|
On March 11 2013 08:34 ThomasjServo wrote:
Acronyms aside, I don't really find any personal issue be it moral, sexual, or political with codifying equal rights for those who live lifestyles which some would deem "non-traditional." I find it lamentable that, at least in the US, many of my more conservative friends have their fiscal beliefs so connected to a religious voter base.
Is it fun to string together big words with no regard for their meaning?
|
On March 11 2013 12:17 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 08:34 ThomasjServo wrote:
Acronyms aside, I don't really find any personal issue be it moral, sexual, or political with codifying equal rights for those who live lifestyles which some would deem "non-traditional." I find it lamentable that, at least in the US, many of my more conservative friends have their fiscal beliefs so connected to a religious voter base. Is it fun to string together big words with no regard for their meaning?
What was so incoherent about what he wrote?
|
On March 11 2013 11:56 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 11:43 cz wrote:
>you're saying: I think transsexual women have some property or quality that differentiates them from cis women.
Don't they? Otherwise there would be no such thing as transgendered and everyone would be cis. No, they don't. They have a medical history, but history is not the same thing as a physical property. The fact that I "used" to have red hair does not mean that you can now say that I'm not really blonde now. There is no property exclusive to cis women that no trans woman possesses, with the exception of "invisible" properties that exist only to exclude and marginalize trans women (like "born a woman")
I think you're using words that are too strong for the situation, which is offending people. Bigotry is a state of mind where a person treats someone else with contempt, hatred, or intolerance (from Wikipedia). If any person didn't want to sleep with a person based on their history of being male, that is not the same as hating them, or treating them with contempt and intolerance; it is just a personal preference that they keep to themselves. It is the difference between preferring not to do something with someone, and actively attacking that person based on their past, which I feel is important to recognize.
Its like Farvacola said, you may call them narrow minded, but not much else (actually prejudiced might be good). But even in terms of narrow mindedness/prejudiced, I don't think its valid. Our attractions to other people are not based on purely rational principles; there are many intangibles that are involved that we may not be able to separate as much as we consciously try. It may be that the idea that a person used to be a man, creates an image that is hard to separate from their identity as they are in the present.
Now I am not sure how true that is in general; I agree with you that it is irrational and that transgendered people should (ideally) be treated equally as any other person. But rationally understanding something is different from emotionally and internally recognizing it, which may be very difficult for some people (i.e. this is true in many other areas, like global warming denial, religious beliefs, etc.). So I wouldn't be so quick to judge them, especially not by calling them bigots, which to reiterate is an extreme word for the situation.
To summarize: The brain isn't a perfect logical machine! People may internally associate a person as being male, and that feeling might be hard to shake even after the sex change operation.
|
On March 11 2013 12:23 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 11:56 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 11:43 cz wrote:
>you're saying: I think transsexual women have some property or quality that differentiates them from cis women.
Don't they? Otherwise there would be no such thing as transgendered and everyone would be cis. No, they don't. They have a medical history, but history is not the same thing as a physical property. The fact that I "used" to have red hair does not mean that you can now say that I'm not really blonde now. There is no property exclusive to cis women that no trans woman possesses, with the exception of "invisible" properties that exist only to exclude and marginalize trans women (like "born a woman") I think you're using words that are too strong for the situation, which is offending people. Bigotry is a state of mind where a person treats someone else with contempt, hatred, or intolerance (from Wikipedia).
I am not sure in what place in the world you live, but from where I am from, marginalizing a woman by saying she isn't a "real" woman (this is usually the basis of the belief) is in fact intolerance. The fact that someone is claiming that I am not who I say I am is so offensive to me that I find it to be quite bigoted. I do not mind if this is offending people, because they should be offended. Transphobia is a serious issue and it should be addressed.
|
On March 11 2013 12:16 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 12:12 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2013 12:01 Shiragaku wrote:
Haha, some of us are still stuck on the "trapped" mentality.
Most men who identify as heterosexual would not have sex with another man simply because they have no sexual attraction to the genitalia or the male physique whatsoever.
However, some of you would have sex with a woman willingly, whether it is a relationship or casual sex but immediately regret it or even believe that you were raped once you have the knowledge that the person was once a man. This reminds me of the Israeli/Palestinian one night stand stories where someone files charges against the other person because the person is not of their ideal ethnicity. If you think an average sober man cannot tell the difference between an organically formed vagina and a surgically created one, you might want to look at some surgeries, and not the one in a thousand miracle hundreds of thousands of dollars surgeries. Sure, the technique is pretty advanced and will continue to improve, but the differences are still there. My point is that, essentially, your argument basically boils down to a mandate that we say "we don't want to have sex with a woman with an altered vagina". Ok I guess. You're wrong though. The surgeries themselves cost around twenty thousand US dollars. You can look up before and after pictures if you'd like, I don't think I can post them here. After the scars are healed it's near-impossible to see the difference unless you are an OB/GYN and are probing the thing. Edit - And that's because there's no uterus. Remember that we're all female when we start out in the womb. Male genitals grow from the vagina, clitoris is the head, ovaries turn into testicles; That sort of thing. So the surgeon is just putting things back the way they were, per-say.
