|
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.
If we're actually gonna get into whether or not you really think it's a her. I'm assuming you don't get boners for guys just like I don't get boners for girls.
I totally understand this line of thought gets...weird so I'm more putting it out there to flesh out and possibly tear down. I'm only very tenuously asserting anything here.
If you look at a woman, buckass naked, and you get a boner because you are a heterosexual man, do you really think it's a guy? It's just one of those instances where I'm not really sure what you say and what you obviously think are the same thing.
The people who actually think trans women are men might scream "it's a dude!" till they're hoarse, but absolutely nothing about their actions backs that up. So how seriously are we supposed to take than hangup, given that no one can actually fuck the gender to which they are not attracted.
|
On August 02 2013 03:45 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:44 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
That's a problem with the employers/colleagues/bullies. Focus on eliminating those people, not enabling them to exist by hiding.
|
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
I understand your position, but I feel like your view is very unrealistic. It doesn't account for how widespread the stigma against transgender people really is. The odds are very high that they wouldn't be comfortable, given proper knowledge. You can't just wish the world were different, act as if it were, and feel good about it. You're being deceptive and you're pretending everyone is just as forward thinking as you are. Its simply not the case.
I'd imagine that if there was someone you wanted to bang, but you knew they weren't comfortable with a transgender person, you wouldn't pursue them. However, in the absence of information, is it really appropriate to assume they would be comfortable with it? Statistics would say otherwise, so why is it appropriate to assume transgender is acceptable to this person? By all indications, the odds are heavily in favor of a guy being uncomfortable having sex with a transgender woman. But you go into a situation assuming they are comfortable? It makes no sense. You can't just pretend the world is as liberated as you wish they were. Its still deception.
I'm not saying your situation is fair, reasonable, or anything else. But it doesn't mean its justified to bend morality this way or that way in resentment of people's prejudice. They are still people.
|
United States41974 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:45 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:44 KwarK wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Which sucks. You're caught between a rock and a hard place then. On the one hand you don't want to be outed but on the other hand your circle of sexual partners is massively diminished, pretty much just to people you know you can trust. It sucks. I have no solutions for you.
|
On August 02 2013 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:05 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:03 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:53 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:48 heliusx wrote:On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:16 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
So, in civil court there's something called reasonable cost of avoidance. We expect problems to be avoided by people for whom the cost is least and the consequences are greatest. So, if you built your house on a runway and it got run over by a plane (yes this was an actual example in the textbook I used in Law and Economics), we'd say you were the problem because it's really damn easy to get off the runway and the cost of not doing so was to lose your house. The airline really isn't at fault because the cost of not landing on the runway is very high and the damage to a plane is relatively small (the house is made of cardboard btw).
So, the cost of admitting you're trans is really quite high. It carries a great amount of risk and social backlash, but the consequences of actually being trans are extremely low for a one night stand (there are none). However, for the partner, the cost of discovering if the person is trans is very low, you merely need ask. And the consequences of sleeping with a trans person are very serious for you...cause they're icky I guess. So we would say it is the most efficient solution for the partner to ask. It more in their interest to ask and they can do so at lower cost. You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this. The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person. You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid. So basically fuck everyone else so you don't have to deal with your problems? Rather, everyone else should deal with their own shit. If they don't like trans people, they can do the work to avoid them. It's not a trans persons job to help them and it's certainly not my job to care about their shit. Except when you are being oppressed, then we should stand with you because its the right thing to do, not because it directly effects us. Not at all. In this case the person who's a transphobe is being a bigot. He's the "oppressor." And sure, we grant that he has the right to be a transphobe. But bigots can do their own work. Why are we making it easier? Oppression actually happens when people go out of their way to harm you when you have done nothing. You stand against that because there's no reason to think oppressors won't eventually turn on you. So you nip it in the bud. So if I find out someone I am going to sleep with is trans and I am uncomfortable with that, I am a bigot? I don't know what you are but we've all been using the term "transphobe" for a while. Transphobes are bigots. You've acted like a huge asshole and bigot the past dozen or so pages, so maybe you should withhold your judgement... Anyway, according to your twisted logic raping a woman by means of a rape pill is a non-issue as long as you don't infect her with an STD and are gentle about it. I don't think anyone would consider you a moral authority, so keep your opinions to yourself.
