Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Transgender, Gender Identity in general (topic shift)

1272829303133»

Posts

  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Anyway, to get away from the specifics of christian theology, I do think it's fair to say that "christians don't do transsexuals" is not anywhere close to being common knowledge on the "muslims don't eat pork" level. So that seems to put the burden of disclosure at an impasse unless there's data on the general acceptance of transsexuals that we can look at.

    If I were the transgendered person in that situation, I would be up front about it. However, my idealism and the nature of our society are often at odds, and I can definitely see someone not wanting to be as forthcoming.

    Come on. It's disingenuous to say, "Well, I don't have any numbers in front of me, so I couldn't possibly speculate as to how many people would be comfortable having sex with a TG."

    If there are enough extremists out there to create an atmosphere in which people don't feel comfortable walking down the street openly TG, then any rock you throw is going to land on someone who at least isn't comfortable fucking one. I would think it's pretty reasonable to say that, outside of specific places, anybody you pick out of a crowd would not be cool with it.

    Using the "dangerous environment" to cop out of being honest only to conclude that "well, they'd probably be cool with it anyway" is really pretty stupid in a way that doesn't have anything to do with sexuality.
    There are environments where I'm not going to say that I'm an atheist. This is not for fear of physical violence, but simply because I don't need the fucking hassle. Atheists are apparently the most distrusted people in this country or somesuch. Do I need to quickly disclose my atheism to any potential sexual partner?

    Bama on
  • logic7logic7 Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Anyway, to get away from the specifics of christian theology, I do think it's fair to say that "christians don't do transsexuals" is not anywhere close to being common knowledge on the "muslims don't eat pork" level. So that seems to put the burden of disclosure at an impasse unless there's data on the general acceptance of transsexuals that we can look at.

    If I were the transgendered person in that situation, I would be up front about it. However, my idealism and the nature of our society are often at odds, and I can definitely see someone not wanting to be as forthcoming.

    Come on. It's disingenuous to say, "Well, I don't have any numbers in front of me, so I couldn't possibly speculate as to how many people would be comfortable having sex with a TG."

    If there are enough extremists out there to create an atmosphere in which people don't feel comfortable walking down the street openly TG, then any rock you throw is going to land on someone who at least isn't comfortable fucking one. I would think it's pretty reasonable to say that, outside of specific places, anybody you pick out of a crowd would not be cool with it.

    Using the "dangerous environment" to cop out of being honest only to conclude that "well, they'd probably be cool with it anyway" is really pretty stupid in a way that doesn't have anything to do with sexuality.
    There are environments where I'm not going to say that I'm an atheist. This is not for fear of physical violence, but simply because I don't need the fucking hassle. Atheists are apparently the most distrusted people in this country or somesuch. Do I need to quickly disclose my atheism to any potential sexual partner?

    straying off topic, but no... not to someone that's just a lay, but if you go beyond that then yes. People have their preferences. A Jewish man may not wish to be with a Muslim woman, a Roman Catholic man may not wish to be with a Shinto woman. Does it suck? Yeah, probably. Is it common? Absolutely.

    logic7 on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Would it be appropriate for a woman to dress up as a man and go to a gay bar and attempt to seduce gay guys? Would it be appropriate for a gay guy to dress up as a woman and go to a bar and attempt to seduce straight guys? Would either be justified in being upset, if, after getting them back to her place their potential partner was horrified at their gender? Of course not, since the assumption that you are your presented gender is a basic fact.

    Transgendered people ARE their presented gender. That's what I'm getting at, and what you seem to be (?) denying. To compare a woman dressing up as a man to get laid with an FTM is either being disingenuous or making a mockery or showing a misunderstanding of transgenderism. We're just talking at each other, because we are not seeing this situation the same way at all.

    Transgendered people ARE NOT male or female if they truly believe they have left their original gender. They ARE NOT their presented gender. Dressing up as a buffalo does not make me a buffalo, no matter how convincing my buffalo costume may be. If one day, science can rewrite your DNA and make you genetically indistinguishable from a male or female then perhaps you are one, but then all we have done is moved to an environment where everyone is effectively genderless and the words male and female are no more useful than having a special word for 'wearing a blue hat' or 'wearing a coat'

    Until that day we quite simply have more than two genders (or sexes, whatever word you want to use to mean the same thing) We have a whole list, and this is what you seem to deny. There is NOTHING wrong with being any of these genders/sexes. All are equally fine, and if you are transgendered then thats great. It's your body, do what you want with it. However, when it comes to my body I'd prefer to be allowed to exercise my own preferences thankyou very much.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Anyway, to get away from the specifics of christian theology, I do think it's fair to say that "christians don't do transsexuals" is not anywhere close to being common knowledge on the "muslims don't eat pork" level. So that seems to put the burden of disclosure at an impasse unless there's data on the general acceptance of transsexuals that we can look at.

    If I were the transgendered person in that situation, I would be up front about it. However, my idealism and the nature of our society are often at odds, and I can definitely see someone not wanting to be as forthcoming.

    Come on. It's disingenuous to say, "Well, I don't have any numbers in front of me, so I couldn't possibly speculate as to how many people would be comfortable having sex with a TG."

    If there are enough extremists out there to create an atmosphere in which people don't feel comfortable walking down the street openly TG, then any rock you throw is going to land on someone who at least isn't comfortable fucking one. I would think it's pretty reasonable to say that, outside of specific places, anybody you pick out of a crowd would not be cool with it.

    Using the "dangerous environment" to cop out of being honest only to conclude that "well, they'd probably be cool with it anyway" is really pretty stupid in a way that doesn't have anything to do with sexuality.
    There are environments where I'm not going to say that I'm an atheist. This is not for fear of physical violence, but simply because I don't need the fucking hassle. Atheists are apparently the most distrusted people in this country or somesuch. Do I need to quickly disclose my atheism to any potential sexual partner?

    The status quo seems to be when you date/fuck/marry a person of the opposite sex, it is assumed that they've been that way since birth. It's pretty much been this way for thousands of years, until very recently.

    RocketSauce on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    logic7 wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Anyway, to get away from the specifics of christian theology, I do think it's fair to say that "christians don't do transsexuals" is not anywhere close to being common knowledge on the "muslims don't eat pork" level. So that seems to put the burden of disclosure at an impasse unless there's data on the general acceptance of transsexuals that we can look at.

    If I were the transgendered person in that situation, I would be up front about it. However, my idealism and the nature of our society are often at odds, and I can definitely see someone not wanting to be as forthcoming.

