|
On August 02 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:
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.
I don't think anyone thinks disgust is a matter of objective judgment. I think having sex for money is fairly gross, and it totally doesn't mesh with my understanding of my own sexual identity, but I'm not claiming that prostitution is somehow objectively a bad thing or that it should be forbidden, or whatever. I wouldn't have sex with a prostitute because the profession is just really foreign to me and not something I care for at all. I mean, my understanding of sexuality is something I have sole jurisdiction over. I'm not required to justify why I want to have sex with certain people over others. When my friends say stuff like "man, that girl was so amazingly hot and funny? Why didn't you tap that?" I shrug and basically say I wasn't attracted to her. I'm not making some grand claim about her worth; I'm saying I wasn't attracted to her, not that no person should be permitted to be attracted to her.
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.
I don't think there are any particularly logical reasons for why I like, say, moderately sized breasts over very large ones, or why I think pinkish nipples are prettier than brownish ones. And I really don't care about any subconscious hypothetical experience that somehow created this belief in me. This isn't Freudian psychoanalysis. The point is that I don't have any logical justification for any of my physical preferences. I just get stronger erections/fantasies/arousal from some of them over a lack of those preferences. At no point have I ever sat down and convinced myself that women who are short are logically more attractive than women who are very tall.
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.
...
I like the colour blue rather than the colour green, even though I like both of them. I have no idea why I like the colour blue more than the colour green. There is no fucking logical structure underpinning my preference for the colour blue. And it's absurd to act as if there must be.
Exceptions do not prove rules. In fact they are the reason rules require proof.
I have asked twice, out of legitimate curiosity and the sense that I must be missing something huge, what gender actually is when divorced from societal gender roles and physical characteristics. Say someone was a blind quadriplegic from birth, and never was told what body they had. Suppose they had damaged ears and could only hear by use of technology that converted everything to an androgynous monotone. What does it mean to talk about this person's gender? I'm not saying that they don't have one, but I'm asking what it actually refers to within the mind.
My big beef with gender studies is that, on the one hand, it wants to say gender roles are arbitrary and that sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gender, but then on the other hand it wants to maintain that gender is still some objective quality that people can identify with. But what are the properties of a gender? What does it mean to have a "male" gender?
|
On August 02 2013 06:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:30 Mercy13 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. 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. 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.
Ok, I see where you are coming from now. You are right, I shouldn't have used the term "legal" because as you say, laws are different in different places. Also, your definition seems fairly reasonable:
[/quote]I would consider "rape" as making someone have unconsensual sex with you, no matter what means you use or how legal it is in 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.[/quote]
I think what you are missing though is an element of intent. I think a better definition would be "A person commits rape when he or she intentionally engages in sexual intercourse with another person, (1) when he or she has reason to believe that such other person has not consented to such sexual intercourse, and (2) such other person has not consented to such sexual intercourse."
Now it's quite easy for us to find out what we actually disagree about. You appear to believe that consent is invalid when it is premised upon a false belief, whether or not a person intentionally tried to create that belief. Therefore, the burden is on the trans person to dispel that false belief or else be a perpetrator of rape. Sorry if I am putting words in your mouth, and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong about what you are saying.
This is the part of your definition that I really take issue with, because it seems too broad. It's not like trans women are determined to "trick" (as you put it) cis males into sleeping with them. They are going out to bars and clubs or whatever, and acting like real women because they ARE real women. If cis males incorrectly assume that a trans woman is a cis female it is not her fault. Since it is not her fault that they made an incorrect assumption, I do not think it is fair to say that she is obligated to correct it.
Edit: Also your repeated statements that a trans woman having sex with a cis man without informing him of her trans status is that same as marital rape is simply not true, unless you are using a very convoluted definition of consent.
If consent is given based upon a false belief it is still consent. Maybe you think it's not the sort of consent that is needed to bring the sexual activity outside of the definition of rape, but that doesn't change that fact that the activity was consensual at the time it occurred. This is different from marital rape, where consent is totally absent.
|
@ maybenexttime: I hate to push, but from what I'm reading, it seems you have primarily expressed disgust at the idea of sleeping with post-op trans women. You say that they should disclose their status before hooking up with a cis heterosexual man for a one-night stand.
Once again, what about pre-treatment trans men (note: physically female) or those with AIS (who are born with a vagina and a clit but who have had to have internal testes removed)? Would the trans man be required to disclose to the cis heterosexual man that he is trans? (They would be effectively engaging in homosexual acts.) Would the intersex individual be required to disclose that she is intersex? These two examples are not, I think, as outlandish as some other examples, which is why I ask.
Any other cis heterosexual guy, feel free to speak up. I seem to be getting ignored.
|
On August 02 2013 06:50 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:
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. I don't think anyone thinks disgust is a matter of objective judgment. I think having sex for money is fairly gross, and it totally doesn't mesh with my understanding of my own sexual identity, but I'm not claiming that prostitution is somehow objectively a bad thing or that it should be forbidden, or whatever. I wouldn't have sex with a prostitute because the profession is just really foreign to me and not something I care for at all. I mean, my understanding of sexuality is something I have sole jurisdiction over. I'm not required to justify why I want to have sex with certain people over others. When my friends say stuff like "man, that girl was so amazingly hot and funny? Why didn't you tap that?" I shrug and basically say I wasn't attracted to her. I'm not making some grand claim about her worth; I'm saying I wasn't attracted to her, not that no person should be permitted to be attracted to her. Show nested quote +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. I don't think there are any particularly logical reasons for why I like, say, moderately sized breasts over very large ones, or why I think pinkish nipples are prettier than brownish ones. And I really don't care about any subconscious hypothetical experience that somehow created this belief in me. This isn't Freudian psychoanalysis. The point is that I don't have any logical justification for any of my physical preferences. I just get stronger erections/fantasies/arousal from some of them over a lack of those preferences. At no point have I ever sat down and convinced myself that women who are short are logically more attractive than women who are very tall. Show nested quote +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. ... I like the colour blue rather than the colour green, even though I like both of them. I have no idea why I like the colour blue more than the colour green. There is no fucking logical structure underpinning my preference for the colour blue. And it's absurd to act as if there must be. Show nested quote +Exceptions do not prove rules. In fact they are the reason rules require proof. I have asked twice, out of legitimate curiosity and the sense that I must be missing something huge, what gender actually is when divorced from societal gender roles and physical characteristics. Say someone was a blind quadriplegic from birth, and never was told what body they had. Suppose they had damaged ears and could only hear by use of technology that converted everything to an androgynous monotone. What does it mean to talk about this person's gender? I'm not saying that they don't have one, but I'm asking what it actually refers to within the mind. My big beef with gender studies is that, on the one hand, it wants to say gender roles are arbitrary and that sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gender, but then on the other hand it wants to maintain that gender is still some objective quality that people can identify with. But what are the properties of a gender? What does it mean to have a "male" gender?