Well, I'm afraid we have arrived upon one of those crossroads, a junction whereupon we must simply agree to disagree. My vulgar curiosity, access to medical photos through relatives, and good transsexual friend who "let me see it" have brought me upon the conclusion that I will tell a difference. That my belief in such a thing automatically equates to some sort of post-coital hate denial speaks more of prejudices on the other side of the coin.
|
On March 11 2013 12:13 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 12:11 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 12:08 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 12:05 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 11:59 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 11:56 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 11:30 shinosai wrote:
In response to the question: Is it bigoted to not want to have sex with a transsexual person?
It's not bigoted to not want to have sex with a particular transsexual person. It is bigoted to not want to engage in sexual relations because a person is transsexual. The reason it is both bigoted and transphobic is because it denies that transsexual women are actually women. Basically, when you say that you are a heterosexual male (ie. you are a guy that likes having sex with women), but you don't want to have sex with a transsexual woman, you're saying: I think transsexual women have some property or quality that differentiates them from cis women.
However, there is no property, attribute, or quality that could deny that a transsexual woman is a woman that does not invalidate cis women as well. XX chromosomes? Some cis women are born with irregular chromosomes. Ovaries? Hysterectomy. Vagina? Both trans and cis women have these. Being transsexual is not a physical property that some women have and some don't.
But what people actually mean when they say they don't want to have sex with a transsexual woman, I think, tends to be that they "used" to be a guy and this makes them uncomfortable. They mean that they don't view transsexual women as "real" women. But this is not much different than saying, "I don't want to date person xyz because they had z condition in the past" (where z could be anything from cancer, a job at walmart, or they used to be in a gay relationship).
It's okay if you don't want to have sex with transsexual women. They probably don't want to have sex with you, either. But I'm just pointing out that it is bigoted and transphobic to say this outloud, in the same way that it would be to say that you wouldn't have sex with a woman that used to work at walmart, with a woman that was in a gay relationship once a time, or with a woman that is black (but perhaps you didn't know she had african american ancestry until after you had sex).
No woman is obligated to share her medical or professional history with you prior to sex. Although I would recommend it, not for the sake of men who are offended by the idea of having sex with a transsexual, but for their own safety, as violence against trans women is a serious problem. Let me get this straight: You are saying that people are bigots (as in they treat a group with hatred and intolerance) if they do not want to have sex with that group? What about all those who do not want to have sex with obese people - does that make them bigots? You might be able to make an argument for superficial, but bigots?! Wauw. Well, yes, I am, but let me ask you something: Do you think it is not racist to say: "I don't want to date black women because they are black." ? Now, take a step back for a moment, and let's suppose you slept with some black lady that you did not know was black. Are you now allowed to claim that she "deceived" you because she did not tell you she was black? Would it be okay if a television show depicted a man vomiting after discovering the person he kissed was black? I feel like these situations are very similar. If that person was not attracted to black people is it racism then? How is it okay to say "I am not attracted to males/females (or both for some)" but not okay to say "I am not attracted to XXX"? Are all gays in fact sexist? It is racism because the person obviously is attracted to a black person. If they weren't, they wouldn't have had sex with them. You play the entrapment argument and now you back out of it saying that the person knew about it up front? Which is it you want to argue? And you have yet to answer me if homosexuals are sexist bigots when they dislike one gender. I'm not backing out. I'm saying that the person is obviously attracted to black women since they slept with one (even though they didn't know it). You can't claim that you aren't attracted to someone after the fact. That's ridiculous. And I did answer your question, read previous post.
I might have some reading comprehension then, because I do not see the answer to whether or not homosexuals are in fact sexist.
And yes I can claim that you lose attraction after the one-night stand - why do you think people have regrets the day after even when there are no surprises? Or people generally have more than one relationship in their lives? Or some people get divorced?
If you are a psychopathic serial-killer and I only found out after we had sex I would also stop being attracted to you (please note that I do not think being trans-gendered is in any way a mental illness). People are attracted to the entire package of who you are - that is why people date - to figure out if you are compatible enough to have a future together. In some cases you can know about the dealbreakers up front: skin colour, obesity, eyecolour, haircolour, high/low stature - in other cases you can't. When you discover a dealbreaker it should be perfectly fine to say "this is not for me" without having to deal with someone calling you "a person who treats a group with hatred and intolerance".
You have about as little control over what attracts you as you do over your sexuality (the two are obviously interlinked) or sensation of gender. Why is it you insist on calling one group bigots but not the rest?
|
On March 11 2013 12:26 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 12:23 radscorpion9 wrote:On March 11 2013 11:56 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 11:43 cz wrote:
>you're saying: I think transsexual women have some property or quality that differentiates them from cis women.
Don't they? Otherwise there would be no such thing as transgendered and everyone would be cis. No, they don't. They have a medical history, but history is not the same thing as a physical property. The fact that I "used" to have red hair does not mean that you can now say that I'm not really blonde now. There is no property exclusive to cis women that no trans woman possesses, with the exception of "invisible" properties that exist only to exclude and marginalize trans women (like "born a woman") I think you're using words that are too strong for the situation, which is offending people. Bigotry is a state of mind where a person treats someone else with contempt, hatred, or intolerance (from Wikipedia). I am not sure in what place in the world you live, but from where I am from, marginalizing a woman by saying she isn't a "real" woman (this is usually the basis of the belief) is in fact intolerance. The fact that someone is claiming that I am not who I say I am is so offensive to me that I find it to be quite bigoted. I do not mind if this is offending people, because they should be offended. Transphobia is a serious issue and it should be addressed.