    I would argue that it IS common knowledge. Christians don't do homosexual relationships of any kind and they frown upon transgendered people. The Southern Baptist Convention and the Catholic church have been rather outspoken about it.
    I disagree that it's a homosexual relationship.

    If your view was anywhere near to the prevailing one, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I too disagree that its a homosexual relationship, however it is also not a heteronormal relationship. For most people the only relationship they will be involved in is one between them, and whichever is their opposite sex. The person of that sex must be the opposite sex in the way they appear, their genetics, and their history.
    Understood. Of course, we aren't going to get anywhere if people are unwilling to examine their prejudices and eliminate them where possible. People simply saying "this is the way I feel (so it must therefore be ok) and a lot of other people feel the same way (so it must therefore be even more ok)!" and shutting out reasoned arguments has slowed down progress throughout our history.

    I'm not saying you're one of those people, fyi.

    Bama on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Anyway, to get away from the specifics of christian theology, I do think it's fair to say that "christians don't do transsexuals" is not anywhere close to being common knowledge on the "muslims don't eat pork" level. So that seems to put the burden of disclosure at an impasse unless there's data on the general acceptance of transsexuals that we can look at.

    If I were the transgendered person in that situation, I would be up front about it. However, my idealism and the nature of our society are often at odds, and I can definitely see someone not wanting to be as forthcoming.

    Come on. It's disingenuous to say, "Well, I don't have any numbers in front of me, so I couldn't possibly speculate as to how many people would be comfortable having sex with a TG."

    If there are enough extremists out there to create an atmosphere in which people don't feel comfortable walking down the street openly TG, then any rock you throw is going to land on someone who at least isn't comfortable fucking one. I would think it's pretty reasonable to say that, outside of specific places, anybody you pick out of a crowd would not be cool with it.

    Using the "dangerous environment" to cop out of being honest only to conclude that "well, they'd probably be cool with it anyway" is really pretty stupid in a way that doesn't have anything to do with sexuality.
    There are environments where I'm not going to say that I'm an atheist. This is not for fear of physical violence, but simply because I don't need the fucking hassle. Atheists are apparently the most distrusted people in this country or somesuch. Do I need to quickly disclose my atheism to any potential sexual partner?

    Have they mentioned their religion to you? If so, then you should do the same. Religion is easy to spot in other people, since to people to which it is important it is a regular topic of conversation with their partner.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    logic7 wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Anyway, to get away from the specifics of christian theology, I do think it's fair to say that "christians don't do transsexuals" is not anywhere close to being common knowledge on the "muslims don't eat pork" level. So that seems to put the burden of disclosure at an impasse unless there's data on the general acceptance of transsexuals that we can look at.

    If I were the transgendered person in that situation, I would be up front about it. However, my idealism and the nature of our society are often at odds, and I can definitely see someone not wanting to be as forthcoming.

    Come on. It's disingenuous to say, "Well, I don't have any numbers in front of me, so I couldn't possibly speculate as to how many people would be comfortable having sex with a TG."

    If there are enough extremists out there to create an atmosphere in which people don't feel comfortable walking down the street openly TG, then any rock you throw is going to land on someone who at least isn't comfortable fucking one. I would think it's pretty reasonable to say that, outside of specific places, anybody you pick out of a crowd would not be cool with it.

    Using the "dangerous environment" to cop out of being honest only to conclude that "well, they'd probably be cool with it anyway" is really pretty stupid in a way that doesn't have anything to do with sexuality.
    There are environments where I'm not going to say that I'm an atheist. This is not for fear of physical violence, but simply because I don't need the fucking hassle. Atheists are apparently the most distrusted people in this country or somesuch. Do I need to quickly disclose my atheism to any potential sexual partner?

    straying off topic, but no... not to someone that's just a lay, but if you go beyond that then yes. People have their preferences. A Jewish man may not wish to be with a Muslim woman, a Roman Catholic man may not wish to be with a Shinto woman. Does it suck? Yeah, probably. Is it common? Absolutely.
    No no, I agree with you there. At least, in as much as it is important to me in a close relationship. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's how other people should necessarily proceed, though.

    Bama on
  • voodoosporkvoodoospork Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    Anyway, to get away from the specifics of christian theology, I do think it's fair to say that "christians don't do transsexuals" is not anywhere close to being common knowledge on the "muslims don't eat pork" level. So that seems to put the burden of disclosure at an impasse unless there's data on the general acceptance of transsexuals that we can look at.

    If I were the transgendered person in that situation, I would be up front about it. However, my idealism and the nature of our society are often at odds, and I can definitely see someone not wanting to be as forthcoming.

    Come on. It's disingenuous to say, "Well, I don't have any numbers in front of me, so I couldn't possibly speculate as to how many people would be comfortable having sex with a TG."

    If there are enough extremists out there to create an atmosphere in which people don't feel comfortable walking down the street openly TG, then any rock you throw is going to land on someone who at least isn't comfortable fucking one. I would think it's pretty reasonable to say that, outside of specific places, anybody you pick out of a crowd would not be cool with it.

    Using the "dangerous environment" to cop out of being honest only to conclude that "well, they'd probably be cool with it anyway" is really pretty stupid in a way that doesn't have anything to do with sexuality.
    There are environments where I'm not going to say that I'm an atheist. This is not for fear of physical violence, but simply because I don't need the fucking hassle. Atheists are apparently the most distrusted people in this country or somesuch. Do I need to quickly disclose my atheism to any potential sexual partner?

    Personally, I do. I live in Oklahoma, so I am not exactly surrounded by atheists, but I just don't bother with people who aren't cool with it. I know I can't even be real friends with someone who is religious because I'll never respect them, so I just try to be upfront about it and let people come or go as they like. I don't wear shirts or put shit on my car, but anything more than the most passing acquaintance knows because I just don't have any patience for walking on eggshells because I might get some hassle.

    voodoospork on
  • iglidanteiglidante Registered User
    edited October 2009
    The status quo seems to be when you date/fuck/marry a person of the opposite sex, it is assumed that they've been that way since birth. It's pretty much been this way for thousands of years, until very recently.

    Agreed. The discussion got messy once we had two sides, one saying "but they HAVE been that way since birth," and the other side saying "no, they haven't, and they still aren't," and both pretending not to understand the other.

    ...and that is a generalization. But some people have been fighting in circles like that.

    iglidante on
  • lizard eats flieslizard eats flies Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    On the catholic thing, I have actually talked with priests and theologians who study, well catholic-y stuff. The response I got was that the catholic church does not have any official stands on transsexuality. He then went on to explain how, if done under the right supervision of doctors etc then it can be seen as a medical issue the will improve the quality of persons life, and this is acceptable in the catholic church.

