Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: A right to know about a persons gender history?
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by loggats: Is it irrational to feel this way? Because if it is there'd be some kind of duty to "get over it".
As a general principle, not specific to this, I don't agree there. If your feelings seem to be saying something to you that is at odds with reason, it is very important to listen to them. They may be wrong, but it's just as possible that your reason is. Both are fallible.
Just because we don't have an rational reason for being wary of them, most of us don't think we're obliged to lend money to someone who arouses in us an instinctive distrust, .
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by loggats: ]But admitting that you feel an irrational revulsion towards somebody (based upon their identity) seems like it would need addressing.
Why? 40 or so years ago, a cousin and I discussed what attracted us to particular girls. He said that he did not find blondes all that attractive, whereas I did. There is no rational basis for how we each felt, but we both married in accordance with the preferences we discussed as 15 year olds.
The same with transwomen. They may identify to themselves as women, but to me they are still men who've had surgery and hormone treatments, and I don't want to have sex with a man. Is that irrational also?
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
On reflection, I find this whole notion that someone else's sexual preferences should be subject to objective and searching examination for defect (prejudice is a defect) rather disturbing. Doublethink observed earlier that there are aspects of that which she is not in control of, and I'm the same. I am pretty sure that applies to all human beings. There are some pretty complicated things going on in the relationship between sensory perception and attraction.
I think we have to respect a person's right to say "no", regardless of the stage in the relationship at which that occurs. "I don't (or no longer) fancy you" seems a good enough reason. Doesn't mean the conversation will stop between the couple concerned, but that's a private matter, isn't it?
The whole Civil Rights battleground is about discriminatory restrictions over life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When it comes to the pursuit of happiness over sexual matters, isn't the key standard between adults generally recognised as mutual consent? The word "mutual" seems to have some force in this discussion at this point.
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Barnabas62: ... I think we have to respect a person's right to say "no", regardless of the stage in the relationship at which that occurs. "I don't (or no longer) fancy you" seems a good enough reason. ...
Do we? Should we? It seems to me that once a couple enter into a marriage or a civil partnership, we have to say that they both have given up that right. We may, and most of us would, make an exception for serious and objective breach of faith. I hope none of us would regard 'I don't fancy you any more' as enough.
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: Barnabas62: On reflection, I find this whole notion that someone else's sexual preferences should be subject to objective and searching examination for defect (prejudice is a defect) rather disturbing.
What I find interesting: I think the whole LGBT movement is more or less based on the premise that everyone had the freedom to have their sexual preferences, without having to explain or justify them.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Enoch: quote: Originally posted by Barnabas62: ... I think we have to respect a person's right to say "no", regardless of the stage in the relationship at which that occurs. "I don't (or no longer) fancy you" seems a good enough reason. ...
Do we? Should we? It seems to me that once a couple enter into a marriage or a civil partnership, we have to say that they both have given up that right. We may, and most of us would, make an exception for serious and objective breach of faith. I hope none of us would regard 'I don't fancy you any more' as enough.
Marital rape is illegal nowadays, regardless of gender status.
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Barnabas62: On reflection, I find this whole notion that someone else's sexual preferences should be subject to objective and searching examination for defect (prejudice is a defect) rather disturbing. Doublethink observed earlier that there are aspects of that which she is not in control of, and I'm the same. I am pretty sure that applies to all human beings. There are some pretty complicated things going on in the relationship between sensory perception and attraction.
Speaking for myself; it is my attempts to understand, to make sense between the professed ideal and the enacted reality. ISTM, there are more reactions and perceptions we can exert influence over than we often credit. Are we obligated to the attempt? Different question. But, yes, our processes are convoluted and reason does not always trump the bugs and sloppy coding.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doublethink: quote: Originally posted by Enoch: quote: Originally posted by Barnabas62: ... I think we have to respect a person's right to say "no", regardless of the stage in the relationship at which that occurs. "I don't (or no longer) fancy you" seems a good enough reason. ...
Do we? Should we? It seems to me that once a couple enter into a marriage or a civil partnership, we have to say that they both have given up that right. We may, and most of us would, make an exception for serious and objective breach of faith. I hope none of us would regard 'I don't fancy you any more' as enough.
Marital rape is illegal nowadays, regardless of gender status.
That's a really interesting example of how we are misunderstood, how we either pick up the wrong message because of our presuppositions or convey the wrong message because other people have different presuppositions from our own.