Sorry I guess I didn't understand the context in which you were making that statement. Indeed if a person is saying that transgendered aren't "real" women then it is a form of bigotry. I thought you were saying that a person is a bigot for choosing not to enter a sexual relationship with a transgendered person. That is clearly a different case, where there are no bigoted statements made; only an implication of their discomfort with her history is made, which is another matter and is distinctly not bigotry (as I discussed above).
Maybe you were saying that earlier in the thread; I was responding specifically to your post which did not say anything about people making claims about those women not being "real".
|
On March 11 2013 12:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 12:16 fugs wrote:On March 11 2013 12:12 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2013 12:01 Shiragaku wrote:
Haha, some of us are still stuck on the "trapped" mentality.
Most men who identify as heterosexual would not have sex with another man simply because they have no sexual attraction to the genitalia or the male physique whatsoever.
However, some of you would have sex with a woman willingly, whether it is a relationship or casual sex but immediately regret it or even believe that you were raped once you have the knowledge that the person was once a man. This reminds me of the Israeli/Palestinian one night stand stories where someone files charges against the other person because the person is not of their ideal ethnicity. If you think an average sober man cannot tell the difference between an organically formed vagina and a surgically created one, you might want to look at some surgeries, and not the one in a thousand miracle hundreds of thousands of dollars surgeries. Sure, the technique is pretty advanced and will continue to improve, but the differences are still there. My point is that, essentially, your argument basically boils down to a mandate that we say "we don't want to have sex with a woman with an altered vagina". Ok I guess. You're wrong though. The surgeries themselves cost around twenty thousand US dollars. You can look up before and after pictures if you'd like, I don't think I can post them here. After the scars are healed it's near-impossible to see the difference unless you are an OB/GYN and are probing the thing. Edit - And that's because there's no uterus. Remember that we're all female when we start out in the womb. Male genitals grow from the vagina, clitoris is the head, ovaries turn into testicles; That sort of thing. So the surgeon is just putting things back the way they were, per-say. Well, I'm afraid we have arrived upon one of those crossroads, a junction whereupon we must simply agree to disagree. My vulgar curiosity, access to medical photos through relatives, and good transsexual friend who "let me see it" have brought me upon the conclusion that I will tell a difference. That my belief in such a thing automatically equates to some sort of post-coital hate denial speaks more of prejudices on the other side of the coin.
Unfortunately I'm kind of nervous about posting links to pictures of vaginas on TL, but, well, I've seen enough to know that some vagina operations do not go well and some do. But the fact of the matter is that most vaginas do not look like the perfectly sculpted ones that you see in porn. They come in a variety of shapes and sizes. There are plenty of trans vagina's that I've seen that look identical to cis ones, at least to me.
|
On March 11 2013 12:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 12:16 fugs wrote:On March 11 2013 12:12 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2013 12:01 Shiragaku wrote:
Haha, some of us are still stuck on the "trapped" mentality.
Most men who identify as heterosexual would not have sex with another man simply because they have no sexual attraction to the genitalia or the male physique whatsoever.
However, some of you would have sex with a woman willingly, whether it is a relationship or casual sex but immediately regret it or even believe that you were raped once you have the knowledge that the person was once a man. This reminds me of the Israeli/Palestinian one night stand stories where someone files charges against the other person because the person is not of their ideal ethnicity. If you think an average sober man cannot tell the difference between an organically formed vagina and a surgically created one, you might want to look at some surgeries, and not the one in a thousand miracle hundreds of thousands of dollars surgeries. Sure, the technique is pretty advanced and will continue to improve, but the differences are still there. My point is that, essentially, your argument basically boils down to a mandate that we say "we don't want to have sex with a woman with an altered vagina". Ok I guess. You're wrong though. The surgeries themselves cost around twenty thousand US dollars. You can look up before and after pictures if you'd like, I don't think I can post them here. After the scars are healed it's near-impossible to see the difference unless you are an OB/GYN and are probing the thing. Edit - And that's because there's no uterus. Remember that we're all female when we start out in the womb. Male genitals grow from the vagina, clitoris is the head, ovaries turn into testicles; That sort of thing. So the surgeon is just putting things back the way they were, per-say. Well, I'm afraid we have arrived upon one of those crossroads, a junction whereupon we must simply agree to disagree. My vulgar curiosity, access to medical photos through relatives, and good transsexual friend who "let me see it" have brought me upon the conclusion that I will tell a difference. That my belief in such a thing automatically equates to some sort of post-coital hate denial speaks more of prejudices on the other side of the coin.
Well depending on who you talk to vaginas are ugly, they all look different :p Same with penises I guess. It depends largely on the surgeon too. You aren't a bad person for it at all though, you should never be forced to have sex with someone if you don't want to. Seeing each-other naked doesn't make it against the law to change your mind and go home.
It's a delicate subject though, trans people feel hurt because the thing they've went through so much suffering to achieve is thought of as second class and if you were in the same position I'm sure you'd feel a bit hurt too right? Tens of thousands of dollars and twenty+ years of your life went into it after all.
|
On March 11 2013 12:26 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 12:16 fugs wrote:On March 11 2013 12:12 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2013 12:01 Shiragaku wrote:
Haha, some of us are still stuck on the "trapped" mentality.
Most men who identify as heterosexual would not have sex with another man simply because they have no sexual attraction to the genitalia or the male physique whatsoever.