The reason you should care about why certain things make you happy is that without that knowledge you're doing little more than responding to stimuli as any well trained dog might.
And if you know flowers make your girlfriend happy, but you have no idea why and you simply give them to her time and time again because you know it gets a positive reaction, you're not any more mature than a child.
Knowing why we act the way we do is what makes us better than non-intelligent animals. You keep saying "I don't know why I like X." I'm not saying you have to know right now. But acting as though you can never know and thinking that knowing wouldn't be an improvement is very bad. I suspect you have inklings as to why you like certain breasts more, you just really haven't taken the time to verbalize those reasons...not that I want you to do it here. But I think you're more than capable of understanding why you prefer moderately sized breasts to big, disproportionate, at the very least appearing fake, boobies 
As far as genders go, that is a hard question for anyone who hasn't studied it. Part of me thinks being male just means being comfortable with having a penis. And being female just means being comfortable with having a vagina. I am male gendered because my brain says I ought to have a penis. And I am cis male gendered because I was born with said penis. Gender dysphoria means that you were assigned a sex organ with which you are not comfortable. If science was able to change our brains such that we were comfortable with the genitals we were born with, that would be an alternative treatment for gender dysphoria.
|
On August 02 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:
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.
How on earth is that a moral judgement. I'm not even saying that sex with a prostitute is universally disgusting. Just that I find such a prospect disgusting. I don't need to justify it, it's none of your or anybody's business.
You're not different from those religious people who tell gays whom they can and cannot have sex with or whom they should feel attracted to.
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.
You're confusing introspection with rationalization and imagining things.
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.
You seem to have an obsession with understanding yourself. It probably stems from your issues with identity.
|
On August 02 2013 07:04 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:50 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:
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. I don't think anyone thinks disgust is a matter of objective judgment. I think having sex for money is fairly gross, and it totally doesn't mesh with my understanding of my own sexual identity, but I'm not claiming that prostitution is somehow objectively a bad thing or that it should be forbidden, or whatever. I wouldn't have sex with a prostitute because the profession is just really foreign to me and not something I care for at all. I mean, my understanding of sexuality is something I have sole jurisdiction over. I'm not required to justify why I want to have sex with certain people over others. When my friends say stuff like "man, that girl was so amazingly hot and funny? Why didn't you tap that?" I shrug and basically say I wasn't attracted to her. I'm not making some grand claim about her worth; I'm saying I wasn't attracted to her, not that no person should be permitted to be attracted to her. 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. I don't think there are any particularly logical reasons for why I like, say, moderately sized breasts over very large ones, or why I think pinkish nipples are prettier than brownish ones. And I really don't care about any subconscious hypothetical experience that somehow created this belief in me. This isn't Freudian psychoanalysis. The point is that I don't have any logical justification for any of my physical preferences. I just get stronger erections/fantasies/arousal from some of them over a lack of those preferences. At no point have I ever sat down and convinced myself that women who are short are logically more attractive than women who are very tall. 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. ... I like the colour blue rather than the colour green, even though I like both of them. I have no idea why I like the colour blue more than the colour green. There is no fucking logical structure underpinning my preference for the colour blue. And it's absurd to act as if there must be. Exceptions do not prove rules. In fact they are the reason rules require proof. I have asked twice, out of legitimate curiosity and the sense that I must be missing something huge, what gender actually is when divorced from societal gender roles and physical characteristics. Say someone was a blind quadriplegic from birth, and never was told what body they had. Suppose they had damaged ears and could only hear by use of technology that converted everything to an androgynous monotone. What does it mean to talk about this person's gender? I'm not saying that they don't have one, but I'm asking what it actually refers to within the mind. My big beef with gender studies is that, on the one hand, it wants to say gender roles are arbitrary and that sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gender, but then on the other hand it wants to maintain that gender is still some objective quality that people can identify with. But what are the properties of a gender? What does it mean to have a "male" gender? The reason you should care about why certain things make you happy is that without that knowledge you're doing little more than responding to stimuli as any well trained dog might.
...
The colour blue does not make me "happy." It's just a colour I like more than another. I also like the number 13. It doesn't make me happy. I just happen to like it. It doesn't make me happy to see a pretty girl; I just like pretty girls.
And if you know flowers make your girlfriend happy, but you have no idea why and you simply give them to her time and time again because you know it gets a positive reaction, you're not any more mature than a child.
Uhh...? I know why people like flowers: they're pretty-looking and they smell nice. I don't know why someone might prefer one species of rose to another, nor why someone would prefer pink flowers to red ones, because there isn't some objective way of determining which colour is better than another.
Knowing why we act the way we do is what makes us better than non-intelligent animals. You keep saying "I don't know why I like X." I'm not saying you have to know right now. But acting as though you can never know and thinking that knowing wouldn't be an improvement is very bad.
There's a difference between an action and a preference. I like the way carbonated drinks fizzle in my mouth. Some people detest it. I abhor pulp in fruit juices, not because it tastes any different, but because I don't like the idea of it and because it feels weird in my mouth. At the core, the reason I like or don't like something boils down to "because I just do" whenever it's something aesthetic. Why do I not like spacers in people's ears? Haven't got a clue, but I absolutely don't find them attractive at all, despite being good friends with people who have them. Do I hate former prostitutes/pornographic performers? Not in the slightest; hell, I'm totally indifferent to them from the perspective of respect and worth. But do I find that to be an unattractive quality in a prospective sexual partner? Yes, I do, because it implies a sexual identity that I not only don't share, but which I don't even come close to sharing.
Similarly, transsexuality is the result of gender dysphoria. I have absolutely zero conception of what gender dysphoria would be like, and I can't even begin to imagine it, ergo I simply wouldn't feel comfortable having sex with someone whose identity was formed by that experience in a large way. I would be very hesitant to have sex with people who were victims of serious sexual abuse, too, even if they have long since been free of it, because it would just not be something I'd be comfortable with/able to keep out my mind. And honestly, it's not very respectful for me to pretend I don't have some reservations about those sorts of things if I actually do. Trans people and everyone else deserve to have sex with people who value them (in the sense of sexual attraction) for who they actually are, even if it's just a one night stand. Otherwise, it's like they're downplaying a serious part of their identity for the sake of pleasure, which isn't healthy for anyone.
While it's true that trans women are absolutely women, they are also trans women, which, in this day and age, is a pretty relevant part of one's identity. It's absurd to presume that one's past experiences aren't relevant to their present self, particularly when it's something so incredibly intertwined with the self as gender identity.
