|
On August 02 2013 03:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:20 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime 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. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape. lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans. It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred. And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole. Following your twisted logic, there is no trauma for a woman who's been raped by means of a rape pill, she doesn't even have any memory of the whole thing. You clearly have no idea of morality. Are you fucking dense?! Of course there's trauma there! She didn't give ANY consent. It's not just that trivial information was withheld from her, the ability to say yes or no AT ALL was withheld. Fuck off I'm not talking to you anymore. Trivial information. You're just not getting this. I keep saying it and you keep not getting this. Whether or not the information is trivial is not up to you to decide. It's that simple. This is why I keep saying what you're saying is rapey. You are saying "I don't like your criteria so I'm going to withhold the information you need to make the judgement you want." And what you keep failing to understand is that I'm not just inventing this criteria. It's trivial in terms of consequences. I'm more than willing to admit that it's non-trivial information for some people. But in that case it's their job to find out about it. If that means asking every woman they sleep with based on the tiny probability that they might be trans...that's their cross to bear. And we're back to the statistics. If we assume that 1 in 10,000 are trans, 1 in 3 are transphobic and each person has 9 partners then we had a 33% success rate through disclosure and a 0.03% success rate with asking first. We did this already. On a related note, trans issues in popular culture often focus around the homophobic bullying of the victim whose partner failed to disclose. Suggesting that it doesn't go beyond the individual and their issues is nonsense, you're exposing them to a huge amount of bullying, abuse and even physical violence.
Yeah, transphobia isn't very sexy. Doesn't change the fact that I think if they want to make it non-trivial information the onus is on them to discover it.
Oh and if we're talking about the trans woman as the subject of your stats here...women on average only have 4 partners.
|
On August 02 2013 03:28 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 03:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:20 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape. lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans. It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred. And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole. Following your twisted logic, there is no trauma for a woman who's been raped by means of a rape pill, she doesn't even have any memory of the whole thing. You clearly have no idea of morality. Are you fucking dense?! Of course there's trauma there! She didn't give ANY consent. It's not just that trivial information was withheld from her, the ability to say yes or no AT ALL was withheld. Fuck off I'm not talking to you anymore. Trivial information. You're just not getting this. I keep saying it and you keep not getting this. Whether or not the information is trivial is not up to you to decide. It's that simple. This is why I keep saying what you're saying is rapey. You are saying "I don't like your criteria so I'm going to withhold the information you need to make the judgement you want." And what you keep failing to understand is that I'm not just inventing this criteria. It's trivial in terms of consequences. I'm more than willing to admit that it's non-trivial information for some people. But in that case it's their job to find out about it. If that means asking every woman they sleep with based on the tiny probability that they might be trans...that's their cross to bear. You don't get to decide what is important for other people, that is the problem with this discussion. Just like when someone finds out they have slept with someone who was married and is upset about it. They weren't harmed directly, but they were lied to. They were not raped either.
Well just as long as its not rape, I guess its 100% ok. Glad to see we cleared that up. Remember, withholding information is totally ok as long as no one gets hurt and you get laid.
|
United States41976 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:27 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:23 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:15 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:08 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 03:02 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:58 Shiragaku wrote:
[quote]
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. Also I only used the word "bigot" because all of us started using the word transphobe. I think more as shorthand to describe someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people rather than any sort of actual label. I'm not interested in actually deciding whether someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people is a bigot in this discussion. And yeah, the emotional states of a stranger aren't a huge concern for me after a one night stand. I like to make sure they have fun cause...being good at sex is as much fun as having good sex, but I generally make it pretty clear that I'm hooking up to get my rocks off and that's it. If you want me to worry about your emotions we need to go on a date first. So your an ass hole, basiclly? You don't give a shit if someone gets hurt by your actions as long as you get what you want and they find out when you aren't around them? If I tell someone "I'm here to get my rocks off" and they're like "ok." And then after the fact they turn around and they're like "why don't you care about me more?!" seems like their problem. I made it very clear I wasn't there for a tea party. If they wanted more they probably should have passed on me. I pass on people when I'm looking for more and they can't give it to me. Doesn't make me an asshole, it just means I define what I expect to get out of a relationship or one night stand and I look for people who can give that to me. I expect everyone else to do the same. This isn't happening in a vacuum. Even while you do it you're still presenting yourself as a cis female. Is that any different than presenting yourself as affluent or, hell, prettier than you actually are by wearing nice clothes, hanging out in a dark bar, and buying expensive drinks? We all present ourselves as slightly different than we actually are when we try to get laid. Doesn't make it rape when the person then consents to have sex with us. When that thing that you think is just slightly different is a dealbreaker for the other party and you know it is a dealbreaker then yes, we're getting into rape territory. Their consent is not informed consent and you are actively denying them the information that they would need in order to make the decision that produces their desired outcome because you think you know better and think their criteria are bad. It's rapey. Again, yes, if you know it's a dealbreaker it's rapey. Quit acting like that's what I'm talking about. Even if it's "likely" a dealbreaker that doesn't change much. If it's likely enough that they have to ask the question with every single man they sleep with, then in practice you're asking them to just assume it's a dealbreaker with everyone. At some point they have to be allowed to assume "it's probably not a dealbreaker with this guy" and be allowed to withhold the information. Because if they have to disclose every single time because of the assumption that it's "likely" a deal breaker...we're just dealing with the first stupid scenario. In which case they just shouldn't have sex. At some point they have to be allowed to assume "it's probably not a dealbreaker with this guy" and be allowed to withhold the information. And if you're in a LGBT bar then you can assume. Or if you met them at a pro trans event you can assume. But if you met them as a complete stranger and 30% (hypothetical example) of complete strangers view it as a dealbreaker then you ought to disclose. If you met a complete stranger and you just wanted to have sex with her and that's what you got...then no I don't think she needs to run down a checklist of what are even your likely hangups. Complete stranger...one time thing...there's a shitton she's not gonna know about you. I mean, would you be expected to disclose if you had a smaller than average penis. That's a dealbreaker for a lot of women.