However, some of you would have sex with a woman willingly, whether it is a relationship or casual sex but immediately regret it or even believe that you were raped once you have the knowledge that the person was once a man. This reminds me of the Israeli/Palestinian one night stand stories where someone files charges against the other person because the person is not of their ideal ethnicity. If you think an average sober man cannot tell the difference between an organically formed vagina and a surgically created one, you might want to look at some surgeries, and not the one in a thousand miracle hundreds of thousands of dollars surgeries. Sure, the technique is pretty advanced and will continue to improve, but the differences are still there. My point is that, essentially, your argument basically boils down to a mandate that we say "we don't want to have sex with a woman with an altered vagina". Ok I guess. You're wrong though. The surgeries themselves cost around twenty thousand US dollars. You can look up before and after pictures if you'd like, I don't think I can post them here. After the scars are healed it's near-impossible to see the difference unless you are an OB/GYN and are probing the thing. Edit - And that's because there's no uterus. Remember that we're all female when we start out in the womb. Male genitals grow from the vagina, clitoris is the head, ovaries turn into testicles; That sort of thing. So the surgeon is just putting things back the way they were, per-say. Well, I'm afraid we have arrived upon one of those crossroads, a junction whereupon we must simply agree to disagree. My vulgar curiosity, access to medical photos through relatives, and good transsexual friend who "let me see it" have brought me upon the conclusion that I will tell a difference. That my belief in such a thing automatically equates to some sort of post-coital hate denial speaks more of prejudices on the other side of the coin.
Depends on the surgeon, but a lot of times you can't spot the difference without a speculum. Maybe your friends went to some lesser known surgeons?
|
On March 11 2013 12:34 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 12:26 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2013 12:16 fugs wrote:On March 11 2013 12:12 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2013 12:01 Shiragaku wrote:
Haha, some of us are still stuck on the "trapped" mentality.
Most men who identify as heterosexual would not have sex with another man simply because they have no sexual attraction to the genitalia or the male physique whatsoever.
However, some of you would have sex with a woman willingly, whether it is a relationship or casual sex but immediately regret it or even believe that you were raped once you have the knowledge that the person was once a man. This reminds me of the Israeli/Palestinian one night stand stories where someone files charges against the other person because the person is not of their ideal ethnicity. If you think an average sober man cannot tell the difference between an organically formed vagina and a surgically created one, you might want to look at some surgeries, and not the one in a thousand miracle hundreds of thousands of dollars surgeries. Sure, the technique is pretty advanced and will continue to improve, but the differences are still there. My point is that, essentially, your argument basically boils down to a mandate that we say "we don't want to have sex with a woman with an altered vagina". Ok I guess. You're wrong though. The surgeries themselves cost around twenty thousand US dollars. You can look up before and after pictures if you'd like, I don't think I can post them here. After the scars are healed it's near-impossible to see the difference unless you are an OB/GYN and are probing the thing. Edit - And that's because there's no uterus. Remember that we're all female when we start out in the womb. Male genitals grow from the vagina, clitoris is the head, ovaries turn into testicles; That sort of thing. So the surgeon is just putting things back the way they were, per-say. Well, I'm afraid we have arrived upon one of those crossroads, a junction whereupon we must simply agree to disagree. My vulgar curiosity, access to medical photos through relatives, and good transsexual friend who "let me see it" have brought me upon the conclusion that I will tell a difference. That my belief in such a thing automatically equates to some sort of post-coital hate denial speaks more of prejudices on the other side of the coin. Depends on the surgeon, but a lot of times you can't spot the difference without a speculum. Maybe your friends went to some lesser known surgeons?
Yeah, unfortunately, there is a lot of shady activities with transgender surgery, at least in my area. It is pretty similar to some of the early underground abortion clinics a few decades back.
|
On March 11 2013 12:31 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 12:13 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 12:11 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 12:08 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 12:05 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 11:59 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 11:56 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 11:30 shinosai wrote:
In response to the question: Is it bigoted to not want to have sex with a transsexual person?
It's not bigoted to not want to have sex with a particular transsexual person. It is bigoted to not want to engage in sexual relations because a person is transsexual. The reason it is both bigoted and transphobic is because it denies that transsexual women are actually women. Basically, when you say that you are a heterosexual male (ie. you are a guy that likes having sex with women), but you don't want to have sex with a transsexual woman, you're saying: I think transsexual women have some property or quality that differentiates them from cis women.
However, there is no property, attribute, or quality that could deny that a transsexual woman is a woman that does not invalidate cis women as well. XX chromosomes? Some cis women are born with irregular chromosomes. Ovaries? Hysterectomy. Vagina? Both trans and cis women have these. Being transsexual is not a physical property that some women have and some don't.
But what people actually mean when they say they don't want to have sex with a transsexual woman, I think, tends to be that they "used" to be a guy and this makes them uncomfortable. They mean that they don't view transsexual women as "real" women. But this is not much different than saying, "I don't want to date person xyz because they had z condition in the past" (where z could be anything from cancer, a job at walmart, or they used to be in a gay relationship).
It's okay if you don't want to have sex with transsexual women. They probably don't want to have sex with you, either. But I'm just pointing out that it is bigoted and transphobic to say this outloud, in the same way that it would be to say that you wouldn't have sex with a woman that used to work at walmart, with a woman that was in a gay relationship once a time, or with a woman that is black (but perhaps you didn't know she had african american ancestry until after you had sex).
