|
On August 02 2013 19:02 marvellosity wrote:
The moral of the last page or 2 appears to read as "trans people don't have to tell you shit, because our plight is so bad". This is an oversimplification but it's been repeated by quite a few people, and I'm not sure how much I agree with the sentiment.
edit: I also agree with Shiori a lot about (at least certain) sexual preferences not being something you need to give too much thought to. I think klondike's points about this in particular are totally absurd. Actually I do like blond hair and I'm not an infantile monkey for not wanting to think about exactly why I like blond hair.
It's not absurd. There's tons of research done on why we like what we like. People prefer symmetry, people prefer proportionality that adheres to the golden ratio, people prefer body types that indicate leisure.
This can explain all sorts of things. You prefer faces and haircuts that are symmetrical or at least hide assymmetries. You prefer moderately sized breasts because they are disproportionate and humans prefer proportionality. You prefer muscular guys or skinnier/fitter women because that indicates health and a lifestyle that allows one to be healthy. There are all sorts of biological and cultural explanations for why we like what we do. And yes, we can deviate from the average preferences, even willfully, so god people, quit acting like we're just dumb animals who respond to stimuli and nothing more. The science is awesome. You don't have to care about it but it exists. There are reasons for our attractions.
|
On August 02 2013 23:54 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 23:52 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 23:49 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 23:45 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 23:40 Klondikebar wrote: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. 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.
Yeah, you made it pretty clear that in your mind one is relevant ("real consequences") while the other is irrelevant. But, as numerous people have pointed out, YOU don't get to decide what is a relevant reason to base consent on and what is not, you simply respect those reasons, unless you condone some sort of rapist mentality.
|
On August 03 2013 00:16 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:15 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 00:09 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 23:59 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 23:40 ComaDose wrote: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. 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
I think a forged painting and an original painting are different.
I similarly think that a transsexual woman and a born woman are different.
It seems to me that you think the first is a meaningful distinction, whereas the second isn't. I am trying to understand why.
|
On August 03 2013 00:19 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 23:53 shinosai wrote:On August 02 2013 23:47 Plansix wrote: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?
There is a difference. Your feelings of disgust for sleeping with another man are not due to homophobia, but directly related to your sexual orientation. Actually, though, I'll be honest, if you have feelings of disgust, that's probably more of societal conditioning than actual orientation. Gay women who sleep with men before discovering they are gay, for example, tend not to evoke the angry reactions that straight men do when presented with the idea of sleeping with another man.
In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism.
|
In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism.
What if you just really like pale skin?
|
On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin?
Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it.
|
On August 03 2013 00:22 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:20 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:16 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 00:15 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 00:09 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 23:59 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 23:40 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 23:37 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 23:07 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 22:32 Darkwhite wrote:[quote] 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?
They are all analogies, so they are going to fall apart in some way or another. I see where he is coming from, though I don’t completely agree. At the end of the day, this all comes down to a case by case basis and I think the idea of us setting rules for sexual encounters between transgender and non-transgender folks is a fools errand. There is no perfect solution and both parties have the right to be treated with respect. If one side is uncomfortable, they have the right to that and to not be shamed or called transphobic due to those feelings. The other side has the right to choose when to disclose the information about being transgender and to be treated respectfully when they do.
|
On August 03 2013 00:25 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 23:54 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 23:52 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 23:49 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 23:45 Shiori wrote:On August 02 2013 23:40 Klondikebar wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Yeah, you made it pretty clear that in your mind one is relevant ("real consequences") while the other is irrelevant. But, as numerous people have pointed out, YOU don't get to decide what is a relevant reason to base consent on and what is not, you simply respect those reasons, unless you condone some sort of rapist mentality.
You have also said multiple times that you do not think gender studies is a real field. You have no business in this thread and people ought to stop responding to you completely. You don't bring anything to the table because you refuse to adopt any of the language or ideas in this thread and yet you deliberately came into a thread where those basic definitions and ideas are taken as a given before the discussion even starts. If you feel that those ideas aren't given, then you should perhaps start your own thread.
|
On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it.
Oh, okay. Well I mean if you're deciding it based literally on ethnic origin rather than on what the person actually looks like, then yeah, it's racism, assuming you don't have some sort of good reason to be traumatized by some particular ethnicity (maybe your grandfather was a Holocaust survivor so you can't really date Germans, or something).
|
On August 03 2013 00:26 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:16 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 00:15 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 00:09 ComaDose wrote:On August 02 2013 23:59 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 23:40 ComaDose wrote: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:
[quote]
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 I think a forged painting and an original painting are different. I similarly think that a transsexual woman and a born woman are different. It seems to me that you think the first is a meaningful distinction, whereas the second isn't. I am trying to understand why.
Because you don't need a time machine to make the first distinction but you do require one for the second.
|
On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it.
What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person.
Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to.
|
On August 03 2013 00:31 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. Oh, okay. Well I mean if you're deciding it based literally on ethnic origin rather than on what the person actually looks like, then yeah, it's racism, assuming you don't have some sort of good reason to be traumatized by some particular ethnicity (maybe your grandfather was a Holocaust survivor so you can't really date Germans, or something).
Well, yea, that's the point, and the reason the analogy is made to trans women (you're deciding literally on her birth origin rather than who the person actually is). I'll also go on to say that you could have a really, really good reason to refuse to associate with black people. Perhaps your mother was murdered in front of you by black men, so you refuse to associate with them at any time whatsoever. No matter how *good* or *legitimate* the reason is, it doesn't change the fact that you are discriminating and stereotyping against people for something they have no control over and says nothing about who they are.
|
On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to.
Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism.
|
On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to.
Your example here is completely absurd. The reason for you not dating her would not be because she is biracial, but because doing so would necessarily endanger your own life. The person in my example has no ulterior motives to feel disgust other than her racial origins.
|
On August 03 2013 00:05 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 23:59 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 23:40 ComaDose wrote: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. 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. Perfect forgeries are the actual paintings. As Shinosai (I believe) pointed out earlier, if you need a time machine to determine how a forgery and the actual painting are different, then you haven't really pointed out any difference.
See?
|
On August 03 2013 00:41 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:05 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 23:59 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 23:40 ComaDose wrote: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. 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. Perfect forgeries are the actual paintings. As Shinosai (I believe) pointed out earlier, if you need a time machine to determine how a forgery and the actual painting are different, then you haven't really pointed out any difference. See?
We can always count on you to be an absolute asshole in this thread and derail any productive discussion going on. I keep having to remind myself that the reason everyone is so agressive in this thread is you and your smart ass comments and transphobia.
|
In regard to the forgery example, I'd actually like to address that. First off, it is so completely offensive to compare trans women to forgeries... the language itself is very upsetting. Like, wow. But to address the actual argument:
I would argue that there actually is not a difference between the actual painting and a perfect forgery. But we make this distinction because people are very attached to the "idea" of an actual painting. Which is okay. I don't really have a problem with people treating actual paintings and perfect forgeries as different, because paintings aren't human beings.
|
On August 03 2013 00:41 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:05 Klondikebar wrote:On August 02 2013 23:59 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 23:40 ComaDose wrote: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. 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. Perfect forgeries are the actual paintings. As Shinosai (I believe) pointed out earlier, if you need a time machine to determine how a forgery and the actual painting are different, then you haven't really pointed out any difference. See?
Perfect forgery and the ones painted by Van Gogh are the same. They are both actual paintings
transwomen and ciswomen are the same. They are both actual women.
I really don't see why this discussion has gone on so long
|
On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism.
Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt those doesnt exist.
Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist?
|
On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist?
Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