I suspect you have inklings as to why you like certain breasts more, you just really haven't taken the time to verbalize those reasons...not that I want you to do it here. But I think you're more than capable of understanding why you prefer moderately sized breasts to big, disproportionate, at the very least appearing fake, boobies
I don't like fake boobies because they appear rather grotesque to me. I don't like large boobs in general, fake or real, because, honestly, I'm just not much of a boob guy. I like them, don't get me wrong, but they're not something that I care particularly much about. I feel similarly about the size of a girl's ass. The things I care about most are, in no particular order, face, hair, and skin, as well as overall proportions (height, bone structure, weight, etc.).
As far as genders go, that is a hard question for anyone who hasn't studied it. Part of me thinks being male just means being comfortable with having a penis. And being female just means being comfortable with having a vagina. I am male gendered because my brain says I ought to have a penis. And I am cis male gendered because I was born with said penis. Gender dysphoria means that you were assigned a sex organ with which you are not comfortable. If science was able to change our brains such that we were comfortable with the genitals we were born with, that would be an alternative treatment for gender dysphoria.
I see.
So what does it mean when someone doesn't identify with any gender (agender) or as a third gender (or even fourth)?
|
People who are agender or nth gender either don't give a shit about their bits and go with the flow, or they want to get rid of all secondary sex characteristics.
Agender means their brain doesn't say whether they should have certain bits of certain gender. Most of them are, of course, physically assigned a sex. There's a subgroup that doesn't care -- hypothetically, if you suddenly wake up one day without a dick and with breasts and a vagina and kind of just shrug, then you're probably agender* -- while there's another subgroup that wishes their sexed body to match their genderless status, and so they often attempt to look and act as androgynous as possible. Anyways, look into "neutrois."
*If you freak out about suddenly having all those and having no penis, you're probably male-gendered.
|
On August 02 2013 07:04 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:50 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:
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. I don't think anyone thinks disgust is a matter of objective judgment. I think having sex for money is fairly gross, and it totally doesn't mesh with my understanding of my own sexual identity, but I'm not claiming that prostitution is somehow objectively a bad thing or that it should be forbidden, or whatever. I wouldn't have sex with a prostitute because the profession is just really foreign to me and not something I care for at all. I mean, my understanding of sexuality is something I have sole jurisdiction over. I'm not required to justify why I want to have sex with certain people over others. When my friends say stuff like "man, that girl was so amazingly hot and funny? Why didn't you tap that?" I shrug and basically say I wasn't attracted to her. I'm not making some grand claim about her worth; I'm saying I wasn't attracted to her, not that no person should be permitted to be attracted to her. 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. I don't think there are any particularly logical reasons for why I like, say, moderately sized breasts over very large ones, or why I think pinkish nipples are prettier than brownish ones. And I really don't care about any subconscious hypothetical experience that somehow created this belief in me. This isn't Freudian psychoanalysis. The point is that I don't have any logical justification for any of my physical preferences. I just get stronger erections/fantasies/arousal from some of them over a lack of those preferences. At no point have I ever sat down and convinced myself that women who are short are logically more attractive than women who are very tall. 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. ... I like the colour blue rather than the colour green, even though I like both of them. I have no idea why I like the colour blue more than the colour green. There is no fucking logical structure underpinning my preference for the colour blue. And it's absurd to act as if there must be. Exceptions do not prove rules. In fact they are the reason rules require proof. I have asked twice, out of legitimate curiosity and the sense that I must be missing something huge, what gender actually is when divorced from societal gender roles and physical characteristics. Say someone was a blind quadriplegic from birth, and never was told what body they had. Suppose they had damaged ears and could only hear by use of technology that converted everything to an androgynous monotone. What does it mean to talk about this person's gender? I'm not saying that they don't have one, but I'm asking what it actually refers to within the mind. My big beef with gender studies is that, on the one hand, it wants to say gender roles are arbitrary and that sex doesn't necessarily have anything to do with gender, but then on the other hand it wants to maintain that gender is still some objective quality that people can identify with. But what are the properties of a gender? What does it mean to have a "male" gender? The reason you should care about why certain things make you happy is that without that knowledge you're doing little more than responding to stimuli as any well trained dog might.
And if you know flowers make your girlfriend happy, but you have no idea why and you simply give them to her time and time again because you know it gets a positive reaction, you're not any more mature than a child.
Knowing why we act the way we do is what makes us better than non-intelligent animals. You keep saying "I don't know why I like X." I'm not saying you have to know right now. But acting as though you can never know and thinking that knowing wouldn't be an improvement is very bad. I suspect you have inklings as to why you like certain breasts more, you just really haven't taken the time to verbalize those reasons...not that I want you to do it here. But I think you're more than capable of understanding why you prefer moderately sized breasts to big, disproportionate, at the very least appearing fake, boobies As far as genders go, that is a hard question for anyone who hasn't studied it. Part of me thinks being male just means being comfortable with having a penis. And being female just means being comfortable with having a vagina. I am male gendered because my brain says I ought to have a penis. And I am cis male gendered because I was born with said penis. Gender dysphoria means that you were assigned a sex organ with which you are not comfortable. If science was able to change our brains such that we were comfortable with the genitals we were born with, that would be an alternative treatment for gender dysphoria.
i fully agree with that statement, however one thing i think you keep looking past is cultural mind block. if everyone thinks the way you suggest, world would be a better place but the fact is the vast, vast majority does not think that way and i think its impossible to contemplate when that will change, its how the real world is. with that said, i think you should keep in mind some cultures value family and the society as priority rather than the individual(which heavily influences their partner preference). and in that situation, its "morally correct" to sacrifice yourself(not date someone family will disapprove), for the better of your family regardless of their prejudice practice, because their prejudice comes from the core of their culture and you cannot simply change it(its part of being human imo) you can only run from it.
i personally think LBGT fighting for equality is good, however calling everyone who does not get your ideals because they're irrational trans-homo-phobes dont help the point either since its something NEW vs old tradition, you cannot simply ignore tradition and if it needs change, people will realize and evolve like slavery and whatnot. but until then it is what it is and its an arduous path.
you're essentially saying, "fuck all your old ways (man is man, woman is woman), this is the new way(man can turn woman, woman can turn man) so accept it". that not easy for people to accept and you should understand why. just like you expect people to be rational and try to understand gender/sex, cis/trans, they too should try to understand people are the way they are because of the culture and the way they're brought up instead of attacking them for not agreeing with you, focusing blame on sex partner for not asking before hand, etc.
i say what i say because trans people are saying people need to be rational and come to their senses and counter every reason why a heterosexual might not find transsexual attractive, and all results in transphobia or some other definite reason like there HAS to be a reason why someone finds trans unattractive and attach some negative reason to it. meanwhile i see no reason why its a negative thing to find transwoman unattractive. i can say for me its my family and friends and "moral value" that gets attached to it, for example how would my family react if they found out i slept with a transwoman. i can convince myself its not a bad thing, and i dont think its a bad thing however i'd find dishonoring my family a big enough or bigger issue to avoid it, and to me that is the correct way regardless how anyone would think my family's point of view is trivial, birthed from prejudice if you would, but it is what it is and we live in it.
