|
Yes, they're not physical, they're intangible, but that doesn't stop them from being present, intangible qualities that in the past used to be tangible. They can still be deal breakers and you should respect that, simple as that. How come people who preach tolerance are some intolerant themselves?
You're getting off topic. I'm not discussing deal breakers or who should disclose what (that question has run in circles for the last 10 pages). All I was doing is responding to someone that was trying to make a distinction between cis and trans women. I'm asking for a quality that exists in the present that could actually make this distinction. If you have to use a time machine, then I don't believe that's a meaningful distinction.
My point is, trans women are no less women than cis women. That is all.
|
On August 02 2013 05:01 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 04:52 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 04:51 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 04:49 shinosai wrote:On August 02 2013 04:37 Mohdoo wrote:On August 02 2013 04:30 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 04:12 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 04:07 Shodaa wrote:On August 02 2013 04:02 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 03:56 Smat wrote:
[quote]
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. Cool. You won't mind if I say that you folks seem to be using your minority status to bully people into confirming social norms that make life easier for you. I mean, your confort level is what matters here and making sure that you don't have to disclose anythign that makes uncomfortable. And if I don't want to sleep with someoen who is trangender, I best keep it to myself because I don't want to be called a bigot. I am all about equal right and making sure people are treated fairly in every way. But I am pretty done when people start calling me a bigot based on who I want to sleep with. Because the main reason why you would refuse sex with a woman you find attractive because she told you she was trans after you already found her attractive is because you don't consider her equal to a cis woman. Maybe you have a better justification, but this is the obvious conclusion. Maybe not equally as attractive but why should they have to? They're not literally the same thing. Trans is not the same as cis. It's not a distinction I especially care about but if someone else does and all they want to do is deny the trans person their penis then that's their call. This is another point I wanted to address: A trans woman isn't presenting herself as cis and deceiving anyone. She's just presenting herself as a woman. The distinction between trans and cis is a false one and it's not her job to reinforce it for anyone. Until a trans woman is actually 100% identical and not just pretty much the same, I don't think you have a proper case for saying a distinction is false. Science isn't there yet. Its just not possible right now. Now this is actually something I'd like to discuss. So, excluding physical qualities that don't actually exist (used to be a man or used to be a vegan), what is a physical quality that a trans woman has that no cis woman has? And be careful, because your answer might exclude some cis women. How is "used to be a man" not a quality that exists? "Used to be a prostitute" is also a quality that exists. Actually, no, those aren't qualities that exist. The whole "used to" part means they, by definition, don't exist anymore. If they aren't qualities that exist then we wouldn't be able to understand what they refer to, and yet we can. Having been a prostitute is certainly a legitimate distinction to make between two individuals. We can make such a distinction based entirely on factual information and without opinion, so in what sense does the distinction not exist? Or are you arguing that people should literally not be permitted to have preferences about things other than immediate, physical characteristics? What the hell? That's like saying you shouldn't be able to refuse friendship to an ex-con on those grounds once he's served his time in prison...
I'm arguing that it's irrational to have preferences based on past characteristics that can't have any bearing on the present. If you want to have sex with a woman, whether or not she used to have a penis has absolutely no bearing on her womanhood now.
We know that ex cons have an extremely high rate of return to crime, so it's reasonably to think that that quality might not actually be in the past.
A trans woman isn't suddenly going to turn back into a man.
|
On August 02 2013 04:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 04:26 Zetter wrote:On August 02 2013 04:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 04:19 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 04:17 Darkwhite wrote:
I need you to clear up a hypothetical for me.
Let's say I have a first cousin who's lived her whole life in a different country. I go there in the summer and approach her as a stranger without disclosing our kinship. She takes a liking to me - we start dating and having sex.