I have to admit that I wasn't writing about sex, or a person saying 'I don't feel like it tonight'. It hadn't occurred to me it might be read that way. I was thinking in terms of one person unilaterally switching off on a relationship. It seems to me that there is a difference once the couple have married or entered into a civil partnership. Up until that time, either is free to say "this is not for me. Goodbye". By entering into that bond, both are saying to the other, "I cleave to you. I will not suddenly jack this in or decide I don't feel like being with you any more". I would have thought it is difficult to hold any other view.
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by LeRoc: quote: Barnabas62: On reflection, I find this whole notion that someone else's sexual preferences should be subject to objective and searching examination for defect (prejudice is a defect) rather disturbing.
What I find interesting: I think the whole LGBT movement is more or less based on the premise that everyone had the freedom to have their sexual preferences, without having to explain or justify them.
Pretty much like the 'heterosexual movement' then.
-------------------- My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/ My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gee D: quote: Originally posted by loggats: ]But admitting that you feel an irrational revulsion towards somebody (based upon their identity) seems like it would need addressing.
Why? 40 or so years ago, a cousin and I discussed what attracted us to particular girls. He said that he did not find blondes all that attractive, whereas I did. There is no rational basis for how we each felt, but we both married in accordance with the preferences we discussed as 15 year olds.
The same with transwomen. They may identify to themselves as women, but to me they are still men who've had surgery and hormone treatments, and I don't want to have sex with a man. Is that irrational also?
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm still not sure that if there's an irrational reaction, I shouldn't make some effort to make it more rational. If I've got a phobia I can ignore it, let it become part of who I am, or I might feel like I owe it to myself to overcome the problem.
But I'm still not convinced that the feelings of revulsion some men are talking about here are, in fact, irrational. Is there an underlying justifiable reason for not wanting to sleep with a transwoman that goes deeper than a simple matter of subjective preferences? [ 15. April 2013, 16:10: Message edited by: loggats ]
-------------------- "He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Enoch
There isn't a long term relationship around within which the partners haven't experienced some mismatch between desire and availability. Insistence by one partner or another on "conjugal rights" - or any other perceived "rights" - seems to me to show a fundamental understanding of a bond which is mutual, committed, loving.
Any mismatch is something you share, talk about, listen, find ways through which recognise the nature of the bond. It's not "my" problem or "your" problem, it's "our" problem. And there are probably as many different answers as there are couples.
In Christian marriage, insistence on rights reduces the covenant to a contract. The effects of that are always baleful. Once goodwill goes, in the end it's just lawyers fighting one another over who gets what.
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I think the larger concern should be the thought that when you sleep with someone, you are sleeping with everyone he or she has slept with before. I would be more worried about Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs)
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by loggats: But I'm still not convinced that the feelings of revulsion some men are talking about here are, in fact, irrational. Is there an underlying justifiable reason for not wanting to sleep with a transwoman that goes deeper than a simple matter of subjective preferences?
I'm not sure what you mean by "subjective preferences" here. The reasoning is quite simple, however. I, for instance, would consider a "transwoman" to be a man, albeit a man who has had surgery to appear like a woman. To want to persue a relationship with such a person one would have to be a bit Stoke-on-Trent.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: loggats: Is there an underlying justifiable reason for not wanting to sleep with a transwoman that goes deeper than a simple matter of subjective preferences?
I am a straight man who wouldn't want to sleep with another man, and within a transwoman there are still physical male aspects present. What deeper reason would you want?
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ad Orientem: To want to persue a relationship with such a person one would have to be a bit Stoke-on-Trent.
If we could try to keep the general tenor and tone of this rather sensitive discussion friendly and courteous I would appreciate it.
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Rhyming slang for 'bent' in this case - you'll note that Collins defines that term as offensive slang. I have yet to see it used with positive connotation online or in real life.
I am willing to accept that there may be sub-cultures I haven't come across where it is a neutral or positive term - but this board has many and varied readers and it would be helpful for posters to be mindful of that. [ 15. April 2013, 19:27: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Allman
Apprentice
# 15050
|
Posted
Dafyd: quote: What sort of right? Legal?
Marvin the Martian: quote: Leglly? Just sex? Not really.
Marriage? Yes, I'd say so.
This (legal right to know, marriage) was PRECISELY the issue (and the only issue despite misreporting) in a case that I brought in 2005, against the Gender Recognition Act.