No woman is obligated to share her medical or professional history with you prior to sex. Although I would recommend it, not for the sake of men who are offended by the idea of having sex with a transsexual, but for their own safety, as violence against trans women is a serious problem. Let me get this straight: You are saying that people are bigots (as in they treat a group with hatred and intolerance) if they do not want to have sex with that group? What about all those who do not want to have sex with obese people - does that make them bigots? You might be able to make an argument for superficial, but bigots?! Wauw. Well, yes, I am, but let me ask you something: Do you think it is not racist to say: "I don't want to date black women because they are black." ? Now, take a step back for a moment, and let's suppose you slept with some black lady that you did not know was black. Are you now allowed to claim that she "deceived" you because she did not tell you she was black? Would it be okay if a television show depicted a man vomiting after discovering the person he kissed was black? I feel like these situations are very similar. If that person was not attracted to black people is it racism then? How is it okay to say "I am not attracted to males/females (or both for some)" but not okay to say "I am not attracted to XXX"? Are all gays in fact sexist? It is racism because the person obviously is attracted to a black person. If they weren't, they wouldn't have had sex with them. You play the entrapment argument and now you back out of it saying that the person knew about it up front? Which is it you want to argue? And you have yet to answer me if homosexuals are sexist bigots when they dislike one gender. I'm not backing out. I'm saying that the person is obviously attracted to black women since they slept with one (even though they didn't know it). You can't claim that you aren't attracted to someone after the fact. That's ridiculous. And I did answer your question, read previous post. I might have some reading comprehension then, because I do not see the answer to whether or not homosexuals are in fact sexist. And yes I can claim that you lose attraction after the one-night stand - why do you think people have regrets the day after even when there are no surprises? Or people generally have more than one relationship in their lives? Or some people get divorced? If you are a psychopathic serial-killer and I only found out after we had sex I would also stop being attracted to you (please note that I do not think being trans-gendered is in any way a mental illness). People are attracted to the entire package of who you are - that is why people date - to figure out if you are compatible enough to have a future together. In some cases you can know about the dealbreakers up front: skin colour, obesity, eyecolour, haircolour, high/low stature - in other cases you can't. When you discover a dealbreaker it should be perfectly fine to say "this is not for me" without having to deal with someone calling you "a person who treats a group with hatred and intolerance". You have about as little control over what attracts you as you do over your sexuality (the two are obviously interlinked) or sensation of gender. Why is it you insist on calling one group bigots but not the rest?
I'll do my best to answer this question one more time. I feel like you are conflating two completely different things when you say that I'm calling one group a bigot and not the rest. I'll try to be as clear as possible.
First: Not being attracted to transgendered women is okay (even though I do not think this is possible without meeting EVERY transgendered woman in the world, whatever, I don't care). Not being attracted to black people is okay. Not being attracted to religious people is okay. Not being attracted to obese people is okay. Not being attracted to any group of people is perfectly okay. Not being attracted to guys is okay.
What is NOT okay is when you ARE attracted to a particular person, then you find out a part of their history that has no realistic bearing on who they are as a person, and decide after the fact that you are not attracted to this person. What is NOT okay is deciding that you won't date a transgendered person because they "used" to be a guy. What is NOT okay is saying you won't date a person because they are transsexual. What IS okay is saying you met a particular transsexual and decided you did not want to pursue relations with them for whatever reason (maybe they have a penis, maybe they are a jerk, whatever - IT'S OKAY if you don't like them because of that).
The fact is, and the argument I've been making: Transsexual is not a physical property that you can or cannot be attracted to. It's a part of a persons history that has NO relevance to who they are today. It's not like murder (people who have a criminal history often repeat them, I feel this is a disingenuous analogy).
Again, with the black analogy. You found this black girl perfectly attractive, you liked her, you slept with her, then all of a sudden you're mad because you found out she's black and you're not attracted to black people. Newsflash, you are attracted to black people, you just have internalized racism. Same thing with transsexuals. Newsflash, you ARE attracted to transsexuals, you just have internalized transphobia.
|
On March 11 2013 12:36 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 12:34 fusionsdf wrote:On March 11 2013 12:26 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2013 12:16 fugs wrote:On March 11 2013 12:12 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2013 12:01 Shiragaku wrote:
Haha, some of us are still stuck on the "trapped" mentality.
Most men who identify as heterosexual would not have sex with another man simply because they have no sexual attraction to the genitalia or the male physique whatsoever.
However, some of you would have sex with a woman willingly, whether it is a relationship or casual sex but immediately regret it or even believe that you were raped once you have the knowledge that the person was once a man. This reminds me of the Israeli/Palestinian one night stand stories where someone files charges against the other person because the person is not of their ideal ethnicity. If you think an average sober man cannot tell the difference between an organically formed vagina and a surgically created one, you might want to look at some surgeries, and not the one in a thousand miracle hundreds of thousands of dollars surgeries. Sure, the technique is pretty advanced and will continue to improve, but the differences are still there. My point is that, essentially, your argument basically boils down to a mandate that we say "we don't want to have sex with a woman with an altered vagina". Ok I guess. You're wrong though. The surgeries themselves cost around twenty thousand US dollars. You can look up before and after pictures if you'd like, I don't think I can post them here. After the scars are healed it's near-impossible to see the difference unless you are an OB/GYN and are probing the thing. Edit - And that's because there's no uterus. Remember that we're all female when we start out in the womb. Male genitals grow from the vagina, clitoris is the head, ovaries turn into testicles; That sort of thing. So the surgeon is just putting things back the way they were, per-say. Well, I'm afraid we have arrived upon one of those crossroads, a junction whereupon we must simply agree to disagree. My vulgar curiosity, access to medical photos through relatives, and good transsexual friend who "let me see it" have brought me upon the conclusion that I will tell a difference. That my belief in such a thing automatically equates to some sort of post-coital hate denial speaks more of prejudices on the other side of the coin. Depends on the surgeon, but a lot of times you can't spot the difference without a speculum. Maybe your friends went to some lesser known surgeons? Yeah, unfortunately, there is a lot of shady activities with transgender surgery, at least in my area. It is pretty similar to some of the early underground abortion clinics a few decades back.