"want to have sex with her"
Pretty much the issue here. To them you're not a her but you presented yourself as one.
|
On August 02 2013 03:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:28 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 03:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:20 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
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. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape. lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans. It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred. And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole. Following your twisted logic, there is no trauma for a woman who's been raped by means of a rape pill, she doesn't even have any memory of the whole thing. You clearly have no idea of morality. Are you fucking dense?! Of course there's trauma there! She didn't give ANY consent. It's not just that trivial information was withheld from her, the ability to say yes or no AT ALL was withheld. Fuck off I'm not talking to you anymore. Trivial information. You're just not getting this. I keep saying it and you keep not getting this. Whether or not the information is trivial is not up to you to decide. It's that simple. This is why I keep saying what you're saying is rapey. You are saying "I don't like your criteria so I'm going to withhold the information you need to make the judgement you want." And what you keep failing to understand is that I'm not just inventing this criteria. It's trivial in terms of consequences. I'm more than willing to admit that it's non-trivial information for some people. But in that case it's their job to find out about it. If that means asking every woman they sleep with based on the tiny probability that they might be trans...that's their cross to bear. You don't get to decide what is important for other people, that is the problem with this discussion. Just like when someone finds out they have slept with someone who was married and is upset about it. They weren't harmed directly, but they were lied to. They were not raped either. Well just as long as its not rape, I guess its 100% ok. Glad to see we cleared that up. Remember, withholding information is totally ok as long as no one gets hurt and you get laid.
Thanks for drawing the absurd conclusion. Whether or not you're an asshole is up to you. But running around crying about how you were raped cause a woman withheld consequentially trivial information from you is dumb.
|
United States41976 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:31 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:28 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:20 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape. lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans. It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred. And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole. Following your twisted logic, there is no trauma for a woman who's been raped by means of a rape pill, she doesn't even have any memory of the whole thing. You clearly have no idea of morality. Are you fucking dense?! Of course there's trauma there! She didn't give ANY consent. It's not just that trivial information was withheld from her, the ability to say yes or no AT ALL was withheld. Fuck off I'm not talking to you anymore. Trivial information. You're just not getting this. I keep saying it and you keep not getting this. Whether or not the information is trivial is not up to you to decide. It's that simple. This is why I keep saying what you're saying is rapey. You are saying "I don't like your criteria so I'm going to withhold the information you need to make the judgement you want." And what you keep failing to understand is that I'm not just inventing this criteria. It's trivial in terms of consequences. I'm more than willing to admit that it's non-trivial information for some people. But in that case it's their job to find out about it. If that means asking every woman they sleep with based on the tiny probability that they might be trans...that's their cross to bear. And we're back to the statistics. If we assume that 1 in 10,000 are trans, 1 in 3 are transphobic and each person has 9 partners then we had a 33% success rate through disclosure and a 0.03% success rate with asking first. We did this already. On a related note, trans issues in popular culture often focus around the homophobic bullying of the victim whose partner failed to disclose. Suggesting that it doesn't go beyond the individual and their issues is nonsense, you're exposing them to a huge amount of bullying, abuse and even physical violence. Yeah, transphobia isn't very sexy. Doesn't change the fact that I think if they want to make it non-trivial information the onus is on them to discover it. Oh and if we're talking about the trans woman as the subject of your stats here...women on average only have 4 partners.
Okay, you really, really, REALLY need to get the money back from your statistics course.
You gave me the numbers on men and sexual partners that I used. You told me it was 9 each on average. You are now telling me that women have 4 each on average. And you have a degree in this. And you see no discrepancy there.
|
On August 02 2013 03:28 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:26 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 03:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:20 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape. lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans. It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred. And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole. Following your twisted logic, there is no trauma for a woman who's been raped by means of a rape pill, she doesn't even have any memory of the whole thing. You clearly have no idea of morality. Are you fucking dense?! Of course there's trauma there! She didn't give ANY consent. It's not just that trivial information was withheld from her, the ability to say yes or no AT ALL was withheld. Fuck off I'm not talking to you anymore. Trivial information. You're just not getting this. I keep saying it and you keep not getting this. Whether or not the information is trivial is not up to you to decide. It's that simple. This is why I keep saying what you're saying is rapey. You are saying "I don't like your criteria so I'm going to withhold the information you need to make the judgement you want." And what you keep failing to understand is that I'm not just inventing this criteria. It's trivial in terms of consequences. I'm more than willing to admit that it's non-trivial information for some people. But in that case it's their job to find out about it. If that means asking every woman they sleep with based on the tiny probability that they might be trans...that's their cross to bear. You don't get to decide what is important for other people, that is the problem with this discussion. Just like when someone finds out they have slept with someone who was married and is upset about it. They weren't harmed directly, but they were lied to. They were not raped either. I'm not deciding what's important for people. God Plansix now you're just being dense. I completely admitted in the very post you quoted that that information might be important to some people. But now knowing it doesn't mean they were raped.