In France, for example, which passed a different Act to address the ruling in Goodwin, you DO have that right.
In the UK, you don't have that right, because the Lords rejected the relevant amendment.
The European Court of Human Rights wouldn't look at my case after Sullivan J threw it out in the Admin Court, because the risk to me was too remote. I was married at the time. Ironically, my wife died two or three days after I opened the letter from Strasbourg.
So, it is a bit late to be asking this question.
Before the case, I stood for Parliament three times in 2005, always mentioning this issue in my campaign.
More at
AllianceForChange.org.uk
Click READ OUR PRESS RELEASES
Then look for press release dated 27 June 2005
John Allman JohnAllmanUK.Wordpress.com
Posts: 6 | From: Fleet | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
John Allman
Did you notice Commandments 8 and 9 when you signed up?
quote: 8. Don't crusade
Don't use these boards to promote personal crusades. This space is not here for people to pursue specific agendas and win converts.
9. Don't advertise or spam
Don't use these boards to advertise your site or product, or to lift email addresses to spam our members.
These are discussion boards, not free-for-all-promotion boards. Feel free to post a link to your website in your sig, but direct political campaigning in the main body of posts isn't acceptable here.
Barnabas62 Purgatory Host
-------------------- Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ad Orientem: quote: Originally posted by loggats: But I'm still not convinced that the feelings of revulsion some men are talking about here are, in fact, irrational. Is there an underlying justifiable reason for not wanting to sleep with a transwoman that goes deeper than a simple matter of subjective preferences?
I'm not sure what you mean by "subjective preferences" here. The reasoning is quite simple, however. I, for instance, would consider a "transwoman" to be a man, albeit a man who has had surgery to appear like a woman. To want to persue a relationship with such a person one would have to be a bit Stoke-on-Trent.
quote: Originally posted by LeRoc: quote: loggats: Is there an underlying justifiable reason for not wanting to sleep with a transwoman that goes deeper than a simple matter of subjective preferences?
I am a straight man who wouldn't want to sleep with another man, and within a transwoman there are still physical male aspects present. What deeper reason would you want?
So you're both denying the possibility that a transwoman is indeed a woman in anything more than appearance. Which makes her what, a glorified drag queen?
I couldn't hold this opinion and accord her the kind of respect I think she deserves, even though I agree that a transperson's gender isn't entirely dependent on a personal decision to live their lives as one or the other gender. There's something more to it - I guess you're both saying it all boils down to genetics?
-------------------- "He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: loggats: So you're both denying the possibility that a transwoman is indeed a woman in anything more than appearance. Which makes her what, a glorified drag queen?
Definitely not. I think I already said this at least twice on this thread, but here goes:
If I'd say it in my own words, then to me a transwoman is a female(g) who was born in a male(s) body, and who underwent surgery and hormone treatments in order for her body to appear more female(s), so that she can be more happy in it.
(g)=gender sense (psychologically-culturally defined) (s)=sex sense (physically-biologically defined)
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
But is it really so cut and dried? One informs the other... in the case of a transperson, there's a problematic physical expression of their gender identity, and the struggle that goes along with that.
If gender and sex are entirely separate it seems like you'd be discriminating against a physical problem that the person had no control over, and your revulsion doesn't only seem irrational it becomes something quite cruel.
Though I'm not sure trans issues of gender and sex can be divided as neatly as you've the way described.
-------------------- "He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: loggats: If gender and sex are entirely separate it seems like you'd be discriminating against a physical problem that the person had no control over, and your revulsion doesn't only seem irrational it becomes something quite cruel.
So you think that not being able to have sex with me is cruel? I'm flattered...
There is no law or moral rule that says that I should give everyone in this world equal chances of sharing the sack with me.
I 'discriminate' the people I have sex with in various ways. I only choose women. I only choose women who are younger than me or only a little bit older. I only choose women who aren't too skinny or too fat. I only choose women who have a little twinkle in their eyes...
I could go on and on. All of these are things that the other person has no control over. Still, it is my right to choose with whom I want to share this intimacy.
What would you suggest? Force me to sleep with someone whom I wouldn't normally choose at least once every month?
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
Might be an interesting exercise! But no. Please don't do that.
I guess it's like saying you're not attracted to black/Jewish/disabled women. It's up to you, but it seems like a distasteful thing to admit. Maybe that's just honesty.
