is, the probability a man "accidentally" hooking up with a transsexual is extremely rare and asking outright would be considered very rude for both cis women and transsexuals, as some have pointed out (was that you?).
|
On August 02 2013 01:06 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:02 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:57 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 02 2013 00:50 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:48 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 00:44 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:38 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:29 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Well you shouldn’t' have one night stands and then you won't have that problem. Or just ask. I don't really feel bad for you if you get surprised because you wanted to get laid and got a little more than you bargained for. Well, that simply means you're not on any moral high ground compared to the opponents of the LGBT lobby. Well I didn't really think they were on any moral highground to begin with. At the end of the day, these people are not going anywhere. If you want to avoid sleeping with someone who used to be a man, ask questions or don't have one night stands. Its your penis, make sure you know where you are putting it. Clearly, they don't consider themselves to be on a moral high ground, calling their opponents backwards savages, bigots, assholes, and so on, all the while fighting for tolerance, right... Why not flip the situation: if you don't want to risk sleeping with someone who might beat you up in case she finds out you're a transsexual, try making sure he's not that kind? Well, to be fair, there are a lot of bigots and assholes out there who oppose LGBT community. I don't really know how else you respond to people who either want you "cured", unable to marry, adopt or use the same restroom as them. Yes, they should ask about that if they care about those issues. They should also use a condom to avoid STDs. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for who they sleep with, no one else. Muslims should ask if they care about eating pork. They should cook their own meals. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for what they eat, no one else. I don't have any obligation to tell a man I know is Muslim that I am serving him a dinner with pork in it. That is 100% correct. The same with food allergies and other issues involving food. People should ask about food they are putting into their mouth, because its their mouth. But if you know the person is Muslim, it would be polite to tell them what you are making. If you are not aware, its their job to make sure they are eating food they are allowed to eat. Thats ridiculous. If you know a person is muslim and youre feeding them pork, youre being immoral. It doesnt matter if they should ask or not, your action is still immoral. Same goes for the issue at hand. If you know someone doesnt want to have sex with a person whos transgender, and you do it anyway, youre being immoral. If you have reasons to believe a person doesnt want to, but you do it anyway, youre being immoral. If you have reason to believe a person doesnt want to, but you fail to realize that this is the case and you do it anyway, youre being stupid. You can insert whatever you like instead of transgender, the same applies. In what world would I be feeding people food and suprising them that it contained pork? What chain of events would lead to me providing food to someone that was Muslim and they would be totally unaware of what is in the food? The only way this happens is if I am an ass hole and feel them pork on purpose and don't tell them in the intent of tricking them. The rest of the time, I am just making food and they are asking for some. Its not my job to remember every single thing someone can and cannot eat. In any hypothetical world which is at all relevant to the topic.
That would never happen. If I offer to cook, as I ask people what they want and they have the chance to provide input. If they come over, I tell them what the food is. If they ask for food, they should ask what is in it if they do not know. If they pick up food sitting on the table, I can't help them because I am not there.
There is no world where this happens unless I intended to trick them into eating pork. This analogy sucks.
|
On August 02 2013 01:05 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:01 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 02 2013 00:57 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:52 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:28 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:19 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:12 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:02 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
A sexual act is about to happen because informed consent is not there and instead both partners are making poorly informed assumptions about the other.
The transphobic person is assuming their partner is cis.
The trans person is assuming their partner isn't transphobic.