|
On August 02 2013 06:54 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 05:30 Mercy13 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. 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: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. Ok, I see where you are coming from now. You are right, I shouldn't have used the term "legal" because as you say, laws are different in different places. Also, your definition seems fairly reasonable: Show nested quote +I would consider "rape" as making someone have unconsensual sex with you, no matter what means you use or how legal it is in 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. I think what you are missing though is an element of intent. I think a better definition would be "A person commits rape when he or she intentionally engages in sexual intercourse with another person, (1) when he or she has reason to believe that such other person has not consented to such sexual intercourse, and (2) such other person has not consented to such sexual intercourse." Now it's quite easy for us to find out what we actually disagree about. You appear to believe that consent is invalid when it is premised upon a false belief, whether or not a person intentionally tried to create that belief. Therefore, the burden is on the trans person to dispel that false belief or else be a perpetrator of rape. Sorry if I am putting words in your mouth, and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong about what you are saying. This is the part of your definition that I really take issue with, because it seems too broad. It's not like trans women are determined to "trick" (as you put it) cis males into sleeping with them. They are going out to bars and clubs or whatever, and acting like real women because they ARE real women. If cis males incorrectly assume that a trans woman is a cis female it is not her fault. Since it is not her fault that they made an incorrect assumption, I do not think it is fair to say that she is obligated to correct it. Edit: Also your repeated statements that a trans woman having sex with a cis man without informing him of her trans status is that same as marital rape is simply not true, unless you are using a very convoluted definition of consent. If consent is given based upon a false belief it is still consent. Maybe you think it's not the sort of consent that is needed to bring the sexual activity outside of the definition of rape, but that doesn't change that fact that the activity was consensual at the time it occurred. This is different from marital rape, where consent is totally absent.
The thing is, it is very reasonable for a cis man to assume that the woman he's hooking up with is cis, too (and I would prefer to talk about having a relationgship rather than casual, one night stand sex, as casual sex is not my cup of coffee, but whatever). I think that KwarK explained that very, very well. The likelihood of hooking up with a transsexual is probably less than 0,01% and having an issue with having sex with a transsexuals is prevalent (as someone has said, even many homosexuals do, or better yet some transsexuals themselves) so it's reasonable for a transsexual to assume that it is a big deal.
So there maybe be following reasons to not disclose that information:
1) You don't think that's a big deal to most people (very naive, imo, especially for people who have gone through so much - the fact that it may be an issue for many people should be pretty obvious to transsexuals).
2) You're afraid of violence (I don't think this is a good reason because it's the easiest way to extremely escalate any potential violence, so it's counter-productive).
3) You're inconsiderate of other people/want to take advantage of them (very immoral).
I don't see how I am using a convoluted definition of consent. In both cases the victimizer is either truly believing the consent was given ("this is her marital obligation" and "he's attracted to my body and wants to have sex") or simply have no regard for whether there was any real consent (see Klondikebar's posts). The two are not really that different.
Again, you need to differentiate between people who have an issue with having sex with transsexuals and those that don't. For the former, giving consent to sex with a cis woman =/= giving consent to sex with a transsexual woman. For the latter it's just that - giving consent to sex. It is assumed that most people belong to the first category. This, coupled with the fact that assuming you're hooking up with a cis woman is reasonable, makes giving consent to sex while believing you're cis not real consent if you're not.
If anyone's waiting for a reply, I'm sorry but it's really late here, so I'm probably gonna reply tomorrow. Although I'm not sure since I have lots of studying to do and I'm already behind with material. The reason why I may not reply immediately is because a) I have lots of work to do and b) I really can't keep up with TL post-SC2 in terms of posting rate. T____T
|
This is the part of your definition that I really take issue with, because it seems too broad. It's not like trans women are determined to "trick" (as you put it) cis males into sleeping with them. They are going out to bars and clubs or whatever, and acting like real women because they ARE real women. If cis males incorrectly assume that a trans woman is a cis female it is not her fault. Since it is not her fault that they made an incorrect assumption, I do not think it is fair to say that she is obligated to correct it.
What do you think of the following:
Suppose you go to a club and are chatting in a group (with people you don't really know and have just met that night). One of them randomly decides to hook you up with a girl that he knows who's also at the party. He points over his shoulder at an attractive [insert characteristics you prefer] woman leaning against the wall and listening intently to the conversation of the people in front of her. Since you are in the mood, you nod quickly, and soon you and that woman are in a room together, alone. She doesn't really say much, other than that her name is Grace and she's twenty three, but that's no big deal, because you didn't come here to chat. Fast forward a couple of hours (for you are a herculean specimen of considerable sexual prowess) and you're exhausted after having had some decent sex. For her part, Grace doesn't seem that tired, and is barely panting. But that doesn't matter. So you lie there, staring at the ceiling, blissful. And then the door opens.
In steps the man who introduced you to Grace. He has a sort of weird, deranged grin on his face. He asks you how things went, and you reply enthusiastically. His smile widens. He reveals that he is actually a homosexual and has a voyeuristic fetish. Grace, he says, is actually a very sophisticated robot. She can do little aside from state her name/age and, well, fuck. She has no mind whatsoever, and is remotely controlled by the man from a different room, while he watches by way of cameras mounted in Grace's "eyes."
Admittedly, in the heat of the moment, and your state of mild inebriation, you didn't think much of Grace's near-silence, nor her steady breathing. Now, however, you know that Grace is a robot, because the man tells you how to see the signs (it doesn't really matter what they are; suppose she has a switch on the back of her knee or something).
I know I referred to the protagonist as "you" in this tale, but I wasn't trying to be accusatory. Do you think that (in a general sense) you would have the right to feel deceived? Do you think that you have essentially been raped, in a sense?
If not, then you are a far harder person to surprise than I had imagined. If yes, ask yourself the following question: does it change anything for you if the pilot-man tells you that he actually identifies as a woman, and uses this robot for that reason, as he is not a candidate for SRT?
Maybe it does, for you, but that's not the point. What matters is that this is obviously a matter of subjective understanding regarding gender identity, personal identity, and what you signed up for. There is no obvious right answer, because while many people probably would say that the existence of the pilot-man and his plight isn't actually immoral in any sense, his tactic could arguably be the cause of considerable discomfort. It's not some really obvious "oh if you get mad about this you're a bigoted and unreasonable fool" garbage. A shitload of people would (I think pretty understandably) be weirded out by this happening. It's not so much a matter of disgust as it is a perceived violation of one's privacy/desires.