Still think that classifying transwomen as somehow fundamentally "men" is problematic though.
-------------------- "He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Some of the stuff on this thread is bizarre, as if we control who we fancy or don't, and as if we control our feelings about other people. I don't think we do. Of course, feelings are irrational - does anyone think they can choose how to feel about someone? How the hell do you do that?
It sounds like some kind of weird rationalization of our feelings and responses, and on top of that, a moralization of that - you ought not to feel that. Eh?
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: loggats: I guess it's like saying you're not attracted to black/Jewish/disabled women.
I don't think I could be attracted to someone who's very visibly disabled.
quote: loggats: Still think that classifying transwomen as somehow fundamentally "men" is problematic though.
In the physical sense, there is a part of transwomen that is male. That's not problematic, that's simply the truth.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
But isn't that what being in control of ourselves is all about?
I guess fairy tales like Beauty and the Beast have the market cornered when it comes to overcoming revulsion, and slapping a moral on the end for good measure.
-------------------- "He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by loggats: So you're both denying the possibility that a transwoman is indeed a woman in anything more than appearance. Which makes her what, a glorified drag queen?
Well, yeah. As far as I'm concerned anyway.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
(my previous post was addressed to quetzalcoatl)
quote: Originally posted by LeRoc: quote: loggats: Still think that classifying transwomen as somehow fundamentally "men" is problematic though.
In the physical sense, there is a part of transwomen that is male. That's not problematic, that's simply the truth. [/QB]
So it's objectively true that no transwoman is a woman, in any sense other than cosmetic? I don't know.
-------------------- "He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by loggats: But isn't that what being in control of ourselves is all about?
I guess fairy tales like Beauty and the Beast have the market cornered when it comes to overcoming revulsion, and slapping a moral on the end for good measure.
Remember Schopenhauer - you can choose to do what you want, but you can't choose what you want.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: loggats: I guess fairy tales like Beauty and the Beast have the market cornered when it comes to overcoming revulsion, and slapping a moral on the end for good measure.
I didn't say that I could never have a relationship with someone who was (or later became) disabled. I was talking about that flash of first-moment attraction. Even Beauty wasn't able to feel that for the Beast.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: loggats: So it's objectively true that no transwoman is a woman, in any sense other than cosmetic?
No, this isn't true. A transwoman is a woman, in the socially-psychologically defined gender sense.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by LeRoc: quote: loggats: I guess fairy tales like Beauty and the Beast have the market cornered when it comes to overcoming revulsion, and slapping a moral on the end for good measure.
I didn't say that I could never have a relationship with someone who was (or later became) disabled. I was talking about that flash of first-moment attraction. Even Beauty wasn't able to feel that for the Beast.
That post was intended for quetzalcoatl. Though what you're talking about re transwomen is quite different, because you've said that you might actually have the "flash of first-moment attraction" and even go all the way (if you were that way inclined), so long as you never knew she wasn't a biological woman - so long as what you consider to be the illusion of her femaleness was maintained.
I can't bring myself to call a transwoman's self-perception of being a woman an illusion.
-------------------- "He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by LeRoc: quote: loggats: So it's objectively true that no transwoman is a woman, in any sense other than cosmetic?
No, this isn't true. A transwoman is a woman, in the socially-psychologically defined gender sense.
Which is, you've implied, subordinate to a genetic reality she has no control over. [ 15. April 2013, 23:51: Message edited by: loggats ]
-------------------- "He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: loggats: because you've said that you might actually have the "flash of first-moment attraction" and even go all the way (if you were that way inclined), so long as you never knew she wasn't a biological woman
I might. But the male biological parts of her would cause revulsion, even in retrospect.
quote: loggats: I can't bring myself to call a transwoman's self-perception of being a woman an illusion.
Neither can I. She is a woman, in the gender sense.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But gender is an illusion, isn't it? Well, OK, a mental construct.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: loggats: Which is, you've implied, subordinate to a genetic reality she has no control over.
Not subordinate. Co-existent.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: quetzalcoatl: But gender is an illusion, isn't it? Well, OK, a mental construct.
No, gender very real. I'm not an expert, but at the very least it's a psychological process. Like love, hate, friendship, faith... All of those are real.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by LeRoc: quote: loggats: Which is, you've implied, subordinate to a genetic reality she has no control over.
Not subordinate. Co-existent.
