Depending on the encounter there isn't a whole lot of trust involved at all. Certainly not the kind that involves telling someone something about yourself that could result in severe ridicule and/or verbal abuse.
Depending on the encounter there isn't a whole lot of trust involved at all. Certainly not the kind that involves telling someone something about yourself that could result in severe ridicule and/or verbal abuse.
To say nothing of the risk of severe physical abuse.
edit because I want it to be clear: I don't think SKFM or anyone else who is saying they wouldn't sleep with a transwoman would beat or kill this hypothetical transwoman they're not going to sleep with upon discovery. I simply mean it is a real concern that they face.
uh, if you guys don't think those things can come from a botched sexual encounter then.... I guess all i have to say is physical and verbal abuse are already quite possible events during a sexual encounter with someone you just met.
They could have lied to you about their STD status, and you could spend the rest of your life with a incurable disease; yeah, sex takes trust, trust that they aren't gonna fuck you over(pun intended).
uh, if you guys don't think those things can come from a botched sexual encounter then.... I guess all i have to say is physical and verbal abuse are already quite possible events during a sexual encounter with someone you just met.
And those dangers are massively amplified by being trans. Orders of magnitude. I have trans friends. It's a massive risk telling anyone.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
That is the whole point of transitioning- you (or other reasonable people) don't get to disagree on what their "actual" sex or gender is.
There is no other way to say this. You are wrong, and if you don't agree then this is where we can start tossing around the "bigot" card.
I think we all agree that as a matter of courtesy and respect, we should treat transpeople as the gender they identify as, but that does not mean that reasonable people cannot disagree on what their actual sex and gender are.
No, you are wrong. Morally and theoretically, as well as whatever other "way" you want me to explain it.
And don't go down the "biology" route- I am going to appeal to authority (myself) and tell you that you are still wrong.
I disagree whole heartedly. If we are going with "trans people are always the gender they identify with regardless of genitals route" then preop/postoperative should not matter, but I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming that it is bigoted to want to sleep with people who have genitals that are different from your own. Once we concede that the physical side does matter, I don't think we can just hardwave away the difference between a natural and a constructed vagina, because we think people have the right to choose sex partners based on gentials, and no matter how much we want postoperative trans genitals to be the same as those of nontrans people, we don't have that level of science.
In order for your contention that a postop trans person is objectively the sex they identify with, you need to redefine "woman" to mean "person with something that resembles a vagina in appearance and certain functionality." I am very confident in saying that when most people think of a woman, they think of someone having a naturalmvagina, natural breasts, a uterus, ovaries, xx chromosomes, etc. I know that there are people who lack some or multiple of these thing but who are unequivocally women, but a trans woman lacks every single one. I have no problem with people believing that self identification plus a constructed vagina and breasts and hormone injections = woman despite xy chromosomes, a lack of a uterus and ovaries (and the person never having had them) but I don't see how you can be so dismissive of people who look at all those pieces and come to a different conclusion.
That is the whole point of transitioning- you (or other reasonable people) don't get to disagree on what their "actual" sex or gender is.
There is no other way to say this. You are wrong, and if you don't agree then this is where we can start tossing around the "bigot" card.
I think we all agree that as a matter of courtesy and respect, we should treat transpeople as the gender they identify as, but that does not mean that reasonable people cannot disagree on what their actual sex and gender are.
No, you are wrong. Morally and theoretically, as well as whatever other "way" you want me to explain it.
And don't go down the "biology" route- I am going to appeal to authority (myself) and tell you that you are still wrong.
I disagree whole heartedly. If we are going with "trans people are always the gender they identify with regardless of genitals route" then preop/postoperative should not matter, but I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming that it is bigoted to want to sleep with people who have genitals that are different from your own. Once we concede that the physical side does matter, I don't think we can just hardwave away the difference between a natural and a constructed vagina, because we think people have the right to choose sex partners based on gentials, and no matter how much we want postoperative trans genitals to be the same as those of nontrans people, we don't have that level of science.
In order for your contention that a postop trans person is objectively the sex they identify with, you need to redefine "woman" to mean "person with something that resembles a vagina in appearance and certain functionality." I am very confident in saying that when most people think of a woman, they think of someone having a naturalmvagina, natural breasts, a uterus, ovaries, xx chromosomes, etc. I know that there are people who lack some or multiple of these thing but who are unequivocally women, but a trans woman lacks every single one. I have no problem with people believing that self identification plus a constructed vagina and breasts and hormone injections = woman despite xy chromosomes, a lack of a uterus and ovaries (and the person never having had them) but I don't see how you can be so dismissive of people who look at all those pieces and come to a different conclusion.
