|
On August 02 2013 17:26 Lynda wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Ok, perhaps in trying to give an extremely broad definition I did a disservice. Would it be a simple but complete way to say that Gendery Dysphoria is when your sex characteristics (primary and/or secondary) do not match what your brain says you should have and that can manifest itself in a myriad of ways that are generally not healthy for the individual which is why treatment is so important?
And the second part of my post was just to say that when sex and gender don't match, we have to change one so that they do match. Science can only change sex right now but it's absolutely possible that some day we'll be able to change our genders. And if someone is actually happy with their sex it's entirely possibly that to treat their form of gender dysphoria they'd prefer to change their gender. More options usually isn't a bad thing for medical treatments.
|
Would the trans man be required to disclose to the cis heterosexual man that he is trans?
Yes.
Would the intersex individual be required to disclose that she is intersex?
Yes, though I feel a little less strongly about this since I don't know much about intersex individuals.
|
On August 02 2013 19:02 marvellosity wrote:
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.
I totally agree with that. Even if you think about it you cannot figure out a reason that would make any sense.
And even if you could that wouldnt change anything about your preferences at all.
I like black hair you like blonde hair. Now one of us has to be wrong :D.
|
On August 02 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote:2. No because the distinction was that no cis women are xy. The problem here is that words have different meaning depending on field. In the field of biology a transgender woman is not a "woman" and neither is a woman with T insensitivity syndrome, but in everyday language and in my book both are women. I would never call a transgender fake for example or "not a real woman". Because that would be immoral. And I would be a dick. But to deny that you CAN make a distinction, if you want to, is to be quite silly. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). 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
The forgery/scam analogy is so so bad.
First of all, trans women aren't "selling" anything. They aren't running around trying to trick people to get into bed with the with the promise of good vagina. It's just two people who like each other and wanna bump uglies.
Second, the trans woman isn't a forgery of a woman. She's a woman. You're getting a real Van Gogh both physically and emotionally. Some people might not see it that way, but it's not the trans woman's job to reinforce or humor that gross misunderstanding.
You're allowed to care about the authenticity of a person. You're even allowed to make up totally fake criteria like "she has to be born a woman to be a real woman." But you're not allowed to expect people to humor such dumbass criteria when they are obviously false. If you want said criteria enforced, it's on your shoulders.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On August 02 2013 23:07 Klondikebar wrote:
Second, the trans woman isn't a forgery of a woman. She's a woman. You're getting a real Van Gogh both physically and emotionally. Some people might not see it that way, but it's not the trans woman's job to reinforce or humor that gross misunderstanding.
Really? I'd say a trans woman's experiences probably make her markedly different emotionally.
|
On August 02 2013 23:10 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 23:07 Klondikebar wrote:
Second, the trans woman isn't a forgery of a woman. She's a woman. You're getting a real Van Gogh both physically and emotionally. Some people might not see it that way, but it's not the trans woman's job to reinforce or humor that gross misunderstanding.
Really? I'd say a trans woman's experiences probably make her markedly different emotionally.
I didn't know there were standard emotions for women, trans or otherwise. How the fuck does that work?
|
it's not about having the right or wrong preferences, it's about using those preferences for or against you.
i'd gather your preferences, i'd make a list, then use that list to control you.
now, using your rhetoric, would it be wrong or right, for me to do that?.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Well yes, that's another question right on top.
|
I am going to focus on this statement because I think for the rest we are just going to have to agree to disagree about what gives rise to an obligation to disclose:
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.
Just because, strictly speaking, consent to sex with a trans woman is not the same thing as consent to sex with a cis woman doesn't mean that the consent was totally absent. It's in a totally different realm from marital rape.
I normally hate using hypotheticals, but I think the following might illustrate what I am talking about:
Say that a person who is allergic to peanuts goes to a restaurant and orders a burger. The burger is cooked in peanut oil, so the person becomes ill. If the restaurant had reason to know that the person was allergic to peanuts, a strong argument can be made that the restaurant was morally wrong to serve him peanuts, but it would be factually incorrect to say that the restaurant forced him to eat the burger.
