|
On August 02 2013 05:30 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 04:58 maybenexttime wrote:
According to some people you're also an asshole, don't forget that. ^___^
I just pointed out that just because something is not considered rape according to the law does not mean it's not actually rape. I find the rationalization that tricking someone into having sex he would otherwise give no consent to and be strongly against is equally ridiculous as the rationalization behind not considering marital rape rape.
edit: Plus you keep saying as if that was a trivial thing, when in reality for many, many people it is not trivial and can be as traumatic as typical rape is for women. It's not yours to decide how traumatic certain events are for people, now you're acting like Klondikebar...
And to say one wasn't tricked is blatantly stupid. If a scam artist tricks you into thinking you're making a really good deal and then takes your life saving away from you, even though you gave consent to that "business" it doesn't make it okay or not immoral because you failed to realize you gave an uninformed consent to an ill-intentioned person.
I can live with those people calling me an asshole, they aren't worth my time. Oppressing people isn't cool and all opinions are not beautiful snowflakes to be respected. Some people just suck. Rape is a serious charge, requiring lack of consent at the time of the event. That is not what you are talking about, no matter how many times you say it. And I don't have a problem with people bieng upset that they slept with someone who was not who they thought they were. It if it tramatic, that is sad for them. However, you can't expect great thing to happen when you engage in one night stands. In short, life is hard, get a helmet. I don't care if you end up sleeping with someone who is transgender, you know how to avoid that. I do care if they call me a bigot because I might not want to sleep with them or I'm uncomfortable. Then you are no different from people who are against labeling marital rape as rape, I'm afraid, since here also "consent" was given... Like KwarK already explained, giving consent to sex based on the premise that your prospect sexual partner is a cis woman, which is the case here, is not equal to giving consent to having sex with a transsexual woman, assuming to you there's a huge distinction and you find the latter disgusting and do not partake in it. Your argument only makes sense if having sex with a cis woman and a transsexual woman makes absolutely no difference to you. That is not the case, hence no consent was given and that is rape. 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.
TL is not an exclusively American website. I don't have to abide by some arbitrary American definitions. And like I said, we should discuss ethicality of said behavior, not whether it should be labeled as such and such according to the law of a particular country. The same way the legality of marital rape is irrelevant (and let's not pretend that rationalizing marital rape is that much different from justifying what people are justifying here). There's no conventional definition of rape. It varies from country to country. E.g. Sweden takes it into one extreme (the Assange debacle), while some other countries take it to another (marital rape being legal). Some countries may label getting a woman drunk while you yourself stay sober, in order to take advantage of her "rape", while others may not. Heck, many women would feel violated and raped, while many (some?) would just be like "God, I was so stupid" and move on. Does that mean the former have no right to feel violated, taken advantage of or even raped? I dunno, I would say that no.
I would consider "rape" as making someone have unconsensual sex with you, no matter what means you use or how legal it is in a particular country. I would also consider giving consent to sex with a cis woman not equal to, automatically, giving consent to sex with a transsexual woman.
So, as far as I'm concerned (and from my perspective most heterosexual men share that perspective), not disclosing that you're a transsexual would be taking advantage of the fact that your prospect sexual partner thinks you're a cis woman and gives consent to an intercourse with a cis woman, and thus making him have sex without consent.
On August 02 2013 05:54 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:50 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 05:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 05:02 shinosai wrote:Yes, they're not physical, they're intangible, but that doesn't stop them from being present, intangible qualities that in the past used to be tangible. They can still be deal breakers and you should respect that, simple as that. How come people who preach tolerance are some intolerant themselves? You're getting off topic. I'm not discussing deal breakers or who should disclose what (that question has run in circles for the last 10 pages). All I was doing is responding to someone that was trying to make a distinction between cis and trans women. I'm asking for a quality that exists in the present that could actually make this distinction. If you have to use a time machine, then I don't believe that's a meaningful distinction. My point is, trans women are no less women than cis women. That is all. And prostitutes are no less women either. Doesn't change the fact that having been a prostitute is, usually, not an irrelevant quality of a person in terms of sexual attraction, which is what you're arguing in case of being a transsexual. yo whats wrong with prostitutes 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?