    Now I fully admit that if you ask most catholics, they would say its against the teachings of the church, and would probably be run out from their churches. Also said priest (conveniently?) failed to mention anything about being in a relationship while trans.

    lizard eats flies on
  • iglidanteiglidante Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Also said priest (conveniently?) failed to mention anything about being in a relationship while trans.

    Or being in a relationship with someone who's trans.

    iglidante on
  • logic7logic7 Registered User
    edited October 2009
    On the catholic thing, I have actually talked with priests and theologians who study, well catholic-y stuff. The response I got was that the catholic church does not have any official stands on transsexuality. He then went on to explain how, if done under the right supervision of doctors etc then it can be seen as a medical issue the will improve the quality of persons life, and this is acceptable in the catholic church.

    Now I fully admit that if you ask most catholics, they would say its against the teachings of the church, and would probably be run out from their churches. Also said priest (conveniently?) failed to mention anything about being in a relationship while trans.

    then those priests are ignoring the stance directly from the Vatican.

    http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/archive.asp?aid=599

    logic7 on
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    For the record, Nostregar, I wasn't saying you thought sleeping with an MtF would "make you gay". By your own words, you said it would be a gay action, though. That's what I'm arguing; that it's not gay. Being gay means that you have an attraction for others of your same gender to the exclusion of the opposite. If you sleep with an MtF, you're still attracted to women. You haven't slept with a man. You haven't even slept with a male. As several naturally occurring situations have shown, chromosomes are not a hard rule as to what you are.

    She thinks like a woman. She looks like a woman. She has all the proper lady parts. The act is not gay.

    Now, if you want to dislike the idea for another reason, go ahead, but the gay thing should pretty much be put to rest at this point. Sleeping with a trans that fully presents the gender you are attracted to is not a gay action.

    Houn on
  • ProPatriaMoriProPatriaMori Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I think Lutherans would be cool with transsexuality. Lutherans are pretty easygoing, though, except for being pretty sure that if you don't believe in Jesus you're going to hell. Or that's what I gathered before I left the church.

    I find myself kind of fascinated by the argument that's gone on which has focused on how we react to what are essentially the irratational bases of our attraction. My conclusion is that allusions to homophobia are going too far. Certainly there are nonphysical basis for attraction, such as attraction to authority figures, or the classic attraction to the rebel/free spirit. Being...repulsed might be a strong word, but it is the opposite of attracted...so, being repulsed by the birth sex of your partner (rather than their appearance) kind of occupies a similar psychological niche. Right?

    I mean, I guess that could be called homophobic, but it's only about as homophobic as I am racist. Which isn't all that much, honest.

    ProPatriaMori on
  • iglidanteiglidante Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    For the record, Nostregar, I wasn't saying you thought sleeping with an MtF would "make you gay". By your own words, you said it would be a gay action, though. That's what I'm arguing; that it's not gay. Being gay means that you have an attraction for others of your same gender to the exclusion of the opposite. If you sleep with an MtF, you're still attracted to women. You haven't slept with a man. You haven't even slept with a male. As several naturally occurring situations have shown, chromosomes are not a hard rule as to what you are.

    She thinks like a woman. She looks like a woman. She has all the proper lady parts. The act is not gay.

    Now, if you want to dislike the idea for another reason, go ahead, but the gay thing should pretty much be put to rest at this point. Sleeping with a trans that fully presents the gender you are attracted to is not a gay action.

    I would agree. But I don't think anyone has actually said the initial attraction would make you gay, or that the act would - just that, not being gay, they would choose not to have sex with a MTF if they knew ahead of time, since they personally felt a MTF is still physically male. Am I right?

    iglidante on
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited October 2009
    That was addressed much much earlier (single digit pages) where someone stated "Transphobe" and it was determined that if you're not into sex with a transgender you're not actually a Transphobe, you just aren't into sex with transgenders.

    Like the analogy given there.

    You're a straight guy, you think gays are cool people and you have gay friends but you don't want to have sex with them because they're guys. This doesn't make you homophobic, just...you don't like having sex with guys.

    Sipex on
    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited October 2009
    iglidante wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    For the record, Nostregar, I wasn't saying you thought sleeping with an MtF would "make you gay". By your own words, you said it would be a gay action, though. That's what I'm arguing; that it's not gay. Being gay means that you have an attraction for others of your same gender to the exclusion of the opposite. If you sleep with an MtF, you're still attracted to women. You haven't slept with a man. You haven't even slept with a male. As several naturally occurring situations have shown, chromosomes are not a hard rule as to what you are.

    She thinks like a woman. She looks like a woman. She has all the proper lady parts. The act is not gay.

    Now, if you want to dislike the idea for another reason, go ahead, but the gay thing should pretty much be put to rest at this point. Sleeping with a trans that fully presents the gender you are attracted to is not a gay action.

    I would agree. But I don't think anyone has actually said the initial attraction would make you gay, or that the act would - just that, not being gay, they would choose not to have sex with a MTF if they knew ahead of time, since they personally felt a MTF is still physically male. Am I right?

    Yeah, I think it's a point of perception and I totally agree.

    If I considered a MtF to be a woman then it wouldn't be gay for me to want sex with them. If I considered them as a male then I think it would (or at least bisexual).

    Sipex on
    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sipex wrote: »
    iglidante wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    For the record, Nostregar, I wasn't saying you thought sleeping with an MtF would "make you gay". By your own words, you said it would be a gay action, though. That's what I'm arguing; that it's not gay. Being gay means that you have an attraction for others of your same gender to the exclusion of the opposite. If you sleep with an MtF, you're still attracted to women. You haven't slept with a man. You haven't even slept with a male. As several naturally occurring situations have shown, chromosomes are not a hard rule as to what you are.

    She thinks like a woman. She looks like a woman. She has all the proper lady parts. The act is not gay.

    Now, if you want to dislike the idea for another reason, go ahead, but the gay thing should pretty much be put to rest at this point. Sleeping with a trans that fully presents the gender you are attracted to is not a gay action.

    I would agree. But I don't think anyone has actually said the initial attraction would make you gay, or that the act would - just that, not being gay, they would choose not to have sex with a MTF if they knew ahead of time, since they personally felt a MTF is still physically male. Am I right?

    Yeah, I think it's a point of perception and I totally agree.

    If I considered a MtF to be a woman then it wouldn't be gay for me to want sex with them. If I considered them as a male then I think it would (or at least bisexual).

