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.
If you want to continue in this vein, please be clear about how you define the terms "consent" and "rape." I have a feeling that the way you define these terms is different from the conventional legal definition that most people use, which is why this argument is going nowhere. Instead of going "this is rape!" "no it's not!" "yes it is!" you should be clear about how you define rape, and then argue about why that definition is superior to the conventional legal definition of the term.
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.
Wait, your telling me that physical attraction isn't rational? You saying that the reason I find my girlfriend attractive might not be based on logic?
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"
Why is everyone trying to compare situation X to situation Y? Is it so hard to believe people don't want to fuck a transgender person? People who go through with the operation should be aware of the fact that they should probably feel the need to point out they used to be a man or a woman before engaging in any sexual activities. Not just because it is "morally" correct, but god damn lets have respect for each other. If you tell the person your "secret" and it ruins your chances with them, oh well move on. Plenty of fish in the sea. It would just be common decency to forgo all the bullshit and be up front.
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"
I don't see anything wrong with first cousin incest without the potential of children, particularly if they did not grow up together. What you've done here is said "social stigma against me is unjustifiable but all my prejudices are legit". It basically comes down to "I don't like your genes". In the case of first cousins who are otherwise strangers it's "eww! I had sex on you based on the assumption that we were 99.9% the same at a genetic level but now you're telling me that I'm 99.92% the same as you even though I can't tell the difference, that's gross!" whereas with the transgender people it's "eww! I had sex with you based on the assumption that you were genes meant you were born with obvious female sexual organs but now I know that your genes are somehow different even though I can't tell the difference!".
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?
I would certainly not consider your actions in this case rape or even criminal, nor do I think they should be. (Assuming sex with first cousins is legal in this country, if it isn't you are tricking her into committing a crime which is bad on completely different grounds.)
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.
Except that "man" is a present characteristic of them. It's not rational in that you're using deductive reasoning, it's rational in that it's actually relevant to them at this moment. When you say "I don't want to have sex with men" and then don't have sex with people who are currently men, no one thinks you're insane. When you say "I don't want to have sex with men" and then don't have sex with women, it doesn't make any sense.
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.
If you want to continue in this vein, please be clear about how you define the terms "consent" and "rape." I have a feeling that the way you define these terms is different from the conventional legal definition that most people use, which is why this argument is going nowhere. Instead of going "this is rape!" "no it's not!" "yes it is!" you should be clear about how you define rape, and then argue about why that definition is superior to the conventional legal definition of the term.
There is a difference between a functioning legal framework and a moral standard. Something can be really rapey without it being rape. Take this clip.
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?
I would certainly not consider your actions in this case rape or even criminal, nor do I think they should be. (Assuming sex with first cousins is legal in this country, if it isn't you are tricking her into committing a crime which is bad on completely different grounds.)
There is a single question mark in my whole post. Can you please give a straight answer instead of dodging the question with asides about rape and crime?
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?
On August 02 2013 04:12 KwarK wrote: [quote] 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.
Except that "man" is a present characteristic of them. It's not rational in that you're using deductive reasoning, it's rational in that it's actually relevant to them at this moment.
All of your preferences are at least current traits of the person.
"Used to be a man" is not a current trait of a trans woman. Using it as part of your preference is...odd.
But attraction isn't based on logic There are women who love fire fighters and others like guys with glasses. There are guys who love girls with short hair and other who love girls that play sports. You are talking about a totally irrational things like people have control over them.
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"
I don't see anything wrong with first cousin incest without the potential of children, particularly if they did not grow up together. What you've done here is said "social stigma against me is unjustifiable but all my prejudices are legit". It basically comes down to "I don't like your genes". In the case of first cousins who are otherwise strangers it's "eww! I had sex on you based on the assumption that we were 99.9% the same at a genetic level but now you're telling me that I'm 99.92% the same as you even though I can't tell the difference, that's gross!" whereas with the transgender people it's "eww! I had sex with you based on the assumption that you were genes meant you were born with obvious female sexual organs but now I know that your genes are somehow different even though I can't tell the difference!".