If either party revealed the information they knew that the other person would find relevant then the situation could be avoided. However the two failures to reveal information are not statistically equivalent. The transphobic person's assumption that most people are cis is going to be correct far, far more often that the trans person's assumption that a given person isn't transphobic. They are the one who knows they are an outlier, the lack of informed consent hinges upon their information. This is called majority privilege and it's bad. The fact that, simply because the cis partner is in the majority means they have no responsibility to find out what's important to them is stupid. You care, you ask. It's just taking responsibility for what's important to you. It's no one else's job to worry about your hangups. Literally no other hangup gets this kind of treatment. For every non consequential deal breaker you can think of, the onus is on the person for whom it is a problem, to find out about it. Everything from smoking, to occupation, to sexual history...we never expect people to voluntarily divulge that information even though the thought of having sex with a promiscuous woman might absolutely disgust you, we still expect YOU to ask. Unless you're assuming that having sex with a trans person actually has consequences that would put it in the category of an STD or possibly affect a third party...your argument that "trans" is a special kind of hangup just doesn't work. It's majority privilege and it's statistics. It's easier being the majority. Houses have stairs in them which is fucking great for people who can walk and sucks for people in wheelchairs. Signs have writing on them which is awesome for most and bad for the blind. It's the way a world is made, it's numbers, it's no-ones fault and outliers have to deal with it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help them but it doesn't mean it's not the case or that it's somehow bad. Except in this case your majority privilege expects to be catered to in a way that isn't reasonable or right. Again, unless you can prove that "trans" is a special kind of hangup that makes it comparable to an STD, then you don't get to treat it any differently than any of the non consequential hangups which we universally expect the person with said hangups to ask about themselves. Your STD argument makes no sense and relies upon the assumption that the only potential harm done from sex is disease, consensual or otherwise. Clearly this is not the case. My majority privilege expects that I am forgiven for assuming something which is the case 99.9% of the time is the case while simultaneously demanding the minority not assume that something which is the case 30% of the time (example) is not the case. In fact, majority privilege doesn't even come into this. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I said "hangups with consequences" and used STD's as an example, not the crux of the argument. Not wanting to fuck someone with an STD is a hangup because of consequences so I would expect the person with the STD to divulge that information. Not wanting to have sex with a trans person isn't a hangup that carries any consequences with it so I don't expect that information to be voluntarily divulged. And, as of yet, you've been unable to demonstrate any consequences of said hangup so I fail to see how it's any different than a hangup about not wanting to have sex with people who own Jetta's. Why would I volunteer that I own a Jetta when it carries absolutely zero consequences for the other person? "That's just common sense. That's just numbers." God you sound like Bill Oreilly. You in no way addressed my argument. It is reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 99.9% of the time as true. It is not reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 30% of the time as untrue. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I didn't address your argument because it doesn't matter. Ok, yeah it's reasonable to assume that a person is cis. But if you have a hangup about sleeping with a non-cis person, the only way you can put the onus on the non-cis person to divulge that information is if there are any consequences from having sex with them by virtue of them being non-cis. There are none. It's not a relevant piece of information for making an informed decision about a hookup. Now, if you feel that it is relevant, then it is your job to ask. Assuming it's relevant is moronic because there are zero consequences of it. It's reasonable to assume that most women aren't horribly promiscuous but I don't expect a promiscuous woman to divulge that she was promiscuous just because her partner might have an issue with it. It's just not relevant. And if the partner has a hangup about it, the onus is on him to ask. Completetely egocentric reasoning. Stop assuming that what you consider relevant or irrelevant applies to everyone else. I'm not being egocentric. I'm saying that it's not relevant by virtue of having consequences. Which it doesn't have consequences. If it's relevant to you for personal reasons, then it's up to you to ask. We only require people to voluntarily divulge information that has consequences for their partner.
Define required, please? This seems to be the root of the problem.
|
On August 02 2013 01:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:57 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:52 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:28 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:19 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:12 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:02 KwarK wrote:On August 01 2013 23:50 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Ok yes technically there's a difference between assuming 60% of people are transphobic and assuming 100% of people are transphobic but only on paper. That still manifests itself as suspicion and fear for a trans woman every single time a man shows interest in her. When you're talking about accounting for probability in our behavior, "likely" and "most definitely" aren't that different.
And it's the same as calling her by her born sex because it's just saying "there is something about you that other people find weird and if you try to pretend you aren't weird you're even weirder."
Look, bottom line: If you're really so averse to fucking a trans woman, ask the woman if she's trans. The human brain works by overplaying probability. So even if only 2% of the population is trans, if your brain really thinks it's something bad that might happen to you, it will inflate that probability to the point that it'll be on your mind every time you have sex. The same way you wonder if your plane is going to crash every time you fly even though statistically it's nigh impossible. It's not just going to not occur to you if it's really an issue for you. If it's on your mind...ask.