Similarly, it's not so much that people find trans individuals horrible or gross or whatever. They just find the idea of having intercourse with a trans individual to be impossible for them to easily separate from the fact that that individual is trans. It's kinda like a song that you have playing in the back of your head. Even if you don't truly believe that the trans woman is a man, why would you choose to have sex with someone who is going to make you have tonnes of annoying, random second thoughts rather than someone who won't?
I mean, at the end of the day, it's like this: if someone goes to a club looking for a one-night stand, and they happen to talk to someone who is trans out of the dozens of patrons, one should ask oneself: would that person still be interested in the trans individual if they were aware of that person's trans status? If this is "no" in anything approaching a significant number of cases, it seems pretty clear that the trans individual should be open about it. After all, what exactly happens if they do come right out with it? Either nothing or they'll get rejected. The worst that could conceivably happen is that someone or some group will jeer at the trans individual, at which point that individual can walk over to whoever owns the establishment (or a bouncer) and tell those people to shut the fuck up (same as anyone else would). Club/bar owners aren't morons; they don't want some altercation going on in their establishment, and they don't want other patrons to feel like harassment is tolerated, because then they will lose customers.
This notion that a cisgendered person (male or female) is going to beat the shit out of you on the spot in a club if you tell them that you're trans is absolutely absurd. The only way this is even remotely possible is if you remained silent on the subject until you're already at the house of the other person. I mean, once someone asks you to come with them, it's pretty obvious what's implied. That would be the time by which one should speak, and not after. If they are disgusted, well, that's their choice, and you can move onto the next one. But when you do find someone to have sex with, at least you'll be able to feel that this person actually finds you attractive in full, rather than some assumption-laden interpretation of you that you're hesitant to pull down.
|
On August 02 2013 10:01 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +This is the part of your definition that I really take issue with, because it seems too broad. It's not like trans women are determined to "trick" (as you put it) cis males into sleeping with them. They are going out to bars and clubs or whatever, and acting like real women because they ARE real women. If cis males incorrectly assume that a trans woman is a cis female it is not her fault. Since it is not her fault that they made an incorrect assumption, I do not think it is fair to say that she is obligated to correct it. What do you think of the following: Suppose you go to a club and are chatting in a group (with people you don't really know and have just met that night). One of them randomly decides to hook you up with a girl that he knows who's also at the party. He points over his shoulder at an attractive [insert characteristics you prefer] woman leaning against the wall and listening intently to the conversation of the people in front of her. Since you are in the mood, you nod quickly, and soon you and that woman are in a room together, alone. She doesn't really say much, other than that her name is Grace and she's twenty three, but that's no big deal, because you didn't come here to chat. Fast forward a couple of hours (for you are a herculean specimen of considerable sexual prowess) and you're exhausted after having had some decent sex. For her part, Grace doesn't seem that tired, and is barely panting. But that doesn't matter. So you lie there, staring at the ceiling, blissful. And then the door opens. In steps the man who introduced you to Grace. He has a sort of weird, deranged grin on his face. He asks you how things went, and you reply enthusiastically. His smile widens. He reveals that he is actually a homosexual and has a voyeuristic fetish. Grace, he says, is actually a very sophisticated robot. She can do little aside from state her name/age and, well, fuck. She has no mind whatsoever, and is remotely controlled by the man from a different room, while he watches by way of cameras mounted in Grace's "eyes." Admittedly, in the heat of the moment, and your state of mild inebriation, you didn't think much of Grace's near-silence, nor her steady breathing. Now, however, you know that Grace is a robot, because the man tells you how to see the signs (it doesn't really matter what they are; suppose she has a switch on the back of her knee or something). I know I referred to the protagonist as "you" in this tale, but I wasn't trying to be accusatory. Do you think that (in a general sense) you would have the right to feel deceived? Do you think that you have essentially been raped, in a sense? If not, then you are a far harder person to surprise than I had imagined. If yes, ask yourself the following question: does it change anything for you if the pilot-man tells you that he actually identifies as a woman, and uses this robot for that reason, as he is not a candidate for SRT? Maybe it does, for you, but that's not the point. What matters is that this is obviously a matter of subjective understanding regarding gender identity, personal identity, and what you signed up for. There is no obvious right answer, because while many people probably would say that the existence of the pilot-man and his plight isn't actually immoral in any sense, his tactic could arguably be the cause of considerable discomfort. It's not some really obvious "oh if you get mad about this you're a bigoted and unreasonable fool" garbage. A shitload of people would (I think pretty understandably) be weirded out by this happening. It's not so much a matter of disgust as it is a perceived violation of one's privacy/desires. Similarly, it's not so much that people find trans individuals horrible or gross or whatever. They just find the idea of having intercourse with a trans individual to be impossible for them to easily separate from the fact that that individual is trans. It's kinda like a song that you have playing in the back of your head. Even if you don't truly believe that the trans woman is a man, why would you choose to have sex with someone who is going to make you have tonnes of annoying, random second thoughts rather than someone who won't? I mean, at the end of the day, it's like this: if someone goes to a club looking for a one-night stand, and they happen to talk to someone who is trans out of the dozens of patrons, one should ask oneself: would that person still be interested in the trans individual if they were aware of that person's trans status? If this is "no" in anything approaching a significant number of cases, it seems pretty clear that the trans individual should be open about it. After all, what exactly happens if they do come right out with it? Either nothing or they'll get rejected. The worst that could conceivably happen is that someone or some group will jeer at the trans individual, at which point that individual can walk over to whoever owns the establishment (or a bouncer) and tell those people to shut the fuck up (same as anyone else would). Club/bar owners aren't morons; they don't want some altercation going on in their establishment, and they don't want other patrons to feel like harassment is tolerated, because then they will lose customers. This notion that a cisgendered person (male or female) is going to beat the shit out of you on the spot in a club if you tell them that you're trans is absolutely absurd. The only way this is even remotely possible is if you remained silent on the subject until you're already at the house of the other person. I mean, once someone asks you to come with them, it's pretty obvious what's implied. That would be the time by which one should speak, and not after. If they are disgusted, well, that's their choice, and you can move onto the next one. But when you do find someone to have sex with, at least you'll be able to feel that this person actually finds you attractive in full, rather than some assumption-laden interpretation of you that you're hesitant to pull down.
I'm impressed you put so much time into such an . . . interesting hypothetical : ) but I don't think it's relevant to the discussion at hand. Your pilot man's goal was to deceive someone into having sex with his robot lady thing, knowing full well that the robot lady thing wasn't a woman. It was a robot disguised as a human woman, and he presumably put a great deal of effort into making the disguise. Trans women on the other hand aren't wearing a disguise, and they are not trying to deceive anyone. They are simply looking and acting like women, and just like they do with cis women, some men find that attractive.
Maybe it does, for you, but that's not the point. What matters is that this is obviously a matter of subjective understanding regarding gender identity, personal identity, and what you signed up for.