Just because you think its rape to have sex with a trans woman unknowingly doesnt make it rape. We have laws thag define rape. Stop calling it rape when its not. Thats like saying that i have been raped because i slept with a woman who lost all her hair and used a wig because i find bald people not sexually attractive.
|
On August 02 2013 03:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:31 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[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. 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.
No no, I was confused about who the subject of your scenario is. Men on average have 9 sexual partners. If we're talking about the number of partners a trans woman has on average..it's closer to 4 or 5. Not really slamming the math of the scenario, I don't actually even think it changes. Just making the correction.
|
United States41974 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:46 Klondikebar 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. If we're actually gonna get into whether or not you really think it's a her. I'm assuming you don't get boners for guys just like I don't get boners for girls. I totally understand this line of thought gets...weird so I'm more putting it out there to flesh out and possibly tear down. I'm only very tenuously asserting anything here. If you look at a woman, buckass naked, and you get a boner because you are a heterosexual man, do you really think it's a guy? It's just one of those instances where I'm not really sure what you say and what you obviously think are the same thing. The people who actually think trans women are men might scream "it's a dude!" till they're hoarse, but absolutely nothing about their actions backs that up. So how seriously are we supposed to take than hangup, given that no one can actually fuck the gender to which they are not attracted.
I'm not sure I understand your point. I think transphobic people believe you tricked their arousal out of them with your cunningly disguised inside out penis.
|
On August 02 2013 03:44 Shiori 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. 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.
Trans people, for the most part, don't want to be trans people and so will take every opportunity to be another face in the crowd that is just seen as they would prefer. I therefore don't think that trans people are required to be out to society after they've transitioned in order for society to not be prejudice and asking otherwise is to essentially segregate trans people in to a third or fourth gender and that's not the point of transitioning.
Also, my post was really just for information. I'm out to all my friends and any potential sexual partner because I think it's the right thing to do, but that's not to say for a moment I disagree with the majority who aren't out to their friends and who may not tell partners.
|
On August 02 2013 03:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:38 Acer.Scarlett` wrote: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:
[quote]
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 I understand your position, but I feel like your view is very unrealistic. It doesn't account for how widespread the stigma against transgender people really is. The odds are very high that they wouldn't be comfortable, given proper knowledge. You can't just wish the world were different, act as if it were, and feel good about it. You're being deceptive and you're pretending everyone is just as forward thinking as you are. Its simply not the case. I'd imagine that if there was someone you wanted to bang, but you knew they weren't comfortable with a transgender person, you wouldn't pursue them. However, in the absence of information, is it really appropriate to assume they would be comfortable with it? Statistics would say otherwise, so why is it appropriate to assume transgender is acceptable to this person? By all indications, the odds are heavily in favor of a guy being uncomfortable having sex with a transgender woman. But you go into a situation assuming they are comfortable? It makes no sense. You can't just pretend the world is as liberated as you wish they were. Its still deception. I'm not saying your situation is fair, reasonable, or anything else. But it doesn't mean its justified to bend morality this way or that way in resentment of people's prejudice. They are still people.
Well no, but you don't get to run around crying rape and deceit because of a hangup you created based on your own misunderstanding.
|
On August 02 2013 03:48 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 02:05 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:03 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:53 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:48 heliusx wrote:On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this.
The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person.
You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid. So basically fuck everyone else so you don't have to deal with your problems? Rather, everyone else should deal with their own shit. If they don't like trans people, they can do the work to avoid them. It's not a trans persons job to help them and it's certainly not my job to care about their shit. Except when you are being oppressed, then we should stand with you because its the right thing to do, not because it directly effects us. Not at all. In this case the person who's a transphobe is being a bigot. He's the "oppressor." And sure, we grant that he has the right to be a transphobe. But bigots can do their own work. Why are we making it easier? Oppression actually happens when people go out of their way to harm you when you have done nothing. You stand against that because there's no reason to think oppressors won't eventually turn on you. So you nip it in the bud. So if I find out someone I am going to sleep with is trans and I am uncomfortable with that, I am a bigot? I don't know what you are but we've all been using the term "transphobe" for a while. Transphobes are bigots. You've acted like a huge asshole and bigot the past dozen or so pages, so maybe you should withhold your judgement... Anyway, according to your twisted logic raping a woman by means of a rape pill is a non-issue as long as you don't infect her with an STD and are gentle about it. I don't think anyone would consider you a moral authority, so keep your opinions to yourself. Just because you think its rape to have sex with a trans woman unknowingly doesnt make it rape. We have laws thag define rape. Stop calling it rape when its not. Thats like saying that i have been raped because i slept with a woman who lost all her hair and used a wig because i find bald people not sexually attractive.