I just find the prospect of having sex with one disgusting. Do I need a reason for that? I don't think so.
As for personality, for me sex is an intimate thing. Making a living out of selling your body to often filthy or creepy people (not every prostitute is an extravagant escort) means you have little respect for yourself. You may call that judgemental, I wouldn't really care. That's part of my culture and I embrace it.
|
On August 02 2013 06:07 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:03 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 05:55 shinosai wrote: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.
Well I think the over use of the word bigot might be making people more agressive than they need to be. No one likes being lumped in with the KKK just not wanting to sleep with someone. Toned down langauge would lead to more civil discussion.
And once again, we can move beyond sexism and just do things because we want to. Our every action does not have to reflect some deeper social meaning. And I understand that turning someone down or telling them I don't want to sleep with them can be harmful, but it doesn't make me transphobic if I don't have control over who I am attracted to or why I am not.
|
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.
I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical.
I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus.
I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women).
I'm going to make a bold statement here: There is no non tautological definition of woman that both excludes all trans women and includes all cis women. At least, there isn't if we're going by criteria in the present and not the past.
|
I'm getting a little sick of people saying they don't need a reason for sexual attraction. When your sexual attraction comes with heavy handed moral judgement (i.e. sex with a prostitute is disgusting) you haven't just stated a sexual attraction, you've made a moral claim and you need to justify that.
Also, just because you aren't currently aware of what motivates you to like certain things, doesn't mean you can't ever be aware. And being content to consume whatever pleases you without ever knowing why won't leave you any happier than a pig. We're human. We ask why. We're capable of introspection. Maybe yall are just 14 year olds who barely even know how facial hair works, much less your own penis, but then quit acting like your level of self awareness is normal.
Get your shit together. If you're ever going to be happy, and if you're ever going to make someone else happy, you need to understand WHY people like the things they like, including why you like the things you like. You don't have to have all the answers immediately, but it's moronic to think those answers will never come or that they aren't worth having.
|
Fuck, I got last post on previous page. Please read, I'm curious about responses.
On August 02 2013 06:07 babylon wrote:What about those with AIS (intersex condition)? Trawled through the internet to find this story I'd read a while back: http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/woman-with-male-chromosomesWould 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 [from inside her body] when they began descending.
Another: How about one-night stands between cis heterosexual men with pre-op homosexual trans men? Would the trans man be required to disclose that he is trans?
|
On August 02 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:07 shinosai wrote:On August 02 2013 06:03 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 05:55 shinosai wrote: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. Well I think the over use of the word bigot might be making people more agressive than they need to be. No one likes being lumped in with the KKK just not wanting to sleep with someone. Toned down langauge would lead to more civil discussion. And once again, we can move beyond sexism and just do things because we want to. Our every action does not have to reflect some deeper social meaning. And I understand that turning someone down or telling them I don't want to sleep with them can be harmful, but it doesn't make me transphobic if I don't have control over who I am attracted to or why I am not.
For the record, I'm not calling you a bigot. But you do have underlying transphobic beliefs based on what you've said. I'm going to try to break this down as politely as possible, because you seem like a pretty cool guy overall.
Let's say I am attracted to a biracial woman who I think is white. I *hate* biracial women. Absolutely loathe them. I would be literally traumatized if I accidentally slept with one. Can I then say afterward: "Well, I can't control who I'm attracted to. I am not attracted to anyone who is not 100% white. That doesn't make me racist." I disagree. You do have underlying racist beliefs. I don't think this makes you a terrible person, but I would encourage you to reflect on your racist beliefs, just as I encourage you to reflect on your transphobic ones.
