|
United States43988 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:41 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:38 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:33 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand. This is a completely different argument to your "it's totally reasonable for transphobes to ask every time despite the numbers" one which I hope you're finally ready to drop after I conclusively showed it to be statistically absurd a few posts ago. You don't get to decide which information is important to them within a reasonable standard. If you have no reason to believe that they are transphobic then you have no obligation to disclose, any more than you would have to disclose if you had your appendix removed. But given a reasonably high instance of people who do have a problem with it, and there is, there is absolutely an obligation to disclose. If consent hinges upon something which matters a lot to them and you know that they would not consent if they knew what you knew then you are morally obliged to tell them, you do not get to decide that their conditions for having sex are silly and that you know better so you're just going to go ahead and take advantage of their ignorance to fuck them anyway. I'm not arbitrarily deciding what information is important. I'm using the pretty objective measure of whether or not there are consequences of said information. If there are no consequences, it is not important. And by no consequences you mean the only consequence being the possibility of some bigot who identifies as straight and identifies you as a man being tricked into having gay sex and liking it but hey, fuck that guy. The fact that you don't like these people and don't give a fuck about what consequences they might think are there is not the same thing as there being no consequences. Again, if the information isn't disclosed...the bigot won't ever feel like he's been tricked into gay sex. Literally fuck that guy...go right ahead. He'll have fun and go on with his life with zero repercussions.
Because it's fine to have consent be totally ambiguous as long as they don't find out about it.
Are you literally a rapist? Seriously?
|
On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner?
Good question, I think. When you agree to have sex with a person who is essentially a stranger, isn't there sort of implied acceptance that that person might have traits that you would normally find undesirable enough to not sleep with them? When you don't bother to get to know a person's background before sleeping with them, I don't see why you can complain about that background after the fact.
|
On August 02 2013 02:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:33 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand. This is a completely different argument to your "it's totally reasonable for transphobes to ask every time despite the numbers" one which I hope you're finally ready to drop after I conclusively showed it to be statistically absurd a few posts ago. You don't get to decide which information is important to them within a reasonable standard. If you have no reason to believe that they are transphobic then you have no obligation to disclose, any more than you would have to disclose if you had your appendix removed. But given a reasonably high instance of people who do have a problem with it, and there is, there is absolutely an obligation to disclose. If consent hinges upon something which matters a lot to them and you know that they would not consent if they knew what you knew then you are morally obliged to tell them, you do not get to decide that their conditions for having sex are silly and that you know better so you're just going to go ahead and take advantage of their ignorance to fuck them anyway. I'm not arbitrarily deciding what information is important. I'm using the pretty objective measure of whether or not there are consequences of said information. If there are no consequences, it is not important. So the transgender person shouldnt' feel bad about neglecting to tell them and the other party is a bigot if they get upset that they were not informed? Because you can't assume there are no consequences, because the world doesn't work that way.
I'm not "assuming there are no consequences." Your emotional state after the fact is not a consequence in the sense that I'm talking about them. I'm talking about practical, demonstrable things that affect how you are able to live your life. Like HIV or pissing off a spurned wife who then burns your house down. Having sex with a trans woman doesn't create any consequences like that. And emotional states aren't a terribly good metric. We withhold a lot of information based on the fact that it might create a negative emotional state.
And quite frankly I don't give a shit anymore if the other party is a bigot. If they don't wanna have sex with a trans person I really don't care what we call them, I just think that avoidance is on them.
|
so im hoping that it becomes reasonable to assume the person you're talking to is not a transphobe soon.
then its cool not to disclose by everyone definition.
|
United States43988 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:44 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? Good question, I think. When you agree to have sex with a person who is essentially a stranger, isn't there sort of implied acceptance that that person might have traits that you would normally find undesirable enough to not sleep with them? When you don't bother to get to know a person's background before sleeping with them, I don't see why you can complain about that background after the fact.