I suspect that most transphobic men don't want to ask that before sex not because it's not on their mind, but because they know it will be a mood killer because *shocker* it's actually a pretty offensive question. So they're just relying on the trans woman to enable their transphobia while still not making them accountable for it. I know it's a little presumptuous to play mind reader but people really are dragging their heels on taking responsibility for information that's a big deal to them but wouldn't be to their partner.
A sexual act is about to happen because informed consent is not there and instead both partners are making poorly informed assumptions about the other. The transphobic person is assuming their partner is cis. The trans person is assuming their partner isn't transphobic. If either party revealed the information they knew that the other person would find relevant then the situation could be avoided. However the two failures to reveal information are not statistically equivalent. The transphobic person's assumption that most people are cis is going to be correct far, far more often that the trans person's assumption that a given person isn't transphobic. They are the one who knows they are an outlier, the lack of informed consent hinges upon their information. This is called majority privilege and it's bad. The fact that, simply because the cis partner is in the majority means they have no responsibility to find out what's important to them is stupid. You care, you ask. It's just taking responsibility for what's important to you. It's no one else's job to worry about your hangups. Literally no other hangup gets this kind of treatment. For every non consequential deal breaker you can think of, the onus is on the person for whom it is a problem, to find out about it. Everything from smoking, to occupation, to sexual history...we never expect people to voluntarily divulge that information even though the thought of having sex with a promiscuous woman might absolutely disgust you, we still expect YOU to ask. Unless you're assuming that having sex with a trans person actually has consequences that would put it in the category of an STD or possibly affect a third party...your argument that "trans" is a special kind of hangup just doesn't work. It's majority privilege and it's statistics. It's easier being the majority. Houses have stairs in them which is fucking great for people who can walk and sucks for people in wheelchairs. Signs have writing on them which is awesome for most and bad for the blind. It's the way a world is made, it's numbers, it's no-ones fault and outliers have to deal with it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help them but it doesn't mean it's not the case or that it's somehow bad. Except in this case your majority privilege expects to be catered to in a way that isn't reasonable or right. Again, unless you can prove that "trans" is a special kind of hangup that makes it comparable to an STD, then you don't get to treat it any differently than any of the non consequential hangups which we universally expect the person with said hangups to ask about themselves. Your STD argument makes no sense and relies upon the assumption that the only potential harm done from sex is disease, consensual or otherwise. Clearly this is not the case. My majority privilege expects that I am forgiven for assuming something which is the case 99.9% of the time is the case while simultaneously demanding the minority not assume that something which is the case 30% of the time (example) is not the case. In fact, majority privilege doesn't even come into this. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I said "hangups with consequences" and used STD's as an example, not the crux of the argument. Not wanting to fuck someone with an STD is a hangup because of consequences so I would expect the person with the STD to divulge that information. Not wanting to have sex with a trans person isn't a hangup that carries any consequences with it so I don't expect that information to be voluntarily divulged. And, as of yet, you've been unable to demonstrate any consequences of said hangup so I fail to see how it's any different than a hangup about not wanting to have sex with people who own Jetta's. Why would I volunteer that I own a Jetta when it carries absolutely zero consequences for the other person? "That's just common sense. That's just numbers." God you sound like Bill Oreilly. You in no way addressed my argument. It is reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 99.9% of the time as true. It is not reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 30% of the time as untrue. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I didn't address your argument because it doesn't matter. Ok, yeah it's reasonable to assume that a person is cis. But if you have a hangup about sleeping with a non-cis person, the only way you can put the onus on the non-cis person to divulge that information is if there are any consequences from having sex with them by virtue of them being non-cis. There are none. It's not a relevant piece of information for making an informed decision about a hookup. Now, if you feel that it is relevant, then it is your job to ask. Assuming it's relevant is moronic because there are zero consequences of it. It's reasonable to assume that most women aren't horribly promiscuous but I don't expect a promiscuous woman to divulge that she was promiscuous just because her partner might have an issue with it. It's just not relevant. And if the partner has a hangup about it, the onus is on him to ask. No. The onus is on them if they have reasonable cause to believe that your sex might be conditional on their cis status which, assuming a relatively transphobic population, there is. The onus is on the party who is better informed to divulge the information.