|
On August 02 2013 06:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:54 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 05:50 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 05:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 05:02 shinosai wrote:Yes, they're not physical, they're intangible, but that doesn't stop them from being present, intangible qualities that in the past used to be tangible. They can still be deal breakers and you should respect that, simple as that. How come people who preach tolerance are some intolerant themselves? You're getting off topic. I'm not discussing deal breakers or who should disclose what (that question has run in circles for the last 10 pages). All I was doing is responding to someone that was trying to make a distinction between cis and trans women. I'm asking for a quality that exists in the present that could actually make this distinction. If you have to use a time machine, then I don't believe that's a meaningful distinction. My point is, trans women are no less women than cis women. That is all. And prostitutes are no less women either. Doesn't change the fact that having been a prostitute is, usually, not an irrelevant quality of a person in terms of sexual attraction, which is what you're arguing in case of being a transsexual. yo whats wrong with prostitutes 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? I just find the prospect of having sex with one disgusting. Do I need a reason for that? I don't think so. As for personality, for me sex is an intimate thing. Making a living out of selling your body to often filthy or creepy people (not every prostitute is an extravagant escort) means you have little respect for yourself. You may call that judgemental, I wouldn't really care. That's part of my culture and I embrace it.
You don't need a reason it just seems like you've been having a lot of feelings for no reason lately and i thought i would ask. I don't believe selling your body implies anything about you other than that you are willing to have sex for money.
Your culture sounds like it simultaneously puts sex on a pedestal and shames it.
|
On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +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. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women).
isnt saying becoming a woman by forced alterations (man to woman or woman to man via surgery/therapy/hormones/etc) enough to distinguish the two? wouldnt that mean if i get plastic surgery to look like a white person, i can call myself a "real" white person?
this "perfect" trans seems to be a new term since technology did not exist and i think it'll take time to settle
|
On August 02 2013 06:21 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote: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. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). isnt saying becoming a woman by forced alterations (man to woman or woman to man via surgery/therapy/hormones/etc) enough to distinguish the two? wouldnt that mean if i get plastic surgery to look like a white person, i can call myself a "real" white person?
Except you'd need a time machine in order to make that distinction.
Well, anyways, once again I'm done with this line of argument. I've made my point. Like I excused myself earlier from the disclosure debate, now I excuse myself from this one. Good talking to you all, have a lovely day.
|
On August 02 2013 06:21 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote: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. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). isnt saying becoming a woman by forced alterations (man to woman or woman to man via surgery/therapy/hormones/etc) enough to distinguish the two? wouldnt that mean if i get plastic surgery to look like a white person, i can call myself a "real" white person? this "perfect" trans seems to be a new term since technology did not exist and i think it'll take time to settle
Given that "white person" literally only describes the color of your skin...yeah if you bleached your skin white you'd be a white person. Did that question really seem clever to you?
|
On August 02 2013 06:23 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:21 jinorazi wrote:On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote: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. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). isnt saying becoming a woman by forced alterations (man to woman or woman to man via surgery/therapy/hormones/etc) enough to distinguish the two? wouldnt that mean if i get plastic surgery to look like a white person, i can call myself a "real" white person? this "perfect" trans seems to be a new term since technology did not exist and i think it'll take time to settle Given that "white person" literally only describes the color of your skin...yeah if you bleached your skin white you'd be a white person. Did that question really seem clever to you?
ok let me rephrase that, caucasian, since you clearly did not get my meaning, you happy?. you really gotta do something with your condescending tone
|
On August 02 2013 06:25 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 06:21 jinorazi wrote:On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote: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. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). isnt saying becoming a woman by forced alterations (man to woman or woman to man via surgery/therapy/hormones/etc) enough to distinguish the two? wouldnt that mean if i get plastic surgery to look like a white person, i can call myself a "real" white person? this "perfect" trans seems to be a new term since technology did not exist and i think it'll take time to settle Given that "white person" literally only describes the color of your skin...yeah if you bleached your skin white you'd be a white person. Did that question really seem clever to you? ok let me rephrase that, caucasian, since you clearly did not get my meaning, you happy?. you really gotta do something with your condescending tone
I'm being condescending because you're stupid attempts at being snarky can be debunked with a simple google search. No, simply having white skin does not make you caucasian.