I didn't say that, I said that its a really jerky thing to do and people should feel bad about doing it.
|
United States41976 Posts
Okay, let's try a new approach.
Knowing that transphobic bullying exists and that your vagina, while lovely, may condemn a man to a lifetime of abuse by his peers, is it moral to not inform him of the curse society has placed on your body before he enters it?
|
On August 02 2013 03:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:25 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 03:11 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:08 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 02:51 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:50 ComaDose wrote: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. be with someone like relationship? or like one night stand? "conceivably" seems a little loose. are we still using "reasonable to assume"? its unfortunate that one is labeled asshole by someone striving for a society where what they did is socially acceptable. Since you have now told me that you would not reject a trans woman for being trans and i conclusively know that it is not a deal breaker for you, would i still be obligated to tell you i was a trans person if i was and we were going to have sex? I don't one night stand really. I am still using conceivably to mean reasonable to assume. No, if we're having sex and you know that it's definitely not an issue for me because you follow my tl posts or whatever then you're not obligated to tell me because you don't need to find out my feelings on the matter and be considerate of them because you know my feelings on the matter. But if you did not know then I would want you to be considerate. neat. yeah i was oriented toward the extreme and seemingly most common case of taking someone home from the bar. what kind of affirmative action could be taken to avoid this dangerous uncomfortable and awkward side effect of protecting the very necessary right to make an informed consent as it is applied to people that hold views which negatively impact others and ultimately serve to keep us further from the global equal rights ideal? might as well ask people to question their fathers ideals >.< damn morally sanctioned majority prejudice Education and an end to "trap" jokes and "trap victim" ridicule in popular culture.
oh boy... this is going to take a while. they still make sexist jokes/serious female representations in popular culture. and women are half the population! not only that but it appears that when this is pointed out it invokes an angry response from the community often ironically and deplorably in the form of sexual assault. Yet there is active resistance to instating women studies courses at the nodes of all higher learning and education by those that consider themselves most learned.
I'm going to need to make a lot of pamphlets
|
On August 02 2013 02:58 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote: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.
How is that not rape? If you have sex with a prostitute and she consents on the premise that you pay up, then you proceed to have sex with her and refuse to pay, you basically raped her. How is that any different? Both are cases of deceiving other people into giving uninformed consent.
|
On August 02 2013 03:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:27 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:23 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:15 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:08 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 03:02 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Also I only used the word "bigot" because all of us started using the word transphobe. I think more as shorthand to describe someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people rather than any sort of actual label. I'm not interested in actually deciding whether someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people is a bigot in this discussion.
And yeah, the emotional states of a stranger aren't a huge concern for me after a one night stand. I like to make sure they have fun cause...being good at sex is as much fun as having good sex, but I generally make it pretty clear that I'm hooking up to get my rocks off and that's it. If you want me to worry about your emotions we need to go on a date first. So your an ass hole, basiclly? You don't give a shit if someone gets hurt by your actions as long as you get what you want and they find out when you aren't around them? If I tell someone "I'm here to get my rocks off" and they're like "ok." And then after the fact they turn around and they're like "why don't you care about me more?!" seems like their problem. I made it very clear I wasn't there for a tea party. If they wanted more they probably should have passed on me. I pass on people when I'm looking for more and they can't give it to me. Doesn't make me an asshole, it just means I define what I expect to get out of a relationship or one night stand and I look for people who can give that to me. I expect everyone else to do the same. This isn't happening in a vacuum. Even while you do it you're still presenting yourself as a cis female. Is that any different than presenting yourself as affluent or, hell, prettier than you actually are by wearing nice clothes, hanging out in a dark bar, and buying expensive drinks? We all present ourselves as slightly different than we actually are when we try to get laid. Doesn't make it rape when the person then consents to have sex with us. When that thing that you think is just slightly different is a dealbreaker for the other party and you know it is a dealbreaker then yes, we're getting into rape territory. Their consent is not informed consent and you are actively denying them the information that they would need in order to make the decision that produces their desired outcome because you think you know better and think their criteria are bad. It's rapey. Again, yes, if you know it's a dealbreaker it's rapey. Quit acting like that's what I'm talking about. Even if it's "likely" a dealbreaker that doesn't change much. If it's likely enough that they have to ask the question with every single man they sleep with, then in practice you're asking them to just assume it's a dealbreaker with everyone. At some point they have to be allowed to assume "it's probably not a dealbreaker with this guy" and be allowed to withhold the information. Because if they have to disclose every single time because of the assumption that it's "likely" a deal breaker...we're just dealing with the first stupid scenario. In which case they just shouldn't have sex. At some point they have to be allowed to assume "it's probably not a dealbreaker with this guy" and be allowed to withhold the information. And if you're in a LGBT bar then you can assume. Or if you met them at a pro trans event you can assume. But if you met them as a complete stranger and 30% (hypothetical example) of complete strangers view it as a dealbreaker then you ought to disclose. If you met a complete stranger and you just wanted to have sex with her and that's what you got...then no I don't think she needs to run down a checklist of what are even your likely hangups. Complete stranger...one time thing...there's a shitton she's not gonna know about you. I mean, would you be expected to disclose if you had a smaller than average penis. That's a dealbreaker for a lot of women. "want to have sex with her" Pretty much the issue here. To them you're not a her but you presented yourself as one.
