|
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?
He never said anything about preferences outside the scope of phobias and racism. He just said "Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism." That is an extremely specific conditional statement. Stop constructing straw mans and pretending you're making a point.
|
On August 03 2013 00:12 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:08 Plansix wrote: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. 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?
The thing is, this is no more "transphobia" than being heterosexual is "homophobia". Comments like yours are the reason why many people don't take "transphobia" and such seriously. You're making a big deal out of something natural and unharmful and proceed to label people in an insulting way equaling them with people who actually are intolerant or oppressive.
On August 03 2013 00:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:41 maybenexttime wrote: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.
Give me a break, lol.
edit: The analogy is spot on. Perfectly transitioned transsexual women look 100% like cis women, but they are not. The key difference is that they were not born that way (among other things). The exact same thing applies to perfect forgeries. Just because you can't tell the difference between a perfect forgery and the actual painting does not mean you can't prefer to have the painting painted by the actual author.
|
On August 03 2013 00:47 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote: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? He never said anything about preferences outside the scope of phobias and racism. He just said "Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism." That is an extremely specific conditional statement. Stop constructing straw mans and pretending you're making a point.
I'm actually female, and would prefer female pronouns. Thanks! 
|
The thing is, this is no more "transphobia" than being heterosexual is "homophobia"
I already addressed this. There is a difference between refusing to sleep with someone based on your sexual orientation and refusing to sleep with someone based solely on and nothing other than their race or origin of birth.
|
On August 03 2013 00:49 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:47 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote: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? He never said anything about preferences outside the scope of phobias and racism. He just said "Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism." That is an extremely specific conditional statement. Stop constructing straw mans and pretending you're making a point. I'm actually female, and would prefer female pronouns. Thanks!
Whoops, muh bad. Of all places to NOT assume there are no girls on the internet an LGBT thread would probably be the most appropriate. I apologize.
She never said anything about preferences outside the scope of phobias and racism.
|
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 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?
A little bit. If you want Jewish children, its your job to check on all the facts before you enter a relationship. If you decided you like someone, don’t check on the facts and then find out that they don’t live up to the criteria you have set out for your partners, that’s your problem and you’re a little racist. People who only want their children to be in relationships with people of the same race are also a little racist.
|
On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote: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.
If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf.
|
On August 03 2013 00:48 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:12 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:08 Plansix wrote: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. 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? The thing is, this is no more "transphobia" than being heterosexual is "homophobia". Comments like yours are the reason why many people don't take "transphobia" and such seriously. You're making a big deal out of something natural and unharmful and proceed to label people in an insulting way equaling them with people who actually are intolerant or oppressive. Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:43 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:41 maybenexttime wrote: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:
[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. *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. Give me a break, lol. edit: The analogy is spot on. Perfectly transitioned transsexual women look 100% like cis women, but they are not. The key difference is that they were not born that way (among other things). The exact same thing applies to perfect forgeries. Just because you can't tell the difference between a perfect forgery and the actual painting does not mean you can't prefer to have the painting painted by the actual author.
But why do you care? Its clear your never going to sleep with one, so why even bother to discuss the matter? Unless your running around having one night stands and sleeping with prostitutes.
|
On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote: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. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf.
There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that?
|
On August 03 2013 00:31 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:25 maybenexttime wrote: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:[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. 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.
Because it is not. It's an ideology, not a science.
While I'm making valid points some people may or may not disagree with, you're usually just throwing insult left and right. If anything, people should stop responding to you. ;]
Oh, and I did adopt the "cis" and "trans" terms, by the way. And couple of others, give credit where it's due. ^____^
|
On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote: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. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf.
Hey, get what, the Bible also says I can't marry outside my race. But we ignore that shit because its fucking stupid. My fathers family wanted him to marry a nice Irish Catholic girl and he didn't. They are also assholes for different reasons(and they are my family, I have first hand information that they are, in fact, assholes).
|
On August 03 2013 00:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:48 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 00:12 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:08 Plansix wrote: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. 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? The thing is, this is no more "transphobia" than being heterosexual is "homophobia". Comments like yours are the reason why many people don't take "transphobia" and such seriously. You're making a big deal out of something natural and unharmful and proceed to label people in an insulting way equaling them with people who actually are intolerant or oppressive. On August 03 2013 00:43 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:41 maybenexttime wrote: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:[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. *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. Give me a break, lol. edit: The analogy is spot on. Perfectly transitioned transsexual women look 100% like cis women, but they are not. The key difference is that they were not born that way (among other things). The exact same thing applies to perfect forgeries. Just because you can't tell the difference between a perfect forgery and the actual painting does not mean you can't prefer to have the painting painted by the actual author. But why do you care? Its clear your never going to sleep with one, so why even bother to discuss the matter? Unless your running around having one night stands and sleeping with prostitutes.
So its ok for a transgender to not disclose that she was born a male in one night stands but never ok otherwise? What the fuck?
|
On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote: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. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that?