Later, she finds out I am her first cousin and that I knew this all along but didn't tell her. Is it her fault that she didn't explicitly make it clear when she met me that she wouldn't want to have a sexual relationship with close family members? insest equivalencies now lol I don't see anything morally wrong with first cousin incest assuming protection. Especially when they're strangers. It's barely incest, not by the standards of a few centuries ago or the American south. But the partner could be reasonably expected to have views on it which would alter their decision to consent based on the withheld information. The analogy works. No it does not. Are you really trying to imply that transphobic people may find sex with trans people by any means "morally wrong"? Yes, transphobic people can have a moral problem with having sex with transgender people, even though they might not be able to tell the difference. The analogy works perfectly. You're having sex with the girl you know is your first cousin. You didn't grow up together or anything like that and you don't plan on having children together, you're just fucking. The fact that she's your first cousin makes literally no difference, you don't see each other as family, you never seen each other before (although you know she's your cousin because you researched some obscure family history), you're just two strangers who happen to have more genes in common that most. When she finds out she's really upset because she has a problem with incest between first cousins. She's mad at you for not telling her. You point out that you're indistinguishable from any other pair of strangers who started fucking and that if she had a problem with fucking first cousins what she should have done is asked you, and everyone else she ever fucks, "are we first cousins?" in order to rule this possibility out. She replies "or perhaps you could have thought maybe this might have been an issue for me given that the stigma of incest is a pretty well known thing and you knew we were cousins whereas I had no way of knowing and no reason to ask". Who is right?
To be honest, I don't see how the two cases are at all different. If you're not a religious person having protected incestous sex doesn't have to be seen as morally wrong. It's just something most people naturally find disgusting, which I'd wager is the case for having sex with transsexual people too. Does that mean one is a familiophobe because he, apparently, hates his relatives by not wanting to have sex with them?
|
On August 02 2013 04:26 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 04:15 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 04:11 Zetter wrote:On August 02 2013 04:04 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 04:01 Shodaa wrote:On August 02 2013 03:57 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 03:53 Smat wrote:On August 02 2013 02:23 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 02:14 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 02:08 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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. I don't believe transphobic people has the right to be protected from an irrational shame. Like Scarlett said, it's their problem. I won't apologize or put my identity on suspend just because a poor transphobic person could suffer. They have the right to choose their partners by any criteria they want. Transphobic people still get to consent. And it's still not the responsibility of the trans woman to tell everyone she's trans. If a man really doesn't want to sleep with a trans woman, he's the one who needs to take responsibility for making sure he's sleeping with a cis woman. If he fails to do this, it's his problem. We already did this argument a few hours ago. Basically the assumption that a given person is cisgender is, given no other information, reasonable. With an accuracy of 99.99% that assumption is fine and someone not asking the question can still legitimately care about the issue. It is not reasonable to demand anyone who is transphobic to ask everyone they encounter if they are cis or trans when their default assumption will be correct 99.99% of the time. However the trans person is aware that they are an extreme outlier. The transphobic person and the trans person are not working from equal amounts of information, the trans person knows which situations include a trans person with much more accuracy because they are the trans person in question. It is reasonable to put the responsibility on them. Yes and this whole discussion is running in circles since then. I could just point a few pages back and show that this post has been answered like 5 times. Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 04:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 04:19 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 04:17 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 03:58 KlaCkoN wrote:
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. I need you to clear up a hypothetical for me. Let's say I have a first cousin who's lived her whole life in a different country. I go there in the summer and approach her as a stranger without disclosing our kinship. She takes a liking to me - we start dating and having sex. Later, she finds out I am her first cousin and that I knew this all along but didn't tell her. Is it her fault that she didn't explicitly make it clear when she met me that she wouldn't want to have a sexual relationship with close family members? insest equivalencies now lol I don't see anything morally wrong with first cousin incest assuming protection. Especially when they're strangers. It's barely incest, not by the standards of a few centuries ago or the American south. But the partner could be reasonably expected to have views on it which would alter their decision to consent based on the withheld information. The analogy works. No it does not. Are you really trying to imply that transphobic people may find sex with trans people by any means "morally wrong"?
Wait, what? Kwark said pretty much nothing about morality yet. If you say Darkwhite's question is the problem of morality, please explain why. I don't really see explicit connection. Or am I missing something?
|
On August 02 2013 05:02 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +Yes, they're not physical, they're intangible, but that doesn't stop them from being present, intangible qualities that in the past used to be tangible. They can still be deal breakers and you should respect that, simple as that. How come people who preach tolerance are some intolerant themselves? You're getting off topic. I'm not discussing deal breakers or who should disclose what (that question has run in circles for the last 10 pages). All I was doing is responding to someone that was trying to make a distinction between cis and trans women. I'm asking for a quality that exists in the present that could actually make this distinction. If you have to use a time machine, then I don't believe that's a meaningful distinction. My point is, trans women are no less women than cis women. That is all.