You don't think there's anything wrong with first cousin incest without the potential of children. I don't think so as well.
The only problem is: There never is no potential of children.
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.
I do call transgender women women. I was just pointint out the fact that its quite easy to make a distinction between cis women and trans women, if one wants to. Stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a dick.
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.
My balls arent small enough not to be xy
Anyways:
99,99% of cis women are xx no trans women are xx
happy? By the way if you have testosterone insensitivity syndrome you're not technically female.
On August 02 2013 04:30 Klondikebar wrote: [quote]
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.
Except that "man" is a present characteristic of them. It's not rational in that you're using deductive reasoning, it's rational in that it's actually relevant to them at this moment.
All of your preferences are at least current traits of the person.
"Used to be a man" is not a current trait of a trans woman. Using it as part of your preference is...odd.
But attraction isn't based on logic There are women who love fire fighters and others like guys with glasses. There are guys who love girls with short hair and other who love girls that play sports. You are talking about a totally irrational things like people have control over them.
Yeah, so those women like fire fighters and they fuck firefighters. If you aren't attracted to fire fighters, it then doesn't make any sense to not have sex with soccer players...how is that relevant?
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"
I don't see anything wrong with first cousin incest without the potential of children, particularly if they did not grow up together. What you've done here is said "social stigma against me is unjustifiable but all my prejudices are legit". It basically comes down to "I don't like your genes". In the case of first cousins who are otherwise strangers it's "eww! I had sex on you based on the assumption that we were 99.9% the same at a genetic level but now you're telling me that I'm 99.92% the same as you even though I can't tell the difference, that's gross!" whereas with the transgender people it's "eww! I had sex with you based on the assumption that you were genes meant you were born with obvious female sexual organs but now I know that your genes are somehow different even though I can't tell the difference!".
You don't think there's anything wrong with first cousin incest without the potential of children. I don't think so as well.
The only problem is: There never is no potential of children.
What if your cousin is a trans woman and is therefore infertile?
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.
I do call transgender women women. I was just pointint out the fact that its quite easy to make a distinction between cis women and trans women, if one wants to. Stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a dick.
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.
My balls arent small enough not to be xy
Anyways:
99,99% of cis women are xx no trans women are xx
happy? By the way if you have testosterony insensitivity syndrome youre not technically female.
You're pulling numbers out your ass to make yourself appear more right than you are. You failed to answer the question correctly. Get over it.
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.
I do call transgender women women. I was just pointint out the fact that its quite easy to make a distinction between cis women and trans women, if one wants to. Stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a dick.
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.
My balls arent small enough not to be xy
Anyways:
99,99% of cis women are xx no trans women are xx
happy? By the way if you have testosterony insensitivity syndrome youre not technically female.
Even if 0.01% of cis women are xx (this statistic is actually false, the prevalence is higher) this is still enough that you are denying that some cis women are women by your criteria. Also, I'd double check your chromosomes if I were you. You might be deceiving your potential partners, who made the reasonable assumption that you were xy when you're actually not.
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.
Except that "man" is a present characteristic of them. It's not rational in that you're using deductive reasoning, it's rational in that it's actually relevant to them at this moment.
All of your preferences are at least current traits of the person.
"Used to be a man" is not a current trait of a trans woman. Using it as part of your preference is...odd.
But attraction isn't based on logic There are women who love fire fighters and others like guys with glasses. There are guys who love girls with short hair and other who love girls that play sports. You are talking about a totally irrational things like people have control over them.
Yeah, so those women like fire fighters and they fuck firefighters. If you aren't attracted to fire fighters, it then doesn't make any sense to not have sex with soccer players...how is that relevant?
Because none of that is based on anything that makes sense or is logical. Nor is it within their control. If someone is uncomfortable sleeping with a transgender person, why does social justice become invovled and that person becomes a bigot?