I've never really attached the word natural to any of the physical characteristics I attribute to women. Never really thought about it to be honest. The other bolded part is also something I never really considered. And unless I'm planning on having children doesn't really come into it?
Thinking about it, personally, the only reason I'd update my perception of what makes a woman, is to exclude transsexuals (and some other people will get caught in the definition, but I can make exceptions for them)
I don't think I'd do that though. Since the only reason I can give myself to do that, is that I don't believe a transsexual can be a woman (or man for vice versa). That they're somehow lying to me, or that they're lying to themselves, that the whole thing is just a lie.
Again, this is my personal opinion about me, but the only reason I can come up with, once I get past the quasi-excuses I give myself, is a slight sense of ickyness.
Once we concede that the physical side does matter, I don't think we can just hardwave away the difference between a natural and a constructed vagina, because we think people have the right to choose sex partners based on gentials, and no matter how much we want postoperative trans genitals to be the same as those of nontrans people, we don't have that level of science.
If you are not satisfied with your partner's genitalia you are free to not have sex with them. It's not our fault you may be unable to tell which ones are real.
In order for your contention that a postop trans person is objectively the sex they identify with, you need to redefine "woman" to mean "person with something that resembles a vagina in appearance and certain functionality." I am very confident in saying that when most people think of a woman, they think of someone having a naturalmvagina, natural breasts, a uterus, ovaries, xx chromosomes, etc.
So now women with Swyer syndrome, who've had breast cancer, a hysterectomy, etc must state this is the case to strangers, for no real reason than "icky"?
I know that there are people who lack some or multiple of these thing but who are unequivocally women, but a trans woman lacks every single one.
So?
How many of those things must they have naturally before they don't have to tell everyone they meet? Why does it even matter? Given your attitude towards every minority ever why should they even care how you feel?
I have no problem with people believing that self identification plus a constructed vagina and breasts and hormone injections = woman despite xy chromosomes, a lack of a uterus and ovaries (and the person never having had them) but I don't see how you can be so dismissive of people who look at all those pieces and come to a different conclusion.
Because, by saying that, you completely dismiss the person in question? "Sure, you really want to be thought of as a woman, but even though you have gone through surgery and hormone treatment, you still aren't a woman to me?"
Because your entire argument is essentially the naturalistic fallacy, writ large with a dabbling of genetic essentialism?
Because "woman" is an ill-defined category? Even your delineations have problems. How is a "natural" breast different than one grown from hormone injections/treatment? The only difference in ontology is chronology.
In fact, that right there is my argument as to why you are wrong-
The only difference between a transwoman and a "natural" woman is a matter of delayed ontogeny.
I mean, even the XX/XY delineation is not as strict as we want to pretend it is. The only real conserved function for the Y chromosome is to house the SRY gene, and even then it can transpose onto the X chromosome.
I was going to say more but then I read @Mortious 's comment
the only reason I'd update my perception of what makes a woman, is to exclude transsexuals
I understand the context with this post but my point is this- all this pontificating about "natural" breasts, vaginas, women...is only done to exclude transsexuals.
The only difference between a transwoman and a "natural" woman is a matter of delayed ontogeny.
How can you claim that the difference between someone whose birth-sex is male and someone whose birth-sex is female simply a matter of delayed development?
From my (limited undergraduate) understanding of the issue, the only sex-specific structure that trans-women and cis-women share is their brain structure (which is the thing that causes transgenderism in the first place?)
If you could point me to journals or some articles that'd be great; neurological stuff like this is pretty interesting.
Depending on the encounter there isn't a whole lot of trust involved at all. Certainly not the kind that involves telling someone something about yourself that could result in severe ridicule and/or verbal abuse.
To say nothing of the risk of severe physical abuse.
edit because I want it to be clear: I don't think SKFM or anyone else who is saying they wouldn't sleep with a transwoman would beat or kill this hypothetical transwoman they're not going to sleep with upon discovery. I simply mean it is a real concern that they face.
It may or may not be important to point out that I personally would never be in that hypothetical situation for multiple reasons (I'm taken, don't engage in one night stands, would be able to tell it was a transwoman). Regardless, as you have pointed out, no one has suggested that violence would be a reasonable response, and would certainly be far worse than the transgender person's failure to disclose their status. But this refusal to see the other side of the equation, that someone should have the sexual autonomy to decide for themselves if they are comfortable having sex with a transgendered person, is rediculous.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I have no problem with people believing that self identification plus a constructed vagina and breasts and hormone injections = woman despite xy chromosomes, a lack of a uterus and ovaries (and the person never having had them) but I don't see how you can be so dismissive of people who look at all those pieces and come to a different conclusion.
Because, by saying that, you completely dismiss the person in question? "Sure, you really want to be thought of as a woman, but even though you have gone through surgery and hormone treatment, you still aren't a woman to me?"