And prostitutes are no less women either. Doesn't change the fact that having been a prostitute is, usually, not an irrelevant quality of a person in terms of sexual attraction, which is what you're arguing in case of being a transsexual.
|
On August 02 2013 04:58 maybenexttime wrote:
According to some people you're also an asshole, don't forget that. ^___^
I just pointed out that just because something is not considered rape according to the law does not mean it's not actually rape. I find the rationalization that tricking someone into having sex he would otherwise give no consent to and be strongly against is equally ridiculous as the rationalization behind not considering marital rape rape.
edit: Plus you keep saying as if that was a trivial thing, when in reality for many, many people it is not trivial and can be as traumatic as typical rape is for women. It's not yours to decide how traumatic certain events are for people, now you're acting like Klondikebar...
And to say one wasn't tricked is blatantly stupid. If a scam artist tricks you into thinking you're making a really good deal and then takes your life saving away from you, even though you gave consent to that "business" it doesn't make it okay or not immoral because you failed to realize you gave an uninformed consent to an ill-intentioned person.
I can live with those people calling me an asshole, they aren't worth my time. Oppressing people isn't cool and all opinions are not beautiful snowflakes to be respected. Some people just suck.
Rape is a serious charge, requiring lack of consent at the time of the event. That is not what you are talking about, no matter how many times you say it. And I don't have a problem with people bieng upset that they slept with someone who was not who they thought they were. It if it tramatic, that is sad for them. However, you can't expect great thing to happen when you engage in one night stands.
In short, life is hard, get a helmet. I don't care if you end up sleeping with someone who is transgender, you know how to avoid that. I do care if they call me a bigot because I might not want to sleep with them or I'm uncomfortable.
|
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them.
Again, as a trans woman I always disclose because I think it's the right thing to do but these arguments are kinda bad.
|
On August 02 2013 05:02 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +Yes, they're not physical, they're intangible, but that doesn't stop them from being present, intangible qualities that in the past used to be tangible. They can still be deal breakers and you should respect that, simple as that. How come people who preach tolerance are some intolerant themselves? You're getting off topic. I'm not discussing deal breakers or who should disclose what (that question has run in circles for the last 10 pages). All I was doing is responding to someone that was trying to make a distinction between cis and trans women. I'm asking for a quality that exists in the present that could actually make this distinction. If you have to use a time machine, then I don't believe that's a meaningful distinction. My point is, trans women are no less women than cis women. That is all.
While I think the whole discussion is pretty damn absurd and I cant believe you guys are still going on about this shit for page after page I will make a distinction:
cis-women are all xx
trans women are not.
Hows that for a distinction? *facepalm*
|
On August 02 2013 05:16 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:02 shinosai wrote:Yes, they're not physical, they're intangible, but that doesn't stop them from being present, intangible qualities that in the past used to be tangible. They can still be deal breakers and you should respect that, simple as that. How come people who preach tolerance are some intolerant themselves? You're getting off topic. I'm not discussing deal breakers or who should disclose what (that question has run in circles for the last 10 pages). All I was doing is responding to someone that was trying to make a distinction between cis and trans women. I'm asking for a quality that exists in the present that could actually make this distinction. If you have to use a time machine, then I don't believe that's a meaningful distinction. My point is, trans women are no less women than cis women. That is all. While I think the whole discussion is pretty damn absurd and I cant believe you guys are still going on about this shit for page after page I will make a distinction: cis-women are all xx trans women are not. Hows that for a distinction? *facepalm*
That's not true.
|
On August 02 2013 05:05 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:01 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 04:52 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 04:51 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 04:49 shinosai wrote:On August 02 2013 04:37 Mohdoo wrote:On August 02 2013 04:30 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 04:12 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 04:07 Shodaa wrote:On August 02 2013 04:02 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Cool. You won't mind if I say that you folks seem to be using your minority status to bully people into confirming social norms that make life easier for you. I mean, your confort level is what matters here and making sure that you don't have to disclose anythign that makes uncomfortable. And if I don't want to sleep with someoen who is trangender, I best keep it to myself because I don't want to be called a bigot.
