|
On August 03 2013 02:41 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:26 RockIronrod wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Why should he have to disclose any information about himself? It's not like she knows, so there's no harm in it right? It's just one night of sex, so long as no one knows, no one gets hurt! But If she found out she might resort to violence. Why should he have to put himself in danger just because she might care about something when clearly he doesn't? Does her right to know trump his right to withhold information and have sex? \ Because he is a physically different person, an individual with a separate birth certificate than his identical twin brother. By law they are not the same individual and therefor it is rape. Your analogy is bad because you're jumping the gap and claiming that replacing the individual is the same as reconstructive surgery when it's not. The trans person is a single individual and when you meet them for a hookup afterwards you are getting that person. Whereas in your analogy the woman is married to one person and then having another individual sleep with her without her permission. THAT IS RAPE.
Why can you guys not understand that "I want to have sex with people who have not undergone SRT" is as valid a reason as any other when it comes to deciding who one wants to have sex with. Since a lot of people hold this belief, you owe it to them to tell them when you're looking to have sex with them.
|
On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship?
Mercy answered this well in explaining the difference, but then your next example of the twins thing is again an example of someone having a priori knowledge about someone else (that her husband has a twin) and then using that knowledge, again in an instance of actively seeking out that individual.
|
United States41964 Posts
On August 03 2013 02:41 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:26 RockIronrod wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Why should he have to disclose any information about himself? It's not like she knows, so there's no harm in it right? It's just one night of sex, so long as no one knows, no one gets hurt! But If she found out she might resort to violence. Why should he have to put himself in danger just because she might care about something when clearly he doesn't? Does her right to know trump his right to withhold information and have sex? \ Because he is a physically different person, an individual with a separate birth certificate than his identical twin brother. By law they are not the same individual and therefor it is rape. Your analogy is bad because you're jumping the gap and claiming that replacing the individual is the same as reconstructive surgery when it's not. The trans person is a single individual and when you meet them for a hookup afterwards you are getting that person. Whereas in your analogy the woman is married to one person and then having another individual sleep with her without her permission. THAT IS RAPE.
You missed the point. In this example the wife consented to sleep with the man standing in front of her after making the assumption that the guy who looked very much like her husband was probably her husband. By the "if you don't want to do it then ask" argument she would be obliged to ask the man who appears to be her husband if he was her husband. Failing to ask that question is taken as tacit consent to have sex with anyone she assumes is her husband. By the "disclose if it's relevant or likely to be relevant to consent" argument the onus would be on the twin brother to say "hey, before we fuck, I'm actually the twin brother".
|
On August 03 2013 02:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:58 fugs wrote:
A transwoman is the same as a ciswoman, I should not have to pass some freaky test to qualify as one kind of human being over another. Basing the 'difference' on surgery should be irrelevant because the surgery is none of your business. Your right to know the quality of a woman's vagina is trumped by the right of that woman to keep her medical information to herself. Sorry if you feel otherwise but there's a ton of entitlement going around in this thread and expecting transwomen to give you their most intimate details reeks of male entitlement.
I am a girl, it should really be that simple. Not telling you about being born with a penis is not rape, the penis is completely irrelevant because it doesn't exist anymore therefore the memory of that penis is not yours to be concerned about. You are afraid of an idea, an idea can't be persecuted and it can't be legally punished because it doesn't exist. The penis doesn't exist anymore, the flesh that it consisted of has been transformed. That flesh is the same flesh a cis woman's vagina is made out of (if you know how the penis is formed in the womb) so again, there is no difference outside of medical science's ability to repair nature's damage.
You heard that right guys, your penis is really an inverted vagina. If you don't like that you should blame nature for making you that way. <3
You don't get to decide what someone else views as relevant. This is something you and klondike seem to refuse to understand. You can think nothing could be less relevant but that doesn't make it irrelevant to someone else. It is immoral to conceal something which is, or is likely to be, very relevant to their decision to consent to sex for the purpose of getting them to consent to sex when they otherwise would not. Again, you do not get to decide what they find relevant or how valid their criteria are. Dismissing their criteria as dumb or saying "fuck that guy, I don't care" is pretty rapey.