    I guess, then, I'm arguing that it's not up to you to decide. They are mentally one gender, and have chosen to physically match it; you don't get a say in it, anymore than I can say you (assuming you are a male) are a woman.

    Nope, sorry, you're a woman, because I believe it to be so. Doesn't matter if you think like a man, or have male equipment, you're a woman, because I say so.

    It doesn't work that way. They are the gender they present. Sleeping with them is not gay. Now, if you want to be repulsed by the idea of a transgender itself, go right ahead. I just want to be sure that you're not lumping it in with homosexuality. This is a new thing, that requires new categories and new introspection. You don't get to dismiss it because you've already decided that gay sex doesn't interest you. You need to make an independent ruling on this.

    And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being homophobic. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that you may not be attracted to your own gender. I'm not attracted to my own gender. Transgenders, especially post-op, are the gender that they present.

    Houn on
  • lizard eats flieslizard eats flies Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    logic7 wrote: »
    On the catholic thing, I have actually talked with priests and theologians who study, well catholic-y stuff. The response I got was that the catholic church does not have any official stands on transsexuality. He then went on to explain how, if done under the right supervision of doctors etc then it can be seen as a medical issue the will improve the quality of persons life, and this is acceptable in the catholic church.

    Now I fully admit that if you ask most catholics, they would say its against the teachings of the church, and would probably be run out from their churches. Also said priest (conveniently?) failed to mention anything about being in a relationship while trans.

    then those priests are ignoring the stance directly from the Vatican.

    http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/archive.asp?aid=599

    Link is broken at the moment, but I'll take your word for it. I admit that I didnt do much research, it was my brother who contacted said priests (and is known to be a bit more of a 'liberal' priest). I personally dont care too much what the churches official stance is as I have parted ways from the church years ago so I didnt research beyond that. I guess my anecdote then just points to that not ALL of the catholic church thinks its wrong.

    lizard eats flies on
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    iglidante wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    For the record, Nostregar, I wasn't saying you thought sleeping with an MtF would "make you gay". By your own words, you said it would be a gay action, though. That's what I'm arguing; that it's not gay. Being gay means that you have an attraction for others of your same gender to the exclusion of the opposite. If you sleep with an MtF, you're still attracted to women. You haven't slept with a man. You haven't even slept with a male. As several naturally occurring situations have shown, chromosomes are not a hard rule as to what you are.

    She thinks like a woman. She looks like a woman. She has all the proper lady parts. The act is not gay.

    Now, if you want to dislike the idea for another reason, go ahead, but the gay thing should pretty much be put to rest at this point. Sleeping with a trans that fully presents the gender you are attracted to is not a gay action.

    I would agree. But I don't think anyone has actually said the initial attraction would make you gay, or that the act would - just that, not being gay, they would choose not to have sex with a MTF if they knew ahead of time, since they personally felt a MTF is still physically male. Am I right?

    Yeah, I think it's a point of perception and I totally agree.

    If I considered a MtF to be a woman then it wouldn't be gay for me to want sex with them. If I considered them as a male then I think it would (or at least bisexual).

    I guess, then, I'm arguing that it's not up to you to decide. They are mentally one gender, and have chosen to physically match it; you don't get a say in it, anymore than I can say you (assuming you are a male) are a woman.

    Nope, sorry, you're a woman, because I believe it to be so. Doesn't matter if you think like a man, or have male equipment, you're a woman, because I say so.

    It doesn't work that way. They are the gender they present. Sleeping with them is not gay. Now, if you want to be repulsed by the idea of a transgender itself, go right ahead. I just want to be sure that you're not lumping it in with homosexuality. This is a new thing, that requires new categories and new introspection. You don't get to dismiss it because you've already decided that gay sex doesn't interest you. You need to make an independent ruling on this.

    And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being homophobic. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that you may not be attracted to your own gender. I'm not attracted to my own gender. Transgenders, especially post-op, are the gender that they present.

    Ah, but this is a unique situation. You have someone who used to be male and is now female while your situation simply deals with someone who's always been male.

    A person could easily take into the fact that "Hey, they USED to be this way" and be attracted to them for that reason.

    Ie: Two gay lovers, one realises he's transgender and goes through the whole proceedure (assuming speaking to his partner about this of course). His (now her) partner is still attracted to her because he still thinks of her as a man.

    This could lead to very awkward situations of course but there it is in a general nutshell.

    Sipex on
    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • lizard eats flieslizard eats flies Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sipex wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    iglidante wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    For the record, Nostregar, I wasn't saying you thought sleeping with an MtF would "make you gay". By your own words, you said it would be a gay action, though. That's what I'm arguing; that it's not gay. Being gay means that you have an attraction for others of your same gender to the exclusion of the opposite. If you sleep with an MtF, you're still attracted to women. You haven't slept with a man. You haven't even slept with a male. As several naturally occurring situations have shown, chromosomes are not a hard rule as to what you are.

    She thinks like a woman. She looks like a woman. She has all the proper lady parts. The act is not gay.

    Now, if you want to dislike the idea for another reason, go ahead, but the gay thing should pretty much be put to rest at this point. Sleeping with a trans that fully presents the gender you are attracted to is not a gay action.

    I would agree. But I don't think anyone has actually said the initial attraction would make you gay, or that the act would - just that, not being gay, they would choose not to have sex with a MTF if they knew ahead of time, since they personally felt a MTF is still physically male. Am I right?

    Yeah, I think it's a point of perception and I totally agree.

    If I considered a MtF to be a woman then it wouldn't be gay for me to want sex with them. If I considered them as a male then I think it would (or at least bisexual).

    I guess, then, I'm arguing that it's not up to you to decide. They are mentally one gender, and have chosen to physically match it; you don't get a say in it, anymore than I can say you (assuming you are a male) are a woman.

    Nope, sorry, you're a woman, because I believe it to be so. Doesn't matter if you think like a man, or have male equipment, you're a woman, because I say so.

    It doesn't work that way. They are the gender they present. Sleeping with them is not gay. Now, if you want to be repulsed by the idea of a transgender itself, go right ahead. I just want to be sure that you're not lumping it in with homosexuality. This is a new thing, that requires new categories and new introspection. You don't get to dismiss it because you've already decided that gay sex doesn't interest you. You need to make an independent ruling on this.

    And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being homophobic. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that you may not be attracted to your own gender. I'm not attracted to my own gender. Transgenders, especially post-op, are the gender that they present.

    Ah, but this is a unique situation. You have someone who used to be male and is now female while your situation simply deals with someone who's always been male.