If a man has sex with a trans woman, he signed up for sex with a woman, and that's what he got. If a man has sex with a robot lady thing, when he intended to have sex with a woman, he was deceived.
|
From what I've read we're dealing with "have to's". You Must do this or you Must do that. This is a problem many trans women (myself included) don't really have figured out. There's a lot of emotion that goes into it as well including all the safety cautions and moralities. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call withholding the information rape, rape is a very serious crime and there needs to be more done than refusing to give away your non-dangerous medical history.
A lot goes through my mind during a one night stand and that doesn't count the "telling him" thing. It's a very difficult scenario and I don't know about everyone else but I'd rather keep it under wraps and just pretend it doesn't exist because it's easier for me despite any moral obligations.
|
The thing is, it is very reasonable for a cis man to assume that the woman he's hooking up with is cis, too (and I would prefer to talk about having a relationgship rather than casual, one night stand sex, as casual sex is not my cup of coffee, but whatever). I think that KwarK explained that very, very well. The likelihood of hooking up with a transsexual is probably less than 0,01% and having an issue with having sex with a transsexuals is prevalent (as someone has said, even many homosexuals do, or better yet some transsexuals themselves) so it's reasonable for a transsexual to assume that it is a big deal.
I agree that it is reasonable to assume that any given woman you meet is probably a cis woman, due to statistics if nothing else. What I don't understand is why this gives rise to a duty on the part of a trans woman to disclose, without any prompting, her trans status. She didn't cause the false assumption. If a potential sexual partner makes it clear that he has no interest in anything besides sex with no strings attached, I don't think the trans woman in question would be obligated to disclose.
So there maybe be following reasons to not disclose that information:
1) You don't think that's a big deal to most people (very naive, imo, especially for people who have gone through so much - the fact that it may be an issue for many people should be pretty obvious to transsexuals).
2) You're afraid of violence (I don't think this is a good reason because it's the easiest way to extremely escalate any potential violence, so it's counter-productive).
3) You're inconsiderate of other people/want to take advantage of them (very immoral).
The only difference between being trans and being other traits that people may have hangups about is the number of people who apparently have a problem with having sex with trans people. You (and Kwark, I think) believe that this is material but I do not. Every time Person A sleeps with Person B, there is a chance that Person B will have some hidden characteristic that, had Person A known about it, would have prevented Person A from deciding to sleep with Person B. If Person A wants to avoid this risk, he has a responsibility to get to know Person B before having sex with her. If instead Person A is willfully ignorant about any such characteristics, that is his choice.
I don't see how I am using a convoluted definition of consent. In both cases the victimizer is either truly believing the consent was given ("this is her marital obligation" and "he's attracted to my body and wants to have sex") or simply have no regard for whether there was any real consent (see Klondikebar's posts). The two are not really that different.
Marital obligation is a different thing from consent. I guess you might be arguing that marital obligation means that when a woman agrees to marry a man, she is irrevocably consenting to have sex with him whenever he wants, but that's not how consent works. Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
Again, you need to differentiate between people who have an issue with having sex with transsexuals and those that don't. For the former, giving consent to sex with a cis woman =/= giving consent to sex with a transsexual woman. For the latter it's just that - giving consent to sex. It is assumed that most people belong to the first category. This, coupled with the fact that assuming you're hooking up with a cis woman is reasonable, makes giving consent to sex while believing you're cis not real consent if you're not.
Again, with the numbers thing that I don't really care about. Your are right that it is unlikely that a particular woman you are interested in hooking up with is a trans woman, but isn't there a pretty good chance that there's SOMETHING about her that, had you known, would have prevented you from having sex with her? If you're worried about that kind of thing, don't do one night stands. If you choose to have one night stands, you are assuming the risk that there might be something in your partner's history that would make you uncomfortable. If you choose to assume things about your partner that aren't true, and your partner didn't do anything to cause you to assume those things, I really don't get why she has a moral responsibility to correct you.
If she knows it's likely that you would have a problem with it then yes, it would probably be courteous for her to tell you. However, there is no moral obligation for her to go around correcting people's incorrect assumptions when she didn't cause them to make them.
If anyone's waiting for a reply, I'm sorry but it's really late here, so I'm probably gonna reply tomorrow. Although I'm not sure since I have lots of studying to do and I'm already behind with material. The reason why I may not reply immediately is because a) I have lots of work to do and b) I really can't keep up with TL post-SC2 in terms of posting rate. T____T
Best of luck!
|
On August 02 2013 10:01 Shiori wrote:
I mean, at the end of the day, it's like this: if someone goes to a club looking for a one-night stand, and they happen to talk to someone who is trans out of the dozens of patrons, one should ask oneself: would that person still be interested in the trans individual if they were aware of that person's trans status? If this is "no" in anything approaching a significant number of cases, it seems pretty clear that the trans individual should be open about it. After all, what exactly happens if they do come right out with it? Either nothing or they'll get rejected. The worst that could conceivably happen is that someone or some group will jeer at the trans individual, at which point that individual can walk over to whoever owns the establishment (or a bouncer) and tell those people to shut the fuck up (same as anyone else would). Club/bar owners aren't morons; they don't want some altercation going on in their establishment, and they don't want other patrons to feel like harassment is tolerated, because then they will lose customers.
This notion that a cisgendered person (male or female) is going to beat the shit out of you on the spot in a club if you tell them that you're trans is absolutely absurd. The only way this is even remotely possible is if you remained silent on the subject until you're already at the house of the other person. I mean, once someone asks you to come with them, it's pretty obvious what's implied. That would be the time by which one should speak, and not after. If they are disgusted, well, that's their choice, and you can move onto the next one. But when you do find someone to have sex with, at least you'll be able to feel that this person actually finds you attractive in full, rather than some assumption-laden interpretation of you that you're hesitant to pull down.
Just going to begin with my standard disclaimer: I think I should, and so do, disclose to potential partners. I also haven't suggested anyone in this discussion yesterday is a transphobe or a bigot.
The problem with this is that you don't seem to understand how badly outing yourself in a community can be. It's not just about the immediate violence, you run the risk of never being a man or woman again that community, you're now the trans man or woman. This means you have to deal with all the same crap that you did when you transitioned that after passing and surgery and maybe moving somewhere new you had hoped to leave behing. No one transitions to be a transexual, it's just a medical thing you have to do because it's the least worst option on the way to transitioning to being your actual sex according to your gender.
The problems you can face for casually outing yourself can include unemployment, harrassment, being ostricised, assault (even if not right then from the person you tell), media attention (if your history is deemed weird), rape, and murder or suicide. I think the discussion would reach a better understanding if people understood what a big risk it is. I appreciate, and am honestly thankful, that for the most part those who don't realise immediately don't because they're tolerant and decent people who would find such consequences appauling, but you have to realise that these concerns are real or everyone is going to keep talking past each other.
|
On August 02 2013 07:04 Klondikebar wrote:
Gender dysphoria means that you were assigned a sex organ with which you are not comfortable.