So, in civil court there's something called reasonable cost of avoidance. We expect problems to be avoided by people for whom the cost is least and the consequences are greatest. So, if you built your house on a runway and it got run over by a plane (yes this was an actual example in the textbook I used in Law and Economics), we'd say you were the problem because it's really damn easy to get off the runway and the cost of not doing so was to lose your house. The airline really isn't at fault because the cost of not landing on the runway is very high and the damage to a plane is relatively small (the house is made of cardboard btw).
So, the cost of admitting you're trans is really quite high. It carries a great amount of risk and social backlash, but the consequences of actually being trans are extremely low for a one night stand (there are none). However, for the partner, the cost of discovering if the person is trans is very low, you merely need ask. And the consequences of sleeping with a trans person are very serious for you...cause they're icky I guess. So we would say it is the most efficient solution for the partner to ask. It more in their interest to ask and they can do so at lower cost.
|
On August 02 2013 01:05 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:01 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 02 2013 00:57 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:52 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:28 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:19 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:12 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:02 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
A sexual act is about to happen because informed consent is not there and instead both partners are making poorly informed assumptions about the other.
The transphobic person is assuming their partner is cis.
The trans person is assuming their partner isn't transphobic.
If either party revealed the information they knew that the other person would find relevant then the situation could be avoided. However the two failures to reveal information are not statistically equivalent. The transphobic person's assumption that most people are cis is going to be correct far, far more often that the trans person's assumption that a given person isn't transphobic. They are the one who knows they are an outlier, the lack of informed consent hinges upon their information. This is called majority privilege and it's bad. The fact that, simply because the cis partner is in the majority means they have no responsibility to find out what's important to them is stupid. You care, you ask. It's just taking responsibility for what's important to you. It's no one else's job to worry about your hangups. Literally no other hangup gets this kind of treatment. For every non consequential deal breaker you can think of, the onus is on the person for whom it is a problem, to find out about it. Everything from smoking, to occupation, to sexual history...we never expect people to voluntarily divulge that information even though the thought of having sex with a promiscuous woman might absolutely disgust you, we still expect YOU to ask. Unless you're assuming that having sex with a trans person actually has consequences that would put it in the category of an STD or possibly affect a third party...your argument that "trans" is a special kind of hangup just doesn't work. It's majority privilege and it's statistics. It's easier being the majority. Houses have stairs in them which is fucking great for people who can walk and sucks for people in wheelchairs. Signs have writing on them which is awesome for most and bad for the blind. It's the way a world is made, it's numbers, it's no-ones fault and outliers have to deal with it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help them but it doesn't mean it's not the case or that it's somehow bad. Except in this case your majority privilege expects to be catered to in a way that isn't reasonable or right. Again, unless you can prove that "trans" is a special kind of hangup that makes it comparable to an STD, then you don't get to treat it any differently than any of the non consequential hangups which we universally expect the person with said hangups to ask about themselves. Your STD argument makes no sense and relies upon the assumption that the only potential harm done from sex is disease, consensual or otherwise. Clearly this is not the case. My majority privilege expects that I am forgiven for assuming something which is the case 99.9% of the time is the case while simultaneously demanding the minority not assume that something which is the case 30% of the time (example) is not the case. In fact, majority privilege doesn't even come into this. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I said "hangups with consequences" and used STD's as an example, not the crux of the argument. Not wanting to fuck someone with an STD is a hangup because of consequences so I would expect the person with the STD to divulge that information. Not wanting to have sex with a trans person isn't a hangup that carries any consequences with it so I don't expect that information to be voluntarily divulged. And, as of yet, you've been unable to demonstrate any consequences of said hangup so I fail to see how it's any different than a hangup about not wanting to have sex with people who own Jetta's. Why would I volunteer that I own a Jetta when it carries absolutely zero consequences for the other person? "That's just common sense. That's just numbers." God you sound like Bill Oreilly. You in no way addressed my argument. It is reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 99.9% of the time as true. It is not reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 30% of the time as untrue. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I didn't address your argument because it doesn't matter. Ok, yeah it's reasonable to assume that a person is cis. But if you have a hangup about sleeping with a non-cis person, the only way you can put the onus on the non-cis person to divulge that information is if there are any consequences from having sex with them by virtue of them being non-cis. There are none. It's not a relevant piece of information for making an informed decision about a hookup. Now, if you feel that it is relevant, then it is your job to ask. Assuming it's relevant is moronic because there are zero consequences of it. It's reasonable to assume that most women aren't horribly promiscuous but I don't expect a promiscuous woman to divulge that she was promiscuous just because her partner might have an issue with it. It's just not relevant. And if the partner has a hangup about it, the onus is on him to ask. Completetely egocentric reasoning. Stop assuming that what you consider relevant or irrelevant applies to everyone else. I'm not being egocentric. I'm saying that it's not relevant by virtue of having consequences. Which it doesn't have consequences. If it's relevant to you for personal reasons, then it's up to you to ask. We only require people to voluntarily divulge information that has consequences for their partner.
