homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: A right to know about a persons gender history? (Page 7)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: A right to know about a persons gender history?
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
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).

This point has come up earlier in the thread. On the face of it, there are two possible directions of change.

Changing the body of the person by surgery and hormones so that it fits more comfortably the personal perception of gender. A part of that process may involve open psychotherapy to help the person understand the changes they will need to go through.

Alternatively, the person may modify their personal perception of gender as a result of the open psychotherapeutic exploration of the gender reassignment journey, so that their modified perception is less at variance with their body and its chromosomal makeup.

Either of these directions might be described as a cure for the unhappiness and confusion which caused them to embark on the journey.

Are self-perceptions of gender more or less malleable, by free choice, than the body is? I guess that's the crux point.

We've been discussing here the extent to which we have control over the mental processes which affect our attractions and preferences - and opinions vary! I think we all have some measure of control and lilbuddah may well be right in asserting that through work and reflection we may get more. But there are probably limits for all of us in that direction.

What that suggests to me is that the present processes of gender reassignment are in fact quite wise. They do provide means for the person coming forward to check out for themselves the degree of persistence of the gender dysphoria before undertaking irreversible (?) and expensive surgical change.

I'm not making any ethical point here about those who choose. Personally I don't know how malleable gender perception is if your perception is profoundly at variance with your chromosomes. Mine isn't. My perception of my maleness lines up with my XY chromosomes. I'm comfortable with that.

But I don't believe this gives me the right to judge those whose perceptions are at variance with their bodies. The evidence I have seen suggests that the vast majority of those who have gone through the protracted mill of gender reassignment including major surgery have little or no regrets and are generally much happier than they were. The process seems to require both very strong motivation, determination and resilience.

[ 16. April 2013, 08:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
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
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think for me there are several points about controlling our feelings, for example, who I fancy. First, is it possible to do this? Second, is there an ought here?

I suppose if I find fat dwarfs a turn-off, I can go along with that. I don't have to try to change, do I?

If someone tells me I ought to try to change, then I ask them why. I suppose the answer is that they want me to. But ought they try to change that?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... If someone tells me I ought to try to change, then I ask them why. I suppose the answer is that they want me to. But ought they try to change that?

Aren't you entitled to say 'it's none of your business'? And if so, is there any riposte they can give that is legitimate? I don't think I can think of one.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... If someone tells me I ought to try to change, then I ask them why. I suppose the answer is that they want me to. But ought they try to change that?

Aren't you entitled to say 'it's none of your business'? And if so, is there any riposte they can give that is legitimate? I don't think I can think of one.
I agree. I suppose a fat dwarf might get upset, but that is not really going to make me fancy them.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643

 - Posted      Profile for loggats   Email loggats   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But if you're telling a transwoman "I'm turned off by you because, although your gender is female and you present as a woman, there is something ontologically and essentially male about you - in a sexual context, I find that revolting."

That's quite different from saying you're not attracted to fat dwarves (or whatever else) because it's not undermining their self.

--------------------
"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      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But the question of discretion comes in here, doesn't it? I don't go up to people who I don't fancy, and say 'I don't fancy you', because I reckon it's quite upsetting to hear that.

So I would not say it to a fat dwarf, although I might think it. It's actually none of her/his business, as already stated.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
loggats
Shipmate
# 17643

 - Posted      Profile for loggats   Email loggats   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But is it a 'good' thought to have when it involves that kind of undermining of somebody's sense of identity? Am I justified in holding such an opinion about a transwoman (whether she ever knows or not)?

--------------------
"He brought me into the banqueting house, and his banner over me was love."

Posts: 245 | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
But is it a 'good' thought to have when it involves that kind of undermining of somebody's sense of identity? Am I justified in holding such an opinion about a transwoman (whether she ever knows or not)?

But what right has anyone else to tell me (or you) that I (or you) should remake my feelings because somebody else doesn't approve of them?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
But is it a 'good' thought to have when it involves that kind of undermining of somebody's sense of identity? Am I justified in holding such an opinion about a transwoman (whether she ever knows or not)?

There are plenty of thoughts which are not 'good' - but nobody should be telling people what to think.

I have been reading this thread since it started and thinking it through. I have come to the conclusion that I wouldn't be put off having sex with trans person if I loved them. But, for me, the love would come before the sex anyway - then it would be about giving pleasure to the one you love, which is easy.

Yes, I would feel sad and disappointed if they hadn't told me first, although it wouldn't be a deal breaker.

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
But is it a 'good' thought to have when it involves that kind of undermining of somebody's sense of identity? Am I justified in holding such an opinion about a transwoman (whether she ever knows or not)?

If you try to maintain that position, you will tie yourself up in knots. Surely, everybody has negative thoughts about other people; if you do try to stop yourself every time you have one, you will go crazy. The thing is not to identify with them, or act them out, or hurt others.

I would say an element of negativity is actually important in the human personality. Well, put it this way, I don't trust people who don't appear to have it.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
But if you're telling a transwoman "I'm turned off by you because, although your gender is female and you present as a woman, there is something ontologically and essentially male about you - in a sexual context, I find that revolting."

That's quite different from saying you're not attracted to fat dwarves (or whatever else) because it's not undermining their self.

Yes, and it's more deeply hurtful to a transwoman than telling someone you don't fancy short people, or blondes or whatever. Because to get to that stage, you've already admitted that you find the transwoman attractive, and now, whatever words you dress it up in, you're telling her that she's not a proper woman. Of course she'll find it deeply hurtful.

