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?
Depends on why you're uncomfortable. If you're uncomfortable sleeping with a transgender woman because you think she's really a man, you're either ignorant because you don't understand the difference between sex and gender and you don't understand what science can do. Or you do know all that stuff but just refuse to believe it and then you're a bigot.
If you have other reasons for not wanting to sleep with her, fine. IDGAF.
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.
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.
Actually the question was if you can list a quality of trans women that no cis woman has. Some cis women do not have XX chromosomes. You have failed to answer the question correctly.
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.
You cannot use this distinction to identify trans women. If you tried, you would be denying that some cis women were women. If you cannot use the quality to identify trans women, then it is not a meaningful distinction.
The original request: Tell me a physical presently existing quality that could distinguish a cis woman from a trans woman. Still waiting.
On August 02 2013 04:51 maybenexttime wrote: [quote]
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?
Depends on why you're uncomfortable. If you're uncomfortable sleeping with a transgender woman because you think she's really a man, you're either ignorant because you don't understand the difference between sex and gender and you don't understand what science can do. Or you do know all that stuff but just refuse to believe it and then you're a bigot.
If you have other reasons for not wanting to sleep with her, fine. IDGAF.
What if I don't know why I'm uncomfortable, I just am? I mean, I don't know why I like short hair, I just do. I mean, do we have to know why we don't want to sleep with someone or justify it?
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.
A direct, 1:1, comparison is impossible for obvious reasons. In order to have sex with a relative you'd have to seek them out. In order to have sex with a person who doesn't want to have sex with transsexuals you simply have to hook up with people outside the LGBT circle and not disclose the information that you're transsexual - the likelihood of coming across someone like that is very, very high.
Also it's rude to call such people transphobic just because they may find the idea of having sex with a transsexual disgusting. There are people who consider having sex with an obese person disgusting - that doesn't mean they think any less of them as a person.
While I find having sex with a transsexual disgusting, I would absolutely have no trouble with having a transsexual friend, hiring a transsexual or voting for one. I am not transphobic and calling me or someone like me that way is simply rude. I also think that transphobia and homophobia are terms artificially invented by the gender ideology and should not be used as some objective scientific term.
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
As people? Nothing, why? Although I think it doesn't speak well about one's personality if he or she is not forced into it.
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.
It's not after the fact, it's during the fact. There's no consent, your sexual partner is thinking you're someone you are not. Doesn't mean when the realization comes, there was no consent to start with: giving consent to sex with a cis woman (a reasonable expectation given how the chance that you're gonna come across a transsexual woman is less than 0,01%) =/= giving consent to sex with a transsexual. That is, assuming you're not indifferent to whether your sexual partner is cis or transsexual, which holds true for most people.
According to many countries' laws marriage does give unlimited consent to sex by virtue of marital responsibilities.
As for the bolded. A scam is not a scam, it's a business deal went wrong, right? Once you sign the deal it's all you, buddy. No one made you do it, right? If you have second thoughts, it's not a scam/theft/crime/whatever, right?
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.
Yep, I totally agree. It's just that people should be clear about what standard they are actually using to avoid talking past each other when they argue. It's really annoying.
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"
There's hardly anything immoral about having protected incestous sex, as well, unless you're religious. The exact same thing applies to having sex with a transsexual. Both are a matter of personal preference and something one may feel strongly about.
On August 02 2013 04:52 Klondikebar wrote: [quote]
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?
Depends on why you're uncomfortable. If you're uncomfortable sleeping with a transgender woman because you think she's really a man, you're either ignorant because you don't understand the difference between sex and gender and you don't understand what science can do. Or you do know all that stuff but just refuse to believe it and then you're a bigot.
If you have other reasons for not wanting to sleep with her, fine. IDGAF.
What if I don't know why I'm uncomfortable, I just am? I mean, I don't know why I like short hair, I just do.
Well typically people like to understand what motivates them because we're more than our animal instincts so I'd say...work on figuring out why. But as I explained to Shiori yesterday, I can't argue with "just because." It's not a real reason. Just because you haven't figured out the reason doesn't mean it isn't there. But as long as your sitting on that line the discussion can't continue.
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)
The girl had sex with her first cousin, which she isn't comfortable with, because I didn't tell her that we were related. So, she had an experience she would have preferred to avoid. Now, this is either: - my fault, in the sense that I should have informed her because it's fairly common to disapprove of incest - her fault, in the sense that she should have explicitly asked me if she cares about incest - nobody's fault, in the sense that what happened could not possibly have been avoided - some fourth alternative which I'm not seeing - her fault for holding an irrational phobia of close-kin sexual relations
Remember, your original post suggested that, whatever sexual preferences someone might have, such as not sleeping with transsexuals or LoL-players, is something they are themselves responsible for asking about. I am asking if this extends to this hypothetical scenario, or if in this case, I had an obligation to tell her about our kinship.