That's their issue
|
On August 02 2013 03:23 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:20 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime 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. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape. lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans. It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred. And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole. Following your twisted logic, there is no trauma for a woman who's been raped by means of a rape pill, she doesn't even have any memory of the whole thing. You clearly have no idea of morality. Are you fucking dense?! Of course there's trauma there! She didn't give ANY consent. It's not just that trivial information was withheld from her, the ability to say yes or no AT ALL was withheld. Fuck off I'm not talking to you anymore. Trivial information. You're just not getting this. I keep saying it and you keep not getting this. Whether or not the information is trivial is not up to you to decide. It's that simple. This is why I keep saying what you're saying is rapey. You are saying "I don't like your criteria so I'm going to withhold the information you need to make the judgement you want." And what you keep failing to understand is that I'm not just inventing this criteria. It's trivial in terms of consequences. I'm more than willing to admit that it's non-trivial information for some people. But in that case it's their job to find out about it. If that means asking every woman they sleep with based on the tiny probability that they might be trans...that's their cross to bear.
Okay, so you think it's somehow better for people to interrogate every single sexual partner they have in the off chance that they're trans rather than have the trans person just say they're trans? How on earth is that better solution than the latter? We seriously wouldn't even be having this conversation if it were about any other things besides trans people. When someone could plausibly cause another person discomfort (and this is more than plausible, given the world we live in) by some trait about themselves/property/habits/whatever then it's general a matter of common decency to be upfront about it. Just because having sex with a trans person isn't in the same category as something with serious negative physical consequences (like contracting HIV) the emotional/mental well-being of people is absolutely important, and you don't get to tell them to change their habits of consent with respect to sex because you don't feel like it.
This is one of those situations in which it definitely sucks for a trans person to be in this kind of situation. But you know what? Sometimes (hell, usually) the right thing to do is inconvenient, and in many cases it can be downright embarrassing/shameful. But this notion that trans people are actually regularly getting assaulted when they tell some person at a bar that they've been chatting with that they're trans is absolutely absurd. First off, the easy solution is to bring this up sometime before you're in an isolated location and have already initiated physical contact, like, you know, before you agree to go home/to a hotel with some person. It's not rocket science, tbh. If someone is really going to attack you in the middle of a public restaurant/bar/club, they're going to get arrested pretty damn fast; assuming they're not complete idiots, they would probably just shake their heads, swallow whatever disgust they have at the situation, and leave you alone. They have nothing to gain from attacking you when all you did was talk to them.
|
On August 02 2013 03:37 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:58 Shiragaku wrote:On August 02 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote: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. How is that not rape? If you have sex with a prostitute and she consents on the premise that you pay up, then you proceed to have sex with her and refuse to pay, you basically raped her. How is that any different? Both are cases of deceiving other people into giving uninformed consent.
Its not rape, you were willing and didn't ask a lot of questions. The other one you just refused to pay, but the person was willing to have sex. At worst, its them being a bit of a jerk, but consent happen at the moment the act takes place. You can't have retroactive rape.
|
On August 02 2013 03:27 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:23 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:15 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:08 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 03:02 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:58 Shiragaku wrote:
[quote]
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. Also I only used the word "bigot" because all of us started using the word transphobe. I think more as shorthand to describe someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people rather than any sort of actual label. I'm not interested in actually deciding whether someone who doesn't want to have sex with trans people is a bigot in this discussion. And yeah, the emotional states of a stranger aren't a huge concern for me after a one night stand. I like to make sure they have fun cause...being good at sex is as much fun as having good sex, but I generally make it pretty clear that I'm hooking up to get my rocks off and that's it. If you want me to worry about your emotions we need to go on a date first. So your an ass hole, basiclly? You don't give a shit if someone gets hurt by your actions as long as you get what you want and they find out when you aren't around them? If I tell someone "I'm here to get my rocks off" and they're like "ok." And then after the fact they turn around and they're like "why don't you care about me more?!" seems like their problem. I made it very clear I wasn't there for a tea party. If they wanted more they probably should have passed on me. I pass on people when I'm looking for more and they can't give it to me. Doesn't make me an asshole, it just means I define what I expect to get out of a relationship or one night stand and I look for people who can give that to me. I expect everyone else to do the same. This isn't happening in a vacuum. Even while you do it you're still presenting yourself as a cis female. Is that any different than presenting yourself as affluent or, hell, prettier than you actually are by wearing nice clothes, hanging out in a dark bar, and buying expensive drinks? We all present ourselves as slightly different than we actually are when we try to get laid. Doesn't make it rape when the person then consents to have sex with us. When that thing that you think is just slightly different is a dealbreaker for the other party and you know it is a dealbreaker then yes, we're getting into rape territory. Their consent is not informed consent and you are actively denying them the information that they would need in order to make the decision that produces their desired outcome because you think you know better and think their criteria are bad. It's rapey. Again, yes, if you know it's a dealbreaker it's rapey. Quit acting like that's what I'm talking about. Even if it's "likely" a dealbreaker that doesn't change much. If it's likely enough that they have to ask the question with every single man they sleep with, then in practice you're asking them to just assume it's a dealbreaker with everyone. At some point they have to be allowed to assume "it's probably not a dealbreaker with this guy" and be allowed to withhold the information. Because if they have to disclose every single time because of the assumption that it's "likely" a deal breaker...we're just dealing with the first stupid scenario. In which case they just shouldn't have sex. At some point they have to be allowed to assume "it's probably not a dealbreaker with this guy" and be allowed to withhold the information. And if you're in a LGBT bar then you can assume. Or if you met them at a pro trans event you can assume. But if you met them as a complete stranger and 30% (hypothetical example) of complete strangers view it as a dealbreaker then you ought to disclose. If you met a complete stranger and you just wanted to have sex with her and that's what you got...then no I don't think she needs to run down a checklist of what are even your likely hangups. Complete stranger...one time thing...there's a shitton she's not gonna know about you. I mean, would you be expected to disclose if you had a smaller than average penis. That's a dealbreaker for a lot of women.