Making a person have sex with you they did not give consent to is rape. Just because you have no regard for those people and want to use them as sex toys, apparently, does not make it not rape.
|
United States41974 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:48 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 02:05 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:03 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:58 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:56 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 01:53 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:48 heliusx wrote:On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this.
The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person.
You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid. So basically fuck everyone else so you don't have to deal with your problems? Rather, everyone else should deal with their own shit. If they don't like trans people, they can do the work to avoid them. It's not a trans persons job to help them and it's certainly not my job to care about their shit. Except when you are being oppressed, then we should stand with you because its the right thing to do, not because it directly effects us. Not at all. In this case the person who's a transphobe is being a bigot. He's the "oppressor." And sure, we grant that he has the right to be a transphobe. But bigots can do their own work. Why are we making it easier? Oppression actually happens when people go out of their way to harm you when you have done nothing. You stand against that because there's no reason to think oppressors won't eventually turn on you. So you nip it in the bud. So if I find out someone I am going to sleep with is trans and I am uncomfortable with that, I am a bigot? I don't know what you are but we've all been using the term "transphobe" for a while. Transphobes are bigots. You've acted like a huge asshole and bigot the past dozen or so pages, so maybe you should withhold your judgement... Anyway, according to your twisted logic raping a woman by means of a rape pill is a non-issue as long as you don't infect her with an STD and are gentle about it. I don't think anyone would consider you a moral authority, so keep your opinions to yourself. Just because you think its rape to have sex with a trans woman unknowingly doesnt make it rape. We have laws thag define rape. Stop calling it rape when its not. Thats like saying that i have been raped because i slept with a woman who lost all her hair and used a wig because i find bald people not sexually attractive.
I don't think anyone is arguing that trans people be arrested for not disclosing. The argument I am making is that if you believe information is relevant to consent then there is a moral obligation to disclose it to enable the person to make the decision they would want. Trying to turn that moral principle into a law would be a nightmare, it's just an ideal rather than a legal framework. Basically if you know someone wouldn't want to engage in a sexual act then doing it with them because they don't know according to their limited information is rapey.
|
On August 02 2013 03:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:46 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If we're actually gonna get into whether or not you really think it's a her. I'm assuming you don't get boners for guys just like I don't get boners for girls. I totally understand this line of thought gets...weird so I'm more putting it out there to flesh out and possibly tear down. I'm only very tenuously asserting anything here. If you look at a woman, buckass naked, and you get a boner because you are a heterosexual man, do you really think it's a guy? It's just one of those instances where I'm not really sure what you say and what you obviously think are the same thing. The people who actually think trans women are men might scream "it's a dude!" till they're hoarse, but absolutely nothing about their actions backs that up. So how seriously are we supposed to take than hangup, given that no one can actually fuck the gender to which they are not attracted. I'm not sure I understand your point. I think transphobic people believe you tricked their arousal out of them with your cunningly disguised inside out penis.
But you can't "trick" arousal out of someone. If that were possible I would have fucked the entire football team in college. Arousal is completely internally driven. They may believe they were tricked, but that's absolutely ludicrous so how seriously are we really supposed to take them?
|
On August 02 2013 02:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:14 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:08 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:56 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:51 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:38 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:16 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
So, in civil court there's something called reasonable cost of avoidance. We expect problems to be avoided by people for whom the cost is least and the consequences are greatest. So, if you built your house on a runway and it got run over by a plane (yes this was an actual example in the textbook I used in Law and Economics), we'd say you were the problem because it's really damn easy to get off the runway and the cost of not doing so was to lose your house. The airline really isn't at fault because the cost of not landing on the runway is very high and the damage to a plane is relatively small (the house is made of cardboard btw).