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
As people? Nothing, why? Although I think it doesn't speak well about one's personality if he or she is not forced into it.
No i mean why do you find prostitutes unattractive sexually and would be disgusted to learn that you slept with one. EDIT: and what do you think having sex for money says about someones personality?
Also it's rude to call such people transphobic just because they may find the idea of having sex with a transsexual disgusting. There are people who consider having sex with an obese person disgusting - that doesn't mean they think any less of them as a person.
It is in essence transphobia, because you seem to have an underlying belief that transsexual women are not really women (which is a transphobic belief.) Transphobic beliefs are often like sexist beliefs, in that they often seem benign and totally reasonable, but the assumptions behind them are harmful. So, say, the completely benign act of opening doors and holding them for women (in this case let's say its extremely impractical, she's 10 feet ahead of you and you run past her to open the door), seems like a totally ridiculous thing to call sexist. No one would say that you're a bigot for holding the door. But the underlying beliefs behind that action are in fact sexist.
So let's say you do a lot of sexist things that seem totally benign, treating women like delicate flowers that are incapable of taking care of themselves. No one could accuse you of hating women. You treat women just like any other person! Does that mean you cannot be labeled sexist under any circumstance?
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.
It's not after the fact, it's during the fact. There's no consent, your sexual partner is thinking you're someone you are not. Doesn't mean when the realization comes, there was no consent to start with: giving consent to sex with a cis woman (a reasonable expectation given how the chance that you're gonna come across a transsexual woman is less than 0,01%) =/= giving consent to sex with a transsexual. That is, assuming you're not indifferent to whether your sexual partner is cis or transsexual, which holds true for most people.
According to many countries' laws marriage does give unlimited consent to sex by virtue of marital responsibilities.
As for the bolded. A scam is not a scam, it's a business deal went wrong, right? Once you sign the deal it's all you, buddy. No one made you do it, right? If you have second thoughts, it's not a scam/theft/crime/whatever, right?
Ok, I said again, stupid, backwards countries that let men rape their wives because they are married are dead to me. I could give two shits about them. They are terrible people for letting men do that and I don't care what they think. I don't thin its legal in poland, but if it is, thats pretty dumb.
And its not my fault you are worried about putting your penis into a transgender woman. Its easy to avoid, so I dont' get your problem. Its not rape, though I am sure you would be very very upset by it. But judging by the fact that you keep bring up marital rapeand your weird referencing to prostitutes, I'm not sure I would care.
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.
(1)You cannot use this distinction to identify trans women. If you tried, you would be denying that some cis women were women. If you cannot use the quality to identify trans women, then it is not a meaningful distinction.
(2)The original request: Tell me a physical presently existing quality that could distinguish a cis woman from a trans woman. Still waiting.
1. Youre working under the assumption that all categories are that rigid. This isnt true. If this were true, then biology wouldnt be able to explain the transition from one species into another and wed have to have had a monkey giving birth to a man at some point in history. This never happened and categories are rarely as rigid as you presume.
2. I maintain that there are absolutely no cis-women who are xy. If youre xy and female then you have testosterone insensitivity syndrome and thus you lack a uterus and youre not female in the biological sense.
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.
(1)You cannot use this distinction to identify trans women. If you tried, you would be denying that some cis women were women. If you cannot use the quality to identify trans women, then it is not a meaningful distinction.
(2)The original request: Tell me a physical presently existing quality that could distinguish a cis woman from a trans woman. Still waiting.
1. Youre working under the assumption that all categories are that rigid. This isnt true. If this were true, then biology wouldnt be able to explain the transition from one species into another and wed have to have had a monkey giving birth to a man at some point in history. This never happened and categories are rarely as rigid as you presume.
2. I maintain that there are absolutely no cis-women who are xy. If youre xy and female then you have testosterone insensitivity syndrome and thus you lack a uterus and youre not female in the biological sense.
Wow dude...#2. I didn't think people would so blatantly fall into the incredibly sexist trap. You heard it here first "a woman is a woman because she can reproduce."
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.
(1)You cannot use this distinction to identify trans women. If you tried, you would be denying that some cis women were women. If you cannot use the quality to identify trans women, then it is not a meaningful distinction.
(2)The original request: Tell me a physical presently existing quality that could distinguish a cis woman from a trans woman. Still waiting.
1. Youre working under the assumption that all categories are that rigid. This isnt true. If this were true, then biology wouldnt be able to explain the transition from one species into another and wed have to have had a monkey giving birth to a man at some point in history. This never happened and categories are rarely as rigid as you presume.
2. I maintain that there are absolutely no cis-women who are xy. If youre xy and female then you have testosterone insensitivity syndrome and thus you lack a uterus and youre not female in the biological sense.