I think you would probably let her know if you had some sort of sexual habit that might weird some people out. It doesn't matter how benign it is. If it's something that a lot of people would consider a no-no, then you should talk about it. Yes, it will mean that you will have less sex. That's life.
On August 02 2013 03:38 Acer.Scarlett` wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:32 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:27 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:23 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:15 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:08 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
So your an ass hole, basiclly? You don't give a shit if someone gets hurt by your actions as long as you get what you want and they find out when you aren't around them? If I tell someone "I'm here to get my rocks off" and they're like "ok." And then after the fact they turn around and they're like "why don't you care about me more?!" seems like their problem. I made it very clear I wasn't there for a tea party. If they wanted more they probably should have passed on me. I pass on people when I'm looking for more and they can't give it to me. Doesn't make me an asshole, it just means I define what I expect to get out of a relationship or one night stand and I look for people who can give that to me. I expect everyone else to do the same. This isn't happening in a vacuum. Even while you do it you're still presenting yourself as a cis female. Is that any different than presenting yourself as affluent or, hell, prettier than you actually are by wearing nice clothes, hanging out in a dark bar, and buying expensive drinks? We all present ourselves as slightly different than we actually are when we try to get laid. Doesn't make it rape when the person then consents to have sex with us. When that thing that you think is just slightly different is a dealbreaker for the other party and you know it is a dealbreaker then yes, we're getting into rape territory. Their consent is not informed consent and you are actively denying them the information that they would need in order to make the decision that produces their desired outcome because you think you know better and think their criteria are bad. It's rapey. Again, yes, if you know it's a dealbreaker it's rapey. Quit acting like that's what I'm talking about. Even if it's "likely" a dealbreaker that doesn't change much. If it's likely enough that they have to ask the question with every single man they sleep with, then in practice you're asking them to just assume it's a dealbreaker with everyone. At some point they have to be allowed to assume "it's probably not a dealbreaker with this guy" and be allowed to withhold the information. Because if they have to disclose every single time because of the assumption that it's "likely" a deal breaker...we're just dealing with the first stupid scenario. In which case they just shouldn't have sex. At some point they have to be allowed to assume "it's probably not a dealbreaker with this guy" and be allowed to withhold the information. And if you're in a LGBT bar then you can assume. Or if you met them at a pro trans event you can assume. But if you met them as a complete stranger and 30% (hypothetical example) of complete strangers view it as a dealbreaker then you ought to disclose. If you met a complete stranger and you just wanted to have sex with her and that's what you got...then no I don't think she needs to run down a checklist of what are even your likely hangups. Complete stranger...one time thing...there's a shitton she's not gonna know about you. I mean, would you be expected to disclose if you had a smaller than average penis. That's a dealbreaker for a lot of women. "want to have sex with her" Pretty much the issue here. To them you're not a her but you presented yourself as one. That's their issue
If one has good reason to believe that they have this issue, then withholding the information is pretty deceptive. The fact is that, on average, a pretty significant number of people looking to hook up probably have this issue. It's not like this is some obscure, trivial preference that nobody actually cares about outside of some tiny club out in some random township. Whether it's because of ignorance or merely the product of preference, a lot of people don't want to have sexual intercourse with trans people. That is their right, and if one respects the right to personal autonomy, one should be considerate in this case, too.
|
On August 02 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:20 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime 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. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape. lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans. It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred. And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole. Following your twisted logic, there is no trauma for a woman who's been raped by means of a rape pill, she doesn't even have any memory of the whole thing. You clearly have no idea of morality. Are you fucking dense?! Of course there's trauma there! She didn't give ANY consent. It's not just that trivial information was withheld from her, the ability to say yes or no AT ALL was withheld. Fuck off I'm not talking to you anymore. Trivial information. You're just not getting this. I keep saying it and you keep not getting this. Whether or not the information is trivial is not up to you to decide. It's that simple. This is why I keep saying what you're saying is rapey. You are saying "I don't like your criteria so I'm going to withhold the information you need to make the judgement you want." And what you keep failing to understand is that I'm not just inventing this criteria. It's trivial in terms of consequences. I'm more than willing to admit that it's non-trivial information for some people. But in that case it's their job to find out about it. If that means asking every woman they sleep with based on the tiny probability that they might be trans...that's their cross to bear. Okay, so you think it's somehow better for people to interrogate every single sexual partner they have in the off chance that they're trans rather than have the trans person just say they're trans? How on earth is that better solution than the latter? We seriously wouldn't even be having this conversation if it were about any other things besides trans people. When someone could plausibly cause another person discomfort (and this is more than plausible, given the world we live in) by some trait about themselves/property/habits/whatever then it's general a matter of common decency to be upfront about it. Just because having sex with a trans person isn't in the same category as something with serious negative physical consequences (like contracting HIV) the emotional/mental well-being of people is absolutely important, and you don't get to tell them to change their habits of consent with respect to sex because you don't feel like it. This is one of those situations in which it definitely sucks for a trans person to be in this kind of situation. But you know what? Sometimes (hell, usually) the right thing to do is inconvenient, and in many cases it can be downright embarrassing/shameful. But this notion that trans people are actually regularly getting assaulted when they tell some person at a bar that they've been chatting with that they're trans is absolutely absurd. First off, the easy solution is to bring this up sometime before you're in an isolated location and have already initiated physical contact, like, you know, before you agree to go home/to a hotel with some person. It's not rocket science, tbh. If someone is really going to attack you in the middle of a public restaurant/bar/club, they're going to get arrested pretty damn fast; assuming they're not complete idiots, they would probably just shake their heads, swallow whatever disgust they have at the situation, and leave you alone. They have nothing to gain from attacking you when all you did was talk to them.