Because your entire argument is essentially the naturalistic fallacy, writ large with a dabbling of genetic essentialism?
Because "woman" is an ill-defined category? Even your delineations have problems. How is a "natural" breast different than one grown from hormone injections/treatment? The only difference in ontology is chronology.
In fact, that right there is my argument as to why you are wrong-
The only difference between a transwoman and a "natural" woman is a matter of delayed ontogeny.
The fact that my position results in what you call "dissmissing the person in question" says nothing about whether it is accurate. You seem to be saying my position is wrong because it contradicts yours, and that is not a compelling argument.
A natural vagina is not the same thing as a reconfigured penis. It isn't a delay in development, it is a completely different organ. We make pretty good prosthetic limbs now, and they approximate the function of natural limbs pretty well, but are not the same thing as natural limbs.
That is the whole point of transitioning- you (or other reasonable people) don't get to disagree on what their "actual" sex or gender is.
There is no other way to say this. You are wrong, and if you don't agree then this is where we can start tossing around the "bigot" card.
I think we all agree that as a matter of courtesy and respect, we should treat transpeople as the gender they identify as, but that does not mean that reasonable people cannot disagree on what their actual sex and gender are.
No, you are wrong. Morally and theoretically, as well as whatever other "way" you want me to explain it.
And don't go down the "biology" route- I am going to appeal to authority (myself) and tell you that you are still wrong.
I disagree whole heartedly. If we are going with "trans people are always the gender they identify with regardless of genitals route" then preop/postoperative should not matter, but I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming that it is bigoted to want to sleep with people who have genitals that are different from your own. Once we concede that the physical side does matter, I don't think we can just hardwave away the difference between a natural and a constructed vagina, because we think people have the right to choose sex partners based on gentials, and no matter how much we want postoperative trans genitals to be the same as those of nontrans people, we don't have that level of science.
In order for your contention that a postop trans person is objectively the sex they identify with, you need to redefine "woman" to mean "person with something that resembles a vagina in appearance and certain functionality." I am very confident in saying that when most people think of a woman, they think of someone having a naturalmvagina, natural breasts, a uterus, ovaries, xx chromosomes, etc. I know that there are people who lack some or multiple of these thing but who are unequivocally women, but a trans woman lacks every single one. I have no problem with people believing that self identification plus a constructed vagina and breasts and hormone injections = woman despite xy chromosomes, a lack of a uterus and ovaries (and the person never having had them) but I don't see how you can be so dismissive of people who look at all those pieces and come to a different conclusion.
I've never really attached the word natural to any of the physical characteristics I attribute to women. Never really thought about it to be honest. The other bolded part is also something I never really considered. And unless I'm planning on having children doesn't really come into it?
Thinking about it, personally, the only reason I'd update my perception of what makes a woman, is to exclude transsexuals (and some other people will get caught in the definition, but I can make exceptions for them)
I don't think I'd do that though. Since the only reason I can give myself to do that, is that I don't believe a transsexual can be a woman (or man for vice versa). That they're somehow lying to me, or that they're lying to themselves, that the whole thing is just a lie.
Again, this is my personal opinion about me, but the only reason I can come up with, once I get past the quasi-excuses I give myself, is a slight sense of ickyness.
What you call redefinition I call enhanced precision. We are not redefining woman to exclude transwomen, we are defining woman with more precision than we ever had to in the past because we are being presented with things like constructed vaginas for the first time.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The only difference between a transwoman and a "natural" woman is a matter of delayed ontogeny.
How can you claim that the difference between someone whose birth-sex is male and someone whose birth-sex is female simply a matter of delayed development?
While that is obviously silly, I think the point Arch is making is that for the purposes of everything but biology we should ignore biology. The constructs of gender we've put up are not informed by biology (except in the cases of math and cutting down trees) so we should not let it inform us when we're talking about transmen/women.
I mean, the issue already has a massively complicated problem with the whole idea of gender itself, no need to care about the rather simple stuff.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited September 2012
Also, fwiw, I told Mrs. SKFM about this discussion and she wrinkled her nose and said "of course they should tell people before they have sex. Can you imagine if it was your obligation to ask me if I was ever a man when we started dating?". Then she changed the subject to what wallet she wants.
It may or may not be important to point out that I personally would never be in that hypothetical situation for multiple reasons (I'm taken, don't engage in one night stands, would be able to tell it was a transwoman). Regardless, as you have pointed out, no one has suggested that violence would be a reasonable response, and would certainly be far worse than the transgender person's failure to disclose their status. But this refusal to see the other side of the equation, that someone should have the sexual autonomy to decide for themselves if they are comfortable having sex with a transgendered person, is rediculous.