    A person could easily take into the fact that "Hey, they USED to be this way" and be attracted to them for that reason.

    Ie: Two gay lovers, one realises he's transgender and goes through the whole proceedure (assuming speaking to his partner about this of course). His (now her) partner is still attracted to her because he still thinks of her as a man.

    This could lead to very awkward situations of course but there it is in a general nutshell.

    In general what would happen is that the gay guy wouldnt be attracted to her anymore because he would see her as a woman and they would split up. Or, the gay guy would still view his partner as male, and they would split up because the trans person wouldnt want to be with someone who views them as male.
    Or (rare case) the gay person would realize he still loves his partner as a woman, and is comfortable being in a heterosexual relationship and they stay together.

    lizard eats flies on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    iglidante wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    For the record, Nostregar, I wasn't saying you thought sleeping with an MtF would "make you gay". By your own words, you said it would be a gay action, though. That's what I'm arguing; that it's not gay. Being gay means that you have an attraction for others of your same gender to the exclusion of the opposite. If you sleep with an MtF, you're still attracted to women. You haven't slept with a man. You haven't even slept with a male. As several naturally occurring situations have shown, chromosomes are not a hard rule as to what you are.

    She thinks like a woman. She looks like a woman. She has all the proper lady parts. The act is not gay.

    Now, if you want to dislike the idea for another reason, go ahead, but the gay thing should pretty much be put to rest at this point. Sleeping with a trans that fully presents the gender you are attracted to is not a gay action.

    I would agree. But I don't think anyone has actually said the initial attraction would make you gay, or that the act would - just that, not being gay, they would choose not to have sex with a MTF if they knew ahead of time, since they personally felt a MTF is still physically male. Am I right?

    Yeah, I think it's a point of perception and I totally agree.

    If I considered a MtF to be a woman then it wouldn't be gay for me to want sex with them. If I considered them as a male then I think it would (or at least bisexual).

    I guess, then, I'm arguing that it's not up to you to decide. They are mentally one gender, and have chosen to physically match it; you don't get a say in it, anymore than I can say you (assuming you are a male) are a woman.

    Nope, sorry, you're a woman, because I believe it to be so. Doesn't matter if you think like a man, or have male equipment, you're a woman, because I say so.

    It doesn't work that way. They are the gender they present. Sleeping with them is not gay. Now, if you want to be repulsed by the idea of a transgender itself, go right ahead. I just want to be sure that you're not lumping it in with homosexuality. This is a new thing, that requires new categories and new introspection. You don't get to dismiss it because you've already decided that gay sex doesn't interest you. You need to make an independent ruling on this.

    And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being homophobic. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that you may not be attracted to your own gender. I'm not attracted to my own gender. Transgenders, especially post-op, are the gender that they present.

    No, at best they are a seperate case neither male nor female. Having decided the only type of sex that is for you is heterosexual sex, you are perfectly free to exclude them. Perhaps we are simply short on words in the language (ironic for the language with the most words) but having sex with a transgender person, pre or post op is not normal heterosexual intercourse. It's not normal homosexual intercourse either, its a 'third way'.

    Dressing up as something does not make you that thing, no matter how convincing your costume. It is up to the other person to decide what THEY think of you. You may think of yourself as a woman, and society may honor your request to be treated as such, since it's only fair. However in personal relationships there is no demand for fairness, and the other person is allowed to make their own decision as to your gender based on the facts.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • SipexSipex Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Sipex wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    iglidante wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    For the record, Nostregar, I wasn't saying you thought sleeping with an MtF would "make you gay". By your own words, you said it would be a gay action, though. That's what I'm arguing; that it's not gay. Being gay means that you have an attraction for others of your same gender to the exclusion of the opposite. If you sleep with an MtF, you're still attracted to women. You haven't slept with a man. You haven't even slept with a male. As several naturally occurring situations have shown, chromosomes are not a hard rule as to what you are.

    She thinks like a woman. She looks like a woman. She has all the proper lady parts. The act is not gay.

    Now, if you want to dislike the idea for another reason, go ahead, but the gay thing should pretty much be put to rest at this point. Sleeping with a trans that fully presents the gender you are attracted to is not a gay action.

    I would agree. But I don't think anyone has actually said the initial attraction would make you gay, or that the act would - just that, not being gay, they would choose not to have sex with a MTF if they knew ahead of time, since they personally felt a MTF is still physically male. Am I right?

    Yeah, I think it's a point of perception and I totally agree.

    If I considered a MtF to be a woman then it wouldn't be gay for me to want sex with them. If I considered them as a male then I think it would (or at least bisexual).

    I guess, then, I'm arguing that it's not up to you to decide. They are mentally one gender, and have chosen to physically match it; you don't get a say in it, anymore than I can say you (assuming you are a male) are a woman.

    Nope, sorry, you're a woman, because I believe it to be so. Doesn't matter if you think like a man, or have male equipment, you're a woman, because I say so.

    It doesn't work that way. They are the gender they present. Sleeping with them is not gay. Now, if you want to be repulsed by the idea of a transgender itself, go right ahead. I just want to be sure that you're not lumping it in with homosexuality. This is a new thing, that requires new categories and new introspection. You don't get to dismiss it because you've already decided that gay sex doesn't interest you. You need to make an independent ruling on this.

    And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being homophobic. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that you may not be attracted to your own gender. I'm not attracted to my own gender. Transgenders, especially post-op, are the gender that they present.

    Ah, but this is a unique situation. You have someone who used to be male and is now female while your situation simply deals with someone who's always been male.

    A person could easily take into the fact that "Hey, they USED to be this way" and be attracted to them for that reason.

    Ie: Two gay lovers, one realises he's transgender and goes through the whole proceedure (assuming speaking to his partner about this of course). His (now her) partner is still attracted to her because he still thinks of her as a man.

    This could lead to very awkward situations of course but there it is in a general nutshell.

    In general what would happen is that the gay guy wouldnt be attracted to her anymore because he would see her as a woman and they would split up. Or, the gay guy would still view his partner as male, and they would split up because the trans person wouldnt want to be with someone who views them as male.
    Or (rare case) the gay person would realize he still loves his partner as a woman, and is comfortable being in a heterosexual relationship and they stay together.

    Ah, so my situation is really too rare to count then eh? Righto.