Now if instead the restaurant strapped him down and force fed him the peanut oil cooked burger, then it would be factually correct that they forced him to eat the burger.
You seem to be equating these two scenarios, but I think it is pretty clear that the second scenario is far worse than the first. They are not morally or factually equivalent, it's simply a bad comparison.
|
On August 02 2013 23:10 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 23:07 Klondikebar wrote:
Second, the trans woman isn't a forgery of a woman. She's a woman. You're getting a real Van Gogh both physically and emotionally. Some people might not see it that way, but it's not the trans woman's job to reinforce or humor that gross misunderstanding.
Really? I'd say a trans woman's experiences probably make her markedly different emotionally.
I mean she identifies as female. Like...she not only has a real vagina but she is a woman in her brain too. Sorry that wasn't clear.
|
While I believe full disclosure is wise in most situations, I am less convinced that it is some moral imperative. It was my understanding, though I am not super familiar so take this with a grain of salt, that the person is no longer trans after the surgery. Trans refers to the difference between sex and gender which no longer exists after surgery, so isn't a "post-op trans" just a -cis?
Is disclosure of former medical conditions such as gender related birth defects compulsory? The infertility is a real issue for relationships but I am not so sure for just hooking up. Then again I am not super convinced anybody has any "right" to a list of your "undesirable" qualities.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Such a weird topic for me, I can't seem to come down on either side particularly strongly.
|
On August 02 2013 23:14 Velocirapture wrote:
While I believe full disclosure is wise in most situations, I am less convinced that it is some moral imperative. It was my understanding, though I am not super familiar so take this with a grain of salt, that the person is no longer trans after the surgery. Trans refers to the difference between sex and gender which no longer exists after surgery, so isn't a "post-op trans" just a -cis?
Is disclosure of former medical conditions such as gender related birth defects compulsory? The infertility is a real issue for relationships but I am not so sure for just hooking up. Then again I am not super convinced anybody has any "right" to a list of your "undesirable" qualities.
The debate is mostly around if they are "required" to disclose the information, rather than if it is a good idea. No one will argue that honesting isn't a good idea at all time. The whole debate centers around the hook up argument and if a Transgender person is required(as much as someone can be required to do anything before sex) to disclose the information. The rape discussion came out of the idea that the transgender person was not required to care about the feelings of the other party if they would be opposed or not comfortable to sleeping with someone who is transgender
There is a secondary argument that if you are not confortable sleeping with someone who is transgender, you are transphobic. There seems to be a line of reasoning that all attraction is based on social experience and discomfort in sexual situtations is an extension of that. A lot of people who are straight in the thread who are supportive of LGBT rights disagree with this argument and do not feel they need to alter their sexual preferences to be considered not transphobic.
|
On August 02 2013 23:07 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote:2. No because the distinction was that no cis women are xy. The problem here is that words have different meaning depending on field. In the field of biology a transgender woman is not a "woman" and neither is a woman with T insensitivity syndrome, but in everyday language and in my book both are women. I would never call a transgender fake for example or "not a real woman". Because that would be immoral. And I would be a dick. But to deny that you CAN make a distinction, if you want to, is to be quite silly. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). 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 The forgery/scam analogy is so so bad. First of all, trans women aren't "selling" anything. They aren't running around trying to trick people to get into bed with the with the promise of good vagina. It's just two people who like each other and wanna bump uglies. Second, the trans woman isn't a forgery of a woman. She's a woman. You're getting a real Van Gogh both physically and emotionally. Some people might not see it that way, but it's not the trans woman's job to reinforce or humor that gross misunderstanding. You're allowed to care about the authenticity of a person. You're even allowed to make up totally fake criteria like "she has to be born a woman to be a real woman." But you're not allowed to expect people to humor such dumbass criteria when they are obviously false. If you want said criteria enforced, it's on your shoulders.