I am all about equal right and making sure people are treated fairly in every way. But I am pretty done when people start calling me a bigot based on who I want to sleep with. Because the main reason why you would refuse sex with a woman you find attractive because she told you she was trans after you already found her attractive is because you don't consider her equal to a cis woman. Maybe you have a better justification, but this is the obvious conclusion. Maybe not equally as attractive but why should they have to? They're not literally the same thing. Trans is not the same as cis. It's not a distinction I especially care about but if someone else does and all they want to do is deny the trans person their penis then that's their call. This is another point I wanted to address: A trans woman isn't presenting herself as cis and deceiving anyone. She's just presenting herself as a woman. The distinction between trans and cis is a false one and it's not her job to reinforce it for anyone. Until a trans woman is actually 100% identical and not just pretty much the same, I don't think you have a proper case for saying a distinction is false. Science isn't there yet. Its just not possible right now. Now this is actually something I'd like to discuss. So, excluding physical qualities that don't actually exist (used to be a man or used to be a vegan), what is a physical quality that a trans woman has that no cis woman has? And be careful, because your answer might exclude some cis women. How is "used to be a man" not a quality that exists? "Used to be a prostitute" is also a quality that exists. Actually, no, those aren't qualities that exist. The whole "used to" part means they, by definition, don't exist anymore. If they aren't qualities that exist then we wouldn't be able to understand what they refer to, and yet we can. Having been a prostitute is certainly a legitimate distinction to make between two individuals. We can make such a distinction based entirely on factual information and without opinion, so in what sense does the distinction not exist? Or are you arguing that people should literally not be permitted to have preferences about things other than immediate, physical characteristics? What the hell? That's like saying you shouldn't be able to refuse friendship to an ex-con on those grounds once he's served his time in prison... I'm arguing that it's irrational to have preferences based on past characteristics that can't have any bearing on the present. If you want to have sex with a woman, whether or not she used to have a penis has absolutely no bearing on her womanhood now. We know that ex cons have an extremely high rate of return to crime, so it's reasonably to think that that quality might not actually be in the past. A trans woman isn't suddenly going to turn back into a man.
It's one thing to treat trans people with respect and dignity, but a person's sexual preferences are no one's goddamn business.
A lot of people have sexual preferences that go a certain way, and it doesn't have to "make sense". And it's unrealistic and stupid to pretend a guy is going to ask every girl he meets "hey did you used to be a man???"
This would turn off and invoke insecurity in almost any person, even the trans ones. The onus should be on the trans person to be fair to the person they're sleeping with.
Edit: I wouldn't call it rape but at the very least it's as bad as a dude pretending he's rich or a film director or something
|
United States41973 Posts
On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them.
Again, as a trans woman I always disclose because I think it's the right thing to do but these arguments are kinda bad.
Does the argument in favour of disclosing the cousin status change depending upon how many times you have sex? If it's just the once does it become any more reasonable to assume failure to ask if you're her cousin is tacit consent to incest?
|
On August 02 2013 05:16 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:02 shinosai wrote:Yes, they're not physical, they're intangible, but that doesn't stop them from being present, intangible qualities that in the past used to be tangible. They can still be deal breakers and you should respect that, simple as that. How come people who preach tolerance are some intolerant themselves? You're getting off topic. I'm not discussing deal breakers or who should disclose what (that question has run in circles for the last 10 pages). All I was doing is responding to someone that was trying to make a distinction between cis and trans women. I'm asking for a quality that exists in the present that could actually make this distinction. If you have to use a time machine, then I don't believe that's a meaningful distinction. My point is, trans women are no less women than cis women. That is all. While I think the whole discussion is pretty damn absurd and I cant believe you guys are still going on about this shit for page after page I will make a distinction: cis-women are all xx trans women are not. Hows that for a distinction? *facepalm*
Well if you are going to get like that, then I guess you win that discussion. Female is female if you do the bloodwork. However, we still call women who happen to be trangender women. If you don't want to do that, your sort of an asshole and you should move on.
|
On August 02 2013 05:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them.
Again, as a trans woman I always disclose because I think it's the right thing to do but these arguments are kinda bad. Does the argument in favour of disclosing the cousin status change depending upon how many times you have sex? If it's just the once does it become any more reasonable to assume failure to ask if you're her cousin is tacit consent to incest?
To show you the problem with the discussion, the direct comparison would be a trans person seeking out a transphobic person and then witholding that information.
|
Seriously people, its really fucking simple:
You know someone wouldnt want to have sex with you if they knew some fact x about you, and you dont tell them = immoral
You have reason to believe someone wouldnt want to have sex with you if they knew some fact x about you, and you dont tell them = immoral
You ought to realize someone wouldnt want to have sex with you if they knew some fact x about you, but you dont realize and hence you dont tell them = not immoral, just stupid.