So, the cost of admitting you're trans is really quite high. It carries a great amount of risk and social backlash, but the consequences of actually being trans are extremely low for a one night stand (there are none). However, for the partner, the cost of discovering if the person is trans is very low, you merely need ask. And the consequences of sleeping with a trans person are very serious for you...cause they're icky I guess. So we would say it is the most efficient solution for the partner to ask. It more in their interest to ask and they can do so at lower cost. You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this. The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person. You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid. Statistically yes, he does have thousands. You're a huge minority. Most men won't ever be in this situation, there are thousands of encounters in which it doesn't happen to every one that it does. You're still, still failing to understand the numbers. Going "one man can't have that much sex" isn't getting it. You need to learn how to do statistics because you're just not understanding this. Your solution requires every transphobic person to ask every time, the thousands to one ratio will be accurate. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19374216/ns/health-sexual_health/t/new-survey-tells-how-much-sex-were-having/#.UfqRq43ksechttp://www.nbcnews.com/id/19374216/ns/health-sexual_health/t/new-survey-tells-how-much-sex-were-having/#.UfqRq43ksecThe people having tons of sex are outliers themselves. The average man will have about 9 sexual partners in his lifetime. I can do statistics buddy. My degree is in it. He asks that question 9 times. Not thousands of times. He can ask that question 9 times with very little effort. Really this whole discussion is probably completely moot because the probability that a man will both hookup with a woman and that she will be trans is close to zero. You need to ask for your money back on that statistics course. It doesn't matter if each man only has sex 9 times, that doesn't change the ratio in the slightest. Your solution involves thousands of men asking thousands of cis women if they were born a man without ever running into a trans woman just so when one of them finally does she can disclose anyway. The thousands to one ratio works regardless of how often a given man has sex. It doesn't depend upon each and every man having sex with so many people that he eventually has sex with a trans person. No. We are talking about about two people in a bedroom. One man asks about 9 women. We've made it very clear that these hangups are personal. We're talking about individuals here. If you want statistics to matter then this whole discussion is stupid because a man will never even have sex with a trans woman. You might as well ask how you ought to greet a unicorn. You really, really need to get your money back on that statistics course. Also reconsider purchasing any magic beans in the future. Firstly, the unicorn argument doesn't work. These events aren't some completely random occurrence that it's not worth worrying about. These events, in which one or more transgender person have sex, generally happen in close proximity to people who are transgender. Therefore, assuming a 25% transphobe rate, a disclosure policy based around the trans person being responsible would actually have a 25% success rate. Which is actually higher than the incidence of unicorns. The only time the incredible unlikeliness of the scenario comes into play is when the unlikeliness of a given person being trans is a factor at which point yes, it becomes absurd. But wait, your solution was that the people who aren't trans have the responsibility. At which point yes, it becomes absurd. Your point is absurd. Yeah, it is ridiculously absurd to have sleeping with a completely passable trans person as a hangup. It's not going to happen to you and even if it does you won't be able to identify it. So if you're gonna be the paranoid freak who worries about nothing, it's your job to avoid...nothing. You don't get to make decisions about whether other peoples' criteria for sexual consent are acceptable. It's not up to you. Jesus. How are you not getting this? It doesn't matter if you find their criteria absurd, you still don't get to ignore their consent.
You never answered my question about a woman who had a horrible medical deformity and had surgery to fix.and cover it up. Should she be forced to tell her partners about it? You realize that "most" men want a real biological vagina? Are you saying that woman would be having sex with them without their consent considering she could reasonably assume they wouldnt want to have sex with her due to her reconstructed, skin grafted vagina?
|
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.
As trivial as a heterosexual woman getting raped by a gentle man.
|
On August 02 2013 03:53 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:50 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:46 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If we're actually gonna get into whether or not you really think it's a her. I'm assuming you don't get boners for guys just like I don't get boners for girls. I totally understand this line of thought gets...weird so I'm more putting it out there to flesh out and possibly tear down. I'm only very tenuously asserting anything here. If you look at a woman, buckass naked, and you get a boner because you are a heterosexual man, do you really think it's a guy? It's just one of those instances where I'm not really sure what you say and what you obviously think are the same thing. The people who actually think trans women are men might scream "it's a dude!" till they're hoarse, but absolutely nothing about their actions backs that up. So how seriously are we supposed to take than hangup, given that no one can actually fuck the gender to which they are not attracted. I'm not sure I understand your point. I think transphobic people believe you tricked their arousal out of them with your cunningly disguised inside out penis. But you can't "trick" arousal out of someone. If that were possible I would have fucked the entire football team in college. Arousal is completely internally driven. They may believe they were tricked, but that's absolutely ludicrous so how seriously are we really supposed to take them?
