Transgender people have the right to decide for themselves when or if it is safe to come out. Period.
See I don't get this. Sure, they get to decide as anyone gets to decide anything for themselves... masters of their own decisions/whatnot. But it seems horribly self destructive, irresponsible, and perhaps even spiteful not to not tell someone early.
Hey, I don't have an obligation to tell my partner that I'm fucking anybody else. I don't have an obligation to tell my partner that I have a wife and kids in another state. I don't have an obligation to tell my partner that I have cancer and I only have three months to live. I don't have an obligation to tell my partner that I have a vasectomy and that I'll never have kids.
Of course, not telling my partner these things - things that might have pretty significant effects on the relationship in the long run - is a pretty dick move, and my partner would have every right to tell me to fuck off once they found out.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Well that's just a sensitive wording issue which I'm just going with because I'm not entirely sure how to word it. This is not the point of my contention. I guess I should have said is "I wouldn't be comfortable with someone who wasn't originally born female".
That said, that is my real point and what I'm assuming is being discussed here.
edit: Afterthought, would like to point out that you shouldn't be so hasty to jump on wording and throw around words like Transphobia. These usually imply "You are a horrible horrible person" and can lead to wasted time and flame wars over a misunderstanding.
I'm fairly certain that being transgender is more than "I used to be an X, now I'm a Y!" and, as such, it plays a pretty big part in an ongoing relationship.
Perhaps I'm operating under false assumptions, but last I recall there are still some very big differences between someone born a specific gender and someone surgically altered to be a different gender.
Usually, yeah. But really it depends on the person and the extent of surgery. With hormones, a preexisting small frame, and that new technique of reshaping the facial bones to remove "male" sexual cues, some post-op women look exactly like biological women. Larger bones, no facial surgery, and breast implants? You're probably going to suspect something even without being told. I think women can pass as men more easily.
And as for genital surgery, no clue how "real" modified genitals look / feel. And can they even make a penis?
I'd say yes, very much so. I'm straight, I have nothing against transgendered/transsexual/gay/bi/what have yous. I'm friends with several and the like but in the end I'm straight and wouldn't be comfortable (in fact, I'd feel pretty deceived) if I suddenly found out my partner wasn't really a woman far into the relationship.
That said I've heard about the procedures and it sounds like it's still pretty easy to tell once you start getting sexually intimate.
this is a transphobic statement.
It's pretty drilled into everyone's heads due to the culture we live in, but saying "x isn't really x" is not a happy position no matter how otherwise accepting you may be.
Well, it's hard to really call that specifically transphobic. There's a lot more involved there.
It's transphobic to say that somebody "isn't really a woman" because she's transgendered.
I disagree, its a biological fact. If you have a Y chromosome and were born with a penis you are a man. If you underwent 'gender reassignment procedure' you are a man that mutilated his junk.
If that's your thing, fine, good on you, best of luck, really. It isn't any of my business unless we start a relationship. Then it is very much my business.
I've got some friends who have friends (friends of friends, yes) that have gone Female -> Male. They say they create a flab of skin similar to a penis that doesn't have the ability to get up. You need to physically insert something into it (ie: dildo of some sort) to accomplish this.
I've got some friends who have friends (friends of friends, yes) that have gone Female -> Male. They say they create a flab of skin similar to a penis that doesn't have the ability to get up. You need to physically insert something into it (ie: dildo of some sort) to accomplish this.
And call us phobes, I think I sympathize with a woman who finds this unacceptable in a mate.
Can't this just be distilled down to "is it okay to lie to a partner about something relatively major in your life in order to have a relationship with them"
Subject doesn't really matter, it's just a question of honesty in a long term relationship. Be it what you really do for a living, your prior sex, previous children, flings on the side, massive porn collection, whatever.
I'm not sure why this needs to be transgender specific, though preop/postop would make a difference in the importance of telling them. But I pretty much rate it with "has two children via an estranged wife and secretly sees them on the side while lying about it to his girlfriend" more than "oh god we need to talk about transgender rights!"
I'm just doubting that site would come down on say, a guy whose wife breaks up with him because it turns out he has two kids he's paying child support for and visiting once a month and hasn't felt like mentioning this for two years. Privacy is one thing, but it's a shitty thing to run a long term relationship while actively hiding things from your spouse.
Tangentally, what is the more appropriate manner of referring to such individuals?
