|
On August 02 2013 01:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:53 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Not at all. In this case the person who's a transphobe is being a bigot. He's the "oppressor." And sure, we grant that he has the right to be a transphobe. But bigots can do their own work. Why are we making it easier?
Oppression actually happens when people go out of their way to harm you when you have done nothing. You stand against that because there's no reason to think oppressors won't eventually turn on you. So you nip it in the bud.
|
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.
This time, data was gathered from 6,237 adults, aged 20 to 59, in what are called computer-assisted self-interviews — a method designed to provide complete privacy and produce more honest answers.
not exactly what I would call a thorough survey taking into account how wildly the sex lives of males vary.
|
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.
Which is why it wouldn't make any fucking sense to ask every woman whether she is trans. But a trans person, who represents an extreme outlier in the sexual history of his/her partner, would be doing a pretty nice thing in disclosing their being trans to that partner.
Not at all. In this case the person who's a transphobe is being a bigot. He's the "oppressor."
False. False, false, false. Not wanting to have sex with transsexuals isn't bigotry. Not wanting to have sex with cisgendered men isn't bigotry. You can be attracted to whomever you want for whatever reasons you want, because sexual preferences are both mostly arbitrary and none of your business.
|
On August 02 2013 01:57 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:40 Plansix wrote: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:
[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. 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:
[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. 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:
[quote]
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?
Pretty much. People are responsable for themselves. If you are having one night stands, its kinda your problem if you get a suprise about who you slept with. If you come over to eat my food and I forget to tell you what is in it, its not my fault if it was something you didn't want to eat and you never asked.
|
You've heard it here folks. Not wanting to have sex with a transgender makes you a bigot oppressor. Your view is fucking twisted and warped.
|
On August 02 2013 01:58 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:53 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Not at all. In this case the person who's a transphobe is being a bigot. He's the "oppressor." And sure, we grant that he has the right to be a transphobe. But bigots can do their own work. Why are we making it easier? Oppression actually happens when people go out of their way to harm you when you have done nothing. You stand against that because there's no reason to think oppressors won't eventually turn on you. So you nip it in the bud.
So if I find out someone I am going to sleep with is trans and I am uncomfortable with that, I am a bigot?
|
On August 02 2013 01:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:51 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
No. We are talking about about two people in a bedroom. One man asks about 9 women. We've made it very clear that these hangups are personal. We're talking about individuals here.
If you want statistics to matter then this whole discussion is stupid because a man will never even have sex with a trans woman. You might as well ask how you ought to greet a unicorn.
|
If you want statistics to matter then this whole discussion is stupid because a man will never even have sex with a trans woman. You might as well ask how you ought to greet a unicorn.
Nope.
|
On August 02 2013 02:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:53 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Not at all. In this case the person who's a transphobe is being a bigot. He's the "oppressor." And sure, we grant that he has the right to be a transphobe. But bigots can do their own work. Why are we making it easier? Oppression actually happens when people go out of their way to harm you when you have done nothing. You stand against that because there's no reason to think oppressors won't eventually turn on you. So you nip it in the bud. So if I find out someone I am going to sleep with is trans and I am uncomfortable with that, I am a bigot?
I don't know what you are but we've all been using the term "transphobe" for a while. Transphobes are bigots.
|
On August 02 2013 02:05 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:03 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:53 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Not at all. In this case the person who's a transphobe is being a bigot. He's the "oppressor." And sure, we grant that he has the right to be a transphobe. But bigots can do their own work. Why are we making it easier? Oppression actually happens when people go out of their way to harm you when you have done nothing. You stand against that because there's no reason to think oppressors won't eventually turn on you. So you nip it in the bud. So if I find out someone I am going to sleep with is trans and I am uncomfortable with that, I am a bigot? I don't know what you are but we've all been using the term "transphobe" for a while. Transphobes are bigots.