I really don't think its worth it to go to someone other than brassard/suporn/mcginn/maybe a few others. I know it's a lot of money, but I think their results are just so much better/more consistent. Some of the lesser known surgeons have absolutely terrible results.
|
I guess my point is that if I end up having sex with a transsexual woman without knowing it before hand, I would not treat her with disregard because she was a transsexual, but rather because she did not respect the idiosyncratic manner with which we as humans consider the notions of "identity" and "compassion" as they pertain to the performance of the mating ritual. In other words, I don't sleep around, and if I wanna have sex with a woman we are going to have gone past that point in a relationship during which knowledge of a sexual identity issue should already have come to surface. I'm shallow in some ways and simply picky in others, but do not already judge me a bigot for my sense of that which I will not do.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On March 11 2013 12:41 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 12:31 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 12:13 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 12:11 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 12:08 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 12:05 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 11:59 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 11:56 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 11:30 shinosai wrote:
In response to the question: Is it bigoted to not want to have sex with a transsexual person?
It's not bigoted to not want to have sex with a particular transsexual person. It is bigoted to not want to engage in sexual relations because a person is transsexual. The reason it is both bigoted and transphobic is because it denies that transsexual women are actually women. Basically, when you say that you are a heterosexual male (ie. you are a guy that likes having sex with women), but you don't want to have sex with a transsexual woman, you're saying: I think transsexual women have some property or quality that differentiates them from cis women.
However, there is no property, attribute, or quality that could deny that a transsexual woman is a woman that does not invalidate cis women as well. XX chromosomes? Some cis women are born with irregular chromosomes. Ovaries? Hysterectomy. Vagina? Both trans and cis women have these. Being transsexual is not a physical property that some women have and some don't.
But what people actually mean when they say they don't want to have sex with a transsexual woman, I think, tends to be that they "used" to be a guy and this makes them uncomfortable. They mean that they don't view transsexual women as "real" women. But this is not much different than saying, "I don't want to date person xyz because they had z condition in the past" (where z could be anything from cancer, a job at walmart, or they used to be in a gay relationship).
It's okay if you don't want to have sex with transsexual women. They probably don't want to have sex with you, either. But I'm just pointing out that it is bigoted and transphobic to say this outloud, in the same way that it would be to say that you wouldn't have sex with a woman that used to work at walmart, with a woman that was in a gay relationship once a time, or with a woman that is black (but perhaps you didn't know she had african american ancestry until after you had sex).
No woman is obligated to share her medical or professional history with you prior to sex. Although I would recommend it, not for the sake of men who are offended by the idea of having sex with a transsexual, but for their own safety, as violence against trans women is a serious problem. Let me get this straight: You are saying that people are bigots (as in they treat a group with hatred and intolerance) if they do not want to have sex with that group? What about all those who do not want to have sex with obese people - does that make them bigots? You might be able to make an argument for superficial, but bigots?! Wauw. Well, yes, I am, but let me ask you something: Do you think it is not racist to say: "I don't want to date black women because they are black." ? Now, take a step back for a moment, and let's suppose you slept with some black lady that you did not know was black. Are you now allowed to claim that she "deceived" you because she did not tell you she was black? Would it be okay if a television show depicted a man vomiting after discovering the person he kissed was black? I feel like these situations are very similar. If that person was not attracted to black people is it racism then? How is it okay to say "I am not attracted to males/females (or both for some)" but not okay to say "I am not attracted to XXX"? Are all gays in fact sexist? It is racism because the person obviously is attracted to a black person. If they weren't, they wouldn't have had sex with them. You play the entrapment argument and now you back out of it saying that the person knew about it up front? Which is it you want to argue? And you have yet to answer me if homosexuals are sexist bigots when they dislike one gender. I'm not backing out. I'm saying that the person is obviously attracted to black women since they slept with one (even though they didn't know it). You can't claim that you aren't attracted to someone after the fact. That's ridiculous. And I did answer your question, read previous post. I might have some reading comprehension then, because I do not see the answer to whether or not homosexuals are in fact sexist. And yes I can claim that you lose attraction after the one-night stand - why do you think people have regrets the day after even when there are no surprises? Or people generally have more than one relationship in their lives? Or some people get divorced? If you are a psychopathic serial-killer and I only found out after we had sex I would also stop being attracted to you (please note that I do not think being trans-gendered is in any way a mental illness). People are attracted to the entire package of who you are - that is why people date - to figure out if you are compatible enough to have a future together. In some cases you can know about the dealbreakers up front: skin colour, obesity, eyecolour, haircolour, high/low stature - in other cases you can't. When you discover a dealbreaker it should be perfectly