So female gender and male sex "co-exist" in the one person? That's quite confusing.
-------------------- "He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: loggats: So female gender and male sex "co-exist" in the one person? That's quite confusing.
Exactly, not in the least to them. That's why they want the surgery and the hormone treatment.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by LeRoc: quote: loggats: So female gender and male sex "co-exist" in the one person? That's quite confusing.
Exactly, not in the least to them. That's why they want the surgery and the hormone treatment.
But I think we've established that no amount of surgery or hormone therapy will change the basic truth of the matter. Which means what, that transexuality is a mental condition with no real "cure"?
-------------------- "He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It maybe worth pointing out that in UK law, to qualify for a Gender Recognition Certificate for your acquired gender requires that you be over 18 and: quote: An Application for a Gender Recognition Certificate requires applicants to demonstrate that:- They have, or have had, gender dysphoria
- They have lived fully for the last two years in their acquired gender;
- They intend to live permanently in their acquired gender
You will note that it does not requires surgery or alteration of secondary sexual characteristics.
Now I believe that the trans community would not argue that a transwoman who has not had surgery, is less female than a transwoman who has.
But I also think that most people would accept that it is highly likely that, in most cases, a sexual partner's potential attraction will be mediated by which secondary sexual characteristics are apparent in a potential partner's body. You would not presumably expect that an individual will have much control over this, and it is almost certainly a function of their sexual orientation.
Is that really prejudice, or is it just a real thing that is true about how sexual attraction works ? If it is not prejudice, then how is attraction lost in the knowledge that certain sexual characteristics are not innate prejudice ?
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: loggats:But I think we've established that no amount of surgery or hormone therapy will change the basic truth of the matter. Which means what, that transexuality is a mental condition with no real "cure"?
No amount of surgery of hormone therapy will take away that there will always be physical male aspects about her body.
I'm not sure if I'd use the words 'condition' or 'cure' in this case. I guess she can be considered 'cured' when the surgery and the hormones have given so many feminine aspects to her body that she can feel happy in it.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by LeRoc: quote: loggats:But I think we've established that no amount of surgery or hormone therapy will change the basic truth of the matter. Which means what, that transexuality is a mental condition with no real "cure"?
No amount of surgery of hormone therapy will take away that there will always be physical male aspects about her body.
I'm not sure if I'd use the words 'condition' or 'cure' in this case. I guess she can be considered 'cured' when the surgery and the hormones have given so many feminine aspects to her body that she can feel happy in it.
Yes but the surgery and hormones are a means to an end - an attempt at transforming her sex to conform with her gender. And that's ultimately futile because nothing can transform her chromosomes. So even if hormones change her physical characteristics and mold new thought processes and behaviours (because female sex hormones will certainly affect both of those) it's never going to be the kind of transformation that "cures" her "condition" (I know those words might be inappropriate, but I can't think of anything else).
-------------------- "He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."
Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: Some of the stuff on this thread is bizarre, as if we control who we fancy or don't, and as if we control our feelings about other people. I don't think we do. Of course, feelings are irrational - does anyone think they can choose how to feel about someone? How the hell do you do that?
It sounds like some kind of weird rationalization of our feelings and responses, and on top of that, a moralization of that - you ought not to feel that. Eh?
I disagree that we cannot control what we feel. Yes, there is a great deal of unconscious thought in our processes. However, there is also a great deal of unexamined thought. A great deal of emotive rationalization. So, perhaps we cannot control everything we feel, but more than we often credit. Moralization? I hope I do not appear to be judging, I am not. Trying not to, at least. For the most part, it is about understanding.
ETA: And I can be a bit like a terrier on a subject. [ 16. April 2013, 00:28: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Allman
Apprentice
# 15050
|
Posted
@ Barnabus62
quote: Did you notice Commandments 8 and 9 when you signed up?
quote: 8. Don't crusade
Don't use these boards to promote personal crusades. This space is not here for people to pursue specific agendas and win converts.
9. Don't advertise or spam
Don't use these boards to advertise your site or product, or to lift email addresses to spam our members. These are discussion boards, not free-for-all-promotion boards. Feel free to post a link to your website in your sig, but direct political campaigning in the main body of posts isn't acceptable here.
Barnabas62 Purgatory Host
I'm not crusading or advertising. The thread is about whether one has the right to know the gender history of someone one is intending to have sex with, and this has been extended to the question as to whether one has the LEGAL right to know the gender history of somebody whom one intends to MARRY.