No, gender dysphoria does not always necessarily include being uncomfortable with your sex organs; some trans women, especially some lesbian ones, comfortably stay non-op and are ok with their genitals, yet they've suffered horrible depression over their facial skeletal structure, balding, broad shoulders, big hands/arms, body hair, lack of breasts, being misgendered, having to pretend to be someone else, being invisible, being triggered by seeing others looking like and being able to freely and happily do the things they'd have always wanted but can't due to it being socially unacceptable to wear female clothings, do traditionally very feminine things / have interests in very feminine things, behave femininely, etc. (not saying all trans women are feminine, many are actually tomboys and in that case just had gender dysphoria over their body and being misgendered). FtM gender dysphoria is the other way around (though at least masculine ones can be openly tomboys while growing up without being discriminated against).
How gender dysphoria exactly manifests, what it encompasses, differs from individual to individual, but what is pretty much always present due to it are the 3 "choices" one can make, of 1) either living someone else's life in horrible depression for the rest of your life with terrible regrets, hating every second of it; 2) suicide and 3) transition to the opposite sex and risk losing everyone and everything else that matters to you besides your gender identity. Usually 2) being the preferred option to 1), while a lot of people just don't have the courage and emotional strength and dedication to choose 3); while people who chose 3) can very well end up in horrible circumstances (just read up on any statistics regarding trans people) and then still end up choosing 2) afterwards; hence why the suicide rates among trans people are so high.
If science was able to change our brains such that we were comfortable with the genitals we were born with, that would be an alternative treatment for gender dysphoria.
Disregarding the part of this quote that I just debunked about how gender dysphoria does not mean only genital dysphoria and in some cases genital dysphoria is not even present, you have to either be very optimistic to think that such a treatment would become only "an alternative" treatment, or you have to think that such a treatment would only be found hundreds of years from now when society might've progressed further. I personally hope such a treatment will never exist because in current times at least, it's very obvious that the majority of people (including unaccepting parents of trans folks) would request that such treatment to become the only prescribed treatment and for transitioning to be disallowed. Yet changing someone's identity against their will is essentially brainwashing and erasing them. Most trans people would rather end their life.
Even if it didn't become the only allowed treatment, the mere fact that it existed as an alternative would make most people see transitioning as even far more insane than now, not being able to understand why some people would rather go through that than "be cured of their mental illness" or whatever uneducated people think, not being able to understand that it's a valid identity, it's who they are and they do not want to become someone else.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
The moral of the last page or 2 appears to read as "trans people don't have to tell you shit, because our plight is so bad". This is an oversimplification but it's been repeated by quite a few people, and I'm not sure how much I agree with the sentiment.
edit: I also agree with Shiori a lot about (at least certain) sexual preferences not being something you need to give too much thought to. I think klondike's points about this in particular are totally absurd. Actually I do like blond hair and I'm not an infantile monkey for not wanting to think about exactly why I like blond hair.
|
On August 02 2013 12:00 Mercy13 wrote:I agree that it is reasonable to assume that any given woman you meet is probably a cis woman, due to statistics if nothing else. What I don't understand is why this gives rise to a duty on the part of a trans woman to disclose, without any prompting, her trans status. She didn't cause the false assumption. If a potential sexual partner makes it clear that he has no interest in anything besides sex with no strings attached, I don't think the trans woman in question would be obligated to disclose.
Not only is it reasonable to assume that any given woman you meet is a cis woman, but also it's reasonable to assume that the man you're hooking up as a transsexual woman would consent to sex only if you're cis. And while you did not cause that assumption, you're knowingly acting on it (because you can't claim ignorance and at the same time say that every sexual partner you have is a potential victimizer - those two narratives are mutually exclusive since one assumes that it's uncommon for heterosexual men not to want to have sex with a transsexual while the other assumes that it's so prevalent that you feel threatened by disclosing this information), even taking advantage of it (see Klondikebar's posts, they were very disturbing), having no regard for the fact that if he finds out it's likely to be a traumatizing experience for him.
Well, I simply disagree. I you have very, very strong reason to believe/assume that something is a deal breaker (doesn't have to be being a transsexual, it could be having an STD and having protected sex - the chance of infecting is very small, but you're still obligated to disclose that information).
The majority of such deal breakers (mostly having to do with physical appearence, e.g. obesity) are readily apparent, so there's no need to disclose that information. However, there are some pretty prevalent deal breakers, things that most people feel strongly about (be it STDs, being close degree relatives or transsexuality), it's expected of you to disclose that information.
Marital obligation is a different thing from consent. I guess you might be arguing that marital obligation means that when a woman agrees to marry a man, she is irrevocably consenting to have sex with him whenever he wants, but that's not how consent works. Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
And consent to having sex with a cis woman is different from consent to having sex with a transsexual woman, whether the former is clarified upfront or merely implied because of the probability of accidentally hooking up with a transsexual is extremely rare. You're saying that they are the same thing, but for most people they are not. Which is exactly why I used that analogy because, imo, you're presenting a view on consent that is equally detached from reality. The analogy goes even further, clarifying that the legality of either behaviour does not determine its morality.
Again, with the numbers thing that I don't really care about. Your are right that it is unlikely that a particular woman you are interested in hooking up with is a trans woman, but isn't there a pretty good chance that there's SOMETHING about her that, had you known, would have prevented you from having sex with her? If you're worried about that kind of thing, don't do one night stands. If you choose to have one night stands, you are assuming the risk that there might be something in your partner's history that would make you uncomfortable. If you choose to assume things about your partner that aren't true, and your partner didn't do anything to cause you to assume those things, I really don't get why she has a moral responsibility to correct you.
If she knows it's likely that you would have a problem with it then yes, it would probably be courteous for her to tell you. However, there is no moral obligation for her to go around correcting people's incorrect assumptions when she didn't cause them to make them.
I am not saying that you have to consider every such thing, or else you are morally bankrupt. I am saying that if you have VERY good reason to assume that it is a major deal breaker, you should tell about it. And while you may argue that there are all sorts of potential deal breakers and it's impossible to account for all of them, being a transsexual is certainly not ambiguous in that regard, and you can't claim ignorance.
And, in reality, you are doing a lot to to cause him to assume that you're a cis woman - by the very virtue of striving to look like a 100% woman (because you identify as such), and by extension striving to become as undifferentiable from other women, and that means cis women with a 99,99% chance, as possible.
edit: added "not" (the italicized one).
Best of luck!
Thanks. 
On August 02 2013 06:58 babylon wrote:
@ maybenexttime: I hate to push, but from what I'm reading, it seems you have primarily expressed disgust at the idea of sleeping with post-op trans women. You say that they should disclose their status before hooking up with a cis heterosexual man for a one-night stand.