"Transphobia (or less commonly transprejudice, trans-misogyny, referring to transphobia directed toward trans women and trans-misandry, referring to transphobia directed toward trans men) is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards transsexualism and transsexual or transgender people, based on the expression of their internal gender identity (see Phobia – terms indicating prejudice or class discrimination)."
So basically it isn't at all a precise term and can pretty much be applied to anything you think is somehow a negative attitude/feeling. I'll just repeat that not wanting to have sex with someone is not a negative attitude.
|
On August 02 2013 02:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:53 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Not at all. In this case the person who's a transphobe is being a bigot. He's the "oppressor." And sure, we grant that he has the right to be a transphobe. But bigots can do their own work. Why are we making it easier? Oppression actually happens when people go out of their way to harm you when you have done nothing. You stand against that because there's no reason to think oppressors won't eventually turn on you. So you nip it in the bud. So if I find out someone I am going to sleep with is trans and I am uncomfortable with that, I am a bigot?
According to klondikebears previous statements not only are you a bigot but also an oppressor of the transgender community.
|
On August 02 2013 02:05 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:03 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:53 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Not at all. In this case the person who's a transphobe is being a bigot. He's the "oppressor." And sure, we grant that he has the right to be a transphobe. But bigots can do their own work. Why are we making it easier? Oppression actually happens when people go out of their way to harm you when you have done nothing. You stand against that because there's no reason to think oppressors won't eventually turn on you. So you nip it in the bud. So if I find out someone I am going to sleep with is trans and I am uncomfortable with that, I am a bigot? I don't know what you are but we've all been using the term "transphobe" for a while. Transphobes are bigots.
All right, so you get to decide if I am a bigot or not based on my comfort level in sexual relations? Your basically trying to shame me into being willing to sleep with someone who is transgender, claiming that I am a bigot if I don’t.
|
United States41979 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:03 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 01:56 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:51 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. No. We are talking about about two people in a bedroom. One man asks about 9 women. We've made it very clear that these hangups are personal. We're talking about individuals here. If you want statistics to matter then this whole discussion is stupid because a man will never even have sex with a trans woman. You might as well ask how you ought to greet a unicorn.
You really, really need to get your money back on that statistics course. Also reconsider purchasing any magic beans in the future.
Firstly, the unicorn argument doesn't work. These events aren't some completely random occurrence that it's not worth worrying about. These events, in which one or more transgender person have sex, generally happen in close proximity to people who are transgender. Therefore, assuming a 25% transphobe rate, a disclosure policy based around the trans person being responsible would actually have a 25% success rate. Which is actually higher than the incidence of unicorns.
The only time the incredible unlikeliness of the scenario comes into play is when the unlikeliness of a given person being trans is a factor at which point yes, it becomes absurd. But wait, your solution was that the people who aren't trans have the responsibility. At which point yes, it becomes absurd. Your point is absurd.
|
On August 02 2013 02:05 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +If you want statistics to matter then this whole discussion is stupid because a man will never even have sex with a trans woman. You might as well ask how you ought to greet a unicorn. Nope.
That's the probability that it will occur once for a ridiculous number of trials. Assuming the probability of sleeping with a trans person is 0.01% (which I would imagine it's even lower because a lot of conditions need to be met) you need 10,000 sexual encounters for it to even happen once. Still doesn't make for useful discussion. It's technically a non-zero probability that I'll get abducted by aliens and we have billions and billions of trials going on right now, but we don't make any discussion about getting abducted by aliens.
|
On August 02 2013 02:05 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:03 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:53 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Not at all. In this case the person who's a transphobe is being a bigot. He's the "oppressor." And sure, we grant that he has the right to be a transphobe. But bigots can do their own work. Why are we making it easier? Oppression actually happens when people go out of their way to harm you when you have done nothing. You stand against that because there's no reason to think oppressors won't eventually turn on you. So you nip it in the bud. So if I find out someone I am going to sleep with is trans and I am uncomfortable with that, I am a bigot? I don't know what you are but we've all been using the term "transphobe" for a while. Transphobes are bigots.
You've acted like a huge asshole and bigot the past dozen or so pages, so maybe you should withhold your judgement...
