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.
We've been over this Shiori, I'm not running around this circle again.
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.
We've been over this Shiori, I'm not running around this circle again.
Yes, but you keep moving the goal posts. First it's that your can't impose moral imperatives, then it's that you can but only if your moral imperatives are good, then it's that your moral imperatives are good only if they are associated with some arbitrary level of "rational reasoning" with respect to one's sexual preferences. I mean, you're just drawing lines in the sand with every reply. You can't seem to come up with a consistent thesis statement that, without being totally arbitrary, requires telling people if you're not on birth control but doesn't require telling them if you happen to be trans or cis. Your argument basically comes down to "you shouldn't be able to make other people obey moral imperatives unless they direct affect you*" where that asterisk is a massive list of exceptions stipulating that pretty much every objecting analogy to your position is actually just a special case and that, in particular, trans/cis don't appear on the list.
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.
No one likes it when someone points it out, but that doesn't mean the word can't be applied just because you're not the equivalent of the KKK. As I said in the other example, if you go out with a biracial woman and you assume she's white, but then you find out she's biracial and find yourself disgusted with the idea of sleeping with her.... you are to some degree a racist. Not as racist as a member of the KKK, but you still have some sort of phobia about people outside of your race.
Any racist, sexist, or even perhaps a biphobic person can claim that they simply have personal preferences and it's out of their control. Which I grant, is probably true. But your feelings of disgust have a name.
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.
You seem to have only read half of the first line of my post lol. My whole post was about referring to those post op as "trans". Trans refers to the difference between sex and gender which no longer exists after the surgery. If you accept this then what the argument is really about is the broader right to a detailed history of your sexual partner's challenges and "undesirable" traits which could be any number of things, least of which is having once been trans.
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.
We've been over this Shiori, I'm not running around this circle again.
Yes, but you keep moving the goal posts. First it's that your can't impose moral imperatives, then it's that you can but only if your moral imperatives are good, then it's that your moral imperatives are good only if they are associated with some arbitrary level of "rational reasoning" with respect to one's sexual preferences. I mean, you're just drawing lines in the sand with every reply. You can't seem to come up with a consistent thesis statement that, without being totally arbitrary, requires telling people if you're not on birth control but doesn't require telling them if you happen to be trans or cis. Your argument basically comes down to "you shouldn't be able to make other people obey moral imperatives unless they direct affect you*" where that asterisk is a massive list of exceptions stipulating that pretty much every objecting analogy to your position is actually just a special case and that, in particular, trans/cis don't appear on the list.
Do you not see how this is arbitrary?
No, at great length I've actually stipulated the difference between disclosing that you are trans and disclosing that you are HIV+. You may have misread my posts or you may simply not agree with me, but I have absolutely taken the time to flesh that out.
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.
At least I now know that if you'd consider changing your gender I'd have a shot at you sweety. You're into blondes! That's something! I'm not going to take responsibility for anything you might think you should do to your body due to this statement. It's a joke!
But yeah I'm with you and Plansix on this one, this thread really is weird. I've been reading and I just can't come to any kind of conclusion for myself. I guess it comes down to "sucks to be you" in both possible scenarios, which obviously isn't a nice thing.
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
Why isn't the copy the real painting? It looks exactly the same to everybody but a trained professional.
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.
At least I now know that if you'd consider changing your gender I'd have a shot at you sweety. You're into blondes! That's something! I'm not going to take responsibility for anything you might think you should do to your body due to this statement. It's a joke!
But yeah I'm with you and Plansix on this one, this thread really is weird. I've been reading and I just can't come to any kind of conclusion for myself. I guess it comes down to "sucks to be you" in both possible scenarios, which obviously isn't a nice thing.
If you knew what was good for you, you'd have a shot at me regardless, sweetie.
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
Why isn't the copy the real painting? It looks exactly the same to everybody but a trained professional.
*sigh* Because the way you've defined a Van Gogh the real painting obviously can only be the one painted by Van Gogh himself. And in the same way, the way you've defined "real woman" the real woman can only be the one who was born with a vagina. But we're telling you your definition is flawed and your analogy is bad.
Trans women are real women. As Shinosai (I believe) pointed out earlier, if you need a time machine to determine how a trans woman and a cis woman are different, then you haven't really pointed out any difference.
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.
No one likes it when someone points it out, but that doesn't mean the word can't be applied just because you're not the equivalent of the KKK. As I said in the other example, if you go out with a biracial woman and you assume she's white, but then you find out she's biracial and find yourself disgusted with the idea of sleeping with her.... you are to some degree a racist. Not as racist as a member of the KKK, but you still have some sort of phobia about people outside of your race.
Any racist, sexist, or even perhaps a biphobic person can claim that they simply have personal preferences and it's out of their control. Which I grant, is probably true. But your feelings of disgust have a name.
And I don't disagree that the example above would be racism. If they are uncomfortable, but genially feel bad about the discomfort, I wouldn’t not call them racist however, maybe unconsciously prejudice that they may not want. You can go down the road and say that people should face their prejudice and sugar coating it only makes the issue worse. I would agree, if the choice were within the always within the person’s control. However, this is sexual attraction and not always a rational thing. And really, are those people so bad because they don’t want to have sex with you that it is necessary to liken that to the same term you would use to describe a member of the KKK or some crazy religious group.
Once again, I don’t think people really have an objection to what is being said, its is mostly the tone of the discussion and how aggressive it.
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
Why isn't the copy the real painting? It looks exactly the same to everybody but a trained professional.
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.