"Caucasian race (also Caucasoid)[1] is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western, Central and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term was used for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
|
On August 02 2013 05:50 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:19 Iyerbeth wrote:On August 02 2013 05:17 KwarK wrote: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.
No, it's not just not a 1:1 comparison, it was asked why it's different and I explained clearly the difference. If you want a comparison a better one would be someone knows they have a cousin somewhere in a city and they happen to meet someone they have a one night stand with. Were they obligated to mention there's a chance they're cousins.
Additionally, I not only haven't called anyone transphobic in this thread, I have said repeatedly that I broadly agree that in a world where it's likely to be an issue for people that I do consider that I should (and do in my real life) inform potential partners of any duration. I also happen to understand why others don't though and wish I lived in a world where I didn't.
Finally, suggesting that transphobia and homophobia are artificially invented is kinda stupid - especially to someone who has been on the extreme receiving end of them.
|
On August 02 2013 06:19 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:14 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 06:07 shinosai wrote:On August 02 2013 06:03 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 05:55 shinosai wrote: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. Well I think the over use of the word bigot might be making people more agressive than they need to be. No one likes being lumped in with the KKK just not wanting to sleep with someone. Toned down langauge would lead to more civil discussion. And once again, we can move beyond sexism and just do things because we want to. Our every action does not have to reflect some deeper social meaning. And I understand that turning someone down or telling them I don't want to sleep with them can be harmful, but it doesn't make me transphobic if I don't have control over who I am attracted to or why I am not. For the record, I'm not calling you a bigot. But you do have underlying transphobic beliefs based on what you've said. I'm going to try to break this down as politely as possible, because you seem like a pretty cool guy overall. Let's say I am attracted to a biracial woman who I think is white. I *hate* biracial women. Absolutely loathe them. I would be literally traumatized if I accidentally slept with one. Can I then say afterward: "Well, I can't control who I'm attracted to. I am not attracted to anyone who is not 100% white. That doesn't make me racist." I disagree. You do have underlying racist beliefs. I don't think this makes you a terrible person, but I would encourage you to reflect on your racist beliefs, just as I encourage you to reflect on your transphobic ones.
Yes, but here is the problem and why people are objecting to the claim that they are transphobic:
Because they don't know if they would want to sleep with someone who is transexual, because it is all in the abstract and the option has not been presented to them. Attraction is irrational and they don't know how they would feel. However, they do know that they have no control over who they are attracted to. Because of this, they feel powerless to prevent somethign from happening that they preceive as negative and that they could not fix.
Now that standard argument for this is that they have underlying transphobic beliefs if they are not attracted to some one who is transgender. However, that might not be the case and they simply do not know why they don't want to sleep with that person. However, because they don't want to and it makes them transphobic, they are ashamed. They don't want to be shamed for their choice if it comes down to that or forced to feel like they need to sleep with the transgender person just to be seen as open minded.
Some of the people in this thread(how are not asshats) are pro equal rights and want to see transgender people treated fairly and live happy lives. However, those same people are arguing with you because they don't like the idea of being called transphobic just because they might not want to sleep with you. To them, it seems unfair to blame them for something they couldnt' control and might not be caused by some transphobic beliefs.
|
On August 02 2013 06:30 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:25 jinorazi wrote:On August 02 2013 06:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 06:21 jinorazi wrote:On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote: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. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). isnt saying becoming a woman by forced alterations (man to woman or woman to man via surgery/therapy/hormones/etc) enough to distinguish the two? wouldnt that mean if i get plastic surgery to look like a white person, i can call myself a "real" white person? this "perfect" trans seems to be a new term since technology did not exist and i think it'll take time to settle Given that "white person" literally only describes the color of your skin...yeah if you bleached your skin white you'd be a white person. Did that question really seem clever to you? ok let me rephrase that, caucasian, since you clearly did not get my meaning, you happy?. you really gotta do something with your condescending tone I'm being condescending because you're stupid attempts at being snarky can be debunked with a simple google search. No, simply having white skin does not make you caucasian. "Caucasian race (also Caucasoid)[1] is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western, Central and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term was used for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race
you claim since a trans woman is no different than cis woman, so if such alteration can be made in different form, sex race or whatever, would that apply too? if there was a technology to make my eyes blue, bleach skin, blonde hair, would i be able to claim myself "white person"?