1) A lot of people happen to think the distinction between an authentic Van Gogh and a 21st century forgery matters.
2) A lot of people happen to think the distinction between someone born in a female body and somebody who have achieved their sexual characteristics by surgery or hormone therapy matters.
You seem to respect the preference listed as (1) and not (2), on no other basis that it is a dumbass criterium. I prefer to not pass judgement on people who want to have sex in animal costumes or change their penis into a vagina, because I don't think people need me police what preferences are fine and which are dumbass.
Edit: I don't pass judgement on people who don't want to have sex with transsexuals, either.
|
On August 02 2013 23:37 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 23:07 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote:2. No because the distinction was that no cis women are xy. The problem here is that words have different meaning depending on field. In the field of biology a transgender woman is not a "woman" and neither is a woman with T insensitivity syndrome, but in everyday language and in my book both are women. I would never call a transgender fake for example or "not a real woman". Because that would be immoral. And I would be a dick. But to deny that you CAN make a distinction, if you want to, is to be quite silly. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). 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 The forgery/scam analogy is so so bad. First of all, trans women aren't "selling" anything. They aren't running around trying to trick people to get into bed with the with the promise of good vagina. It's just two people who like each other and wanna bump uglies. Second, the trans woman isn't a forgery of a woman. She's a woman. You're getting a real Van Gogh both physically and emotionally. Some people might not see it that way, but it's not the trans woman's job to reinforce or humor that gross misunderstanding. You're allowed to care about the authenticity of a person. You're even allowed to make up totally fake criteria like "she has to be born a woman to be a real woman." But you're not allowed to expect people to humor such dumbass criteria when they are obviously false. If you want said criteria enforced, it's on your shoulders. 1) A lot of people happen to think the distinction between an authentic Van Gogh and a 21st century forgery matters.
Shes a real van gogh.... bro
|
On August 02 2013 23:37 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 23:07 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote:2. No because the distinction was that no cis women are xy. The problem here is that words have different meaning depending on field. In the field of biology a transgender woman is not a "woman" and neither is a woman with T insensitivity syndrome, but in everyday language and in my book both are women. I would never call a transgender fake for example or "not a real woman". Because that would be immoral. And I would be a dick. But to deny that you CAN make a distinction, if you want to, is to be quite silly. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). 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 The forgery/scam analogy is so so bad. First of all, trans women aren't "selling" anything. They aren't running around trying to trick people to get into bed with the with the promise of good vagina. It's just two people who like each other and wanna bump uglies. Second, the trans woman isn't a forgery of a woman. She's a woman. You're getting a real Van Gogh both physically and emotionally. Some people might not see it that way, but it's not the trans woman's job to reinforce or humor that gross misunderstanding. You're allowed to care about the authenticity of a person. You're even allowed to make up totally fake criteria like "she has to be born a woman to be a real woman." But you're not allowed to expect people to humor such dumbass criteria when they are obviously false. If you want said criteria enforced, it's on your shoulders. 1) A lot of people happen to think the distinction between an authentic Van Gogh and a 21st century forgery matters. 2) A lot of people happen to think the distinction between someone born in a female body and somebody who have achieved their sexual characteristics by surgery or hormone therapy matters. You seem to respect the preference listed as (1) and not (2), on no other basis that it is a dumbass criterium. I prefer to not pass judgement on people who want to have sex in animal costumes or change their penis into a vagina, because I don't think people need me police what preferences are fine and which are dumbass.