You misunderstand my argument. I'm implying privilege to information. You are not privileged to my medical history as it is personal and unless I tell you it is none of your business regardless of the situation. I am pointing out male entitlement and how it's affecting a woman's right to privacy.
The information may be relevant to you, but you are not privileged to it.
|
On August 03 2013 02:35 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant. It shouldn't be about popular opinion, trans people aren't exactly popular just like other minorities aren't exactly popular. The minorities' rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion. My medical history is my business understand? You're afraid of an idea, a penis that doesn't exist anymore. A penis that was transformed back into a vagina from the same material that all vaginas are made out of. Because it doesn't exist anymore it's not any of your business as it doesn't affect you. You're trying to claim that your entitlement to information trumps my right to privacy and that's morally reprehensible.
This isn't minority vs majority, it's a universal thing. You don't withhold information just so you can have sex with someone. If you don't want to tell someone, then don't have sex with them. Your right to get your rocks off doesn't trump their right to make an informed decision with who they have sex with. Your medical history in this situation IS their business and DOES affect them, because it affects their decision to have sex with you, regardless of whether you think it's pertinent enough. Again, if you don't want to tell them, don't have sex with them.
|
On August 03 2013 02:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:35 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant. It shouldn't be about popular opinion, trans people aren't exactly popular just like other minorities aren't exactly popular. The minorities' rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion. My medical history is my business understand? You're afraid of an idea, a penis that doesn't exist anymore. A penis that was transformed back into a vagina from the same material that all vaginas are made out of. Because it doesn't exist anymore it's not any of your business as it doesn't affect you. You're trying to claim that your entitlement to information trumps my right to privacy and that's morally reprehensible. Regarding your medical history being private. Nobody is forcing you to wear a star of David. You don't have any obligation to disclose anything right up until the point at which it affects someone else, at which point you do. The rest of your post is just "I think your beliefs are dumb which entitles me to disregard them even when it affects you".
Except I didn't say that, I didn't imply that his beliefs are dumb only ill-founded. I'm pointing out his flawed belief by adding my opinion on the matter.
|
United States41964 Posts
On August 03 2013 02:45 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:38 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 fugs wrote:
A transwoman is the same as a ciswoman, I should not have to pass some freaky test to qualify as one kind of human being over another. Basing the 'difference' on surgery should be irrelevant because the surgery is none of your business. Your right to know the quality of a woman's vagina is trumped by the right of that woman to keep her medical information to herself. Sorry if you feel otherwise but there's a ton of entitlement going around in this thread and expecting transwomen to give you their most intimate details reeks of male entitlement.
I am a girl, it should really be that simple. Not telling you about being born with a penis is not rape, the penis is completely irrelevant because it doesn't exist anymore therefore the memory of that penis is not yours to be concerned about. You are afraid of an idea, an idea can't be persecuted and it can't be legally punished because it doesn't exist. The penis doesn't exist anymore, the flesh that it consisted of has been transformed. That flesh is the same flesh a cis woman's vagina is made out of (if you know how the penis is formed in the womb) so again, there is no difference outside of medical science's ability to repair nature's damage.
You heard that right guys, your penis is really an inverted vagina. If you don't like that you should blame nature for making you that way. <3
You don't get to decide what someone else views as relevant. This is something you and klondike seem to refuse to understand. You can think nothing could be less relevant but that doesn't make it irrelevant to someone else. It is immoral to conceal something which is, or is likely to be, very relevant to their decision to consent to sex for the purpose of getting them to consent to sex when they otherwise would not. Again, you do not get to decide what they find relevant or how valid their criteria are. Dismissing their criteria as dumb or saying "fuck that guy, I don't care" is pretty rapey. You misunderstand my argument. I'm implying privilege to information. You are not privileged to my medical history as it is personal and unless I tell you it is none of your business regardless of the situation. I am pointing out male entitlement and how it's affecting a woman's right to privacy. The information may be relevant to you, but you are not privileged to it.