i make no snarky comments, i find all the things i'm reading very intriguing like when i first learned about truth behind weed. here i am that comes from fairly close minded family/society trying to learn and understand and you're telling me to fuck off.
i apologize if i'm not using the correct words, be smart about it try to make sense of it instead of nitpicking on my vocab choices.
|
On August 02 2013 05:46 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:43 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 05:39 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 05:37 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 05:28 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 05:05 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 05:01 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 04:52 Klondikebar wrote: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.
Not everyone has to buy into this whole gender ideology. You pretend as if it was some objective truth when it's not. Gender studies is not a science.
You claim that sex and gender are not the same. Alternatively, one could say gender and sex are actually the same thing (for like 99,9% if not 99,99% of people) and transsexuals are just an exception that proves the rule, the same way a human hand has four fingers and a thumb despite some people not being bornthat way. I have a hunch that most people outside the LGBT circle would be more inclined to agree with the latter.
|
On August 02 2013 06:33 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:46 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 05:43 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 05:39 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 05:37 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 05:28 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 05:05 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 05:01 Shiori wrote: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. Not everyone has to buy into this whole gender ideology. You pretend as if it was some objective truth when it's not. Gender studies is not a science. You claim that sex and gender are not the same. Alternatively, one could say gender and sex are actually the same thing (for like 99,9% if not 99,99% of people) and transsexuals are just an exception that proves the rule, the same way a human hand has four fingers and a thumb despite some people not being bornthat way. I have a hunch that most people outside the LGBT circle would be more inclined to agree with the latter.
Are you sure its not just people who want to oppress folks with different life styles? I mean, you don't seem to accept much that the LGBT community says .
|
On August 02 2013 06:33 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:30 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 06:25 jinorazi wrote:On August 02 2013 06:23 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 06:21 jinorazi wrote:On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote: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. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). isnt saying becoming a woman by forced alterations (man to woman or woman to man via surgery/therapy/hormones/etc) enough to distinguish the two? wouldnt that mean if i get plastic surgery to look like a white person, i can call myself a "real" white person? this "perfect" trans seems to be a new term since technology did not exist and i think it'll take time to settle Given that "white person" literally only describes the color of your skin...yeah if you bleached your skin white you'd be a white person. Did that question really seem clever to you? ok let me rephrase that, caucasian, since you clearly did not get my meaning, you happy?. you really gotta do something with your condescending tone I'm being condescending because you're stupid attempts at being snarky can be debunked with a simple google search. No, simply having white skin does not make you caucasian. "Caucasian race (also Caucasoid)[1] is the general physical type of some or all of the populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western, Central and South Asia.[2] Historically, the term was used for many people from these regions, without regard necessarily to skin tone." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_race you claim since a trans woman is no different than cis woman, so if such alteration can be made in different form, sex race or whatever, would that apply too? if there was a technology to make my eyes blue, bleach skin, blonde hair, would i be able to claim myself "white person"? i make no snarky comments, i find all the things i'm reading very intriguing like when i first learned about truth behind weed. here i am that comes from fairly close minded family/society trying to learn and understand and you're telling me to fuck off. i apologize if i'm not using the correct words, be smart about it try to make sense of it instead of nitpicking on my vocab choices.
You could make yourself a white person simply by dying your skin.
In order to make yourself caucasian you'd have to somehow mimic the physical characteristics of people from the regions listed. Surgery could do it but it'd take an extremely skilled surgeon to alter such small features with such accuracy. But the point is that "Caucasian" just describes a list of physical characteristics. If you could mimic those physical characteristics, you would be Caucasian.