a) the issue of telling vs asking is a false disjunction. One does not exclude the other.
b) a person has little reason to believe their partner is transgender whereas a person who is transgender has (at least for arguments sake) strong reasons to believe that this matters to their potential partner. hence it makes little sense to ask, but it makes a lot of sense to tell.
c) you haphazardly exclude things which matter to a lot of people but which doesnt matter to you, for example potential emotional problems with having done something like that (again you cant assume a disjunctive syllogism when theres no logical pathway to it), which is pretty much the very definition of egocentric reasoning.
d) what is required by law has little bearing on the argument. If you mean something else by 'require' please specify.
|
On August 02 2013 00:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:48 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 00:44 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:38 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:29 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 00:08 maybenexttime wrote:On August 01 2013 23:19 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2013 23:13 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
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. And tricking those people into having sex with transsexuals actually makes their concerns of being tricked into the whole thing valid... Well you shouldn’t' have one night stands and then you won't have that problem. Or just ask. I don't really feel bad for you if you get surprised because you wanted to get laid and got a little more than you bargained for. Well, that simply means you're not on any moral high ground compared to the opponents of the LGBT lobby. Well I didn't really think they were on any moral highground to begin with. At the end of the day, these people are not going anywhere. If you want to avoid sleeping with someone who used to be a man, ask questions or don't have one night stands. Its your penis, make sure you know where you are putting it. Clearly, they don't consider themselves to be on a moral high ground, calling their opponents backwards savages, bigots, assholes, and so on, all the while fighting for tolerance, right... Why not flip the situation: if you don't want to risk sleeping with someone who might beat you up in case she finds out you're a transsexual, try making sure he's not that kind? Well, to be fair, there are a lot of bigots and assholes out there who oppose LGBT community. I don't really know how else you respond to people who either want you "cured", unable to marry, adopt or use the same restroom as them. Yes, they should ask about that if they care about those issues. They should also use a condom to avoid STDs. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for who they sleep with, no one else. Muslims should ask if they care about eating pork. They should cook their own meals. They should all use common sense. They are responsible for what they eat, no one else. I don't have any obligation to tell a man I know is Muslim that I am serving him a dinner with pork in it. That is 100% correct. The same with food allergies and other issues involving food. People should ask about food they are putting into their mouth, because its their mouth. But if you know the person is Muslim, it would be polite to tell them what you are making. If you are not aware, its their job to make sure they are eating food they are allowed to eat.
But they should not be tricked into eating pork (in Europe there were cases of cow meat or whatever being replaced with pork, and being sold to Muslims while being passed as hallal meat, in kebabs or something, can't remember).
|
On August 02 2013 01:18 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:05 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:01 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 02 2013 00:57 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:52 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:50 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:28 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:19 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 00:12 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
This is called majority privilege and it's bad. The fact that, simply because the cis partner is in the majority means they have no responsibility to find out what's important to them is stupid. You care, you ask. It's just taking responsibility for what's important to you. It's no one else's job to worry about your hangups. Literally no other hangup gets this kind of treatment. For every non consequential deal breaker you can think of, the onus is on the person for whom it is a problem, to find out about it. Everything from smoking, to occupation, to sexual history...we never expect people to voluntarily divulge that information even though the thought of having sex with a promiscuous woman might absolutely disgust you, we still expect YOU to ask. Unless you're assuming that having sex with a trans person actually has consequences that would put it in the category of an STD or possibly affect a third party...your argument that "trans" is a special kind of hangup just doesn't work.