Anyway, according to your twisted logic raping a woman by means of a rape pill is a non-issue as long as you don't infect her with an STD and are gentle about it. I don't think anyone would consider you a moral authority, so keep your opinions to yourself.
|
On August 02 2013 02:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:56 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:51 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. No. We are talking about about two people in a bedroom. One man asks about 9 women. We've made it very clear that these hangups are personal. We're talking about individuals here. If you want statistics to matter then this whole discussion is stupid because a man will never even have sex with a trans woman. You might as well ask how you ought to greet a unicorn. You really, really need to get your money back on that statistics course. Also reconsider purchasing any magic beans in the future. Firstly, the unicorn argument doesn't work. These events aren't some completely random occurrence that it's not worth worrying about. These events, in which one or more transgender person have sex, generally happen in close proximity to people who are transgender. Therefore, assuming a 25% transphobe rate, a disclosure policy based around the trans person being responsible would actually have a 25% success rate. Which is actually higher than the incidence of unicorns. The only time the incredible unlikeliness of the scenario comes into play is when the unlikeliness of a given person being trans is a factor at which point yes, it becomes absurd. But wait, your solution was that the people who aren't trans have the responsibility. At which point yes, it becomes absurd. Your point is absurd.
Yeah, it is ridiculously absurd to have sleeping with a completely passable trans person as a hangup. It's not going to happen to you and even if it does you won't be able to identify it. So if you're gonna be the paranoid freak who worries about nothing, it's your job to avoid...nothing.
|
On August 02 2013 02:10 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:05 Shiori wrote:If you want statistics to matter then this whole discussion is stupid because a man will never even have sex with a trans woman. You might as well ask how you ought to greet a unicorn. Nope. That's the probability that it will occur once for a ridiculous number of trials. Assuming the probability of sleeping with a trans person is 0.01% (which I would imagine it's even lower because a lot of conditions need to be met) you need 10,000 sexual encounters for it to even happen once. Still doesn't make for useful discussion. It's technically a non-zero probability that I'll get abducted by aliens and we have billions and billions of trials going on right now, but we don't make any discussion about getting abducted by aliens.
And yet you are arguing that every person should account for this non-zero possibility rather than the trans people (who are always in this situation when they have sexual intercourse) saying something. I mean, would you argue that people who don't want to be abducted by aliens take anti-alien gear with them when they go camping? No.
Yeah, it is ridiculously absurd to have sleeping with a completely passable trans person as a hangup. It's not going to happen to you and even if it does you won't be able to identify it. So if you're gonna be the paranoid freak who worries about nothing, it's your job to avoid...nothing.
....
Say you go to a glory hole that is ostensibly girl performing oral sex on men. That is the impression you go in with. Yet say it turns out that some guy actually snuck in past the staff and performed oral sex on you. Yes, technically nothing happened to you, since you wouldn't otherwise have realized, but you have every right to be uncomfortable with such a situation.
|
On August 02 2013 02:15 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:10 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:05 Shiori wrote:If you want statistics to matter then this whole discussion is stupid because a man will never even have sex with a trans woman. You might as well ask how you ought to greet a unicorn. Nope. That's the probability that it will occur once for a ridiculous number of trials. Assuming the probability of sleeping with a trans person is 0.01% (which I would imagine it's even lower because a lot of conditions need to be met) you need 10,000 sexual encounters for it to even happen once. Still doesn't make for useful discussion. It's technically a non-zero probability that I'll get abducted by aliens and we have billions and billions of trials going on right now, but we don't make any discussion about getting abducted by aliens. And yet you are arguing that every person should account for this non-zero possibility rather than the trans people (who are always in this situation when they have sexual intercourse) saying something. I mean, would you argue that people who don't want to be abducted by aliens take anti-alien gear with them when they go camping? No. Show nested quote +Yeah, it is ridiculously absurd to have sleeping with a completely passable trans person as a hangup. It's not going to happen to you and even if it does you won't be able to identify it. So if you're gonna be the paranoid freak who worries about nothing, it's your job to avoid...nothing. .... Say you go to a glory hole that is ostensibly girl performing oral sex on men. That is the impression you go in with. Yet say it turns out that some guy actually snuck in past the staff and performed oral sex on you. Yes, technically nothing happened to you, since you wouldn't otherwise have realized, but you have every right to be uncomfortable with such a situation.