You totally can trick arousal out of people. If you couldn't, men couldn't be raped. And to be very clear, they can.
|
On August 02 2013 02:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +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. Are the strangers bigots if they are upset if they find out that they slept with a transgender and didn't know?
Yep. They would be. Why are sexual proclivities the holy grail that cannot be criticised based on prejudice while everything else can be criticized? Of course.you have UNFAIR and irrational prejudice if you become upset after sleeping with a trans woman. Only you can decide if you are ok with having that prejudice. Just dont freak out and get defensive when people call a spade a spade.
|
On August 02 2013 03:54 maybenexttime 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. As trivial as a heterosexual woman getting raped by a gentle man.
Holy shit, knock that off. Even I am getting tired of your dump comments. Its not rape. Its just an asshole move.
|
United States41974 Posts
On August 02 2013 03:53 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 02:23 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:14 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:08 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:03 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:56 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:51 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:38 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 01:32 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 01:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You've constructed a scenario in which the transphobe and the trans person are going to have sex and they ask. You're still not getting the numbers aspect of this.
The correct cost analysis is that the transphobe asked every encounter, despite a very, very low chance of his partner being trans and a fairly high cost in never getting laid due to continually asking his partners if they were born a man. Presenting it as a simple question ignores the numbers, it is not a single question, it is thousands of questions, the vast majority of them ending in angry exchanges, in order to cover himself in the very unlikely situation that he ends up with a trans person.
You keep forgetting the numbers. The transphobe really has thousands of sexual partners? It's really thousands of questions for him? Even the sluttiest dude doesn't have sex that much. And a dude who is incredibly slutty, will no doubt have partners that violate some of his hangups (if he even has them which is doubtful) because he doesn't expect people to divulge information not relevant to his penis for a one night stand. A couple of blue balled nights does NOT compare to the social cost of being open about being trans. Any realistic number of times asking that question will be small potatoes compared to the pain a trans person endures for admitting they are trans. And if the question ends in an angry exchange...that should say something. If tons and tons of people feel that "are you trans?" is an offensive question, maybe the transphobe should just keep that to himself and not have sex if he's so worried about it. If your hangups piss people off, then maybe your just an asshole who can't get laid. Statistically yes, he does have thousands. You're a huge minority. Most men won't ever be in this situation, there are thousands of encounters in which it doesn't happen to every one that it does. You're still, still failing to understand the numbers. Going "one man can't have that much sex" isn't getting it. You need to learn how to do statistics because you're just not understanding this. Your solution requires every transphobic person to ask every time, the thousands to one ratio will be accurate. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19374216/ns/health-sexual_health/t/new-survey-tells-how-much-sex-were-having/#.UfqRq43ksechttp://www.nbcnews.com/id/19374216/ns/health-sexual_health/t/new-survey-tells-how-much-sex-were-having/#.UfqRq43ksecThe people having tons of sex are outliers themselves. The average man will have about 9 sexual partners in his lifetime. I can do statistics buddy. My degree is in it. He asks that question 9 times. Not thousands of times. He can ask that question 9 times with very little effort. Really this whole discussion is probably completely moot because the probability that a man will both hookup with a woman and that she will be trans is close to zero. You need to ask for your money back on that statistics course. It doesn't matter if each man only has sex 9 times, that doesn't change the ratio in the slightest. Your solution involves thousands of men asking thousands of cis women if they were born a man without ever running into a trans woman just so when one of them finally does she can disclose anyway. The thousands to one ratio works regardless of how often a given man has sex. It doesn't depend upon each and every man having sex with so many people that he eventually has sex with a trans person. No. We are talking about about two people in a bedroom. One man asks about 9 women. We've made it very clear that these hangups are personal. We're talking about individuals here. If you want statistics to matter then this whole discussion is stupid because a man will never even have sex with a trans woman. You might as well ask how you ought to greet a unicorn. You really, really need to get your money back on that statistics course. Also reconsider purchasing any magic beans