No one likes it when someone points it out, but that doesn't mean the word can't be applied just because you're not the equivalent of the KKK. As I said in the other example, if you go out with a biracial woman and you assume she's white, but then you find out she's biracial and find yourself disgusted with the idea of sleeping with her.... you are to some degree a racist. Not as racist as a member of the KKK, but you still have some sort of phobia about people outside of your race.
Any racist, sexist, or even perhaps a biphobic person can claim that they simply have personal preferences and it's out of their control. Which I grant, is probably true. But your feelings of disgust have a name.
And I don't disagree that the example above would be racism. If they are uncomfortable, but genially feel bad about the discomfort, I wouldn’t not call them racist however, maybe unconsciously prejudice that they may not want. You can go down the road and say that people should face their prejudice and sugar coating it only makes the issue worse. I would agree, if the choice were within the always within the person’s control. However, this is sexual attraction and not always a rational thing. And really, are those people so bad because they don’t want to have sex with you that it is necessary to liken that to the same term you would use to describe a member of the KKK or some crazy religious group.
Once again, I don’t think people really have an objection to what is being said, its is mostly the tone of the discussion and how aggressive it.
Okay, I get it. The term has connotations that cause hurt feelings, regardless of being used completely correctly. That being said, I'm amiable to your complaint because I'd rather educate than cause animosity. Is there some other word you'd like me to use to describe transphobia?
On August 02 2013 23:13 Mercy13 wrote: 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.
No, it is not. Just because the consent was not given in that very moment does not mean the consent was totally absent - it was implied the moment you got married (in a country that does condone marital rape). The woman agreed to get married, thus agreeing to "marital obligations" and by extension giving consent to sex, and then she is having second thoughts.
Your whole reasoning (bolded) hinges upon the assumption that giving consent to A, but not giving consent to B, is somehow giving consent in some general sense, including B. That is just nonsense, no offence.
Like I said, transsexual women go to great lengths to make themselves as undifferentiable from cis women as possible. That's the very purpose of transition, for god's sake. Because of that they are making their potential sexual partner act on the assumed premise that they're cis women, whether by intent or not, it doesn't matter.
A better analogy would be a restaurant marketing itself with a slogan saying "best cow steaks in town" while serving steaks made from pork and doing their best to make them taste like cow meat. If a Muslim happens to eat at the place is it really his responsibility to enquire whether the meat the restaurant strived to make as indistinguishable from cow meat as possible is by some random chance actually pork meat?
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
Why isn't the copy the real painting? It looks exactly the same to everybody but a trained professional.
*sigh* Because the way you've defined a Van Gogh the real painting obviously can only be the one painted by Van Gogh himself. And in the same way, the way you've defined "real woman" the real woman can only be the one who was born with a vagina. But we're telling you your definition is flawed and your analogy is bad.
Trans women are real women. As Shinosai (I believe) pointed out earlier, if you need a time machine to determine how a trans woman and a cis woman are different, then you haven't really pointed out any difference.
I have never defined real women. I have drawn a distinction between someone who have attained their sexual characteristics through surgery and hormone therapy and someone who hasn't.
You either need a time machine, historical records or technical minutiae, both to tell authentic paintings from modern forgeries and to tell transsexual and non-transsexual women apart. Do you disagree with this?
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
Why isn't the copy the real painting? It looks exactly the same to everybody but a trained professional.
Its not a copy she is herself
This doesn't even resemble an answer to the question posed. What characteristics distinguish the copy from the real painting (which couldn't similarly be used to distinguish between trans- and non-transsexual women)?
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
Why isn't the copy the real painting? It looks exactly the same to everybody but a trained professional.
Its not a copy she is herself
This doesn't even resemble an answer to the question posed. What characteristics distinguish the copy from the real painting (which couldn't similarly be used to distinguish between trans- and non-transsexual women)?
none EDIT: wait which couldn't? well in that case one is a forgery
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.
No one likes it when someone points it out, but that doesn't mean the word can't be applied just because you're not the equivalent of the KKK. As I said in the other example, if you go out with a biracial woman and you assume she's white, but then you find out she's biracial and find yourself disgusted with the idea of sleeping with her.... you are to some degree a racist. Not as racist as a member of the KKK, but you still have some sort of phobia about people outside of your race.
Any racist, sexist, or even perhaps a biphobic person can claim that they simply have personal preferences and it's out of their control. Which I grant, is probably true. But your feelings of disgust have a name.
Everybodys a racist to some degree.
Anyways thats grossly misusing the word phobia, and all you end up is a washed-out word void of meaning. By your logic a man who has gay friends and is all for equal rights but who feels disgusted by the idea of having sex with another man is a homophobe. If that were true, how long do you think it would take before nobody gives a fuck about being homophobic?
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
Why isn't the copy the real painting? It looks exactly the same to everybody but a trained professional.
Its not a copy she is herself
This doesn't even resemble an answer to the question posed. What characteristics distinguish the copy from the real painting (which couldn't similarly be used to distinguish between trans- and non-transsexual women)?
none EDIT: wait which couldn't? well in that case one is a forgery
He is saying it is identical in every way except for when and how it was made.
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
Why isn't the copy the real painting? It looks exactly the same to everybody but a trained professional.
Its not a copy she is herself
This doesn't even resemble an answer to the question posed. What characteristics distinguish the copy from the real painting (which couldn't similarly be used to distinguish between trans- and non-transsexual women)?
none EDIT: wait which couldn't? well in that case one is a forgery
He is saying it is identical in every way except for when and how it was made.
Do you think we have to point out to him that not all women are made by the same person? and that the person responsible for "making" a woman (the parents) rarely enter into the decision to have a one night stand?
EPT