You're free to feel however you like.
You are not entitled to people's medical history if it doesn't affect you. It's an obscenely selfish attitude.
It may or may not be important to point out that I personally would never be in that hypothetical situation for multiple reasons (I'm taken, don't engage in one night stands, would be able to tell it was a transwoman).
Seriously, this may have already happened on a one night stand AND YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW.
Not all trans women are big jawed, hairy knuckled wearers of floral print dresses. The ones you spot? That is the iceberg tip. And the ones you think you do spot? Likely half of those are cis-women anyway.
It's like a 'Reds under the Bed' scare.
Muddypaws on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It may or may not be important to point out that I personally would never be in that hypothetical situation for multiple reasons (I'm taken, don't engage in one night stands, would be able to tell it was a transwoman). Regardless, as you have pointed out, no one has suggested that violence would be a reasonable response, and would certainly be far worse than the transgender person's failure to disclose their status. But this refusal to see the other side of the equation, that someone should have the sexual autonomy to decide for themselves if they are comfortable having sex with a transgendered person, is rediculous.
You're free to feel however you like.
You are not entitled to people's medical history if it doesn't affect you. It's an obscenely selfish attitude.
It does affect you though. If part of your identity is not having sex with people you consider men and you consider transsexuals to really be men, then not having this fact disclosed to you means they are eroding your identity. I assume from your other posts that you are a big believer in the integrity of personal identities.
It may or may not be important to point out that I personally would never be in that hypothetical situation for multiple reasons (I'm taken, don't engage in one night stands, would be able to tell it was a transwoman). Regardless, as you have pointed out, no one has suggested that violence would be a reasonable response, and would certainly be far worse than the transgender person's failure to disclose their status. But this refusal to see the other side of the equation, that someone should have the sexual autonomy to decide for themselves if they are comfortable having sex with a transgendered person, is rediculous.
You're free to feel however you like.
You are not entitled to people's medical history if it doesn't affect you. It's an obscenely selfish attitude.
It does affect you though. If part of your identity is not having sex with people you consider men and you consider transsexuals to really be men, then not having this fact disclosed to you means they are eroding your identity. I assume from your other posts that you are a big believer in the integrity of personal identities.
If they never know then nothing is eroded.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It may or may not be important to point out that I personally would never be in that hypothetical situation for multiple reasons (I'm taken, don't engage in one night stands, would be able to tell it was a transwoman). Regardless, as you have pointed out, no one has suggested that violence would be a reasonable response, and would certainly be far worse than the transgender person's failure to disclose their status. But this refusal to see the other side of the equation, that someone should have the sexual autonomy to decide for themselves if they are comfortable having sex with a transgendered person, is rediculous.
You're free to feel however you like.
You are not entitled to people's medical history if it doesn't affect you. It's an obscenely selfish attitude.
It does affect you though. If part of your identity is not having sex with people you consider men and you consider transsexuals to really be men, then not having this fact disclosed to you means they are eroding your identity. I assume from your other posts that you are a big believer in the integrity of personal identities.
If part of my identity is not having sex with people I consider reptilian humanoids and I consider people with O type blood to really be reptilian humanoids, then not having this fact disclosed to me means they are eroding my identity.
This is what I was getting at earlier when I mention not understanding trans issues.
The fact that you keep thinking they're not really who they are is very much at issue here. I don't know what the solution is, but until you understand that we're going to keep having the same cycle of posts.
I have no problem with people believing that self identification plus a constructed vagina and breasts and hormone injections = woman despite xy chromosomes, a lack of a uterus and ovaries (and the person never having had them) but I don't see how you can be so dismissive of people who look at all those pieces and come to a different conclusion.
Because, by saying that, you completely dismiss the person in question? "Sure, you really want to be thought of as a woman, but even though you have gone through surgery and hormone treatment, you still aren't a woman to me?"
Because your entire argument is essentially the naturalistic fallacy, writ large with a dabbling of genetic essentialism?
Because "woman" is an ill-defined category? Even your delineations have problems. How is a "natural" breast different than one grown from hormone injections/treatment? The only difference in ontology is chronology.
In fact, that right there is my argument as to why you are wrong-
The only difference between a transwoman and a "natural" woman is a matter of delayed ontogeny.
The fact that my position results in what you call "dissmissing the person in question" says nothing about whether it is accurate. You seem to be saying my position is wrong because it contradicts yours, and that is not a compelling argument.
A natural vagina is not the same thing as a reconfigured penis. It isn't a delay in development, it is a completely different organ. We make pretty good prosthetic limbs now, and they approximate the function of natural limbs pretty well, but are not the same thing as natural limbs.
That is the whole point of transitioning- you (or other reasonable people) don't get to disagree on what their "actual" sex or gender is.