fine to say "this is not for me" without having to deal with someone calling you "a person who treats a group with hatred and intolerance". You have about as little control over what attracts you as you do over your sexuality (the two are obviously interlinked) or sensation of gender. Why is it you insist on calling one group bigots but not the rest? I'll do my best to answer this question one more time. I feel like you are conflating two completely different things when you say that I'm calling one group a bigot and not the rest. I'll try to be as clear as possible. First: Not being attracted to transgendered women is okay (even though I do not think this is possible without meeting EVERY transgendered woman in the world, whatever, I don't care). Not being attracted to black people is okay. Not being attracted to religious people is okay. Not being attracted to obese people is okay. Not being attracted to any group of people is perfectly okay. Not being attracted to guys is okay. What is NOT okay is when you ARE attracted to a particular person, then you find out a part of their history that has no realistic bearing on who they are as a person, and decide after the fact that you are not attracted to this person. What is NOT okay is deciding that you won't date a transgendered person because they "used" to be a guy. What is NOT okay is saying you won't date a person because they are transsexual. What IS okay is saying you met a particular transsexual and decided you did not want to pursue relations with them for whatever reason (maybe they have a penis, maybe they are a jerk, whatever - IT'S OKAY if you don't like them because of that). The fact is, and the argument I've been making: Transsexual is not a physical property that you can or cannot be attracted to. It's a part of a persons history that has NO relevance to who they are today. It's not like murder (people who have a criminal history often repeat them, I feel this is a disingenuous analogy). Again, with the black analogy. You found this black girl perfectly attractive, you liked her, you slept with her, then all of a sudden you're mad because you found out she's black and you're not attracted to black people. Newsflash, you are attracted to black people, you just have internalized racism. Same thing with transsexuals. Newsflash, you ARE attracted to transsexuals, you just have internalized transphobia.
Firstly, it sounds like you are assuming that one can only be attracted to physical properties. Which is just completely wrong.. so when someone is not attracted to another because they used to be something, it is not bigotry. If i am deeply attracted to someone and then find out they used to be a drug dealer, I am no longer attracted. Probably not the best analogy but there are PLENTY intangible and even ideological reasons people can change their attraction and it's still not bigotry
|
On March 11 2013 12:59 farvacola wrote:
I guess my point is that if I end up having sex with a transsexual woman without knowing it before hand, I would not treat her with disregard because she was a transsexual, but rather because she did not respect the idiosyncratic manner with which we as humans consider the notions of "identity" and "compassion" as they pertain to the performance of the mating ritual. In other words, I don't sleep around, and if I wanna have sex with a woman we are going to have gone past that point in a relationship during which knowledge of a sexual identity issue should already have come to surface. I'm shallow in some ways and simply picky in others, but do not already judge me a bigot for my sense of that which I will not do.
so what you are reacting to is her not realizing that you expected her to let you know? i don't think you and shira had an issue in the first place then, at least not with the clause "... gone past that point in a relationship". i'm not sure though, i am stretching my reading comprehension to its fullest.
|
On March 11 2013 13:02 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 12:41 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 12:31 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 12:13 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 12:11 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 12:08 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 12:05 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 11:59 shinosai wrote:On March 11 2013 11:56 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2013 11:30 shinosai wrote:
In response to the question: Is it bigoted to not want to have sex with a transsexual person?
It's not bigoted to not want to have sex with a particular transsexual person. It is bigoted to not want to engage in sexual relations because a person is transsexual. The reason it is both bigoted and transphobic is because it denies that transsexual women are actually women. Basically, when you say that you are a heterosexual male (ie. you are a guy that likes having sex with women), but you don't want to have sex with a transsexual woman, you're saying: I think transsexual women have some property or quality that differentiates them from cis women.
However, there is no property, attribute, or quality that could deny that a transsexual woman is a woman that does not invalidate cis women as well. XX chromosomes? Some cis women are born with irregular chromosomes. Ovaries? Hysterectomy. Vagina? Both trans and cis women have these. Being transsexual is not a physical property that some women have and some don't.
But what people actually mean when they say they don't want to have sex with a transsexual woman, I think, tends to be that they "used" to be a guy and this makes them uncomfortable. They mean that they don't view transsexual women as "real" women. But this is not much different than saying, "I don't want to date person xyz because they had z condition in the past" (where z could be anything from cancer, a job at walmart, or they used to be in a gay relationship).
It's okay if you don't want to have sex with transsexual women. They probably don't want to have sex with you, either. But I'm just pointing out that it is bigoted and transphobic to say this outloud, in the same way that it would be to say that you wouldn't have sex with a woman that used to work at walmart, with a woman that was in a gay relationship once a time, or with a woman that is black (but perhaps you didn't know she had african american ancestry until after you had sex).