It's majority privilege and it's statistics. It's easier being the majority. Houses have stairs in them which is fucking great for people who can walk and sucks for people in wheelchairs. Signs have writing on them which is awesome for most and bad for the blind. It's the way a world is made, it's numbers, it's no-ones fault and outliers have to deal with it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't help them but it doesn't mean it's not the case or that it's somehow bad. Except in this case your majority privilege expects to be catered to in a way that isn't reasonable or right. Again, unless you can prove that "trans" is a special kind of hangup that makes it comparable to an STD, then you don't get to treat it any differently than any of the non consequential hangups which we universally expect the person with said hangups to ask about themselves. Your STD argument makes no sense and relies upon the assumption that the only potential harm done from sex is disease, consensual or otherwise. Clearly this is not the case. My majority privilege expects that I am forgiven for assuming something which is the case 99.9% of the time is the case while simultaneously demanding the minority not assume that something which is the case 30% of the time (example) is not the case. In fact, majority privilege doesn't even come into this. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I said "hangups with consequences" and used STD's as an example, not the crux of the argument. Not wanting to fuck someone with an STD is a hangup because of consequences so I would expect the person with the STD to divulge that information. Not wanting to have sex with a trans person isn't a hangup that carries any consequences with it so I don't expect that information to be voluntarily divulged. And, as of yet, you've been unable to demonstrate any consequences of said hangup so I fail to see how it's any different than a hangup about not wanting to have sex with people who own Jetta's. Why would I volunteer that I own a Jetta when it carries absolutely zero consequences for the other person? "That's just common sense. That's just numbers." God you sound like Bill Oreilly. You in no way addressed my argument. It is reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 99.9% of the time as true. It is not reasonable for someone to treat something which will be true 30% of the time as untrue. That's just common sense. That's just numbers. I didn't address your argument because it doesn't matter. Ok, yeah it's reasonable to assume that a person is cis. But if you have a hangup about sleeping with a non-cis person, the only way you can put the onus on the non-cis person to divulge that information is if there are any consequences from having sex with them by virtue of them being non-cis. There are none. It's not a relevant piece of information for making an informed decision about a hookup. Now, if you feel that it is relevant, then it is your job to ask. Assuming it's relevant is moronic because there are zero consequences of it. It's reasonable to assume that most women aren't horribly promiscuous but I don't expect a promiscuous woman to divulge that she was promiscuous just because her partner might have an issue with it. It's just not relevant. And if the partner has a hangup about it, the onus is on him to ask. Completetely egocentric reasoning. Stop assuming that what you consider relevant or irrelevant applies to everyone else. I'm not being egocentric. I'm saying that it's not relevant by virtue of having consequences. Which it doesn't have consequences. If it's relevant to you for personal reasons, then it's up to you to ask. We only require people to voluntarily divulge information that has consequences for their partner. a) the issue of telling vs asking is a false disjunction. One does not exclude the other. b) a person has little reason to believe their partner is transgender whereas a person who is transgender has (at least for arguments sake) strong reasons to believe that this matters to their potential partner. hence it makes little sense to ask, but it makes a lot of sense to tell. c) you haphazardly exclude things which matter to a lot of people but which doesnt matter to you, for example potential emotional problems with having done something like that (again you cant assume a disjunctive syllogism when theres no logical pathway to it), which is pretty much the very definition of egocentric reasoning. d) what is required by law has little bearing on the argument. If you mean something else by 'require' please specify.
Not sure what kind of one night stands you have but there shouldn't be any emotion in them. If it's really a one night stand, you're both just there for the orgasm and nothing else. If you're developing emotional problems from a one night stand then you probably shouldn't be having them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