There is no other way to say this. You are wrong, and if you don't agree then this is where we can start tossing around the "bigot" card.
I think we all agree that as a matter of courtesy and respect, we should treat transpeople as the gender they identify as, but that does not mean that reasonable people cannot disagree on what their actual sex and gender are.
No, you are wrong. Morally and theoretically, as well as whatever other "way" you want me to explain it.
And don't go down the "biology" route- I am going to appeal to authority (myself) and tell you that you are still wrong.
I disagree whole heartedly. If we are going with "trans people are always the gender they identify with regardless of genitals route" then preop/postoperative should not matter, but I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming that it is bigoted to want to sleep with people who have genitals that are different from your own. Once we concede that the physical side does matter, I don't think we can just hardwave away the difference between a natural and a constructed vagina, because we think people have the right to choose sex partners based on gentials, and no matter how much we want postoperative trans genitals to be the same as those of nontrans people, we don't have that level of science.
In order for your contention that a postop trans person is objectively the sex they identify with, you need to redefine "woman" to mean "person with something that resembles a vagina in appearance and certain functionality." I am very confident in saying that when most people think of a woman, they think of someone having a naturalmvagina, natural breasts, a uterus, ovaries, xx chromosomes, etc. I know that there are people who lack some or multiple of these thing but who are unequivocally women, but a trans woman lacks every single one. I have no problem with people believing that self identification plus a constructed vagina and breasts and hormone injections = woman despite xy chromosomes, a lack of a uterus and ovaries (and the person never having had them) but I don't see how you can be so dismissive of people who look at all those pieces and come to a different conclusion.
I've never really attached the word natural to any of the physical characteristics I attribute to women. Never really thought about it to be honest. The other bolded part is also something I never really considered. And unless I'm planning on having children doesn't really come into it?
Thinking about it, personally, the only reason I'd update my perception of what makes a woman, is to exclude transsexuals (and some other people will get caught in the definition, but I can make exceptions for them)
I don't think I'd do that though. Since the only reason I can give myself to do that, is that I don't believe a transsexual can be a woman (or man for vice versa). That they're somehow lying to me, or that they're lying to themselves, that the whole thing is just a lie.
Again, this is my personal opinion about me, but the only reason I can come up with, once I get past the quasi-excuses I give myself, is a slight sense of ickyness.
What you call redefinition I call enhanced precision. We are not redefining woman to exclude transwomen, we are defining woman with more precision than we ever had to in the past because we are being presented with things like constructed vaginas for the first time.
Maybe, but it feels like Notruescottsmanning (it's a word now)
And I think your definition of "woman" is incorrect. There's a scary amount of variation in "woman", and the differences between men and women get blurred a lot, that it's pretty much coin flipping for some people.
Best bet would be to pick 1 person, declare her your definition of woman, and exclude everybody else.
It might not be correct according to the rest of the world, but it's probably more accurate than what you're working off.
Clarification: Not trying to be snarky or aggressive here. It's just that I don't think you realize how complex an issue you're trying to simplify.
Edit: @AManFromEarth Silurians are cool. What do you have against them?
It may or may not be important to point out that I personally would never be in that hypothetical situation for multiple reasons (I'm taken, don't engage in one night stands, would be able to tell it was a transwoman). Regardless, as you have pointed out, no one has suggested that violence would be a reasonable response, and would certainly be far worse than the transgender person's failure to disclose their status. But this refusal to see the other side of the equation, that someone should have the sexual autonomy to decide for themselves if they are comfortable having sex with a transgendered person, is rediculous.
You're free to feel however you like.
You are not entitled to people's medical history if it doesn't affect you. It's an obscenely selfish attitude.
It does affect you though. If part of your identity is not having sex with people you consider men and you consider transsexuals to really be men, then not having this fact disclosed to you means they are eroding your identity. I assume from your other posts that you are a big believer in the integrity of personal identities.
If they never know then nothing is eroded.
Ignorance shouldn't equal bliss.
But as I stated earlier, you reap what you sow. If you can't bring yourself to ask ahead of time and you find out the truth later, making you mortified, then it's on you.
For what it's worth, I think if someone does ask a question like this, the other person is morally obligated to tell the truth.
It may or may not be important to point out that I personally would never be in that hypothetical situation for multiple reasons (I'm taken, don't engage in one night stands, would be able to tell it was a transwoman).
Seriously, this may have already happened on a one night stand AND YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW.
Not all trans women are big jawed, hairy knuckled wearers of floral print dresses. The ones you spot? That is the iceberg tip. And the ones you think you do spot? Likely half of those are cis-women anyway.
It's like a 'Reds under the Bed' scare.