End of discussion.
|
On August 02 2013 05:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 04:58 maybenexttime wrote:
According to some people you're also an asshole, don't forget that. ^___^
I just pointed out that just because something is not considered rape according to the law does not mean it's not actually rape. I find the rationalization that tricking someone into having sex he would otherwise give no consent to and be strongly against is equally ridiculous as the rationalization behind not considering marital rape rape.
edit: Plus you keep saying as if that was a trivial thing, when in reality for many, many people it is not trivial and can be as traumatic as typical rape is for women. It's not yours to decide how traumatic certain events are for people, now you're acting like Klondikebar...
And to say one wasn't tricked is blatantly stupid. If a scam artist tricks you into thinking you're making a really good deal and then takes your life saving away from you, even though you gave consent to that "business" it doesn't make it okay or not immoral because you failed to realize you gave an uninformed consent to an ill-intentioned person.
I can live with those people calling me an asshole, they aren't worth my time. Oppressing people isn't cool and all opinions are not beautiful snowflakes to be respected. Some people just suck. Rape is a serious charge, requiring lack of consent at the time of the event. That is not what you are talking about, no matter how many times you say it. And I don't have a problem with people bieng upset that they slept with someone who was not who they thought they were. It if it tramatic, that is sad for them. However, you can't expect great thing to happen when you engage in one night stands. In short, life is hard, get a helmet. I don't care if you end up sleeping with someone who is transgender, you know how to avoid that. I do care if they call me a bigot because I might not want to sleep with them or I'm uncomfortable.
Then you are no different from people who are against labeling marital rape as rape, I'm afraid, since here also "consent" was given...
Like KwarK already explained, giving consent to sex based on the premise that your prospect sexual partner is a cis woman, which is the case here, is not equal to giving consent to having sex with a transsexual woman, assuming to you there's a huge distinction and you find the latter disgusting and do not partake in it.
Your argument only makes sense if having sex with a cis woman and a transsexual woman makes absolutely no difference to you. That is not the case, hence no consent was given and that is rape.
|
On August 02 2013 05:16 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:02 shinosai wrote:Yes, they're not physical, they're intangible, but that doesn't stop them from being present, intangible qualities that in the past used to be tangible. They can still be deal breakers and you should respect that, simple as that. How come people who preach tolerance are some intolerant themselves? You're getting off topic. I'm not discussing deal breakers or who should disclose what (that question has run in circles for the last 10 pages). All I was doing is responding to someone that was trying to make a distinction between cis and trans women. I'm asking for a quality that exists in the present that could actually make this distinction. If you have to use a time machine, then I don't believe that's a meaningful distinction. My point is, trans women are no less women than cis women. That is all. While I think the whole discussion is pretty damn absurd and I cant believe you guys are still going on about this shit for page after page I will make a distinction: cis-women are all xx trans women are not. Hows that for a distinction? *facepalm*
I told you this might happen. Some cis women actually are not xx. Some cis women are born with xxy or xy, and develop completely female. The Olympics used to do chromosome tests, but they stopped because people who were cis would sometimes have odd chromosome combinations.
I hate to tell you this, but you might not be xy. Chromosomes are not always determinative of your sex.
|
On August 02 2013 05:15 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:02 shinosai wrote:Yes, they're not physical, they're intangible, but that doesn't stop them from being present, intangible qualities that in the past used to be tangible. They can still be deal breakers and you should respect that, simple as that. How come people who preach tolerance are some intolerant themselves? You're getting off topic. I'm not discussing deal breakers or who should disclose what (that question has run in circles for the last 10 pages). All I was doing is responding to someone that was trying to make a distinction between cis and trans women. I'm asking for a quality that exists in the present that could actually make this distinction. If you have to use a time machine, then I don't believe that's a meaningful distinction. My point is, trans women are no less women than cis women. That is all. And prostitutes are no less women either. Doesn't change the fact that having been a prostitute is, usually, not an irrelevant quality of a person in terms of sexual attraction, which is what you're arguing in case of being a transsexual.
yo whats wrong with prostitutes
|
On August 02 2013 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:15 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 04:58 maybenexttime wrote:
According to some people you're also an asshole, don't forget that. ^___^
I just pointed out that just because something is not considered rape according to the law does not mean it's not actually rape. I find the rationalization that tricking someone into having sex he would otherwise give no consent to and be strongly against is equally ridiculous as the rationalization behind not considering marital rape rape.
edit: Plus you keep saying as if that was a trivial thing, when in reality for many, many people it is not trivial and can be as traumatic as typical rape is for women. It's not yours to decide how traumatic certain events are for people, now you're acting like Klondikebar...