in the future. Firstly, the unicorn argument doesn't work. These events aren't some completely random occurrence that it's not worth worrying about. These events, in which one or more transgender person have sex, generally happen in close proximity to people who are transgender. Therefore, assuming a 25% transphobe rate, a disclosure policy based around the trans person being responsible would actually have a 25% success rate. Which is actually higher than the incidence of unicorns. The only time the incredible unlikeliness of the scenario comes into play is when the unlikeliness of a given person being trans is a factor at which point yes, it becomes absurd. But wait, your solution was that the people who aren't trans have the responsibility. At which point yes, it becomes absurd. Your point is absurd. Yeah, it is ridiculously absurd to have sleeping with a completely passable trans person as a hangup. It's not going to happen to you and even if it does you won't be able to identify it. So if you're gonna be the paranoid freak who worries about nothing, it's your job to avoid...nothing. You don't get to make decisions about whether other peoples' criteria for sexual consent are acceptable. It's not up to you. Jesus. How are you not getting this? It doesn't matter if you find their criteria absurd, you still don't get to ignore their consent. You never answered my question about a woman who had a horrible medical deformity and had surgery to fix.and cover it up. Should she be forced to tell her partners about it? You realize that "most" men want a real biological vagina? Are you saying that woman would be having sex with them without their consent considering she could reasonably assume they wouldnt want to have sex with her due to her reconstructed, skin grafted vagina?
I don't believe most men do place that much value on a vagina being as God intended. We're talking about a gender who will stick their penis in pretty much any hole it'll fit in. In a strange world where prospective partners did conceivably care about it then she should disclose.
I assume you're going down the "how is a penis any different from any other deformity on a woman that can be surgically fixed line" here and that requires me to defend and explain exactly why transphobic people are transphobic. I can't explain that. But that doesn't change whether or not they have the right to choose their partners by any criteria they want.
|
On August 02 2013 03:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 03:53 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 03:50 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:46 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. If we're actually gonna get into whether or not you really think it's a her. I'm assuming you don't get boners for guys just like I don't get boners for girls. I totally understand this line of thought gets...weird so I'm more putting it out there to flesh out and possibly tear down. I'm only very tenuously asserting anything here. If you look at a woman, buckass naked, and you get a boner because you are a heterosexual man, do you really think it's a guy? It's just one of those instances where I'm not really sure what you say and what you obviously think are the same thing. The people who actually think trans women are men might scream "it's a dude!" till they're hoarse, but absolutely nothing about their actions backs that up. So how seriously are we supposed to take than hangup, given that no one can actually fuck the gender to which they are not attracted. I'm not sure I understand your point. I think transphobic people believe you tricked their arousal out of them with your cunningly disguised inside out penis. But you can't "trick" arousal out of someone. If that were possible I would have fucked the entire football team in college. Arousal is completely internally driven. They may believe they were tricked, but that's absolutely ludicrous so how seriously are we really supposed to take them? You totally can trick arousal out of people. If you couldn't, men couldn't be raped. And to be very clear, they can.
Umm...I wouldn't call a man doped up on roofies and viagra "aroused."
|
The way I see it people can have all sorts of reasons for not wanting to sleep with someone. One person might never give consent if the know that their potential partner has undergone a sex change, another might refuse to sleep with jews, or people more than 1/8 black. Yet others might on principle never sleep with people who have ever played league of legends or people who make less than 100k a year.
In principle misrepresenting or lying about anything that would make your prospective partner withdraw consent is rape. But it is in my opinion ludicrous to expect a prospective partner to tell you his/her entire life story before sex that you might sift through it for a deal breaker and cry rape if he/she forgets something that would have been important to you.
To me it makes much more sense to say that people who know that they would withdraw consent over particular traits or events in someones past are responsible to ask about those things. Eg: "Before we have sexual intercourse ma'm I must inform you that if you have ever undergone sexual reassignment surgery and or your mother is either a jew or black (but both at the same time is ok) I do not give my consent to this act."
Though if you want people to actually sleep with you you might need to find a more tactful way of asking but that's not my problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
