|
United States41979 Posts
On August 02 2013 01:16 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:05 KwarK 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. 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.
You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this.
The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person.
You keep forgetting the numbers.
|
On August 02 2013 00:50 KwarK 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. Except with pork it's food he thinks is unclean whereas with this it's sex he wouldn't consent to.
Both cases are about respecting people's preferences by helping them make informed decisions.
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.
So, if you either know or have very good reasons to believe he is Muslim and thus wouldn't want to eat the meal if he knew it contained pork, you should tell him so he can make up his own mind.
On August 02 2013 01:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:06 Snusmumriken wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
The hypothetical doesn't matter that much to me, I'm just trying to understand how your internal logic works. But if you insist, how about this: You are hosting a dinner party, one of the guests have asked if she can bring her new boyfriend, you say that would be great, he shows up and introduces himself as Mr. Khan. You know you have cooked pork, and you know it isn't obvious, because there's this stew with different kinds of meat in it. You also know that his English is less than excellent and might be embarrassed to ask. Is that better?
|
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.
Yeah, you did not know he was a Muslim, but the thing took place in Saudi Arabia and he was wearing a beard...
|
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.
Or you are a business and using pork (or whatever non-hallal meat) is much cheaper than using, say, hallal cow meat. This has happened before.
|
On August 02 2013 01:21 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:18 Snusmumriken wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
This is too stupid. Not sure if trolling...
|
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.
What consequences does rape by means of a rape pill have, assuming the rapist has no STDs and is gentle about it? The victim doesn't even have any recollection of the whole thing.
|
On August 02 2013 01:25 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 00:50 KwarK 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. Except with pork it's food he thinks is unclean whereas with this it's sex he wouldn't consent to. Both cases are about respecting people's preferences by helping them make informed decisions. 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. So, if you either know or have very good reasons to believe he is Muslim and thus wouldn't want to eat the meal if he knew it contained pork, you should tell him so he can make up his own mind. Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:09 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:06 Snusmumriken wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The hypothetical doesn't matter that much to me, I'm just trying to understand how your internal logic works. But if you insist, how about this: You are hosting a dinner party, one of the guests have asked if she can bring her new boyfriend, you say that would be great, he shows up and introduces himself as Mr. Khan. You know you have cooked pork, and you know it isn't obvious, because there's this stew with different kinds of meat in it. You also know that his English is less than excellent and might be embarrassed to ask. Is that better?
Then I might ask his girlfriend or him directly. But once again, I have reason to be concerned that he can't eat pork. The analogy still sucks. But if I forgot to ask and didn't notice, its not my fault and I did nothing wrong.
|
On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:16 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:05 KwarK 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. 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. You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this. The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person. You keep forgetting the numbers.
The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand.
A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans.
And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid.
|
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.
I'm well aware that statistics on the incidence of transsexuality are pretty rare, but according to this fairly generous study, only something like 1:333 people identify as transgender. Now, of these, probably a great many have not undergone SRT, given how inaccessible/expensive/stigmatized it is. In particular:
De Cuypere et al (2007) provide a useful review of prevalence studies, as well as conducting their own. Together, these studies span 39 years. Leaving aside the one early outlier finding (Pauly, 1968, who reported a figure of 1:100,000 for transwomen and 1:400,000 for transmen, a prevalence far lower than anyone else), the Western studies (ten studies from eight countries, if one includes De Cuypere et al’s own study) yield a range from 1:11,900 to 1:45,000 for transwomen and 1:30,400 to 1:200,000 for transmen. What is interesting about these studies is that the more recent they are the higher the prevalence rates that tend to get reported. It’s worth doing a little statistical analysis here. For transwomen the correlation between prevalence rate and year of study is -0.56. For transmen it is -0.67. The downward trend is impressive. With each year that passes (at least in the developed West) it seems one has to search 629 fewer people in the general population to find a transwoman who has accessed a gender clinic, and 2591 fewer people to find a transman.
This suggests that, while more and more people are getting SRT compared to previous years, the overall incidence is pretty fucking tiny. The highest incidence of trans women in the above paragraph is 1:11900. Now, I'm not sure what kind of people we have in mind when it comes to those seeking out one night stands, but I'm pretty sure most (men, in this example) people don't have sex with ten thousand women during that short phase of their life when they're looking to hook up.
So I guess if we take your reasoning and apply it to this: you're telling me that a man looking to hookup with women at some social establishment should bank on the 1 in 11000 chance that the person he's talking to might be a transsexual, despite the fact that asking such a question of most cisgender women that one doesn't know particularly well (this is a hookup scenario, remember) has a pretty relevant chance of giving them the wrong impression of what you're asking about.
Not saying that's enough to necessitate trans individuals disclose their transsexuality, but if there are no pressing insecurity/anxiety issues for them, I can't see why they'd deliberately omit it.
A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans.
And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid.