And to say one wasn't tricked is blatantly stupid. If a scam artist tricks you into thinking you're making a really good deal and then takes your life saving away from you, even though you gave consent to that "business" it doesn't make it okay or not immoral because you failed to realize you gave an uninformed consent to an ill-intentioned person.
I can live with those people calling me an asshole, they aren't worth my time. Oppressing people isn't cool and all opinions are not beautiful snowflakes to be respected. Some people just suck. Rape is a serious charge, requiring lack of consent at the time of the event. That is not what you are talking about, no matter how many times you say it. And I don't have a problem with people bieng upset that they slept with someone who was not who they thought they were. It if it tramatic, that is sad for them. However, you can't expect great thing to happen when you engage in one night stands. In short, life is hard, get a helmet. I don't care if you end up sleeping with someone who is transgender, you know how to avoid that. I do care if they call me a bigot because I might not want to sleep with them or I'm uncomfortable. Then you are no different from people who are against labeling marital rape as rape, I'm afraid, since here also "consent" was given... Like KwarK already explained, giving consent to sex based on the premise that your prospect sexual partner is a cis woman, which is the case here, is not equal to giving consent to having sex with a transsexual woman, assuming to you there's a huge distinction and you find the latter disgusting and do not partake in it. Your argument only makes sense if having sex with a cis woman and a transsexual woman makes absolutely no difference to you. That is not the case, hence no consent was given and that is rape.
You can't have rape after the fact, its impossible. Marriage does not give unlimited consent to sex, so that argument is dumb. You can't change your mind 3 days later because you found out the girl you slept with was jewish and you dont' like people who are jewish. YOu can't do it with people who are transgender either.
Once you put your penis in there, its all you buddy. No one made you do it. If after that you have second thoughts, its not rape.
|
On August 02 2013 04:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 04:26 Zetter wrote:On August 02 2013 04:21 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 04:19 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 04:17 Darkwhite wrote:
I need you to clear up a hypothetical for me.
Let's say I have a first cousin who's lived her whole life in a different country. I go there in the summer and approach her as a stranger without disclosing our kinship. She takes a liking to me - we start dating and having sex.
Later, she finds out I am her first cousin and that I knew this all along but didn't tell her. Is it her fault that she didn't explicitly make it clear when she met me that she wouldn't want to have a sexual relationship with close family members? insest equivalencies now lol I don't see anything morally wrong with first cousin incest assuming protection. Especially when they're strangers. It's barely incest, not by the standards of a few centuries ago or the American south. But the partner could be reasonably expected to have views on it which would alter their decision to consent based on the withheld information. The analogy works. No it does not. Are you really trying to imply that transphobic people may find sex with trans people by any means "morally wrong"? Yes, transphobic people can have a moral problem with having sex with transgender people, even though they might not be able to tell the difference. The analogy works perfectly. You're having sex with the girl you know is your first cousin. You didn't grow up together or anything like that and you don't plan on having children together, you're just fucking. The fact that she's your first cousin makes literally no difference, you don't see each other as family, you never seen each other before (although you know she's your cousin because you researched some obscure family history), you're just two strangers who happen to have more genes in common that most. When she finds out she's really upset because she has a problem with incest between first cousins. She's mad at you for not telling her. You point out that you're indistinguishable from any other pair of strangers who started fucking and that if she had a problem with fucking first cousins what she should have done is asked you, and everyone else she ever fucks, "are we first cousins?" in order to rule this possibility out. She replies "or perhaps you could have thought maybe this might have been an issue for me given that the stigma of incest is a pretty well known thing and you knew we were cousins whereas I had no way of knowing and no reason to ask". Who is right?
The social stigma of incest and transgenderism are not the same. Let's say that woman was christian and I was jewish and knew she was christian. Do I have to tell her that I'm a jew (assuming the same nightclub like situation), expecting that she may have a problem with it?
As I think that yes, thinking there's something wrong with incest can be morally justified, it is the responsibility of the person knowing of the situation to make it clear.
As I think that no, thinking there's something wrong with having sex with a transgender can't be morally justified (it can only be justified through personal preference), it's the responsibility of the person who's personal preference is at stake to make the situation clear. Just as it's not the responsibility of the jew to let everyone know of his religious beliefs.