I am when you're asking me to consent to sex with you based upon flawed information. This is no different to having an STD in that regard. Not that I am saying that trans women are diseased, merely that society already has decided that things that can affect the partner should be disclosed before they consent to sex. And if you think that it can't have any impact then you are simply wrong. You might thing it shouldn't have, or that in a fair world it would not have, but you can't think that it will not have any impact.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
The fundamental point seems to be that just because something is irrational, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Where I've been struggling in this thread is that I do understand the point of view of "there is no difference so why should we tell"
I think I'm coming round to the view, though, that even if there is no rational difference, it doesn't have to be rational for it to be taken into account. Ideally it *should* make no difference, but while it actually does, I think disclosure is the correct course of action
|
United States41964 Posts
On August 03 2013 02:49 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:42 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 02:35 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant. It shouldn't be about popular opinion, trans people aren't exactly popular just like other minorities aren't exactly popular. The minorities' rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion. My medical history is my business understand? You're afraid of an idea, a penis that doesn't exist anymore. A penis that was transformed back into a vagina from the same material that all vaginas are made out of. Because it doesn't exist anymore it's not any of your business as it doesn't affect you. You're trying to claim that your entitlement to information trumps my right to privacy and that's morally reprehensible. Regarding your medical history being private. Nobody is forcing you to wear a star of David. You don't have any obligation to disclose anything right up until the point at which it affects someone else, at which point you do. The rest of your post is just "I think your beliefs are dumb which entitles me to disregard them even when it affects you". Except I didn't say that, I didn't imply that his beliefs are dumb only ill-founded. I'm pointing out his flawed belief by adding my opinion on the matter.
And as a result of stating your opinion maybe fewer men will care about the difference and the information will cease to be relevant. But the belief doesn't need to be firmly founded to have relevance, people are allowed to refuse consent for any reason they want.
|
On August 03 2013 02:47 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:35 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant. It shouldn't be about popular opinion, trans people aren't exactly popular just like other minorities aren't exactly popular. The minorities' rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion. My medical history is my business understand? You're afraid of an idea, a penis that doesn't exist anymore. A penis that was transformed back into a vagina from the same material that all vaginas are made out of. Because it doesn't exist anymore it's not any of your business as it doesn't affect you. You're trying to claim that your entitlement to information trumps my right to privacy and that's morally reprehensible. This isn't minority vs majority, it's a universal thing. You don't withhold information just so you can have sex with someone. If you don't want to tell someone, then don't have sex with them. Your right to get your rocks off doesn't trump their right to make an informed decision with who they have sex with. Your medical history in this situation IS their business and DOES affect them, because it affects their decision to have sex with you, regardless of whether you think it's pertinent enough. Again, if you don't want to tell them, don't have sex with them.
Where does it stop then? Does a cancer patient have to tell their one night stand about the tumor growing in their liver? Where is the line drawn where one person's medical history is no longer relevant to the other? Why is my transition so important to you that I must disclose an embarrassing and very private portion of my life to a complete stranger? Why does negative popular opinion of transsexuals overturn right to privacy?
|
On August 03 2013 02:52 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:47 RockIronrod wrote:On August 03 2013 02:35 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant. It shouldn't be about popular opinion, trans people aren't exactly popular just like other minorities aren't exactly popular. The minorities' rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion. My medical history is my business understand? You're afraid of an idea, a penis that doesn't exist anymore. A penis that was transformed back into a vagina from the same material that all vaginas are made out of. Because it doesn't exist anymore it's not any of your business as it doesn't affect you. You're trying to claim that your entitlement to information trumps my right to privacy and that's morally reprehensible. This isn't minority vs majority, it's a universal thing. You don't withhold information just so you can have sex with someone. If you don't want to tell someone, then don't have sex with them. Your right to get your rocks off doesn't trump their right to make an informed decision with who they have sex with. Your medical history in this situation IS their business and DOES affect them, because it affects their decision to have sex with you, regardless of whether you think it's pertinent enough. Again, if you don't want to tell them, don't have sex with them. Where does it stop then? Does a cancer patient have to tell their one night stand about the tumor growing in their liver? Where is the line drawn where one person's medical history is no longer relevant to the other? Why is my transition so important to you that I must disclose an embarrassing and very private portion of my life to a complete stranger? Why does negative popular opinion of transsexuals overturn right to privacy?