Don't you see that if trans people themselves deliberately don't talk about their trans status in the context of hookups, it contributes to the notion that it's something shameful/worth hiding?
|
On August 02 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:25 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 00:50 KwarK 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. Except with pork it's food he thinks is unclean whereas with this it's sex he wouldn't consent to. Both cases are about respecting people's preferences by helping them make informed decisions. 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. So, if you either know or have very good reasons to believe he is Muslim and thus wouldn't want to eat the meal if he knew it contained pork, you should tell him so he can make up his own mind. On August 02 2013 01:09 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:06 Snusmumriken wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The hypothetical doesn't matter that much to me, I'm just trying to understand how your internal logic works. But if you insist, how about this: You are hosting a dinner party, one of the guests have asked if she can bring her new boyfriend, you say that would be great, he shows up and introduces himself as Mr. Khan. You know you have cooked pork, and you know it isn't obvious, because there's this stew with different kinds of meat in it. You also know that his English is less than excellent and might be embarrassed to ask. Is that better? Then I might ask his girlfriend or him directly. But once again, I have reason to be concerned that he can't eat pork. The analogy still sucks. But if I forgot to ask and didn't notice, its not my fault and I did nothing wrong.
Why would you bother to ask? It's, in your own words, his responsibility, right? Do you think his girlfriend would be content if you neglected to tell them, not because you didn't think of it, but because you didn't care?
|
On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:16 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:05 KwarK 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:
[quote]
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. You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this. The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person. You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid.
Ok, lets be 100% clear on this one, asking a girl if she is trans will not have a positive response if she is a cis. No matter how honest or valid, you might as well call her "mannish" right to her face and get it over with. If its a one night stand the best question to ask is "Is there anything I should know about?" and at that point, folks should be honest.
|
United States41979 Posts
On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:16 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:05 KwarK 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:
[quote]
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. You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this. The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person. You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid.
Statistically yes, he does have thousands. You're a huge minority. Most men won't ever be in this situation, there are thousands of encounters in which it doesn't happen to every one that it does. You're still, still failing to understand the numbers. Going "one man can't have that much sex" isn't getting it. You need to learn how to do statistics because you're just not understanding this. Your solution requires every transphobic person to ask every time, the thousands to one ratio will be accurate.
|
On August 02 2013 01:34 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:25 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 00:50 KwarK 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. Except with pork it's food he thinks is unclean whereas with this it's sex he wouldn't consent to. Both cases are about respecting people's preferences by helping them make informed decisions. 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. So, if you either know or have very good reasons to believe he is Muslim and thus wouldn't want to eat the meal if he knew it contained pork, you should tell him so he can make up his own mind. On August 02 2013 01:09 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:06 Snusmumriken wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The hypothetical doesn't matter that much to me, I'm just trying to understand how your internal logic works. But if you insist, how about this: You are hosting a dinner party, one of the guests have asked if she can bring her new boyfriend, you say that would be great, he shows up and introduces himself as Mr. Khan. You know you have cooked pork, and you know it isn't obvious, because there's this stew with different kinds of meat in it. You also know that his English is less than excellent and might be embarrassed to ask. Is that better? Then I might ask his girlfriend or him directly. But once again, I have reason to be concerned that he can't eat pork. The analogy still sucks. But if I forgot to ask and didn't notice, its not my fault and I did nothing wrong. Why would you bother to ask? It's, in your own words, his responsibility, right? Do you think his girlfriend would be content if you neglected to tell them, not because you didn't think of it, but because you didn't care?
Because I forgot, because people make mistakes. Because they showed up and I had 2 glasses of wine and didn't think of it. Its not my fault if it happens. I'll feel bad and say I am sorry, but at the end of they day, I am not responsable for them and what they eat. If they blame me, I won't have them over for dinner and that solves my problem.
And once again, this analogy sucks.
|
On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:16 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:05 KwarK 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:
[quote]
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. You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this. The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person. You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid.
So basically fuck everyone else so you don't have to deal with your problems?
|
On August 02 2013 01:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:16 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:05 KwarK 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:
[quote]
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. You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this. The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person. You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid. Statistically yes, he does have thousands. You're a huge minority. Most men won't ever be in this situation, there are thousands of encounters in which it doesn't happen to every one that it does. You're still, still failing to understand the numbers. Going "one man can't have that much sex" isn't getting it. You need to learn how to do statistics because you're just not understanding this. Your solution requires every transphobic person to ask every time, the thousands to one ratio will be accurate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19374216/ns/health-sexual_health/t/new-survey-tells-how-much-sex-were-having/#.UfqRq43ksec
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19374216/ns/health-sexual_health/t/new-survey-tells-how-much-sex-were-having/#.UfqRq43ksec
The people having tons of sex are outliers themselves.
The average man will have about 9 sexual partners in his lifetime. I can do statistics buddy. My degree is in it. He asks that question 9 times. Not thousands of times. He can ask that question 9 times with very little effort.
Really this whole discussion is probably completely moot because the probability that a man will both hookup with a woman and that she will be trans is close to zero.
|
On August 02 2013 01:48 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:16 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:05 KwarK 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:
[quote]
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. You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this. The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person. You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid. So basically fuck everyone else so you don't have to deal with your problems?