Eight years ago or so, that was an issue that was settled in the courts. I thought people might be interested in whether one DOES have the legal right to know the gender history of one's intended. (Yes in France, no in the UK.)
I happen to be the very bloke whose court case settled that question, and brought it up in an election. However, the political party the Alliance For Change to which I linked, for information, went defunct donkey's years ago, and I haven't been a candidate in any election since 2005.
The link to the defunct party's site is simply a link to an historical record of what happened back then, relevant to the discussion. No crusading, advertising or spam is involved in what I posted. It is bang on topic, and I have nothing to gain by sharing this information.
Actually, this is the first thread I've seen anywhere, ever, about the very issue that I took the British government to court about (and lost) all those years ago.
If you had checked the link I gave, you would have realised this, and not criticised me. I think you should keep the link, for anybody interested in the way this issue became a done deal all those years before somebody here thought of raising the question this year, for discussion. One of my "famous for fifteen minutes" moments, eight years ago, just happens to be about the exact same issue as this thread raises. It's a one-off.
I have been a member of Ship-of-Fools for several years, by the way, so no, I don't remember the rules. But I wouldn't have thought that, in the circumstances, I'd broken them.
Posts: 6 | From: Fleet | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote: loggats: And that's ultimately futile because nothing can transform her chromosomes.
The way I understand it, the surgeries and the treatments are necessary because the idea of being in a body that doesn't combine with one's gender causes psychological stress. If these treatments succeed in transforming her body to such a degree that this stress is taken away, I wouldn't call them futile.
-------------------- I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doublethink: Is that really prejudice, or is it just a real thing that is true about how sexual attraction works ? If it is not prejudice, then how is attraction lost in the knowledge that certain sexual characteristics are not innate prejudice ?
Perhaps...though that's not actually what people seem to be saying on this thread. The feeling seems to be that despite everything, even a transwoman who (say) has been living privately as a girl since the age of five, publicly as a girl since the age of ten, never experienced male puberty, and completed reassignment at age 18 is nevertheless male in some important, non-vestigial sense. Which strikes me as counterintuitive at least.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by John Allman: @ Barnabus62
quote: Did you notice Commandments 8 and 9 when you signed up?
quote: 8. Don't crusade
Don't use these boards to promote personal crusades. This space is not here for people to pursue specific agendas and win converts.
9. Don't advertise or spam
Don't use these boards to advertise your site or product, or to lift email addresses to spam our members. These are discussion boards, not free-for-all-promotion boards. Feel free to post a link to your website in your sig, but direct political campaigning in the main body of posts isn't acceptable here.
Barnabas62 Purgatory Host
I'm not crusading or advertising. The thread is about whether one has the right to know the gender history of someone one is intending to have sex with, and this has been extended to the question as to whether one has the LEGAL right to know the gender history of somebody whom one intends to MARRY.
Eight years ago or so, that was an issue that was settled in the courts. I thought people might be interested in whether one DOES have the legal right to know the gender history of one's intended. (Yes in France, no in the UK.)
I happen to be the very bloke whose court case settled that question, and brought it up in an election. However, the political party the Alliance For Change to which I linked, for information, went defunct donkey's years ago, and I haven't been a candidate in any election since 2005.
The link to the defunct party's site is simply a link to an historical record of what happened back then, relevant to the discussion. No crusading, advertising or spam is involved in what I posted. It is bang on topic, and I have nothing to gain by sharing this information.
Actually, this is the first thread I've seen anywhere, ever, about the very issue that I took the British government to court about (and lost) all those years ago.
If you had checked the link I gave, you would have realised this, and not criticised me. I think you should keep the link, for anybody interested in the way this issue became a done deal all those years before somebody here thought of raising the question this year, for discussion. One of my "famous for fifteen minutes" moments, eight years ago, just happens to be about the exact same issue as this thread raises. It's a one-off.
I have been a member of Ship-of-Fools for several years, by the way, so no, I don't remember the rules. But I wouldn't have thought that, in the circumstances, I'd broken them.
Then you should also know not to argue with a ruling by a host (Commandment 6). Take it to the Styx if you want to argue.
Gwai, Purgatory Host [ 16. April 2013, 03:48: Message edited by: Gwai ]
-------------------- A master of men was the Goodly Fere, A mate of the wind and sea. If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|