In response to the first sentence, again, no it really couldn't have because I have never had a one night stand. As for the rest, the technology really hasn't progressed to the point where the particularly discerning observer cannot tell this used to be a man/woman.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
Before you spend too much time writing up a post that will be forgotten by many ten pages later, you should realize that someone has pointed a lot about how biology is messy as fuck and supports more diversity than most people consider.
Not just showing off my knowledge of sex science I swear :P
For what it's worth, I think if someone does ask a question like this, the other person is morally obligated to tell the truth.
I wouldn't necessarily go with that.
But they're definitely obligated to end the situation before things go too far.
o_O
O_o
No, they tell the truth.
Or... end the situation and leave because they don't want to tell them.
Why should they have to tell anyone who asks that question? Do you answer any and all questions anyone asks about you? If someone asks for your porn history do you just hand it over?
In response to the first sentence, again, no it really couldn't have because I have never had a one night stand. As for the rest, the technology really hasn't progressed to the point where the particularly discerning observer cannot tell this used to be a man/woman.
Ahahahahaha
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
In response to the first sentence, again, no it really couldn't have because I have never had a one night stand. As for the rest, the technology really hasn't progressed to the point where the particularly discerning observer cannot tell this used to be a man/woman.
It may or may not be important to point out that I personally would never be in that hypothetical situation for multiple reasons (I'm taken, don't engage in one night stands, would be able to tell it was a transwoman).
Seriously, this may have already happened on a one night stand AND YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW.
Not all trans women are big jawed, hairy knuckled wearers of floral print dresses. The ones you spot? That is the iceberg tip. And the ones you think you do spot? Likely half of those are cis-women anyway.
It's like a 'Reds under the Bed' scare.
In response to the first sentence, again, no it really couldn't have because I have never had a one night stand. As for the rest, the technology really hasn't progressed to the point where the particularly discerning observer cannot tell this used to be a man/woman.
Yes. Yes it has.
Edit. Confession time,I have dated a t-woman. Trust me, you would not be able to tell with the best surgery around nowadays.
Muddypaws on
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
In response to the first sentence, again, no it really couldn't have because I have never had a one night stand. As for the rest, the technology really hasn't progressed to the point where the particularly discerning observer cannot tell this used to be a man/woman.
Ahahahahaha
Somebody's never been to Thailand.
Or [chat] for that matter...
Probably not the place to ask this, but what's with Thailand? Is there a reason they have this reputation?
It may or may not be important to point out that I personally would never be in that hypothetical situation for multiple reasons (I'm taken, don't engage in one night stands, would be able to tell it was a transwoman). Regardless, as you have pointed out, no one has suggested that violence would be a reasonable response, and would certainly be far worse than the transgender person's failure to disclose their status. But this refusal to see the other side of the equation, that someone should have the sexual autonomy to decide for themselves if they are comfortable having sex with a transgendered person, is rediculous.
You're free to feel however you like.
You are not entitled to people's medical history if it doesn't affect you. It's an obscenely selfish attitude.
Its a funny world you live in where having sex with someone doesn't affect them. Your wife must be miserable.
0
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
It may or may not be important to point out that I personally would never be in that hypothetical situation for multiple reasons (I'm taken, don't engage in one night stands, would be able to tell it was a transwoman). Regardless, as you have pointed out, no one has suggested that violence would be a reasonable response, and would certainly be far worse than the transgender person's failure to disclose their status. But this refusal to see the other side of the equation, that someone should have the sexual autonomy to decide for themselves if they are comfortable having sex with a transgendered person, is rediculous.
You're free to feel however you like.
You are not entitled to people's medical history if it doesn't affect you. It's an obscenely selfish attitude.
It does affect you though. If part of your identity is not having sex with people you consider men and you consider transsexuals to really be men, then not having this fact disclosed to you means they are eroding your identity. I assume from your other posts that you are a big believer in the integrity of personal identities.
If part of my identity is not having sex with people I consider reptilian humanoids and I consider people with O type blood to really be reptilian humanoids, then not having this fact disclosed to me means they are eroding my identity.
This is what I was getting at earlier when I mention not understanding trans issues.
The fact that you keep thinking they're not really who they are is very much at issue here. I don't know what the solution is, but until you understand that we're going to keep having the same cycle of posts.
I'm going to point out that the idea of identities being eroded, by other people, is... strange. Like, your identity is about you. Trans people get their identities shat on by like... well, everyone everywhere. And they seem to be identifying as what they are pretty well. I'd suggest that if having sex with someone who you later find out is trans erodes your identity, then you probably don't fully grasp what sexual and gender minorities mean when they talk about identity.
That or you recognize it as a very important thing that shouldn't be trifled with, in which case I think we can see some implications regarding others?