Normally gender at birth isn't one of those traits which is ambiguous by the time you're fucking.
|
On August 02 2013 02:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:41 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:38 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:33 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand. This is a completely different argument to your "it's totally reasonable for transphobes to ask every time despite the numbers" one which I hope you're finally ready to drop after I conclusively showed it to be statistically absurd a few posts ago. You don't get to decide which information is important to them within a reasonable standard. If you have no reason to believe that they are transphobic then you have no obligation to disclose, any more than you would have to disclose if you had your appendix removed. But given a reasonably high instance of people who do have a problem with it, and there is, there is absolutely an obligation to disclose. If consent hinges upon something which matters a lot to them and you know that they would not consent if they knew what you knew then you are morally obliged to tell them, you do not get to decide that their conditions for having sex are silly and that you know better so you're just going to go ahead and take advantage of their ignorance to fuck them anyway. I'm not arbitrarily deciding what information is important. I'm using the pretty objective measure of whether or not there are consequences of said information. If there are no consequences, it is not important. And by no consequences you mean the only consequence being the possibility of some bigot who identifies as straight and identifies you as a man being tricked into having gay sex and liking it but hey, fuck that guy. The fact that you don't like these people and don't give a fuck about what consequences they might think are there is not the same thing as there being no consequences. Again, if the information isn't disclosed...the bigot won't ever feel like he's been tricked into gay sex. Literally fuck that guy...go right ahead. He'll have fun and go on with his life with zero repercussions. Because it's fine to have consent be totally ambiguous as long as they don't find out about it. Are you literally a rapist? Seriously?
Since when is that rape? If I'm standing in front of someone butt ass naked and I ask "do you want to have sex with me?" and they say yes, how is not revealing any additional non-consequential information suddenly making that rape?
I mean, not caring about the person's emotional state might make you an asshole, but it doesn't make you a rapist.
|
United States43988 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:45 ComaDose wrote:
so im hoping that it becomes reasonable to assume the person you're talking to is not a transphobe soon.
then its cool not to disclose by everyone definition.
Works for me. For the time being though, I wouldn't reject a trans woman for being trans if she disclosed but I would reject one for being an asshole if she did not and I later found out.
|
On August 02 2013 02:44 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? Good question, I think. When you agree to have sex with a person who is essentially a stranger, isn't there sort of implied acceptance that that person might have traits that you would normally find undesirable enough to not sleep with them? When you don't bother to get to know a person's background before sleeping with them, I don't see why you can complain about that background after the fact.
That is correct, but Klondikebar is attempting to argue that the transgender person shouldn't feel bad about withhoulding the information and the other party shouldn't be upset about the information being withheld. Also, he is attempting to say that anyone who is uncomfortable sleeping with a transgender is a bigot because they are oppressing the transgender person with their sexual preference.
|
On August 02 2013 02:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:45 ComaDose wrote:
so im hoping that it becomes reasonable to assume the person you're talking to is not a transphobe soon.
then its cool not to disclose by everyone definition. Works for me. For the time being though, I wouldn't reject a trans woman for being trans if she disclosed but I would reject one for being an asshole if she did not and I later found out.
so is not disclosing being an asshole only untill it is reasonable to assume the person you are talking to is not a transphobe?
|
United States43988 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:46 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:42 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:41 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:38 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:36 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:33 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:24 Klondikebar wrote:
Your first assumption is wrong. Assuming nobody asks and nobody discloses, the trans person sleeps with 9 strangers and all 9 of them are fine. Because these things never, ever come out and it's fine to rape people as long as they don't know about it. Learn to ethics better. You're really playing fast and loose with the term rape. I guess your standard for informed consent is much higher than mine...particularly for a one night stand. Withholding information that has no practical consequences for the other person doesn't negate informed consent. If the other person can continue living their lives with no immediate or long term impact based on the information provided, they can provide informed consent. We'll never agree because we have different standards of informed consent for a one night stand. This is a completely different argument to your "it's totally reasonable for transphobes to ask every time despite the numbers" one which I hope you're finally ready to drop after I conclusively showed it to be statistically absurd a few posts ago. You don't get to decide which information is important to them within a reasonable standard. If you have no reason to believe that they are transphobic then you have no obligation to disclose, any more than you would have to disclose if you had your appendix removed. But given a reasonably high instance of people who do have a problem with it, and there is, there is absolutely an obligation to disclose. If consent hinges upon something which matters a lot to them and you know that they would not consent if they knew what you knew then you are morally obliged to tell them, you do not get to decide that their conditions for having sex are silly and that you know better so you're just going to go ahead and take advantage of their ignorance to fuck them anyway. I'm not arbitrarily deciding what information is important. I'm using the pretty objective measure of whether or not there are consequences of said information. If there are no consequences, it is not important. And by no consequences you mean the only consequence being the possibility of some bigot who identifies as straight and identifies you as a man being tricked into having gay sex and liking it but hey, fuck that guy. The fact that you don't like these people and don't give a fuck about what consequences they might think are there is not the same thing as there being no consequences. Again, if the information isn't disclosed...the bigot won't ever feel like he's been tricked into gay sex. Literally fuck that guy...go right ahead. He'll have fun and go on with his life with zero repercussions. Because it's fine to have consent be totally ambiguous as long as they don't find out about it. Are you literally a rapist? Seriously? Since when is that rape? If I'm standing in front of someone butt ass naked and I ask "do you want to have sex with me?" and they say yes, how is not revealing any additional non-consequential information suddenly making that rape?