Once again, what about pre-treatment trans men (note: physically female) or those with AIS (who are born with a vagina and a clit but who have had to have internal testes removed)? Would the trans man be required to disclose to the cis heterosexual man that he is trans? (They would be effectively engaging in homosexual acts.) Would the intersex individual be required to disclose that she is intersex? These two examples are not, I think, as outlandish as some other examples, which is why I ask.
Any other cis heterosexual guy, feel free to speak up. I seem to be getting ignored.
I narrowed it down to post-op transsexual women because it was the topic at hand. I would say that for a pre-op transsexual man that would be equally immoral not to disclose that information, for a somewhat different reason, though. I find that example rather abstract - why would a man with a female body want to have sex with another man while in a female body? I would question his mental health, really (because how can you identify as a man and want to have sex as a female?). O_o
As for AIS, that's even more abstract to me, no idea.
On August 02 2013 17:11 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 10:01 Shiori wrote:
I mean, at the end of the day, it's like this: if someone goes to a club looking for a one-night stand, and they happen to talk to someone who is trans out of the dozens of patrons, one should ask oneself: would that person still be interested in the trans individual if they were aware of that person's trans status? If this is "no" in anything approaching a significant number of cases, it seems pretty clear that the trans individual should be open about it. After all, what exactly happens if they do come right out with it? Either nothing or they'll get rejected. The worst that could conceivably happen is that someone or some group will jeer at the trans individual, at which point that individual can walk over to whoever owns the establishment (or a bouncer) and tell those people to shut the fuck up (same as anyone else would). Club/bar owners aren't morons; they don't want some altercation going on in their establishment, and they don't want other patrons to feel like harassment is tolerated, because then they will lose customers.
This notion that a cisgendered person (male or female) is going to beat the shit out of you on the spot in a club if you tell them that you're trans is absolutely absurd. The only way this is even remotely possible is if you remained silent on the subject until you're already at the house of the other person. I mean, once someone asks you to come with them, it's pretty obvious what's implied. That would be the time by which one should speak, and not after. If they are disgusted, well, that's their choice, and you can move onto the next one. But when you do find someone to have sex with, at least you'll be able to feel that this person actually finds you attractive in full, rather than some assumption-laden interpretation of you that you're hesitant to pull down. Just going to begin with my standard disclaimer: I think I should, and so do, disclose to potential partners. I also haven't suggested anyone in this discussion yesterday is a transphobe or a bigot.The problem with this is that you don't seem to understand how badly outing yourself in a community can be. It's not just about the immediate violence, you run the risk of never being a man or woman again that community, you're now the trans man or woman. This means you have to deal with all the same crap that you did when you transitioned that after passing and surgery and maybe moving somewhere new you had hoped to leave behing. No one transitions to be a transexual, it's just a medical thing you have to do because it's the least worst option on the way to transitioning to being your actual sex according to your gender. The problems you can face for casually outing yourself can include unemployment, harrassment, being ostricised, assault (even if not right then from the person you tell), media attention (if your history is deemed weird), rape, and murder or suicide. I think the discussion would reach a better understanding if people understood what a big risk it is. I appreciate, and am honestly thankful, that for the most part those who don't realise immediately don't because they're tolerant and decent people who would find such consequences appauling, but you have to realise that these concerns are real or everyone is going to keep talking past each other.
Like someone said, one night stands are not a binary (I myself have never had any, not my thing). I think the possibility of essentially raping someone or causing (serious) trauma (it's not like things like this have only led to transsexuals killing themselves, it's not unhearded of for a man to commit a suicide after that information surfaces, especially considering the fact that he's most likely going to get bullied for that instead of being comforted) far outweighs not having some casual sex.
I would consider it wiser to just give up on one night stands and stick to having relationships with people you can disclose this information to, instead of choosing to have some casual sex at the expense of other people and your own safety (because I cannot stress it enough how much it escalates the whole situation if that person learns about it post factum). I don't think anyone believes that it's not risky to disclose such information, but, imo, not disclosing it only makes things worse for yourself and for other people like you as a whole (because it makes this whole "trap" thing a valid concern).
And last but not least, I applaud you for your honesty.
edit: added "worse" that I missed
|
On August 02 2013 19:21 maybenexttime wrote:
I find that example rather abstract - why would a man with a female body want to have sex with another man while in a female body? I would question his mental health, really (because how can you identify as a man and want to have sex as a female?). O_o
To jump in I should add that quite a few trans people who are less genital dysphoric or have spent time trying to be cis-normative (is there a better phrase? I couldn't think of one) and thus have experience do still do so. As for me, I don't get 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). 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.
1. It seems to me that youre assuming the biologist moralizes over categories. Which is wrong, the biologist does not. It is the biologists job to classify things into different categories given that there is a taxonomical difference, that is all. And like it or not, there is a taxonomical difference between women who are xx and women who are xy, one being that no one who is xy can reproduce (there are other things as well). It does not matter that not all women who are xx can reproduce, the classification isnt based on individuals but on the group as a whole, hence knowing that no xy women can reproduce but most xx women can is more than sufficient. Otherwise, by your logic, we couldnt make any biological distinction between women who have gone through menopause and women who havent because hey not all women who are pre menopause have high estrogen or can reproduce.
2. Assuming that biological categories generally work by one single criteria including all members and excluding all non-members is simply false. Again, if that were true, we would have to fall in the creationist trap and wonder when in history a monkey gave birth to a human.
3. As I already mentioned, your hypothetical biologist already knows the answer: no one with AIS is xx. Which is more than sufficient. In addition, the lack of uterus is a consequence of having AIS, but its not the only criterion used for separating a person with ais and a person who doesnt have AIS. See 1 and 2.
We rarely use categories like you assume. Not in biology, not in other fields of science and not in everyday language. The issue of whether someone is a "real" woman or not isnt really what biology is about either. To some people youre not a real woman if you cant reproduce, others would say a real woman has to have big tits. The list goes on...
|
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). 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.
Why not make this bold statement instead: There is no non tautological definition of the painting The Scream that both excludes all painted and printed copies yet includes all of Munch's original versions. At least, there isn't if we're going by criteria in the present and not the past.
Are you going to dictate that people aren't allowed to care about the authenticity of their paintings too, unless they can tell the difference by eye? Or should people get to decide for themselves what they think are important distinctions?
Furthermore, if someone happens to think he's buying a Van Gogh painting from me, and not the different only to professionals forgery I'm really selling him, but he can't tell the difference, should I let him know?
Also, feel free to look up the Sorietes paradox, which illustrates that useful distinctions can often be made even when there are no clear cutoffs - humans work fine with fuzzy concepts, even if it's hard to fit into formal logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