We would expect someone with an STD that was in remission and non-contagious to disclose that information. They could make a reasonable argument that it is harmless and is not longer going to effect anyone, but we would still be offended if they did not disclose it. They don’t have to, but I don’t think they should feel great about it or attempt to justify that its private.
|
United States41964 Posts
On August 03 2013 02:52 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:47 RockIronrod wrote:On August 03 2013 02:35 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant. It shouldn't be about popular opinion, trans people aren't exactly popular just like other minorities aren't exactly popular. The minorities' rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion. My medical history is my business understand? You're afraid of an idea, a penis that doesn't exist anymore. A penis that was transformed back into a vagina from the same material that all vaginas are made out of. Because it doesn't exist anymore it's not any of your business as it doesn't affect you. You're trying to claim that your entitlement to information trumps my right to privacy and that's morally reprehensible. This isn't minority vs majority, it's a universal thing. You don't withhold information just so you can have sex with someone. If you don't want to tell someone, then don't have sex with them. Your right to get your rocks off doesn't trump their right to make an informed decision with who they have sex with. Your medical history in this situation IS their business and DOES affect them, because it affects their decision to have sex with you, regardless of whether you think it's pertinent enough. Again, if you don't want to tell them, don't have sex with them. Where does it stop then? Does a cancer patient have to tell their one night stand about the tumor growing in their liver? Where is the line drawn where one person's medical history is no longer relevant to the other? Why is my transition so important to you that I must disclose an embarrassing and very private portion of my life to a complete stranger? Why does negative popular opinion of transsexuals overturn right to privacy?
You're not getting it.
A cancer patient would absolutely have to tell people about their tumour if they believed that they were gaining consent based upon the flawed assumption that they had no tumours and that consent would not otherwise be granted. Cancer patients don't have to disclose because that belief is unlikely because the desire to avoid tumours isn't a big thing. The desire to avoid transgender people is a big thing and therefore the belief that consent could hinge upon it is there and therefore the obligation to disclose is there.
You don't have to disclose. You choose to when you choose to involve them through asking them to consent to something. You owe them the ability to make an informed decision before they consent. This isn't about trans people, majority rule or transphobia, this is about protecting the principle of consent. It'd apply to cancer patients just the same. If you don't want to involve other people in your business then don't try and maintain that principle while fucking other people.
|
On August 03 2013 02:52 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:47 RockIronrod wrote:On August 03 2013 02:35 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant. It shouldn't be about popular opinion, trans people aren't exactly popular just like other minorities aren't exactly popular. The minorities' rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion. My medical history is my business understand? You're afraid of an idea, a penis that doesn't exist anymore. A penis that was transformed back into a vagina from the same material that all vaginas are made out of. Because it doesn't exist anymore it's not any of your business as it doesn't affect you. You're trying to claim that your entitlement to information trumps my right to privacy and that's morally reprehensible. This isn't minority vs majority, it's a universal thing. You don't withhold information just so you can have sex with someone. If you don't want to tell someone, then don't have sex with them. Your right to get your rocks off doesn't trump their right to make an informed decision with who they have sex with. Your medical history in this situation IS their business and DOES affect them, because it affects their decision to have sex with you, regardless of whether you think it's pertinent enough. Again, if you don't want to tell them, don't have sex with them. Where does it stop then? Does a cancer patient have to tell their one night stand about the tumor growing in their liver? Where is the line drawn where one person's medical history is no longer relevant to the other? Why is my transition so important to you that I must disclose an embarrassing and very private portion of my life to a complete stranger? Why does negative popular opinion of transsexuals overturn right to privacy?
i think its a difference in view that you see it as a medical history, no different than some cancer operation however the majority of heterosexuals, for right or wrong reasons, does not think that way and their opinion should be respected also.
i'm certain you can find those that dont mind trans and all is good, however there are those that will mind and act negatively when they find out after sex. i also think plenty of cis lie/deceive to have sex so, so it'll be hypocritical to deny you the same.
|
United States41964 Posts
On August 03 2013 02:58 jinorazi wrote:
i also think plenty of heteros lie/deceive to have sex so, so it'll be hypocritical to deny you the same.
Presumably you mean cis when you say hetero and then somehow that two wrongs make a right.
|
On August 03 2013 02:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:45 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:38 KwarK wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 fugs wrote:
A transwoman is the same as a ciswoman, I should not have to pass some freaky test to qualify as one kind of human being over another. Basing the 'difference' on surgery should be irrelevant because the surgery is none of your business. Your right to know the quality of a woman's vagina is trumped by the right of that woman to keep her medical information to herself. Sorry if you feel otherwise but there's a ton of entitlement going around in this thread and expecting transwomen to give you their most intimate details reeks of male entitlement.