(Not taking a stance on the whole disclosure issue now, just pointing out how weird an identity that's conditional on what you unknowingly do and not what you are is.)
Posts
edit because I want it to be clear: I don't think SKFM or anyone else who is saying they wouldn't sleep with a transwoman would beat or kill this hypothetical transwoman they're not going to sleep with upon discovery. I simply mean it is a real concern that they face.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
They could have lied to you about their STD status, and you could spend the rest of your life with a incurable disease; yeah, sex takes trust, trust that they aren't gonna fuck you over(pun intended).
And those dangers are massively amplified by being trans. Orders of magnitude. I have trans friends. It's a massive risk telling anyone.
I disagree whole heartedly. If we are going with "trans people are always the gender they identify with regardless of genitals route" then preop/postoperative should not matter, but I don't think anyone in this thread is claiming that it is bigoted to want to sleep with people who have genitals that are different from your own. Once we concede that the physical side does matter, I don't think we can just hardwave away the difference between a natural and a constructed vagina, because we think people have the right to choose sex partners based on gentials, and no matter how much we want postoperative trans genitals to be the same as those of nontrans people, we don't have that level of science.
In order for your contention that a postop trans person is objectively the sex they identify with, you need to redefine "woman" to mean "person with something that resembles a vagina in appearance and certain functionality." I am very confident in saying that when most people think of a woman, they think of someone having a naturalmvagina, natural breasts, a uterus, ovaries, xx chromosomes, etc. I know that there are people who lack some or multiple of these thing but who are unequivocally women, but a trans woman lacks every single one. I have no problem with people believing that self identification plus a constructed vagina and breasts and hormone injections = woman despite xy chromosomes, a lack of a uterus and ovaries (and the person never having had them) but I don't see how you can be so dismissive of people who look at all those pieces and come to a different conclusion.
Then why do women get offended when I ask them to send me pictures of their genitals on OKCupid?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'd love to have been a fly on the wall at Mrs SKFM's audition.
I've never really attached the word natural to any of the physical characteristics I attribute to women. Never really thought about it to be honest. The other bolded part is also something I never really considered. And unless I'm planning on having children doesn't really come into it?
Thinking about it, personally, the only reason I'd update my perception of what makes a woman, is to exclude transsexuals (and some other people will get caught in the definition, but I can make exceptions for them)
I don't think I'd do that though. Since the only reason I can give myself to do that, is that I don't believe a transsexual can be a woman (or man for vice versa). That they're somehow lying to me, or that they're lying to themselves, that the whole thing is just a lie.
Again, this is my personal opinion about me, but the only reason I can come up with, once I get past the quasi-excuses I give myself, is a slight sense of ickyness.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
So now women with Swyer syndrome, who've had breast cancer, a hysterectomy, etc must state this is the case to strangers, for no real reason than "icky"?
So?
How many of those things must they have naturally before they don't have to tell everyone they meet? Why does it even matter? Given your attitude towards every minority ever why should they even care how you feel?
Because, by saying that, you completely dismiss the person in question? "Sure, you really want to be thought of as a woman, but even though you have gone through surgery and hormone treatment, you still aren't a woman to me?"
Because your entire argument is essentially the naturalistic fallacy, writ large with a dabbling of genetic essentialism?
Because "woman" is an ill-defined category? Even your delineations have problems. How is a "natural" breast different than one grown from hormone injections/treatment? The only difference in ontology is chronology.
In fact, that right there is my argument as to why you are wrong-
The only difference between a transwoman and a "natural" woman is a matter of delayed ontogeny.
I was going to say more but then I read @Mortious 's comment
I understand the context with this post but my point is this- all this pontificating about "natural" breasts, vaginas, women...is only done to exclude transsexuals.
So
How can you claim that the difference between someone whose birth-sex is male and someone whose birth-sex is female simply a matter of delayed development?
From my (limited undergraduate) understanding of the issue, the only sex-specific structure that trans-women and cis-women share is their brain structure (which is the thing that causes transgenderism in the first place?)
If you could point me to journals or some articles that'd be great; neurological stuff like this is pretty interesting.
It may or may not be important to point out that I personally would never be in that hypothetical situation for multiple reasons (I'm taken, don't engage in one night stands, would be able to tell it was a transwoman). Regardless, as you have pointed out, no one has suggested that violence would be a reasonable response, and would certainly be far worse than the transgender person's failure to disclose their status. But this refusal to see the other side of the equation, that someone should have the sexual autonomy to decide for themselves if they are comfortable having sex with a transgendered person, is rediculous.
The fact that my position results in what you call "dissmissing the person in question" says nothing about whether it is accurate. You seem to be saying my position is wrong because it contradicts yours, and that is not a compelling argument.