I would say that people do a poor job of using the word and finding different terminology would be best for the discussion. The word “Negro” is factually correct, but I don’t break that one out ever for good reason. The words and how they are used change over time. Open, fair minded people do not like being defined as racist and finding other, less offensive words to describe whatever hang out they may have is best for everyone.
|
On August 03 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +The thing is, this is no more "transphobia" than being heterosexual is "homophobia" I already addressed this. There is a difference between refusing to sleep with someone based on your sexual orientation and refusing to sleep with someone based solely on and nothing other than their race or origin of birth.
Both are just preferences and deserve* equal amounts of respect.
*typed "respect" instead
|
On August 03 2013 01:00 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:56 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:48 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 00:12 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:08 Plansix wrote: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. 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? The thing is, this is no more "transphobia" than being heterosexual is "homophobia". Comments like yours are the reason why many people don't take "transphobia" and such seriously. You're making a big deal out of something natural and unharmful and proceed to label people in an insulting way equaling them with people who actually are intolerant or oppressive. On August 03 2013 00:43 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:41 maybenexttime wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Give me a break, lol. edit: The analogy is spot on. Perfectly transitioned transsexual women look 100% like cis women, but they are not. The key difference is that they were not born that way (among other things). The exact same thing applies to perfect forgeries. Just because you can't tell the difference between a perfect forgery and the actual painting does not mean you can't prefer to have the painting painted by the actual author. But why do you care? Its clear your never going to sleep with one, so why even bother to discuss the matter? Unless your running around having one night stands and sleeping with prostitutes. So its ok for a transgender to not disclose that she was born a male in one night stands but never ok otherwise? What the fuck?
Sure, who cares. Its not really a problem you will have to deal with unelss you put yourself in a place where your sleeping with a lot of people that you don't know very well. And at that point, finding out someone used to be a guy is likely the least of your problems. You are the master of your penis, put it places with care.
|
On August 03 2013 01:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote: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. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? I would say that people do a poor job of using the word and finding different terminology would be best for the discussion. The word “Negro” is factually correct, but I don’t break that one out ever for good reason. The words and how they are used change over time. Open, fair minded people do not like being defined as racist and finding other, less offensive words to describe whatever hang out they may have is best for everyone.
Does prejudiced work better for you?
|
On August 03 2013 01:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote: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. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? I would say that people do a poor job of using the word and finding different terminology would be best for the discussion. The word “Negro” is factually correct, but I don’t break that one out ever for good reason. The words and how they are used change over time. Open, fair minded people do not like being defined as racist and finding other, less offensive words to describe whatever hang out they may have is best for everyone.
doesn't that legitimize their "hang out" even though its prejudice against someones race?
|
On August 03 2013 01:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote: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. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? I would say that people do a poor job of using the word and finding different terminology would be best for the discussion. The word “Negro” is factually correct, but I don’t break that one out ever for good reason. The words and how they are used change over time. Open, fair minded people do not like being defined as racist and finding other, less offensive words to describe whatever hang out they may have is best for everyone.
The difference between "Negro" and "racist" is that the former evokes a history of oppression and we prefer to not refer to people in the context of an oppressed and disenfranchised past. "Racist" also evokes a history of oppression but it does so from the perspective of the oppressor, and, while we might like to be diplomatic (particularly if the person is genuinely trying to better themselves) we aren't terribly concerned with the feelings of an oppressor.
And as Shinosai said, "racist" has a great range of degrees. If you automatically take it to mean "hood wearing cross burning wizard" then you're simply misunderstanding the word. And it's a misunderstanding that can be corrected.
|
On August 03 2013 01:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:00 heliusx wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:48 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 00:12 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:08 Plansix wrote: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. 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? The thing is, this is no more "transphobia" than being heterosexual is "homophobia". Comments like yours are the reason why many people don't take "transphobia" and such seriously. You're making a big deal out of something natural and unharmful and proceed to label people in an insulting way equaling them with people who actually are intolerant or oppressive. On August 03 2013 00:43 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:41 maybenexttime wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Give me a break, lol. edit: The analogy is spot on. Perfectly transitioned transsexual women look 100% like cis women, but they are not. The key difference is that they were not born that way (among other things). The exact same thing applies to perfect forgeries. Just because you can't tell the difference between a perfect forgery and the actual painting does not mean you can't prefer to have the painting painted by the actual author. But why do you care? Its clear your never going to sleep with one, so why even bother to discuss the matter? Unless your running around having one night stands and sleeping with prostitutes. So its ok for a transgender to not disclose that she was born a male in one night stands but never ok otherwise? What the fuck? Sure, who cares. Its not really a problem you will have to deal with unelss you put yourself in a place where your sleeping with a lot of people that you don't know very well. And at that point, finding out someone used to be a guy is likely the least of your problems. You are the master of your penis, put it places with care.
Sounds to me you just don't have a problem with that because it doesn't effect you.
|
On August 03 2013 01:05 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:The thing is, this is no more "transphobia" than being heterosexual is "homophobia" I already addressed this. There is a difference between refusing to sleep with someone based on your sexual orientation and refusing to sleep with someone based solely on and nothing other than their race or origin of birth. Both are just preferences and respect equal amounts of respect.
Preferences can be racist and transphobic. Just because it's a personal preference doesn't make it immune to scrutiny. People are still allowed to judge you as an asshole if you refuse to associate with black people. "It's just my preference" is not going to cut it. Stop using the word 'preference' like it grants some sort of magical immunity to criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