Kinda, the argument seems to be: "All social situations will be dictated on my terms, because I am a minority and life is harder for me. Even though sex requires your consent, I am fully able to withhold information about my past and not feel bad about it because I am an minority."
I am not for shaming people if they withhold the fact that they are transgender, but its not a nice thing to do, even if there are valid reasons for doing it. But I don't endorse the idea of "You need to put up with it because life is harder for me." when it comes to something like sex.
|
On August 02 2013 01:48 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:16 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:05 KwarK 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:
[quote]
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. You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this. The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person. You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid. So basically fuck everyone else so you don't have to deal with your problems?
Rather, everyone else should deal with their own shit. If they don't like trans people, they can do the work to avoid them. It's not a trans persons job to help them and it's certainly not my job to care about their shit.
|
On August 02 2013 01:53 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:48 heliusx wrote:On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:16 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:05 KwarK 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:
[quote]
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. You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this. The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person. You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid. So basically fuck everyone else so you don't have to deal with your problems? Rather, everyone else should deal with their own shit. If they don't like trans people, they can do the work to avoid them. It's not a trans persons job to help them and it's certainly not my job to care about their shit.
Except when you are being oppressed, then we should stand with you because its the right thing to do, not because it directly effects us.
|
United States41979 Posts
On August 02 2013 01:51 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:38 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:16 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:05 KwarK 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:
[quote]
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. You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this. The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person. You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid. Statistically yes, he does have thousands. You're a huge minority. Most men won't ever be in this situation, there are thousands of encounters in which it doesn't happen to every one that it does. You're still, still failing to understand the numbers. Going "one man can't have that much sex" isn't getting it. You need to learn how to do statistics because you're just not understanding this. Your solution requires every transphobic person to ask every time, the thousands to one ratio will be accurate. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19374216/ns/health-sexual_health/t/new-survey-tells-how-much-sex-were-having/#.UfqRq43ksechttp://www.nbcnews.com/id/19374216/ns/health-sexual_health/t/new-survey-tells-how-much-sex-were-having/#.UfqRq43ksecThe people having tons of sex are outliers themselves. The average man will have about 9 sexual partners in his lifetime. I can do statistics buddy. My degree is in it. He asks that question 9 times. Not thousands of times. He can ask that question 9 times with very little effort. Really this whole discussion is probably completely moot because the probability that a man will both hookup with a woman and that she will be trans is close to zero.
You need to ask for your money back on that statistics course. It doesn't matter if each man only has sex 9 times, that doesn't change the ratio in the slightest. Your solution involves thousands of men asking thousands of cis women if they were born a man without ever running into a trans woman just so when one of them finally does she can disclose anyway. The thousands to one ratio works regardless of how often a given man has sex. It doesn't depend upon each and every man having sex with so many people that he eventually has sex with a trans person.
|
On August 02 2013 01:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:34 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:25 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 00:50 KwarK 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:
[quote]
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. Both cases are about respecting people's preferences by helping them make informed decisions. 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:
[quote]
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. So, if you either know or have very good reasons to believe he is Muslim and thus wouldn't want to eat the meal if he knew it contained pork, you should tell him so he can make up his own mind. On August 02 2013 01:09 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:06 Snusmumriken wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The hypothetical doesn't matter that much to me, I'm just trying to understand how your internal logic works. But if you insist, how about this: You are hosting a dinner party, one of the guests have asked if she can bring her new boyfriend, you say that would be great, he shows up and introduces himself as Mr. Khan. You know you have cooked pork, and you know it isn't obvious, because there's this stew with different kinds of meat in it. You also know that his English is less than excellent and might be embarrassed to ask. Is that better? Then I might ask his girlfriend or him directly. But once again, I have reason to be concerned that he can't eat pork. The analogy still sucks. But if I forgot to ask and didn't notice, its not my fault and I did nothing wrong. Why would you bother to ask? It's, in your own words, his responsibility, right? Do you think his girlfriend would be content if you neglected to tell them, not because you didn't think of it, but because you didn't care? Because I forgot, because people make mistakes. Because they showed up and I had 2 glasses of wine and didn't think of it. Its not my fault if it happens. I'll feel bad and say I am sorry, but at the end of they day, I am not responsable for them and what they eat. If they blame me, I won't have them over for dinner and that solves my problem. And once again, this analogy sucks.
It doesn't matter if the analogy sucks. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm trying to understand if and why you think letting people know they're about to eat what they consider taboo food is courteous, and why this courtesy doesn't extend to someone about to have what they consider taboo sex. The most important part of any discussion is trying to figure out what the other people really mean, instead of just assuming they are bigots or idiots.
At this point, it seems to me that you think that:
- informing your partner that you are transsexual is a courteous thing to do
- you are not legally obligated to do so
- to some degree, because of the difficulties transsexuals face socially and sexually, because you can never know everything about your partner in advance of a one night stand, and because transsexuality really shouldn't be that big a deal, you don't want to condemn transsexuals if they fail to inform
Is that about right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