    Sipex on
    Horseshoe wrote:
    I've got good news and bad news about 6th level, That Guy. The good news is that Forbiddance spell allows you to prevent enemies different alignment from entering a consecrated area, which is actually useful! The bad news is that the only other new sixth level spell makes lunch for everybody. Guess which one the party is going to expect you to cast.
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    iglidante wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    For the record, Nostregar, I wasn't saying you thought sleeping with an MtF would "make you gay". By your own words, you said it would be a gay action, though. That's what I'm arguing; that it's not gay. Being gay means that you have an attraction for others of your same gender to the exclusion of the opposite. If you sleep with an MtF, you're still attracted to women. You haven't slept with a man. You haven't even slept with a male. As several naturally occurring situations have shown, chromosomes are not a hard rule as to what you are.

    She thinks like a woman. She looks like a woman. She has all the proper lady parts. The act is not gay.

    Now, if you want to dislike the idea for another reason, go ahead, but the gay thing should pretty much be put to rest at this point. Sleeping with a trans that fully presents the gender you are attracted to is not a gay action.

    I would agree. But I don't think anyone has actually said the initial attraction would make you gay, or that the act would - just that, not being gay, they would choose not to have sex with a MTF if they knew ahead of time, since they personally felt a MTF is still physically male. Am I right?

    Yeah, I think it's a point of perception and I totally agree.

    If I considered a MtF to be a woman then it wouldn't be gay for me to want sex with them. If I considered them as a male then I think it would (or at least bisexual).

    I guess, then, I'm arguing that it's not up to you to decide. They are mentally one gender, and have chosen to physically match it; you don't get a say in it, anymore than I can say you (assuming you are a male) are a woman.

    Nope, sorry, you're a woman, because I believe it to be so. Doesn't matter if you think like a man, or have male equipment, you're a woman, because I say so.

    It doesn't work that way. They are the gender they present. Sleeping with them is not gay. Now, if you want to be repulsed by the idea of a transgender itself, go right ahead. I just want to be sure that you're not lumping it in with homosexuality. This is a new thing, that requires new categories and new introspection. You don't get to dismiss it because you've already decided that gay sex doesn't interest you. You need to make an independent ruling on this.

    And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being homophobic. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that you may not be attracted to your own gender. I'm not attracted to my own gender. Transgenders, especially post-op, are the gender that they present.

    No, at best they are a seperate case neither male nor female. Having decided the only type of sex that is for you is heterosexual sex, you are perfectly free to exclude them. Perhaps we are simply short on words in the language (ironic for the language with the most words) but having sex with a transgender person, pre or post op is not normal heterosexual intercourse. It's not normal homosexual intercourse either, its a 'third way'.

    Dressing up as something does not make you that thing, no matter how convincing your costume. It is up to the other person to decide what THEY think of you. You may think of yourself as a woman, and society may honor your request to be treated as such, since it's only fair. However in personal relationships there is no demand for fairness, and the other person is allowed to make their own decision as to your gender based on the facts.

    If you want to split it up into a third thing, that's cool. Just so long as we agree it's not "gay". That was the core argument here. I'm content to let them be who they present as; if you say you're a woman, and you've got the equipment, good enough for me. If you (or society, for that matter) decides that this is now a completely new category, so be it.

    We can call a person who is attracted to a transgendered person presenting the opposite gender a transheterosexual. Naturally you can follow with transhomosexual and transbisexual. Now, though, what do we call a transgendered person that's attracted to a person opposite their presenting gender. Are they a transheterosexual, or simply a heterosexual? I mean, they're attracted to the opposite gender, which is the same as any other heterosexual; should trans-sexuality apply if there is a transperson anywhere in the mix, or only apply to the person attracted to the transperson? What if a transperson is not sexually attracted to other transpeople, wanting instead the "real deal", as others have put it? Do we need another classification? If you're into both transpeople and non-transpeople of your opposite gender, are you panheterosexual?

    Or are we getting too caught up on trying to organize and label things?

    Houn on
  • lizard eats flieslizard eats flies Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Sipex wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    iglidante wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    For the record, Nostregar, I wasn't saying you thought sleeping with an MtF would "make you gay". By your own words, you said it would be a gay action, though. That's what I'm arguing; that it's not gay. Being gay means that you have an attraction for others of your same gender to the exclusion of the opposite. If you sleep with an MtF, you're still attracted to women. You haven't slept with a man. You haven't even slept with a male. As several naturally occurring situations have shown, chromosomes are not a hard rule as to what you are.

    She thinks like a woman. She looks like a woman. She has all the proper lady parts. The act is not gay.

    Now, if you want to dislike the idea for another reason, go ahead, but the gay thing should pretty much be put to rest at this point. Sleeping with a trans that fully presents the gender you are attracted to is not a gay action.

    I would agree. But I don't think anyone has actually said the initial attraction would make you gay, or that the act would - just that, not being gay, they would choose not to have sex with a MTF if they knew ahead of time, since they personally felt a MTF is still physically male. Am I right?

    Yeah, I think it's a point of perception and I totally agree.

    If I considered a MtF to be a woman then it wouldn't be gay for me to want sex with them. If I considered them as a male then I think it would (or at least bisexual).

    I guess, then, I'm arguing that it's not up to you to decide. They are mentally one gender, and have chosen to physically match it; you don't get a say in it, anymore than I can say you (assuming you are a male) are a woman.

    Nope, sorry, you're a woman, because I believe it to be so. Doesn't matter if you think like a man, or have male equipment, you're a woman, because I say so.

    It doesn't work that way. They are the gender they present. Sleeping with them is not gay. Now, if you want to be repulsed by the idea of a transgender itself, go right ahead. I just want to be sure that you're not lumping it in with homosexuality. This is a new thing, that requires new categories and new introspection. You don't get to dismiss it because you've already decided that gay sex doesn't interest you. You need to make an independent ruling on this.

    And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being homophobic. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that you may not be attracted to your own gender. I'm not attracted to my own gender. Transgenders, especially post-op, are the gender that they present.

    Ah, but this is a unique situation. You have someone who used to be male and is now female while your situation simply deals with someone who's always been male.

    A person could easily take into the fact that "Hey, they USED to be this way" and be attracted to them for that reason.

    Ie: Two gay lovers, one realises he's transgender and goes through the whole proceedure (assuming speaking to his partner about this of course). His (now her) partner is still attracted to her because he still thinks of her as a man.

    This could lead to very awkward situations of course but there it is in a general nutshell.

    In general what would happen is that the gay guy wouldnt be attracted to her anymore because he would see her as a woman and they would split up. Or, the gay guy would still view his partner as male, and they would split up because the trans person wouldnt want to be with someone who views them as male.
    Or (rare case) the gay person would realize he still loves his partner as a woman, and is comfortable being in a heterosexual relationship and they stay together.