Which is to say, while "real" is insensitive, would "biological" be closer to correct and further from cruel?
I mean, aside from rare genetic disorders, a person is chromasomally either XY or XX. Whether or not your exterior shell matches who you are inside doesn't change that biology.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I disagree, its a biological fact. If you have a Y chromosome and were born with a penis you are a man. If you underwent 'gender reassignment procedure' you are a man that mutilated his junk.
It's not that simple.
Biology is chock full of gray areas. You just don't hear about them much. Your chromosomes don't always trigger.
Referring to someone by your definition after they have made their definition clear is, however, rude as fuck.
And generally I have no problem abiding by this. I don't mind calling her a her, as it were, mostly because that is what she prefers. But when asked why I wouldn't date her? Well, what else can I say except that she isn't really a she?
Given the context of this conversation, it is abundantly clear that anyone saying "real man / woman" means "biologically born as a man / woman." The particular phrase "not a real man / woman" can obviously be taken as an insult (in the same vein as "not a real gamer, not a real musician, not a real sport, not a real athlete"), and its probably a good idea to be a little careful with that language, but its really obvious what somebody in this thread means when they say "not a real man or woman" and taking offense at it is silly.
It's transphobic to say that somebody "isn't really a woman" because she's transgendered.
That depends on how you define women, strictly speaking. Language has not evolved to separate gender and sex yet.
Referring to someone by your definition after they have made their definition clear is, however, rude as fuck.
"Woman" refers most accurately to gender, "female" to sex. If you have to talk about a woman as being something--which is still kind of a dick move because of the implication that the biology has or ought to have some bearing on their gender association--"biologically male" would be the least offensive way of doing it.
Really, though, it's not that hard to call transpeople by the gender they associate with.
And generally I have no problem abiding by this. I don't mind calling her a her, as it were, mostly because that is what she prefers. But when asked why I wouldn't date her? Well, what else can I say except that she isn't really a she?
It would be more appropriate to phrase it as you are not attracted to people who do not follow the standard pattern of gender identity, rather than DECLARING something about them as being false.
Given the context of this conversation, it is abundantly clear that anyone saying "real man / woman" means "biologically born as a man / woman." The particular phrase "not a real man / woman" can obviously be taken as an insult (in the same vein as "not a real gamer, not a real musician, not a real sport, not a real athlete"), and its probably a good idea to be a little careful with that language, but its really obvious what somebody in this thread means when they say "not a real man or woman" and taking offense at it is silly.
No, no it isn't. Even if it's clear what they mean, they're still using offensive terms. In a thread about race relations, people might know what I mean when I refer to [forbidden word], but that doesn't make it OK to say that, and people would be right to tell me to cut it out.
Jesus christ guys honestly, when did we turn into PC?
edit: What we need to accept right now is this is NEW. Not super new but new enough that we don't have anything better than "Not biologically X" to go by.
Unless it's meant as slang both sides will have to be a bit lenient until the proper terms are coined and agreed aupon.
And generally I have no problem abiding by this. I don't mind calling her a her, as it were, mostly because that is what she prefers. But when asked why I wouldn't date her? Well, what else can I say except that she isn't really a she?
It would be more appropriate to phrase it as you are , rather than DECLARING something about them as being false.
More accurately, "not attracted to people who do not follow his or her preferred sexual/gender identity".
Tangentally, what is the more appropriate manner of referring to such individuals?
Which is to say, while "real" is insensitive, would "biological" be closer to correct and further from cruel?
I mean, aside from rare genetic disorders, a person is chromasomally either XY or XX. Whether or not your exterior shell matches who you are inside doesn't change that biology.
Well, according to trans-activists, you invent new vocabulary. "Natural" women and men are "cis-women" and "cis-men," and the alternative is "trans-woman" and "trans-man."
Referring to someone by your definition after they have made their definition clear is, however, rude as fuck.
And generally I have no problem abiding by this. I don't mind calling her a her, as it were, mostly because that is what she prefers. But when asked why I wouldn't date her? Well, what else can I say except that she isn't really a she?
You could just say that you're not attracted to her for your own reasons and leave it at that. You really don't have to drag a person's former/biological identity into the picture, and especially not in those terms. It's shockingly insensitive.
Tangentally, what is the more appropriate manner of referring to such individuals?
Which is to say, while "real" is insensitive, would "biological" be closer to correct and further from cruel?