I am a girl, it should really be that simple. Not telling you about being born with a penis is not rape, the penis is completely irrelevant because it doesn't exist anymore therefore the memory of that penis is not yours to be concerned about. You are afraid of an idea, an idea can't be persecuted and it can't be legally punished because it doesn't exist. The penis doesn't exist anymore, the flesh that it consisted of has been transformed. That flesh is the same flesh a cis woman's vagina is made out of (if you know how the penis is formed in the womb) so again, there is no difference outside of medical science's ability to repair nature's damage.
You heard that right guys, your penis is really an inverted vagina. If you don't like that you should blame nature for making you that way. <3
You don't get to decide what someone else views as relevant. This is something you and klondike seem to refuse to understand. You can think nothing could be less relevant but that doesn't make it irrelevant to someone else. It is immoral to conceal something which is, or is likely to be, very relevant to their decision to consent to sex for the purpose of getting them to consent to sex when they otherwise would not. Again, you do not get to decide what they find relevant or how valid their criteria are. Dismissing their criteria as dumb or saying "fuck that guy, I don't care" is pretty rapey. You misunderstand my argument. I'm implying privilege to information. You are not privileged to my medical history as it is personal and unless I tell you it is none of your business regardless of the situation. I am pointing out male entitlement and how it's affecting a woman's right to privacy. The information may be relevant to you, but you are not privileged to it. I am when you're asking me to consent to sex with you based upon flawed information. This is no different to having an STD in that regard. Not that I am saying that trans women are diseased, merely that society already has decided that things that can affect the partner should be disclosed before they consent to sex. And if you think that it can't have any impact then you are simply wrong. You might thing it shouldn't have, or that in a fair world it would not have, but you can't think that it will not have any impact.
A person with aids needs to tell their partner about their STD because it could kill their partner. That is not the same as a medical issue that is not only not contagious, but in no way physically detrimental to their partner. I apologize but my personal medical information won't be brought into the open by popular opinion. I'm not a monster, and transsexuality is not contagious.
The only people privvy to my medical history are my doctors. You've been implying the entire time that the man is trapped in a situation where they become the victim when that's not the case because it's the girl that's being forced to give away information that is her business and hers alone.
|
On August 03 2013 02:35 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant. It shouldn't be about popular opinion, trans people aren't exactly popular just like other minorities aren't exactly popular. The minorities' rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion. My medical history is my business understand? You're afraid of an idea, a penis that doesn't exist anymore. A penis that was transformed back into a vagina from the same material that all vaginas are made out of. Because it doesn't exist anymore it's not any of your business as it doesn't affect you. You're trying to claim that your entitlement to information trumps my right to privacy and that's morally reprehensible.
You do not get to decide what does and doesn't affect me. That's a poor justification, extremely poor. And I am not afraid, I am disgusted by the idea, same with having sex with a (former) prostitute and you should respect that. Otherwise don't expect LGBT opponents to respect you because that's hypocritical.
|
On August 03 2013 02:52 fugs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:47 RockIronrod wrote:On August 03 2013 02:35 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant. It shouldn't be about popular opinion, trans people aren't exactly popular just like other minorities aren't exactly popular. The minorities' rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion. My medical history is my business understand? You're afraid of an idea, a penis that doesn't exist anymore. A penis that was transformed back into a vagina from the same material that all vaginas are made out of. Because it doesn't exist anymore it's not any of your business as it doesn't affect you. You're trying to claim that your entitlement to information trumps my right to privacy and that's morally reprehensible. This isn't minority vs majority, it's a universal thing. You don't withhold information just so you can have sex with someone. If you don't want to tell someone, then don't have sex with them. Your right to get your rocks off doesn't trump their right to make an informed decision with who they have sex with. Your medical history in this situation IS their business and DOES affect them, because it affects their decision to have sex with you, regardless of whether you think it's pertinent enough. Again, if you don't want to tell them, don't have sex with them. Where does it stop then? Does a cancer patient have to tell their one night stand about the tumor growing in their liver? Where is the line drawn where one person's medical history is no longer relevant to the other? Why is my transition so important to you that I must disclose an embarrassing and very private portion of my life to a complete stranger? Why does negative popular opinion of transsexuals overturn right to privacy?