1. Whatever, I'm not really interested in discussing how one can deny that a trans woman is a woman via analogy to species.
2. Some women lack a uterus that have xx chromosomes. So am I correct to say then that these people are not women?
Also it's rude to call such people transphobic just because they may find the idea of having sex with a transsexual disgusting. There are people who consider having sex with an obese person disgusting - that doesn't mean they think any less of them as a person.
It is in essence transphobia, because you seem to have an underlying belief that transsexual women are not really women (which is a transphobic belief.) Transphobic beliefs are often like sexist beliefs, in that they often seem benign and totally reasonable, but the assumptions behind them are harmful. So, say, the completely benign act of opening doors and holding them for women (in this case let's say its extremely impractical, she's 10 feet ahead of you and you run past her to open the door), seems like a totally ridiculous thing to call sexist. No one would say that you're a bigot for holding the door. But the underlying beliefs behind that action are in fact sexist.
My girlfriend would say your an idiot and sometimes guys opening the door for you is nice. Not every single thing is about social justice and we can grow beyond that. We don't have to throw everything out that reminds us of past times just because we are afraid that it might make us think about repressing people.
Also, attraction is illogical and people can't turn it on and off like a switch. Not all attraction is based on physical appearance and someone may find out that the person they are dating is transsexual and no longer be attracted to them. That person may not know why or be able to change this fact. It seems very unfair to blame or shame the person for something that is beyond their control.
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.
(1)You cannot use this distinction to identify trans women. If you tried, you would be denying that some cis women were women. If you cannot use the quality to identify trans women, then it is not a meaningful distinction.
(2)The original request: Tell me a physical presently existing quality that could distinguish a cis woman from a trans woman. Still waiting.
1. Youre working under the assumption that all categories are that rigid. This isnt true. If this were true, then biology wouldnt be able to explain the transition from one species into another and wed have to have had a monkey giving birth to a man at some point in history. This never happened and categories are rarely as rigid as you presume.
2. I maintain that there are absolutely no cis-women who are xy. If youre xy and female then you have testosterone insensitivity syndrome and thus you lack a uterus and youre not female in the biological sense.
1. Whatever, I'm not really interested in discussing how one can deny that a trans woman is a woman via analogy to species.
2. Some women lack a uterus that have xx chromosomes. So am I correct to say then that these people are not women?
1. I agree. The whole discussion has become pretty absurd to me.
2. No because the distinction was that no cis women are xy. The problem here is that words have different meaning depending on field. In the field of biology a transgender woman is not a "woman" and neither is a woman with T insensitivity syndrome, but in everyday language and in my book both are women. I would never call a transgender fake for example or "not a real woman". Because that would be immoral. And I would be a dick. But to deny that you CAN make a distinction, if you want to, is to be quite silly.
Also it's rude to call such people transphobic just because they may find the idea of having sex with a transsexual disgusting. There are people who consider having sex with an obese person disgusting - that doesn't mean they think any less of them as a person.
It is in essence transphobia, because you seem to have an underlying belief that transsexual women are not really women (which is a transphobic belief.) Transphobic beliefs are often like sexist beliefs, in that they often seem benign and totally reasonable, but the assumptions behind them are harmful. So, say, the completely benign act of opening doors and holding them for women (in this case let's say its extremely impractical, she's 10 feet ahead of you and you run past her to open the door), seems like a totally ridiculous thing to call sexist. No one would say that you're a bigot for holding the door. But the underlying beliefs behind that action are in fact sexist.
My girlfriend would say your an idiot and sometimes guys opening the door for you is nice. Not every single thing is about social justice and we can grow beyond that.
Also, attraction is illogical and people can't turn it on and off like a switch. Not all attraction is based on physical appearance and someone may find out that the person they are dating is transsexual and no longer be attracted to them. That person may not know why or be able to change this fact. It seems very unfair to blame or shame the person for something that is beyond their control.
I'm not trying to shame you for being transphobic. I just want you to be aware of it. I want you to know that what you consider to be completely benign behavior often has harmful implications. In particular, I chose the door example precisely because it seems so completely benign and innocent. Sexism, and transphobia as well, often seem benign.
Also, I think that whether or not your girlfriend thinks I'm an idiot is somewhat irrelevant. If we could avoid silly banter like that in the future, it'd be much appreciated.
Would someone in her situation (post-op w/ a blind pouch) be required to tell her one-night stands of her medical history?
I guess tl;dr -- She was born with a vagina and a clit, produces the proper amount of estrogen for a woman. She lacks a uterus, cervix, and tubes. Infertile (though this doesn't matter for one-night stands). She has XY chromosomes. She had her testes removed when they began descending.
EPT