A natural vagina is not the same thing as a reconfigured penis. It isn't a delay in development, it is a completely different organ. We make pretty good prosthetic limbs now, and they approximate the function of natural limbs pretty well, but are not the same thing as natural limbs.
What you call redefinition I call enhanced precision. We are not redefining woman to exclude transwomen, we are defining woman with more precision than we ever had to in the past because we are being presented with things like constructed vaginas for the first time.
While that is obviously silly, I think the point Arch is making is that for the purposes of everything but biology we should ignore biology. The constructs of gender we've put up are not informed by biology (except in the cases of math and cutting down trees) so we should not let it inform us when we're talking about transmen/women.
I mean, the issue already has a massively complicated problem with the whole idea of gender itself, no need to care about the rather simple stuff.
You're free to feel however you like.
You are not entitled to people's medical history if it doesn't affect you. It's an obscenely selfish attitude.
Seriously, this may have already happened on a one night stand AND YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW.
Not all trans women are big jawed, hairy knuckled wearers of floral print dresses. The ones you spot? That is the iceberg tip. And the ones you think you do spot? Likely half of those are cis-women anyway.
It's like a 'Reds under the Bed' scare.
It does affect you though. If part of your identity is not having sex with people you consider men and you consider transsexuals to really be men, then not having this fact disclosed to you means they are eroding your identity. I assume from your other posts that you are a big believer in the integrity of personal identities.
If they never know then nothing is eroded.
If part of my identity is not having sex with people I consider reptilian humanoids and I consider people with O type blood to really be reptilian humanoids, then not having this fact disclosed to me means they are eroding my identity.
This is what I was getting at earlier when I mention not understanding trans issues.
The fact that you keep thinking they're not really who they are is very much at issue here. I don't know what the solution is, but until you understand that we're going to keep having the same cycle of posts.
Or around women who've had abortions?
Or anyone who's taken deductions I personally find reprehensible?
It's only polite that anyone I associate with first cede their medical and tax history.
Maybe, but it feels like Notruescottsmanning (it's a word now)
And I think your definition of "woman" is incorrect. There's a scary amount of variation in "woman", and the differences between men and women get blurred a lot, that it's pretty much coin flipping for some people.
Best bet would be to pick 1 person, declare her your definition of woman, and exclude everybody else.
It might not be correct according to the rest of the world, but it's probably more accurate than what you're working off.
Clarification: Not trying to be snarky or aggressive here. It's just that I don't think you realize how complex an issue you're trying to simplify.
Edit:
@AManFromEarth Silurians are cool. What do you have against them?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
But as I stated earlier, you reap what you sow. If you can't bring yourself to ask ahead of time and you find out the truth later, making you mortified, then it's on you.
For what it's worth, I think if someone does ask a question like this, the other person is morally obligated to tell the truth.
I wouldn't necessarily go with that.
But they're definitely obligated to end the situation before things go too far.
o_O
O_o
No, they tell the truth.
What I should have said was, "the other person is morally obligated to respect someones sexual preferences."
In response to the first sentence, again, no it really couldn't have because I have never had a one night stand. As for the rest, the technology really hasn't progressed to the point where the particularly discerning observer cannot tell this used to be a man/woman.
Before you spend too much time writing up a post that will be forgotten by many ten pages later, you should realize that someone has pointed a lot about how biology is messy as fuck and supports more diversity than most people consider.
Or... end the situation and leave because they don't want to tell them.
Why should they have to tell anyone who asks that question? Do you answer any and all questions anyone asks about you? If someone asks for your porn history do you just hand it over?
A co-worker asking? No obligation. Piss off.
Snuggle partner getting ready for horizontal mambo? Definitely.
Ahahahahaha
Somebody's never been to Thailand.
Or [chat] for that matter...
Yes. Yes it has.
Edit. Confession time,I have dated a t-woman. Trust me, you would not be able to tell with the best surgery around nowadays.
Probably not the place to ask this, but what's with Thailand? Is there a reason they have this reputation?
[chat]'s a different matter all together.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Its a funny world you live in where having sex with someone doesn't affect them. Your wife must be miserable.
I'm going to point out that the idea of identities being eroded, by other people, is... strange. Like, your identity is about you. Trans people get their identities shat on by like... well, everyone everywhere. And they seem to be identifying as what they are pretty well. I'd suggest that if having sex with someone who you later find out is trans erodes your identity, then you probably don't fully grasp what sexual and gender minorities mean when they talk about identity.
That or you recognize it as a very important thing that shouldn't be trifled with, in which case I think we can see some implications regarding others?
(Not taking a stance on the whole disclosure issue now, just pointing out how weird an identity that's conditional on what you unknowingly do and not what you are is.)