That's not actually the same thing as what you were arguing. What you were arguing is that as long as someone doesn't know a sexual thing that happened to them and it doesn't cause any physical consequences then go ahead, no harm done. Literally.
|
United States43988 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:48 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:46 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:45 ComaDose wrote:
so im hoping that it becomes reasonable to assume the person you're talking to is not a transphobe soon.
then its cool not to disclose by everyone definition. Works for me. For the time being though, I wouldn't reject a trans woman for being trans if she disclosed but I would reject one for being an asshole if she did not and I later found out. so is not disclosing being an asshole only untill it is reasonable to assume the person you are talking to is not a transphobe?
yes
|
On August 02 2013 02:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:48 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 02:46 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:45 ComaDose wrote:
so im hoping that it becomes reasonable to assume the person you're talking to is not a transphobe soon.
then its cool not to disclose by everyone definition. Works for me. For the time being though, I wouldn't reject a trans woman for being trans if she disclosed but I would reject one for being an asshole if she did not and I later found out. so is not disclosing being an asshole only untill it is reasonable to assume the person you are talking to is not a transphobe? yes
do we all hope that happens one day?
|
On August 02 2013 02:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? If it were a true lottery without any information then they'd be accepting the odds through consenting to it. But one night stands aren't that, in one night stands you still lead a partner to believe things about you through your appearance etc. If one of their beliefs, in this case that you are cis, is not the case and would be a dealbreaker for them then you are morally wrong not to tell them.
Do you think it would also be morally wrong to disclose to a potential sexual partner during a one night stand that you are actually poor, when you lead them to believe that you were rich by say, wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks? Should you just assume that they only want to sleep with you because you are looking and acting like a rich person?
Genuinely curious, I don't see the distinction.
|
Okay, one of the things I despise the most and am pretty well known for is anti-fascism. Most people who are familiar with me know that I dislike fascism. So one day, I go to the bar and take a nice man/woman home with me and after sex, I learn that the person is a fascist even though the person knows that I despise fascism.
These days, at least in the US, fascism is pretty dead and almost no one wants to associate themselves with the ideology. However, I cannot apply my own personal disgust to the law and accuse the person of rape. It would be ridiculous and incredibly childish to do so.
So as a conclusion, whilst it can be very disgusting to certain people that they had sex with a trans person, to compare it to rape which is a very huge crime is ridiculous no matter how uncommon it may be.
|
United States43988 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:50 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:48 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:48 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 02:46 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:45 ComaDose wrote:
so im hoping that it becomes reasonable to assume the person you're talking to is not a transphobe soon.
then its cool not to disclose by everyone definition. Works for me. For the time being though, I wouldn't reject a trans woman for being trans if she disclosed but I would reject one for being an asshole if she did not and I later found out. so is not disclosing being an asshole only untill it is reasonable to assume the person you are talking to is not a transphobe? yes do we all hope that happens one day?
Ideally, but I'd like to be with someone who if she thinks X could conceivably impact my decision to consent will let me know because consent is super important to her. It's a principle which goes far beyond trans issues.
|
On August 02 2013 02:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:44 Mercy13 wrote:On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? Good question, I think. When you agree to have sex with a person who is essentially a stranger, isn't there sort of implied acceptance that that person might have traits that you would normally find undesirable enough to not sleep with them? When you don't bother to get to know a person's background before sleeping with them, I don't see why you can complain about that background after the fact. That is correct, but Klondikebar is attempting to argue that the transgender person shouldn't feel bad about withhoulding the information and the other party shouldn't be upset about the information being withheld. Also, he is attempting to say that anyone who is uncomfortable sleeping with a transgender is a bigot because they are oppressing the transgender person with their sexual preference.