    Ah, so my situation is really too rare to count then eh? Righto.

    Uh, no, that wasnt my point. Your situation is absolutely valid and counts. I was just explaining how it would go down. It is just rarely the case where a couple stays together thru one of them transitioning. Usually because (in your example case) either the gay person would see his SO as female, and since he is gay is not attracted to females, or because the gay person would see his SO as male still, in which case the trans person would not want to stay.

    If they do stay together, you are right, it is awkward, because both parties involved have to come to terms with how the relationship has changed.

    lizard eats flies on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Sipex wrote: »
    iglidante wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    For the record, Nostregar, I wasn't saying you thought sleeping with an MtF would "make you gay". By your own words, you said it would be a gay action, though. That's what I'm arguing; that it's not gay. Being gay means that you have an attraction for others of your same gender to the exclusion of the opposite. If you sleep with an MtF, you're still attracted to women. You haven't slept with a man. You haven't even slept with a male. As several naturally occurring situations have shown, chromosomes are not a hard rule as to what you are.

    She thinks like a woman. She looks like a woman. She has all the proper lady parts. The act is not gay.

    Now, if you want to dislike the idea for another reason, go ahead, but the gay thing should pretty much be put to rest at this point. Sleeping with a trans that fully presents the gender you are attracted to is not a gay action.

    I would agree. But I don't think anyone has actually said the initial attraction would make you gay, or that the act would - just that, not being gay, they would choose not to have sex with a MTF if they knew ahead of time, since they personally felt a MTF is still physically male. Am I right?

    Yeah, I think it's a point of perception and I totally agree.

    If I considered a MtF to be a woman then it wouldn't be gay for me to want sex with them. If I considered them as a male then I think it would (or at least bisexual).

    I guess, then, I'm arguing that it's not up to you to decide. They are mentally one gender, and have chosen to physically match it; you don't get a say in it, anymore than I can say you (assuming you are a male) are a woman.

    Nope, sorry, you're a woman, because I believe it to be so. Doesn't matter if you think like a man, or have male equipment, you're a woman, because I say so.

    It doesn't work that way. They are the gender they present. Sleeping with them is not gay. Now, if you want to be repulsed by the idea of a transgender itself, go right ahead. I just want to be sure that you're not lumping it in with homosexuality. This is a new thing, that requires new categories and new introspection. You don't get to dismiss it because you've already decided that gay sex doesn't interest you. You need to make an independent ruling on this.

    And no, I'm not accusing anyone of being homophobic. I'm perfectly fine with the idea that you may not be attracted to your own gender. I'm not attracted to my own gender. Transgenders, especially post-op, are the gender that they present.

    No, at best they are a seperate case neither male nor female. Having decided the only type of sex that is for you is heterosexual sex, you are perfectly free to exclude them. Perhaps we are simply short on words in the language (ironic for the language with the most words) but having sex with a transgender person, pre or post op is not normal heterosexual intercourse. It's not normal homosexual intercourse either, its a 'third way'.

    Dressing up as something does not make you that thing, no matter how convincing your costume. It is up to the other person to decide what THEY think of you. You may think of yourself as a woman, and society may honor your request to be treated as such, since it's only fair. However in personal relationships there is no demand for fairness, and the other person is allowed to make their own decision as to your gender based on the facts.

    If you want to split it up into a third thing, that's cool. Just so long as we agree it's not "gay". That was the core argument here. I'm content to let them be who they present as; if you say you're a woman, and you've got the equipment, good enough for me. If you (or society, for that matter) decides that this is now a completely new category, so be it.

    We can call a person who is attracted to a transgendered person presenting the opposite gender a transheterosexual. Naturally you can follow with transhomosexual and transbisexual. Now, though, what do we call a transgendered person that's attracted to a person opposite their presenting gender. Are they a transheterosexual, or simply a heterosexual? I mean, they're attracted to the opposite gender, which is the same as any other heterosexual; should trans-sexuality apply if there is a transperson anywhere in the mix, or only apply to the person attracted to the transperson? What if a transperson is not sexually attracted to other transpeople, wanting instead the "real deal", as others have put it? Do we need another classification? If you're into both transpeople and non-transpeople of your opposite gender, are you panheterosexual?

    Or are we getting too caught up on trying to organize and label things?

    Nope, that is simply the number of words we will need, since it's quite clear there are more genders than two.

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If they do stay together, you are right, it is awkward, because both parties involved have to come to terms with how the relationship has changed.

    That's really only if one or both of the partners are hardline about their sexual preference to the point of exclusion, which at that point science seems to suggest those barriers are mostly societal, not sexual.

    I'm reminded of a case not too long ago wherein a college professor changed his sex to female. His wife didn't leave him, but as she wasn't interested in a homosexual relationship, they stopped having sex. That, in my estimation, would be an awkward way to live.

    Atomika on
  • Gennenalyse RuebenGennenalyse Rueben Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Nope, that is simply the number of words we will need, since it's quite clear there are more genders than two.

    Precisely. The gender binary is far too strict. A lot of people simply don't fit into it, but are usually forced there by societal and cultural means. Western culture doesn't have a third gender, but a number of others do. A quick Google brings up the Hijra of South Asia, the Fa'afafine of Samoa, and "Two Spirits" among some [?] native American groups. Gender, at least as far as I can see, is closer to a spectrum than a binary. Western culture has "Man" and "Woman", with apparently nothing in between. This makes it quite awkward for me, as I don't actually fit into either one of those. Always stuck somewhere in the middle, away everyone around me.

    Physically speaking, I'd be called man but I really can't identify as one. At the same time, I can't identify as a woman either. I suppose you could call me an androgyne, or something?

    Gennenalyse Rueben on
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Physically speaking, I'd be called man but I really can't identify as one. At the same time, I can't identify as a woman either. I suppose you could call me an androgyne, or something?

    Do you really need to be called anything? If you don't feel like a female, I say just get on with your life and stop worrying what to present yourself as. What makes a "man," anyway? Genitals? Chest hair? Most definitions of sexual polarity are bullshit societal concepts.

    Atomika on
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Physically speaking, I'd be called man but I really can't identify as one. At the same time, I can't identify as a woman either. I suppose you could call me an androgyne, or something?

    Do you really need to be called anything? If you don't feel like a female, I say just get on with your life and stop worrying what to present yourself as. What makes a "man," anyway? Genitals? Chest hair? Most definitions of sexual polarity are bullshit societal concepts.

    Shame on you. How are we supposed to know if sleeping with Rueben is gay or not if we don't label?!