And like I said in my post you are allowed to have whatever criteria you want, no matter how stupid or absurd. But you cannot place a moral imperative on other's to maintain those criteria for you.
|
On August 02 2013 23:40 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 23:37 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 23:07 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote:2. No because the distinction was that no cis women are xy. The problem here is that words have different meaning depending on field. In the field of biology a transgender woman is not a "woman" and neither is a woman with T insensitivity syndrome, but in everyday language and in my book both are women. I would never call a transgender fake for example or "not a real woman". Because that would be immoral. And I would be a dick. But to deny that you CAN make a distinction, if you want to, is to be quite silly. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). 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 The forgery/scam analogy is so so bad. First of all, trans women aren't "selling" anything. They aren't running around trying to trick people to get into bed with the with the promise of good vagina. It's just two people who like each other and wanna bump uglies. Second, the trans woman isn't a forgery of a woman. She's a woman. You're getting a real Van Gogh both physically and emotionally. Some people might not see it that way, but it's not the trans woman's job to reinforce or humor that gross misunderstanding. You're allowed to care about the authenticity of a person. You're even allowed to make up totally fake criteria like "she has to be born a woman to be a real woman." But you're not allowed to expect people to humor such dumbass criteria when they are obviously false. If you want said criteria enforced, it's on your shoulders. 1) A lot of people happen to think the distinction between an authentic Van Gogh and a 21st century forgery matters. 2) A lot of people happen to think the distinction between someone born in a female body and somebody who have achieved their sexual characteristics by surgery or hormone therapy matters. You seem to respect the preference listed as (1) and not (2), on no other basis that it is a dumbass criterium. I prefer to not pass judgement on people who want to have sex in animal costumes or change their penis into a vagina, because I don't think people need me police what preferences are fine and which are dumbass. And like I said in my post you are allowed to have whatever criteria you want, no matter how stupid or absurd. But you cannot place a moral imperative on other's to maintain those criteria for you.
The only moral imperative is to clear up misunderstandings and false assumptions, such as my Van Gogh being authentic when it's forged or my date being born a woman when she's really a male to female transsexual.
|
On August 02 2013 23:40 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 23:37 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 23:07 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote:2. No because the distinction was that no cis women are xy. The problem here is that words have different meaning depending on field. In the field of biology a transgender woman is not a "woman" and neither is a woman with T insensitivity syndrome, but in everyday language and in my book both are women. I would never call a transgender fake for example or "not a real woman". Because that would be immoral. And I would be a dick. But to deny that you CAN make a distinction, if you want to, is to be quite silly. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). 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 The forgery/scam analogy is so so bad. First of all, trans women aren't "selling" anything. They aren't running around trying to trick people to get into bed with the with the promise of good vagina. It's just two people who like each other and wanna bump uglies. Second, the trans woman isn't a forgery of a woman. She's a woman. You're getting a real Van Gogh both physically and emotionally. Some people might not see it that way, but it's not the trans woman's job to reinforce or humor that gross misunderstanding. You're allowed to care about the authenticity of a person. You're even allowed to make up totally fake criteria like "she has to be born a woman to be a real woman." But you're not allowed to expect people to humor such dumbass criteria when they are obviously false. If you want said criteria enforced, it's on your shoulders. 1) A lot of people happen to think the distinction between an authentic Van Gogh and a 21st century forgery matters. 2) A lot of people happen to think the distinction between someone born in a female body and somebody who have achieved their sexual characteristics by surgery or hormone therapy matters. You seem to respect the preference listed as (1) and not (2), on no other basis that it is a dumbass criterium. I prefer to not pass judgement on people who want to have sex in animal costumes or change their penis into a vagina, because I don't think people need me police what preferences are fine and which are dumbass. And like I said in my post you are allowed to have whatever criteria you want, no matter how stupid or absurd. But you cannot place a moral imperative on other's to maintain those criteria for you.
You're not allowed to place the moral imperative of "if you have good reason to believe that I wouldn't consent to sex with you if I knew [some trait] then you should tell me about that trait" on people?