I mean, aside from rare genetic disorders, a person is chromasomally either XY or XX. Whether or not your exterior shell matches who you are inside doesn't change that biology.
Well, according to trans-activists, you invent new vocabulary. "Natural" women and men are "cis-women" and "cis-men," and the alternative is "trans-woman" and "trans-man."
How do you pronounce that? Is it like "Kiss-woman" or "Siss-woman"?
"Woman" refers most accurately to gender, "female" to sex. If you have to talk about a woman as being something--which is still kind of a dick move because of the implication that the biology has or ought to have some bearing on their gender association--"biologically male" would be the least offensive way of doing it.
Really, though, it's not that hard to call transpeople by the gender they associate with.
There is behavior, there is phenotype, and there is genotype.
Again, language has not evolved to split these up. "Woman" and "Female" are generally taken as synonyms, and calling someone a "male woman" will be taken as calling them a man.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Your buddy goes out with a 'girl' that you know with cartesian certitude used to be a dude. Do you tell him like a 'transphobe' or do you respect the wishes of his date not to be outed as an ex-penile american?
Tangentally, what is the more appropriate manner of referring to such individuals?
Which is to say, while "real" is insensitive, would "biological" be closer to correct and further from cruel?
I mean, aside from rare genetic disorders, a person is chromasomally either XY or XX. Whether or not your exterior shell matches who you are inside doesn't change that biology.
Well, according to trans-activists, you invent new vocabulary. "Natural" women and men are "cis-women" and "cis-men," and the alternative is "trans-woman" and "trans-man."
How do you pronounce that? Is it like "Kiss-woman" or "Siss-woman"?
You don't, because when our language evolves it will be an evolution of definition of known terms as opposed to making new words up.
Tangentally, what is the more appropriate manner of referring to such individuals?
Which is to say, while "real" is insensitive, would "biological" be closer to correct and further from cruel?
I mean, aside from rare genetic disorders, a person is chromasomally either XY or XX. Whether or not your exterior shell matches who you are inside doesn't change that biology.
Well, according to trans-activists, you invent new vocabulary. "Natural" women and men are "cis-women" and "cis-men," and the alternative is "trans-woman" and "trans-man."
How do you pronounce that? Is it like "Kiss-woman" or "Siss-woman"?
Your buddy goes out with a 'girl' that you know with cartesian certitude used to be a dude. Do you tell him like a 'transphobe' or do you respect the wishes of his date not to be outed as an ex-penile american?
Transgender people have the right to decide for themselves when or if it is safe to come out. Period.
I will say that this is true. But then again, no one is saying that they HAVE to, either. Just that it's very much in their best interests. Even assuming that the partner is fine being with someone who was previously, or is currently, another sex, they are probably less fine being with someone who can't be honest with them.
SageinaRage on
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
Well, according to trans-activists, you invent new vocabulary. "Natural" women and men are "cis-women" and "cis-men," and the alternative is "trans-woman" and "trans-man."
I think we should go with "womban" and "barreness".
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
Your buddy goes out with a 'girl' that you know with cartesian certitude used to be a dude. Do you tell him like a 'transphobe' or do you respect the wishes of his date not to be outed as an ex-penile american?
Personally? I'd take him aside and voice my suspicions in private (if I knew that mattered to him and he'd like to know).
Posts
Hey, I don't have an obligation to tell my partner that I'm fucking anybody else. I don't have an obligation to tell my partner that I have a wife and kids in another state. I don't have an obligation to tell my partner that I have cancer and I only have three months to live. I don't have an obligation to tell my partner that I have a vasectomy and that I'll never have kids.
Of course, not telling my partner these things - things that might have pretty significant effects on the relationship in the long run - is a pretty dick move, and my partner would have every right to tell me to fuck off once they found out.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Can we please not start this?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That said, that is my real point and what I'm assuming is being discussed here.
edit: Afterthought, would like to point out that you shouldn't be so hasty to jump on wording and throw around words like Transphobia. These usually imply "You are a horrible horrible person" and can lead to wasted time and flame wars over a misunderstanding.
Usually, yeah. But really it depends on the person and the extent of surgery. With hormones, a preexisting small frame, and that new technique of reshaping the facial bones to remove "male" sexual cues, some post-op women look exactly like biological women. Larger bones, no facial surgery, and breast implants? You're probably going to suspect something even without being told. I think women can pass as men more easily.