You're missing the fact of someone outing themselves and that information being spread. Again, just providing information and reading, I already know how I approach the issue IRL.
|
United States41976 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:38 Acer.Scarlett` wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:32 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:27 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:23 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:21 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:15 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:12 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:08 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
So your an ass hole, basiclly? You don't give a shit if someone gets hurt by your actions as long as you get what you want and they find out when you aren't around them? If I tell someone "I'm here to get my rocks off" and they're like "ok." And then after the fact they turn around and they're like "why don't you care about me more?!" seems like their problem. I made it very clear I wasn't there for a tea party. If they wanted more they probably should have passed on me. I pass on people when I'm looking for more and they can't give it to me. Doesn't make me an asshole, it just means I define what I expect to get out of a relationship or one night stand and I look for people who can give that to me. I expect everyone else to do the same. This isn't happening in a vacuum. Even while you do it you're still presenting yourself as a cis female. Is that any different than presenting yourself as affluent or, hell, prettier than you actually are by wearing nice clothes, hanging out in a dark bar, and buying expensive drinks? We all present ourselves as slightly different than we actually are when we try to get laid. Doesn't make it rape when the person then consents to have sex with us. When that thing that you think is just slightly different is a dealbreaker for the other party and you know it is a dealbreaker then yes, we're getting into rape territory. Their consent is not informed consent and you are actively denying them the information that they would need in order to make the decision that produces their desired outcome because you think you know better and think their criteria are bad. It's rapey. Again, yes, if you know it's a dealbreaker it's rapey. Quit acting like that's what I'm talking about. Even if it's "likely" a dealbreaker that doesn't change much. If it's likely enough that they have to ask the question with every single man they sleep with, then in practice you're asking them to just assume it's a dealbreaker with everyone. At some point they have to be allowed to assume "it's probably not a dealbreaker with this guy" and be allowed to withhold the information. Because if they have to disclose every single time because of the assumption that it's "likely" a deal breaker...we're just dealing with the first stupid scenario. In which case they just shouldn't have sex. At some point they have to be allowed to assume "it's probably not a dealbreaker with this guy" and be allowed to withhold the information. And if you're in a LGBT bar then you can assume. Or if you met them at a pro trans event you can assume. But if you met them as a complete stranger and 30% (hypothetical example) of complete strangers view it as a dealbreaker then you ought to disclose. If you met a complete stranger and you just wanted to have sex with her and that's what you got...then no I don't think she needs to run down a checklist of what are even your likely hangups. Complete stranger...one time thing...there's a shitton she's not gonna know about you. I mean, would you be expected to disclose if you had a smaller than average penis. That's a dealbreaker for a lot of women. "want to have sex with her" Pretty much the issue here. To them you're not a her but you presented yourself as one. That's their issue
Yes, it is. Their issue is that they consented to sex with a cis woman and instead ended up having sex with a trans woman. It's definitely them. Definitely their issue. Not entirely sure what your point is, all you have done is named the person to whom it is happening. That's not an argument, that is merely an identification.
|
On August 02 2013 03:05 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:00 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:57 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote: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. The rapist point was in response to you arguing that only physical consequences matter and that you can do whatever you want with a person sexually as long as they don't know. That even if they would never consent to sex with a trans woman and you knew that it didn't matter that you knew that their consent was not informed consent and that they didn't actually want to have sex with you because "fuck that guy". As long as they weren't physically damaged by your withholding then no harm done, whatever their feelings of violation etc might be. What you said in that particular post was really rapey and rode roughshod over the principles of consent. No. Rape can cause emotional damage as well. And I said several times if you knew they would never consent to sex with a trans person the trans person should back off. You're straw manning me here. We were talking about situations in which we weren't sure if the person would care or not. If you have no idea if the person cares or not, I don't think it's very pertinent information.
No, we're talking about a situation where it's VERY likely it's a deal breaker. And, no, you did not say in that case a transsexual should back off. Quite the contrary, for the past several pages you kept saying how you don't give a shit how a "bigot" feel afterwards if he finds out and how his emotions are of no concern of yours, and that he didn't suffer at all, anyway.