It works for sex changes because we just rely on hormones to change the characteristics of the person. Surgeons only change the big easy stuff.
|
On August 02 2013 06:33 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:46 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 05:43 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 05:39 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 05:37 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 05:33 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 05:28 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 05:05 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 05:01 Shiori wrote: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. Not everyone has to buy into this whole gender ideology. You pretend as if it was some objective truth when it's not. Gender studies is not a science. You claim that sex and gender are not the same. Alternatively, one could say gender and sex are actually the same thing (for like 99,9% if not 99,99% of people) and transsexuals are just an exception that proves the rule, the same way a human hand has four fingers and a thumb despite some people not being bornthat way. I have a hunch that most people outside the LGBT circle would be more inclined to agree with the latter.
Exceptions do not prove rules. In fact they are the reason rules require proof.
|
On August 02 2013 05:55 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +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?
That they are not women? No. That they are different from cis women? Yes. That I am not attracted to them and find the prospect of having sex with them disgusting? Yes, but the same applies for obese people, prostitutes and so on. My sexual attraction is none of your business (it's funny how the LGBT lobby calls people bigots for meddling in the erotic life of homosexuals but does the same to people like me, hypocrisy at its finest).
And to say that holding a door for a woman is some sort of internalized sexism, just lol. I'm also not attracted to black males, call me a racist homophobe, for all I care...
Like someone else said, by throwing some invented terms as insults at people who don't actually discriminate against you, you're making your whole cause not to be taken seriously.
On August 02 2013 05:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:50 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 05:23 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 05:19 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2013 04:58 maybenexttime wrote:
According to some people you're also an asshole, don't forget that. ^___^
I just pointed out that just because something is not considered rape according to the law does not mean it's not actually rape. I find the rationalization that tricking someone into having sex he would otherwise give no consent to and be strongly against is equally ridiculous as the rationalization behind not considering marital rape rape.
edit: Plus you keep saying as if that was a trivial thing, when in reality for many, many people it is not trivial and can be as traumatic as typical rape is for women. It's not yours to decide how traumatic certain events are for people, now you're acting like Klondikebar...
And to say one wasn't tricked is blatantly stupid. If a scam artist tricks you into thinking you're making a really good deal and then takes your life saving away from you, even though you gave consent to that "business" it doesn't make it okay or not immoral because you failed to realize you gave an uninformed consent to an ill-intentioned person.
I can live with those people calling me an asshole, they aren't worth my time. Oppressing people isn't cool and all opinions are not beautiful snowflakes to be respected. Some people just suck. Rape is a serious charge, requiring lack of consent at the time of the event. That is not what you are talking about, no matter how many times you say it. And I don't have a problem with people bieng upset that they slept with someone who was not who they thought they were. It if it tramatic, that is sad for them. However, you can't expect great thing to happen when you engage in one night stands. In short, life is hard, get a helmet. I don't care if you end up sleeping with someone who is transgender, you know how to avoid that. I do care if they call me a bigot because I might not want to sleep with them or I'm uncomfortable. Then you are no different from people who are against labeling marital rape as rape, I'm afraid, since here also "consent" was given... Like KwarK already explained, giving consent to sex based on the premise that your prospect sexual partner is a cis woman, which is the case here, is not equal to giving consent to having sex with a transsexual woman, assuming to you there's a huge distinction and you find the latter disgusting and do not partake in it. Your argument only makes sense if having sex with a cis woman and a transsexual woman makes absolutely no difference to you. That is not the case, hence no consent was given and that is rape. You can't have rape after the fact, its impossible. Marriage does not give unlimited consent to sex, so that argument is dumb. You can't change your mind 3 days later because you found out the girl you slept with was jewish and you dont' like people who are jewish. YOu can't do it with people who are transgender either. Once you put your penis in there, its all you buddy. No one made you do it. If after that you have second thoughts, its not rape. 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.
I would consider a country that allows a transsexual to rape someone just as backwards. Your rationalization that it's not rape is exactly like that of countries that allow marital rape: "the consent was there", even though there wasn't any. It was only either imagined by the victimizer or they didn't even care about it.
Is it also not your fault that women are woried about having unconsensual sex with some thus in a back alley?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