No woman is obligated to share her medical or professional history with you prior to sex. Although I would recommend it, not for the sake of men who are offended by the idea of having sex with a transsexual, but for their own safety, as violence against trans women is a serious problem. Let me get this straight: You are saying that people are bigots (as in they treat a group with hatred and intolerance) if they do not want to have sex with that group? What about all those who do not want to have sex with obese people - does that make them bigots? You might be able to make an argument for superficial, but bigots?! Wauw. Well, yes, I am, but let me ask you something: Do you think it is not racist to say: "I don't want to date black women because they are black." ? Now, take a step back for a moment, and let's suppose you slept with some black lady that you did not know was black. Are you now allowed to claim that she "deceived" you because she did not tell you she was black? Would it be okay if a television show depicted a man vomiting after discovering the person he kissed was black? I feel like these situations are very similar. If that person was not attracted to black people is it racism then? How is it okay to say "I am not attracted to males/females (or both for some)" but not okay to say "I am not attracted to XXX"? Are all gays in fact sexist? It is racism because the person obviously is attracted to a black person. If they weren't, they wouldn't have had sex with them. You play the entrapment argument and now you back out of it saying that the person knew about it up front? Which is it you want to argue? And you have yet to answer me if homosexuals are sexist bigots when they dislike one gender. I'm not backing out. I'm saying that the person is obviously attracted to black women since they slept with one (even though they didn't know it). You can't claim that you aren't attracted to someone after the fact. That's ridiculous. And I did answer your question, read previous post. I might have some reading comprehension then, because I do not see the answer to whether or not homosexuals are in fact sexist. And yes I can claim that you lose attraction after the one-night stand - why do you think people have regrets the day after even when there are no surprises? Or people generally have more than one relationship in their lives? Or some people get divorced? If you are a psychopathic serial-killer and I only found out after we had sex I would also stop being attracted to you (please note that I do not think being trans-gendered is in any way a mental illness). People are attracted to the entire package of who you are - that is why people date - to figure out if you are compatible enough to have a future together. In some cases you can know about the dealbreakers up front: skin colour, obesity, eyecolour, haircolour, high/low stature - in other cases you can't. When you discover a dealbreaker it should be perfectly fine to say "this is not for me" without having to deal with someone calling you "a person who treats a group with hatred and intolerance". You have about as little control over what attracts you as you do over your sexuality (the two are obviously interlinked) or sensation of gender. Why is it you insist on calling one group bigots but not the rest? I'll do my best to answer this question one more time. I feel like you are conflating two completely different things when you say that I'm calling one group a bigot and not the rest. I'll try to be as clear as possible. First: Not being attracted to transgendered women is okay (even though I do not think this is possible without meeting EVERY transgendered woman in the world, whatever, I don't care). Not being attracted to black people is okay. Not being attracted to religious people is okay. Not being attracted to obese people is okay. Not being attracted to any group of people is perfectly okay. Not being attracted to guys is okay. What is NOT okay is when you ARE attracted to a particular person, then you find out a part of their history that has no realistic bearing on who they are as a person, and decide after the fact that you are not attracted to this person. What is NOT okay is deciding that you won't date a transgendered person because they "used" to be a guy. What is NOT okay is saying you won't date a person because they are transsexual. What IS okay is saying you met a particular transsexual and decided you did not want to pursue relations with them for whatever reason (maybe they have a penis, maybe they are a jerk, whatever - IT'S OKAY if you don't like them because of that). The fact is, and the argument I've been making: Transsexual is not a physical property that you can or cannot be attracted to. It's a part of a persons history that has NO relevance to who they are today. It's not like murder (people who have a criminal history often repeat them, I feel this is a disingenuous analogy). Again, with the black analogy. You found this black girl perfectly attractive, you liked her, you slept with her, then all of a sudden you're mad because you found out she's black and you're not attracted to black people. Newsflash, you are attracted to black people, you just have internalized racism. Same thing with transsexuals. Newsflash, you ARE attracted to transsexuals, you just have internalized transphobia. Firstly, it sounds like you are assuming that one can only be attracted to physical properties. Which is just completely wrong.. so when someone is not attracted to another because they used to be something, it is not bigotry. If i am deeply attracted to someone and then find out they used to be a drug dealer, I am no longer attracted. Probably not the best analogy but there are PLENTY intangible and even ideological reasons people can change their attraction and it's still not bigotry
See why the murder example is disingenuous.
It's bigotry because it's attached to transphobic beliefs, such as the belief that trans women aren't "real" women.
|
A person's past choices are crucial to understanding that person. The choices that go into SRS are huge and life-changing; to pretend that we should not consider them when evaluating potential mates... is extreme, to say the least.
On March 11 2013 13:07 shinosai wrote:
It's bigotry because it's attached to transphobic beliefs, such as the belief that trans women aren't "real" women.
I don't consider visibly Hispanic people to be white, or men shorter than 5'11 to be tall. Is this also bigotry? Am I bigoted if I do not adopt another person's choice of categories?
|
looks like everyone's a bigot in this thread rofl
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2013 13:20 Severedevil wrote:A person's past choices are crucial to understanding that person. The choices that go into SRS are huge and life-changing; to pretend that we should not consider them when evaluating potential mates... is extreme, to say the least. Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 13:07 shinosai wrote:
It's bigotry because it's attached to transphobic beliefs, such as the belief that trans women aren't "real" women. I don't consider visibly Hispanic people to be white, or men shorter than 5'11 to be tall. Is this also bigotry? Am I bigoted if I do not adopt another person's choice of categories?
it really has to do with a more sophisticated/caring understanding of gender as something that the other person feels strongly about and would like to reserve as a part of her identity.
in your hispanic situation, if you meet a person and have a good conversation, during which you hear that he considers himself hispanic because of his heritage and whatever, even though he looks white. then it would be very rude to say something like "but you are white!"
saying that would be doing violence to the other person's life
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