I don't really have the patience to go read over the past 20 pages, but can someone tell me really what is wrong with just asking a woman you want to sleep with whether or not she is trans?
Again, if you consider it such a big deal, then surely you should take precautions and weigh that more heavily in your cost/benefit analysis. If it is so goddamn important to you that you do not sleep with a trans woman, then it should seriously outweigh any "omg if I ask her and she's not, then she'll get offended and won't sleep with me!" panic. Is having sex that much more important than making sure you are not having sex with a trans woman, or is not having sex with a trans woman that much more important than having sex?
Yes, it would be courteous for her to tell you, but I still do not see how it is her responsibility to clear up any assumptions you have on that matter, because it runs counter to the point of her transition anyways and puts her in danger of serious physical harm. If you are running around boinking people in a series of one-night stands, then you must be aware of the perceived risks and do your best to protect yourself against such risks
I do not think the cousin example factors in the two bolded portions of my comment. Now, this brings up another aspect, which is: What if the trans person is not in danger of being physically harmed? Pretend for instance the trans woman is in a location which would prevent her from being physically harmed or pretend you have two lesbians hooking up, neither of which is physically stronger than the other, one of which is trans and the other who is cis. In this situation, I actually do think there is more of an argument to say that the trans woman should, in fact, disclose her medical history. The argument is still not foolproof though, because how do you, in the end, make an argument that a trans woman should be expected to willingly out herself when the entire goal of her transition is to make her indistinguishable from a cis woman?
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.
I do call transgender women women. I was just pointint out the fact that its quite easy to make a distinction between cis women and trans women, if one wants to. Stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is a dick.
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.
My balls arent small enough not to be xy
Anyways:
99,99% of cis women are xx no trans women are xx
happy? By the way if you have testosterony insensitivity syndrome youre not technically female.
Even if 0.01% of cis women are xx (this statistic is actually false, the prevalence is higher) this is still enough that you are denying that some cis women are women by your criteria.
No. lol. I dont have any criteria. I couldnt care less. I just wanted to show that you can make a distinction between transgender women and cis women. The only distinction necessary is actually this:
no transgender women are xx.
That is enough in order to make a taxonomical difference. Oh and by the way I dont mind being wrong. I actually want to learn stuff. You ought to try it.
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?
I would certainly not consider your actions in this case rape or even criminal, nor do I think they should be. (Assuming sex with first cousins is legal in this country, if it isn't you are tricking her into committing a crime which is bad on completely different grounds.)
There is a single question mark in my whole post. Can you please give a straight answer instead of dodging the question with asides about rape and crime?
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?
I honestly don't know what you mean with "her fault" lol. I dont think there is necessarily any blame to be placed. My first post was my justification for having the opinion that failing to disclose trans genderism is not rape and shouldnt be criminal. I believe that not mentioning the fact that you are related is not rape for the same reasons. (Again assuming you are not closely enough related that you are actually breaking incest laws)
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"
I don't see anything wrong with first cousin incest without the potential of children, particularly if they did not grow up together. What you've done here is said "social stigma against me is unjustifiable but all my prejudices are legit". It basically comes down to "I don't like your genes". In the case of first cousins who are otherwise strangers it's "eww! I had sex on you based on the assumption that we were 99.9% the same at a genetic level but now you're telling me that I'm 99.92% the same as you even though I can't tell the difference, that's gross!" whereas with the transgender people it's "eww! I had sex with you based on the assumption that you were genes meant you were born with obvious female sexual organs but now I know that your genes are somehow different even though I can't tell the difference!".
You don't think there's anything wrong with first cousin incest without the potential of children. I don't think so as well.
The only problem is: There never is no potential of children.
What if your cousin is a trans woman and is therefore infertile?
I knew you'd just have to make this scenario even more unrealistic, but fine:
In that case it would not be the responsibility of the person knowing of the situation, as it's now just a matter of personal preference and not of morality.
EPT