When you're comparing the situation of sex with your cousin with sex with a transgender, you're basically saying: "Transphobia can be morally justified"
|
On August 02 2013 05:05 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:01 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 04:52 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 04:51 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 04:49 shinosai wrote:On August 02 2013 04:37 Mohdoo wrote:On August 02 2013 04:30 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 04:12 KwarK wrote:On August 02 2013 04:07 Shodaa wrote:On August 02 2013 04:02 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Cool. You won't mind if I say that you folks seem to be using your minority status to bully people into confirming social norms that make life easier for you. I mean, your confort level is what matters here and making sure that you don't have to disclose anythign that makes uncomfortable. And if I don't want to sleep with someoen who is trangender, I best keep it to myself because I don't want to be called a bigot.
I am all about equal right and making sure people are treated fairly in every way. But I am pretty done when people start calling me a bigot based on who I want to sleep with. Because the main reason why you would refuse sex with a woman you find attractive because she told you she was trans after you already found her attractive is because you don't consider her equal to a cis woman. Maybe you have a better justification, but this is the obvious conclusion. Maybe not equally as attractive but why should they have to? They're not literally the same thing. Trans is not the same as cis. It's not a distinction I especially care about but if someone else does and all they want to do is deny the trans person their penis then that's their call. This is another point I wanted to address: A trans woman isn't presenting herself as cis and deceiving anyone. She's just presenting herself as a woman. The distinction between trans and cis is a false one and it's not her job to reinforce it for anyone. Until a trans woman is actually 100% identical and not just pretty much the same, I don't think you have a proper case for saying a distinction is false. Science isn't there yet. Its just not possible right now. Now this is actually something I'd like to discuss. So, excluding physical qualities that don't actually exist (used to be a man or used to be a vegan), what is a physical quality that a trans woman has that no cis woman has? And be careful, because your answer might exclude some cis women. How is "used to be a man" not a quality that exists? "Used to be a prostitute" is also a quality that exists. Actually, no, those aren't qualities that exist. The whole "used to" part means they, by definition, don't exist anymore. If they aren't qualities that exist then we wouldn't be able to understand what they refer to, and yet we can. Having been a prostitute is certainly a legitimate distinction to make between two individuals. We can make such a distinction based entirely on factual information and without opinion, so in what sense does the distinction not exist? Or are you arguing that people should literally not be permitted to have preferences about things other than immediate, physical characteristics? What the hell? That's like saying you shouldn't be able to refuse friendship to an ex-con on those grounds once he's served his time in prison... I'm arguing that it's irrational to have preferences based on past characteristics that can't have any bearing on the present. If you want to have sex with a woman, whether or not she used to have a penis has absolutely no bearing on her womanhood now. We know that ex cons have an extremely high rate of return to crime, so it's reasonably to think that that quality might not actually be in the past. A trans woman isn't suddenly going to turn back into a man.
It's pretty irrational to not want to have sex with anyone for any reason, from a certain point of view. If a man asks me to have sex with him, and I say no on the grounds that I'm simply not attracted to him, then how is that super rational? There's no real reason for me to exclusively prefer sleeping with women to sleeping with men; it's just what I like. I'm not saying there aren't neurochemical reasons, but they certainly aren't thoughts. I don't have some principle that's like "oh, I won't have sex with men because X Y Z." I won't have sex with men for no other reason than that they are men. Once you see why this is warranted, hopefully you'll get away from the whole "reasons have to be rational" train because it simply doesn't apply to the vast majority of sexual preferences.
As I think that no, thinking there's something wrong with having sex with a transgender can't be morally justified (it can only be justified through personal preference), it's the responsibility of the person who's personal preference is at stake to make the situation clear. Just as it's not the responsibility of the jew to let everyone know of his religious beliefs.
People looking to have one night stands are generally not concerned about what religion one is, unless it happens to be a Christian/Jewish/Muslim/whatever nightclub. The reason for this is that religious beliefs are super diverse, so the chances of you meeting someone you actually agree with on complicated subjects like religion is tiny. So you ignore that particular trait, because it simply doesn't matter much to the people who want to have one night stands (given that practically every major religion forbids them, in addition). But tonnes and tonnes of people obviously have issues with having intercourse with a transsexual person. It doesn't matter if you think their belief is silly or whatever. They're not trying to legislate the belief; they're using it to control their own person. If you have respect for their personal autonomy, you will respect them and be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