It stops when you know it isn't pertinent to their decision to consent to sex. It's pretty simple, and isn't something limited to trans people.
And you don't HAVE to tell anyone, just like you don't HAVE to have sex with them. All your arguments seem to be based around this idea that sex is something that's completely unavoidable and that the world must bend to your right to fuck whoever you please regardless of their beliefs.
|
On August 03 2013 02:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:58 jinorazi wrote:
i also think plenty of heteros lie/deceive to have sex so, so it'll be hypocritical to deny you the same. Presumably you mean cis when you say hetero and then somehow that two wrongs make a right.
i'm not too familiar with the terms so i apologize if i use them wrong. two wrongs dont make it right, maybe i'm being passive but i'm just a messenger, the kings and queens can battle however they want.
to pick out on their problem while not others seem unbalanced, so i just wanted to say if people take cis lying for sex as the norm, it should apply to trans too.
|
On August 03 2013 02:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 02:52 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:47 RockIronrod wrote:On August 03 2013 02:35 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:25 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 02:19 fugs wrote:On August 03 2013 02:16 Darkwhite wrote:On August 03 2013 02:09 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship? I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you. My identical twin brother has a wife, but she doesn't know I exist. Late at night, I come into their bedroom, she greets me as if though I were her husband, I make no effort to clear this up and we have sex. Seeing as the misunderstanding here is not personal information about her, I have no obligation to let her know I'm not actually her husband. Is that how it works? You are mentally a different person so no that's not how it works and yes it is dishonest and yes it is immoral. Twins =/= same person as you're both still morally responsible for your own actions. Cis =/= trans for most people. Claiming otherwise is just being wilfully ignorant. It shouldn't be about popular opinion, trans people aren't exactly popular just like other minorities aren't exactly popular. The minorities' rights shouldn't hinge on popular opinion. My medical history is my business understand? You're afraid of an idea, a penis that doesn't exist anymore. A penis that was transformed back into a vagina from the same material that all vaginas are made out of. Because it doesn't exist anymore it's not any of your business as it doesn't affect you. You're trying to claim that your entitlement to information trumps my right to privacy and that's morally reprehensible. This isn't minority vs majority, it's a universal thing. You don't withhold information just so you can have sex with someone. If you don't want to tell someone, then don't have sex with them. Your right to get your rocks off doesn't trump their right to make an informed decision with who they have sex with. Your medical history in this situation IS their business and DOES affect them, because it affects their decision to have sex with you, regardless of whether you think it's pertinent enough. Again, if you don't want to tell them, don't have sex with them. Where does it stop then? Does a cancer patient have to tell their one night stand about the tumor growing in their liver? Where is the line drawn where one person's medical history is no longer relevant to the other? Why is my transition so important to you that I must disclose an embarrassing and very private portion of my life to a complete stranger? Why does negative popular opinion of transsexuals overturn right to privacy? You're not getting it. A cancer patient would absolutely have to tell people about their tumour if they believed that they were gaining consent based upon the flawed assumption that they had no tumours and that consent would not otherwise be granted. Cancer patients don't have to disclose because that belief is unlikely because the desire to avoid tumours isn't a big thing. The desire to avoid transgender people is a big thing and therefore the belief that consent could hinge upon it is there and therefore the obligation to disclose is there. You don't have to disclose. You choose to when you choose to involve them through asking them to consent to something. You owe them the ability to make an informed decision before they consent. This isn't about trans people, majority rule or transphobia, this is about protecting the principle of consent. It'd apply to cancer patients just the same. If you don't want to involve other people in your business then don't try and maintain that principle while fucking other people.
Consent based on what-ifs. What-ifs are not admissible to an argument of consent because they're too broad of an argument to hold water. Right?
|
I hate that this argument revolves around protecting the rights of an assumed significant population with an old, miss-founded, hereditary, socially instilled belief at the expense of a group of people that are actively being oppressed.
but them' the breaks. who thought morality was easy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