The whole point of a glory hole is that you have no idea who's on the other side and you don't care. If you care who's blowing you, don't go to a glory hole.
And straight people even have glory holes? I thought those were exclusively a gay thing.
|
United States41979 Posts
Let's put this another way. Each person sleeps with 9 other people. 1 in 3 people are transphobic. 1 in 9,000 people are trans.
Assuming nobody asks, nobody discloses
The trans person sleeps with 9 strangers. 6 of these were fine with this. 3 of them feel violated, tricked and following outing become violent.
Assuming transphobic people ask.
As the incidence of trans people is quite low the chance of someone having sex with one is low. Each of these men have had sex with one which puts the odds at 9000 to 1. But given they had 9 attempts let's call it 1000 to 1. So, by the time the trans person has had 9 partners the total number of partners overall is around 9000. Obviously these will be distributed between more than the 9 people, most people will not run into a trans person, but statistically those still count. Now, only a third of them are transphobic so only the transphobic people need ask. That means that 3000 questions "were you born the other sex" need to be asked to avoid a transphobic person having sex with a trans person, even though the trans person is only having sex 9 times. Unless the trans people are somehow flagged all the transphobes who aren't having sex with them still need to ask all their partners which still go into the numbers. Of the 3000 questions, only 3, the instances in which a transphobe has a trans partner, are answered yes. In those 3 cases sex is averted. In the other 2997 cases sex is also averted due to the offence the question caused.
Assuming disclosure
At this point we can dismiss the 9000 other people because they have no responsibility. They are the lucky majority benefiting from majority privilege and can go about their privileged lives without worrying about this. Lucky bastards. Instead we focus on the trans person. They disclose 9 times. 6 of their partners are fine and they still have sex. 3 of their partners will be transphobes who will at this point not want to have sex with them. Sex is averted. 6 disclosures were unnecessary.
As you can see from this quick demonstration of statistics the solution placing the responsibility on transphobes is absurd because they very rarely run into trans people. The two solutions within the same group offered a success rate of either 3 in 3000 or 3 in 9. One of those is clearly better.
|
United States41979 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:14 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:08 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:56 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:51 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. No. We are talking about about two people in a bedroom. One man asks about 9 women. We've made it very clear that these hangups are personal. We're talking about individuals here. If you want statistics to matter then this whole discussion is stupid because a man will never even have sex with a trans woman. You might as well ask how you ought to greet a unicorn. You really, really need to get your money back on that statistics course. Also reconsider purchasing any magic beans in the future. Firstly, the unicorn argument doesn't work. These events aren't some completely random occurrence that it's not worth worrying about. These events, in which one or more transgender person have sex, generally happen in close proximity to people who are transgender. Therefore, assuming a 25% transphobe rate, a disclosure policy based around the trans person being responsible would actually have a 25% success rate. Which is actually higher than the incidence of unicorns. The only time the incredible unlikeliness of the scenario comes into play is when the unlikeliness of a given person being trans is a factor at which point yes, it becomes absurd. But wait, your solution was that the people who aren't trans have the responsibility. At which point yes, it becomes absurd. Your point is absurd. Yeah, it is ridiculously absurd to have sleeping with a completely passable trans person as a hangup. It's not going to happen to you and even if it does you won't be able to identify it. So if you're gonna be the paranoid freak who worries about nothing, it's your job to avoid...nothing.
You don't get to make decisions about whether other peoples' criteria for sexual consent are acceptable. It's not up to you. Jesus. How are you not getting this? It doesn't matter if you find their criteria absurd, you still don't get to ignore their consent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