And as for genital surgery, no clue how "real" modified genitals look / feel. And can they even make a penis?
Absolutely.
Keep in mind that it is not natively erectile - erections are generally achieved through a pump device or similar implant.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's transphobic to say that somebody "isn't really a woman" because she's transgendered.
I disagree, its a biological fact. If you have a Y chromosome and were born with a penis you are a man. If you underwent 'gender reassignment procedure' you are a man that mutilated his junk.
If that's your thing, fine, good on you, best of luck, really. It isn't any of my business unless we start a relationship. Then it is very much my business.
That's very relevant in a potentially sexual relationship. Not the kind of information that is ok to hide from a partner under any circumstances.
Yes. Yes they do.
Subject doesn't really matter, it's just a question of honesty in a long term relationship. Be it what you really do for a living, your prior sex, previous children, flings on the side, massive porn collection, whatever.
I'm not sure why this needs to be transgender specific, though preop/postop would make a difference in the importance of telling them. But I pretty much rate it with "has two children via an estranged wife and secretly sees them on the side while lying about it to his girlfriend" more than "oh god we need to talk about transgender rights!"
I'm just doubting that site would come down on say, a guy whose wife breaks up with him because it turns out he has two kids he's paying child support for and visiting once a month and hasn't felt like mentioning this for two years. Privacy is one thing, but it's a shitty thing to run a long term relationship while actively hiding things from your spouse.
I can leave it alone if you really want me to, but this is the crux of this entire conversation.
That depends on how you define "woman", strictly speaking. Language has not evolved to separate gender and sex yet.
Referring to someone by your definition after they have made their definition clear is, however, rude as fuck.
Tangentally, what is the more appropriate manner of referring to such individuals?
Which is to say, while "real" is insensitive, would "biological" be closer to correct and further from cruel?
I mean, aside from rare genetic disorders, a person is chromasomally either XY or XX. Whether or not your exterior shell matches who you are inside doesn't change that biology.
It's not that simple.
Biology is chock full of gray areas. You just don't hear about them much. Your chromosomes don't always trigger.
By how they wish to be referred.
I've heard of the pumps before, for severe erectile dysfunction. What has me baffled, though, is how they can get the head right.
"Woman" refers most accurately to gender, "female" to sex. If you have to talk about a woman as being something--which is still kind of a dick move because of the implication that the biology has or ought to have some bearing on their gender association--"biologically male" would be the least offensive way of doing it.
Really, though, it's not that hard to call transpeople by the gender they associate with.
I mean in general discussion, such as here. Of course I'd refer to someone as their preferred pronoun one on one or in reference to them.
It would be more appropriate to phrase it as you are not attracted to people who do not follow the standard pattern of gender identity, rather than DECLARING something about them as being false.
No, no it isn't. Even if it's clear what they mean, they're still using offensive terms. In a thread about race relations, people might know what I mean when I refer to [forbidden word], but that doesn't make it OK to say that, and people would be right to tell me to cut it out.
edit: What we need to accept right now is this is NEW. Not super new but new enough that we don't have anything better than "Not biologically X" to go by.
Unless it's meant as slang both sides will have to be a bit lenient until the proper terms are coined and agreed aupon.
More accurately, "not attracted to people who do not follow his or her preferred sexual/gender identity".
Well, according to trans-activists, you invent new vocabulary. "Natural" women and men are "cis-women" and "cis-men," and the alternative is "trans-woman" and "trans-man."
How do you pronounce that? Is it like "Kiss-woman" or "Siss-woman"?
There is behavior, there is phenotype, and there is genotype.
Again, language has not evolved to split these up. "Woman" and "Female" are generally taken as synonyms, and calling someone a "male woman" will be taken as calling them a man.
When we discovered that other human beings have feelings.
You don't, because when our language evolves it will be an evolution of definition of known terms as opposed to making new words up.
I think it's "siss-woman."
You speak with them.
More to my statement, I edited in my afterthought to avoid double posting just so you know.
I will say that this is true. But then again, no one is saying that they HAVE to, either. Just that it's very much in their best interests. Even assuming that the partner is fine being with someone who was previously, or is currently, another sex, they are probably less fine being with someone who can't be honest with them.
I think we should go with "womban" and "barreness".
Personally? I'd take him aside and voice my suspicions in private (if I knew that mattered to him and he'd like to know).