Yeah, I'm not commenting on that portion of the discussion. I think it's counterproductive to casually throw terms like "bigot" around.
|
United States43988 Posts
On August 02 2013 02:50 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:41 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? If it were a true lottery without any information then they'd be accepting the odds through consenting to it. But one night stands aren't that, in one night stands you still lead a partner to believe things about you through your appearance etc. If one of their beliefs, in this case that you are cis, is not the case and would be a dealbreaker for them then you are morally wrong not to tell them. Do you think it would also be morally wrong to disclose to a potential sexual partner during a one night stand that you are actually poor, when you lead them to believe that you were rich by say, wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks? Should you just assume that they only want to sleep with you because you are looking and acting like a rich person? Genuinely curious, I don't see the distinction.
Sure, I'm not a fan of deceiving people into consenting to sex in contexts outside trans issues either. If you believe it is likely that a person is only having sex with you due to their belief that they'll get money from it and you have no money for them then you ought to tell them rather than just fuck them and go "no harm done, no consequences".
It's not up to you to judge their criteria or make the decision for them, if you believe they are lacking the information they would need to make the decision they want then you ought to give them that.
|
On August 02 2013 02:51 Shiragaku wrote:
Okay, one of the things I despise the most and am pretty well known for is anti-fascism. Most people are familiar with me know that I dislike fascism. So one day, I go to the bar and take a nice man/woman home with me and after sex, I learn that the person is a fascist even though the person knows that I despise fascism.
These days, at least in the US, fascism is pretty dead and almost no one wants to associate themselves with the ideology. However, I cannot apply my own personal disgust to the law and accuse the person of rape. It would be ridiculous and incredibly childish to do so.
So as a conclusion, whilst it can be very disgusting to certain people that they had sex with a trans person, to compare it to rape which is a very huge crime is ridiculous.
I think the main point people are objecting to is Klondikebar's indifference to the feelings of the other party. The attitude seems to be "fuck you, I get laid if I want and if you don't like sleeping with me, your a bigot. I'm not going to tell you that I am transgender, because I want sex and if you didn't want to have sex with me, the the emotions of bigots don't matter."
So basiclly, if you would object to having sex, you're a bigot and subhuman, so your feelings done matter.
|
On August 02 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:50 Mercy13 wrote:On August 02 2013 02:41 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:37 Iyerbeth wrote:
Not making a statement either way, but just curious about KwarK's response to this if possible. Is it morally wrong to not tell someone when you're going in to a one night stand where both sides are essentially consenting to sex without knowledge of their partner? If it were a true lottery without any information then they'd be accepting the odds through consenting to it. But one night stands aren't that, in one night stands you still lead a partner to believe things about you through your appearance etc. If one of their beliefs, in this case that you are cis, is not the case and would be a dealbreaker for them then you are morally wrong not to tell them. Do you think it would also be morally wrong to disclose to a potential sexual partner during a one night stand that you are actually poor, when you lead them to believe that you were rich by say, wearing expensive clothes and buying fancy drinks? Should you just assume that they only want to sleep with you because you are looking and acting like a rich person? Genuinely curious, I don't see the distinction. Sure, I'm not a fan of deceiving people into consenting to sex in contexts outside trans issues either. If you believe it is likely that a person is only having sex with you due to their belief that they'll get money from it and you have no money for them then you ought to tell them rather than just fuck them and go "no harm done, no consequences". It's not up to you to judge their criteria or make the decision for them, if you believe they are lacking the information they would need to make the decision they want then you ought to give them that.
But that doesn't make you a rapist.
|
On August 02 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:51 Shiragaku wrote:
Okay, one of the things I despise the most and am pretty well known for is anti-fascism. Most people are familiar with me know that I dislike fascism. So one day, I go to the bar and take a nice man/woman home with me and after sex, I learn that the person is a fascist even though the person knows that I despise fascism.
These days, at least in the US, fascism is pretty dead and almost no one wants to associate themselves with the ideology. However, I cannot apply my own personal disgust to the law and accuse the person of rape. It would be ridiculous and incredibly childish to do so.
So as a conclusion, whilst it can be very disgusting to certain people that they had sex with a trans person, to compare it to rape which is a very huge crime is ridiculous. I think the main point people are objecting to is Klondikebar's indifference to the feelings of the other party. The attitude seems to be "fuck you, I get laid if I want and if you don't like sleeping with me, your a bigot. I'm not going to tell you that I am transgender, because I want sex and if you didn't want to have sex with me, the the emotions of bigots don't matter."
Oh, in that case, he lacks empathy for the other party a.k.a being an ass. We should be arguing about that, not about rape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