See, you appear to be making a couple of different arguments. First, you say that these moral imperatives aren't allowed. Okay, but then you have to adjust your definition for cases like being HIV positive or not on birth control etc. etc. But once you do that, then your argument is basically saying that it's okay to place moral imperatives on other people, but only if you think their reason for disliking a particular trait is good. Well, that doesn't work for a shitload of reasons, not least among them that you don't get to tell people that their reason for no having sex with you isn't rational.
You're allowed to care about the authenticity of a person. You're even allowed to make up totally fake criteria like "she has to be born a woman to be a real woman." But you're not allowed to expect people to humor such dumbass criteria when they are obviously false. If you want said criteria enforced, it's on your shoulders.
Then call it something else: people care about whether someone is cisgendered. That's all. They want to have sex with cisgendered people only. It's nothing to do with the authenticity of women; if someone wants to only have sex with transgendered women, he or she is free to do so.
|
On August 02 2013 23:20 marvellosity wrote:
Such a weird topic for me, I can't seem to come down on either side particularly strongly.
I am with you on this one. On one hand, I am all about treating people equally. On the other hand, I don't like people telling me I am a transphobe because I might not be 100% confortable sleeping one someone who is transgender. The disclosure issue is a non-issue for me, because it only comes up when it comes to one night stands. And if you are in the realm of one night stands, suprises are part of that game.
|
On August 02 2013 23:40 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 23:37 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 23:07 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 06:15 shinosai wrote:2. No because the distinction was that no cis women are xy. The problem here is that words have different meaning depending on field. In the field of biology a transgender woman is not a "woman" and neither is a woman with T insensitivity syndrome, but in everyday language and in my book both are women. I would never call a transgender fake for example or "not a real woman". Because that would be immoral. And I would be a dick. But to deny that you CAN make a distinction, if you want to, is to be quite silly. I just want to know how you, supposing you were a biologist, would go about making the distinction. You see, I don't think you actually can. Let's take this hypothetical. I'm walking around, I'm a biologist. I've got this woman in front of me, but I'm not sure if she's *really* a woman. Well, what criteria do I have for determining this? Ah, I know! I'll test her chromosomes. Hmm, they came up xy. But her body seems perfectly female... I do not think she is trans. Further testing reveals she has AIS! What criteria could I use to deny that women with AIS are really women? Ah, the uterus! But wait, some normal xx women do not have a uterus. I seem to have a problem in having valid criteria to say that women with AIS are not women. If I did, then I could go from the original statement (women do not have xy chromosomes) to the conclusion (trans women are not identical to women). 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 The forgery/scam analogy is so so bad. First of all, trans women aren't "selling" anything. They aren't running around trying to trick people to get into bed with the with the promise of good vagina. It's just two people who like each other and wanna bump uglies. Second, the trans woman isn't a forgery of a woman. She's a woman. You're getting a real Van Gogh both physically and emotionally. Some people might not see it that way, but it's not the trans woman's job to reinforce or humor that gross misunderstanding. You're allowed to care about the authenticity of a person. You're even allowed to make up totally fake criteria like "she has to be born a woman to be a real woman." But you're not allowed to expect people to humor such dumbass criteria when they are obviously false. If you want said criteria enforced, it's on your shoulders. 1) A lot of people happen to think the distinction between an authentic Van Gogh and a 21st century forgery matters. 2) A lot of people happen to think the distinction between someone born in a female body and somebody who have achieved their sexual characteristics by surgery or hormone therapy matters. You seem to respect the preference listed as (1) and not (2), on no other basis that it is a dumbass criterium. I prefer to not pass judgement on people who want to have sex in animal costumes or change their penis into a vagina, because I don't think people need me police what preferences are fine and which are dumbass. And like I said in my post you are allowed to have whatever criteria you want, no matter how stupid or absurd. But you cannot place a moral imperative on other's to maintain those criteria for you.
i'd say there are some exceptions that could be stipulated (in favor of disclosure).
if you don't tell, then later your date/partner/sex object finds out and gets a mental/nervous breakdown as a direct consequence; that will be on your head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