|
United States41976 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:42 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 03:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:20 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape. lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans. It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred. And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole. Following your twisted logic, there is no trauma for a woman who's been raped by means of a rape pill, she doesn't even have any memory of the whole thing. You clearly have no idea of morality. Are you fucking dense?! Of course there's trauma there! She didn't give ANY consent. It's not just that trivial information was withheld from her, the ability to say yes or no AT ALL was withheld. Fuck off I'm not talking to you anymore. Trivial information. You're just not getting this. I keep saying it and you keep not getting this. Whether or not the information is trivial is not up to you to decide. It's that simple. This is why I keep saying what you're saying is rapey. You are saying "I don't like your criteria so I'm going to withhold the information you need to make the judgement you want." And what you keep failing to understand is that I'm not just inventing this criteria. It's trivial in terms of consequences. I'm more than willing to admit that it's non-trivial information for some people. But in that case it's their job to find out about it. If that means asking every woman they sleep with based on the tiny probability that they might be trans...that's their cross to bear. Okay, so you think it's somehow better for people to interrogate every single sexual partner they have in the off chance that they're trans rather than have the trans person just say they're trans? How on earth is that better solution than the latter? We seriously wouldn't even be having this conversation if it were about any other things besides trans people. When someone could plausibly cause another person discomfort (and this is more than plausible, given the world we live in) by some trait about themselves/property/habits/whatever then it's general a matter of common decency to be upfront about it. Just because having sex with a trans person isn't in the same category as something with serious negative physical consequences (like contracting HIV) the emotional/mental well-being of people is absolutely important, and you don't get to tell them to change their habits of consent with respect to sex because you don't feel like it. This is one of those situations in which it definitely sucks for a trans person to be in this kind of situation. But you know what? Sometimes (hell, usually) the right thing to do is inconvenient, and in many cases it can be downright embarrassing/shameful. But this notion that trans people are actually regularly getting assaulted when they tell some person at a bar that they've been chatting with that they're trans is absolutely absurd. First off, the easy solution is to bring this up sometime before you're in an isolated location and have already initiated physical contact, like, you know, before you agree to go home/to a hotel with some person. It's not rocket science, tbh. If someone is really going to attack you in the middle of a public restaurant/bar/club, they're going to get arrested pretty damn fast; assuming they're not complete idiots, they would probably just shake their heads, swallow whatever disgust they have at the situation, and leave you alone. They have nothing to gain from attacking you when all you did was talk to them. You're missing the fact of someone outing themselves and that information being spread. Again, just providing information and reading, I already know how I approach the issue IRL.
A trans person is a trans person. Being outed as not being cis while not being cis is not the end of the world.
|
On August 02 2013 03:42 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 03:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:20 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape. lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans. It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred. And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole. Following your twisted logic, there is no trauma for a woman who's been raped by means of a rape pill, she doesn't even have any memory of the whole thing. You clearly have no idea of morality. Are you fucking dense?! Of course there's trauma there! She didn't give ANY consent. It's not just that trivial information was withheld from her, the ability to say yes or no AT ALL was withheld. Fuck off I'm not talking to you anymore. Trivial information. You're just not getting this. I keep saying it and you keep not getting this. Whether or not the information is trivial is not up to you to decide. It's that simple. This is why I keep saying what you're saying is rapey. You are saying "I don't like your criteria so I'm going to withhold the information you need to make the judgement you want." And what you keep failing to understand is that I'm not just inventing this criteria. It's trivial in terms of consequences. I'm more than willing to admit that it's non-trivial information for some people. But in that case it's their job to find out about it. If that means asking every woman they sleep with based on the tiny probability that they might be trans...that's their cross to bear. Okay, so you think it's somehow better for people to interrogate every single sexual partner they have in the off chance that they're trans rather than have the trans person just say they're trans? How on earth is that better solution than the latter? We seriously wouldn't even be having this conversation if it were about any other things besides trans people. When someone could plausibly cause another person discomfort (and this is more than plausible, given the world we live in) by some trait about themselves/property/habits/whatever then it's general a matter of common decency to be upfront about it. Just because having sex with a trans person isn't in the same category as something with serious negative physical consequences (like contracting HIV) the emotional/mental well-being of people is absolutely important, and you don't get to tell them to change their habits of consent with respect to sex because you don't feel like it. This is one of those situations in which it definitely sucks for a trans person to be in this kind of situation. But you know what? Sometimes (hell, usually) the right thing to do is inconvenient, and in many cases it can be downright embarrassing/shameful. But this notion that trans people are actually regularly getting assaulted when they tell some person at a bar that they've been chatting with that they're trans is absolutely absurd. First off, the easy solution is to bring this up sometime before you're in an isolated location and have already initiated physical contact, like, you know, before you agree to go home/to a hotel with some person. It's not rocket science, tbh. If someone is really going to attack you in the middle of a public restaurant/bar/club, they're going to get arrested pretty damn fast; assuming they're not complete idiots, they would probably just shake their heads, swallow whatever disgust they have at the situation, and leave you alone. They have nothing to gain from attacking you when all you did was talk to them. You're missing the fact of someone outing themselves and that information being spread. Again, just providing information and reading, I already know how I approach the issue IRL.
Well if you withhold the inforamtion and they find out later, you will have two sets of information being spread around that you didn't want in the first place. One that you are transgender and the other that you withheld the information to sleep with someone. Its not a fun position, but honesty seems like a better policy.