    Houn on
  • voodoosporkvoodoospork Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Physically speaking, I'd be called man but I really can't identify as one. At the same time, I can't identify as a woman either. I suppose you could call me an androgyne, or something?

    Do you really need to be called anything? If you don't feel like a female, I say just get on with your life and stop worrying what to present yourself as. What makes a "man," anyway? Genitals? Chest hair? Most definitions of sexual polarity are bullshit societal concepts.

    This is something I can get directly behind. :winky:

    Our society has some strange ideas about what makes a man, and they seem to be outdated in a lot of ways.

    I'm pretty straight and I still don't have any interest in or hope of trying to meet that standard. It always comes across pretty cool in action movies, but actually wanting to be that guy? Meh. Seems like a douche bag.

    voodoospork on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I really wonder what would happen to the whole transsexuality issue in a post-gender society.

    Incenjucar on
  • lizard eats flieslizard eats flies Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If they do stay together, you are right, it is awkward, because both parties involved have to come to terms with how the relationship has changed.

    That's really only if one or both of the partners are hardline about their sexual preference to the point of exclusion, which at that point science seems to suggest those barriers are mostly societal, not sexual.

    I'm reminded of a case not too long ago wherein a college professor changed his sex to female. His wife didn't leave him, but as she wasn't interested in a homosexual relationship, they stopped having sex. That, in my estimation, would be an awkward way to live.

    Many (most?) of the couples I knew that stayed together it became more of a sexless bestfriend/roomates type thing. For some it works, others it doesnt. Often couples who do try and stay together end up pulling shitty power plays on eachother that just ends poorly for both people involved.

    Now, for personal example, me and my wife have stayed together. And it has been mostly great. We have had some challanges as it changes over to a homosexual relationship, but we have found a way to make it work. One odd thing to think about is it doesnt quite 'feel' like a homosexual relationship because it started out as a hetero one, and it really hasnt changed much. So it feels odd to call it a lesbian marriage, even tho that is how society generally views us. That being said, she does view me as female. If she didnt, I dont think I could still be with her, as it would be kind of corrosive. So its a bit strange, but it works for both of us.

    lizard eats flies on
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I really wonder what would happen to the whole transsexuality issue in a post-gender society.

    Until reproductive capability is accessible to transmen and transwomen, I don't think we'll ever be in a truly "post-gender" society. Hopefully though, we can eventually push through a lot of bullshit hangups people still have about expectations and gender roles. Honestly, I do think many personality traits are tied to gender chemistry, though not exclusively or concretely, and there will likely forever be traits and choices that are "feminine" and "masculine."

    I think we're closer than ever to being in a place where the posession or omission of traits result in stereotypical labeling, but work still needs to be done, and not all of it from outside the loop. If any of you have read Alan Cumming's more recent blogs, he's got some good opposition to the self-ghettoizing the GLBT does to itself, and how it makes it harder for members of that community to come out and find a comfortable way to express their identities. Basically, he says, is try to remember that "queer" and "gay" (or in this case, "transgendered") aren't the same thing, and being one doesn't necessitate being the other. Fitting yourself into a stereotype doesn't serve you or anyone else, it just gives you something to hide behind.

    Atomika on
  • Gennenalyse RuebenGennenalyse Rueben Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Physically speaking, I'd be called man but I really can't identify as one. At the same time, I can't identify as a woman either. I suppose you could call me an androgyne, or something?

    Do you really need to be called anything? If you don't feel like a female, I say just get on with your life and stop worrying what to present yourself as. What makes a "man," anyway? Genitals? Chest hair? Most definitions of sexual polarity are bullshit societal concepts.

    I agree. I struggled with the concept for a long time what with being conditioned into it, but I'm at my most comfortable with just thinking of myself and my gender identity as...me. But other people look to categorize me, which is why a label like "androgyne" or something could be useful.

    Gennenalyse Rueben on
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    But other people look to categorize me, which is why a label like "androgyne" or something could be useful.

    I guess, maybe. I just find that labelling yourself often leads to self-fulfilling disappointment. Letting people label me as a "jock" kept me from going to film school until much later in life.

    I always think you should just be yourself, but also be aware from how people may negatively see that. I'm not saying that you should change for them, but I am saying that you need to ready to (politely) confront them and not let them define you.

    Atomika on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I really wonder what would happen to the whole transsexuality issue in a post-gender society.

    Until reproductive capability is accessible to transmen and transwomen, I don't think we'll ever be in a truly "post-gender" society.

    I think we're getting there. I know that producing offspring two mouse eggs has been done, but I have no idea if the principle has been applied to humans.

    We'll probably see IVF being available to female couples first, and by extension couples consisting of a woman and a FtM man. Couples consisting of a man and a MtF woman will inevitably be more difficult since neither partner has a functioning womb, and I don't think the technology is there (even in principle) two take two sperm and produce offspring.

    EDIT: This kind of thing is surprisingly difficult to find references for. I can't seem to come up with a combination of search terms that doesn't produce hundreds of pages about gay adoption.

    japan on
  • AtomikaAtomika Brought to you by Technicolor™ Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    japan wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I really wonder what would happen to the whole transsexuality issue in a post-gender society.

    Until reproductive capability is accessible to transmen and transwomen, I don't think we'll ever be in a truly "post-gender" society.

    I think we're getting there. I know that producing offspring two mouse eggs has been done, but I have no idea if the principle has been applied to humans.

    We'll probably see IVF being available to female couples first, and by extension couples consisting of a woman and a FtM man. Couples consisting of a man and a MtF woman will inevitably be more difficult since neither partner has a functioning womb, and I don't think the technology is there (even in principle) two take two sperm and produce offspring.

    EDIT: This kind of thing is surprisingly difficult to find references for. I can't seem to come up with a combination of search terms that doesn't produce hundreds of pages about gay adoption.

    In the most abstract theory, two men could produce a child if their chromosome subsets were divided, reamalgamated, and joined in an chromosome-free egg cell, and then either carried by surrogate or (more theoretically) a successful uterus transplant. The latter of which is certainly more speculative at this time, since conception and zygote attachment requires more than just a functional uterus, there's hormone sequences and protein actions that are incredibly complicated themselves.

    One option I can forsee is cloning of genetic tissue of the MtF that blocks androgen uptake and prevents male development, thus creating a mostly female tissue group from male DNA, and using that dna to create a working womb. One hopes this wouldn't require creation of an entire second person from that DNA to accomplish.

    So yeah, we're a long way off from any of that, but at least our science has given us ways to think about such things in a more tangible capacity.

    Atomika on
Sign In or Register to comment.