|
On August 02 2013 03:42 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 03:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:20 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:26 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape. lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans. It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred. And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole. Following your twisted logic, there is no trauma for a woman who's been raped by means of a rape pill, she doesn't even have any memory of the whole thing. You clearly have no idea of morality. Are you fucking dense?! Of course there's trauma there! She didn't give ANY consent. It's not just that trivial information was withheld from her, the ability to say yes or no AT ALL was withheld. Fuck off I'm not talking to you anymore. Trivial information. You're just not getting this. I keep saying it and you keep not getting this. Whether or not the information is trivial is not up to you to decide. It's that simple. This is why I keep saying what you're saying is rapey. You are saying "I don't like your criteria so I'm going to withhold the information you need to make the judgement you want." And what you keep failing to understand is that I'm not just inventing this criteria. It's trivial in terms of consequences. I'm more than willing to admit that it's non-trivial information for some people. But in that case it's their job to find out about it. If that means asking every woman they sleep with based on the tiny probability that they might be trans...that's their cross to bear. Okay, so you think it's somehow better for people to interrogate every single sexual partner they have in the off chance that they're trans rather than have the trans person just say they're trans? How on earth is that better solution than the latter? We seriously wouldn't even be having this conversation if it were about any other things besides trans people. When someone could plausibly cause another person discomfort (and this is more than plausible, given the world we live in) by some trait about themselves/property/habits/whatever then it's general a matter of common decency to be upfront about it. Just because having sex with a trans person isn't in the same category as something with serious negative physical consequences (like contracting HIV) the emotional/mental well-being of people is absolutely important, and you don't get to tell them to change their habits of consent with respect to sex because you don't feel like it. This is one of those situations in which it definitely sucks for a trans person to be in this kind of situation. But you know what? Sometimes (hell, usually) the right thing to do is inconvenient, and in many cases it can be downright embarrassing/shameful. But this notion that trans people are actually regularly getting assaulted when they tell some person at a bar that they've been chatting with that they're trans is absolutely absurd. First off, the easy solution is to bring this up sometime before you're in an isolated location and have already initiated physical contact, like, you know, before you agree to go home/to a hotel with some person. It's not rocket science, tbh. If someone is really going to attack you in the middle of a public restaurant/bar/club, they're going to get arrested pretty damn fast; assuming they're not complete idiots, they would probably just shake their heads, swallow whatever disgust they have at the situation, and leave you alone. They have nothing to gain from attacking you when all you did was talk to them. You're missing the fact of someone outing themselves and that information being spread. Again, just providing information and reading, I already know how I approach the issue IRL.
Do you not see how trying to put a damper on being outed/having information as to one being trans perpetuates prejudiced attitudes against trans people? I'm not saying that it's easy or comfortable to be open about one's trans status, but it's definitely better for the world in general, because it sheds light on where the real transphobic problems are: in the people who actually refuse to hire, work with, respect, vote for, or talk to trans people. The people who don't want to have sex with trans people aren't the problem. At most, some of them are a symptom of some of the problems. Being open about being trans is pretty much step one in trans status being accepted in society.
|
On August 02 2013 03:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:42 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 02 2013 03:39 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 03:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:20 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:17 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:16 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 03:13 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:10 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 02:29 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
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. It has consequences - in form of serious trauma. Stop ignoring that. Your stupid logic justifies rape. lol serious trauma. No. There's no trauma that results from having sex with a trans person no matter how averse to them you are. Especially if you didn't no they were trans. It might make you uncomfortable. It might even make you disgusted. But you will not be permanently emotionally scarred. And we've pretty clearly moved on from the rape thing. No, my logic doesn't justify rape. At worst it justifies being kinda an asshole. Following your twisted logic, there is no trauma for a woman who's been raped by means of a rape pill, she doesn't even have any memory of the whole thing. You clearly have no idea of morality. Are you fucking dense?! Of course there's trauma there! She didn't give ANY consent. It's not just that trivial information was withheld from her, the ability to say yes or no AT ALL was withheld. Fuck off I'm not talking to you anymore. Trivial information. You're just not getting this. I keep saying it and you keep not getting this. Whether or not the information is trivial is not up to you to decide. It's that simple. This is why I keep saying what you're saying is rapey. You are saying "I don't like your criteria so I'm going to withhold the information you need to make the judgement you want." And what you keep failing to understand is that I'm not just inventing this criteria. It's trivial in terms of consequences. I'm more than willing to admit that it's non-trivial information for some people. But in that case it's their job to find out about it. If that means asking every woman they sleep with based on the tiny probability that they might be trans...that's their cross to bear. Okay, so you think it's somehow better for people to interrogate every single sexual partner they have in the off chance that they're trans rather than have the trans person just say they're trans? How on earth is that better solution than the latter? We seriously wouldn't even be having this conversation if it were about any other things besides trans people. When someone could plausibly cause another person discomfort (and this is more than plausible, given the world we live in) by some trait about themselves/property/habits/whatever then it's general a matter of common decency to be upfront about it. Just because having sex with a trans person isn't in the same category as something with serious negative physical consequences (like contracting HIV) the emotional/mental well-being of people is absolutely important, and you don't get to tell them to change their habits of consent with respect to sex because you don't feel like it. This is one of those situations in which it definitely sucks for a trans person to be in this kind of situation. But you know what? Sometimes (hell, usually) the right thing to do is inconvenient, and in many cases it can be downright embarrassing/shameful. But this notion that trans people are actually regularly getting assaulted when they tell some person at a bar that they've been chatting with that they're trans is absolutely absurd. First off, the easy solution is to bring this up sometime before you're in an isolated location and have already initiated physical contact, like, you know, before you agree to go home/to a hotel with some person. It's not rocket science, tbh. If someone is really going to attack you in the middle of a public restaurant/bar/club, they're going to get arrested pretty damn fast; assuming they're not complete idiots, they would probably just shake their heads, swallow whatever disgust they have at the situation, and leave you alone. They have nothing to gain from attacking you when all you did was talk to them. You're missing the fact of someone outing themselves and that information being spread. Again, just providing information and reading, I already know how I approach the issue IRL. A trans person is a trans person. Being outed as not being cis while not being cis is not the end of the world.
Try telling that to employers/collegues/bullys etc. Being outed when you've passed fine for a long time can cause life changing damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