But I still think the transwoman has to be upfront about herself.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not certain the dwarf example is any different than the trans examples. If you reject anyone for what they are, the what is objectively irrelevant, you are still rejecting their identity.
If I meet someone who has a severely disfigured face, but is a witty, wonderful person and possesses every personality trait I find attractive; I might still find them, as a whole, unattractive. Is this good? I think we can objectively say no. This does not, however, lead to the conclusion that it is objectively "bad."
For me, it represents that I do not truly posses the values I claim. For me this means I fail.
This is because I hold that it is who we are, not what we are, which should be important. In honesty, I fail this constantly.
-----------
Attraction can be complex, it can be subtle, it can be irrational.
It is not immutable or completely innate. Nor is it inherently a cause for judgement.

--------------------
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
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That seems a bit over-scrupulous to me. It's OK to like pretty girls (or blokes). I mean, that looks are important, and I don't buy this idea that it's what's inside that counts. Yes, it does, but so does the outside. Maybe I am just superficial!

[ 16. April 2013, 17:36: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
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      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
loggats: But if you're telling a transwoman "I'm turned off by you because, although your gender is female and you present as a woman, there is something ontologically and essentially male about you - in a sexual context, I find that revolting."
Of course, I wouldn't say it like this to them directly. There is such a thing as politeness.

I never had a transwoman expressing interest in me, but it has happened to me two or three times with gay men. In these cases, I normally use the answer "I'm very flattered, but sorry, I'm not interested". I don't see why this wouldn't work with a transwoman.

--------------------
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
Lucia

Looking for light
# 15201

 - Posted      Profile for Lucia     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Most of this discussion has come from heterosexual men talking about how they feel about trans-women. It seems to me that in those who feel strongly negative about the idea of sex with a trans-woman it stems from a sense that she is in some way still male physically and that they feel a very strong aversion towards the idea of sexual activity with another male.

I wonder if gay men would feel the same kind of discomfort if they found out that a sexual partner was a trans-man? I'm assuming here that a gay man would feel a similar aversion to the idea of sex with a woman, so would they have a similar sense that the trans-man was in some way still a woman physically? Or is this aversion very much a heterosexual male thing?

Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Point of disclosure I a gay woman.)

--------------------
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
Lucia

Looking for light
# 15201

 - Posted      Profile for Lucia     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry I should have expressed myself more clearly.
What I meant is that while I recognise that not everyone contributing to this thread is a heterosexual male, most of those expressing strongly negative feelings about having sex with a trans-person seem to belong to that group.

Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
However, the objections (also mentioned above) that some within the feminist movement raise in respect of trans-women suggests that it's not just that demographic that it affects, Lucia.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That seems a bit over-scrupulous to me. It's OK to like pretty girls (or blokes). I mean, that looks are important, and I don't buy this idea that it's what's inside that counts. Yes, it does, but so does the outside. Maybe I am just superficial!

I wouldn't call you superficial. Let's remember that reproduction is the basis, origin and primary function of all this sex stuff - the reason we like the idea of having sex with people is that it will give us kids and thus propagate our genes and allow our race to survive. Expecting someone's sexual attraction to survive the news that their prospective partner is entirely incompatible with any of this is a very, very big ask.

(And no, it's not the same case as with infertility, although that would raise its own questions.)

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not certain the dwarf example is any different than the trans examples. If you reject anyone for what they are, the what is objectively irrelevant, you are still rejecting their identity.

I don't think so - you're not telling the dwarf that she's not a person, you're telling her that she's not attractive. Certainly that's tied up with her identity, but I see it as more like not fancying redheads. (Unless she is of normal height, but you don't fancy her because she carries a recessive dwarfism gene or something.)

In the case of the trans woman, by the time you found out she was trans, you would have made known that she was sexually desirable - you are rejecting her entirely because she has Y chromosomes. You aren't telling her that she's a woman you don't find attractive - you're telling her she's not a real woman.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Certainly that's tied up with her identity, but I see it as more like not fancying redheads. ... In the case of the trans woman, by the time you found out she was trans, you would have made known that she was sexually desirable - you are rejecting her entirely because she has Y chromosomes. You aren't telling her that she's a woman you don't find attractive - you're telling her she's not a real woman.

Well, no. If you were told after the relationship had progressed to sex, then it would be more as if you really could not stand redheads at all, met a woman with black hair, had sex with her, and then found out that she had died her red hair black. It is true that you were sexually attracted to her at the time, but only because information that would have seriously diminished your sexual attraction was withheld.

Quite likely the lack of sexual attraction has to do with not seeing a "trans woman" as a "proper woman". But it is not true that there is some kind of special rejection involved just in changing one's mind. Rather, it is a correction to what one would have felt in the first place if one had known all the facts, plus probably some anger or other violent emotion simply at being misled.

(As an aside - what is it with the British and red hair? The whole ginger dissing is plain weird.)

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's interesting to reflect on George Spigot's OP at this stage. Originally, he recognised a "need to know" in himself. Now he doesn't as a result of conversations with trans people.

I suppose that as a 70 year old happily married hetero male, my interest in the question is largely theoretical! But the thread has made me think about an issue I've never had to consider IRL and never really thought about before.

Perhaps one clarification might help. I've never had casual sex or a one night stand. Never thought that was a good idea. So my answers on this thread have come from the context I do understand, the formation of serious, committed, relationships. I think that if a trans woman was attracted to a man and wished to form that kind of bond with them they would be wise to offer the information freely about the way they were made - and re-made. If for no other reason than the one this thread has revealed. That heterosexual men may find it difficult to retain both attraction and desire when faced with that news.

Is this a typical feature of heterosexual orientation? I think it probably is. Might it change as a result of reflection about the complex relationship between gender and sex? I really don't know. In any specific developing relationship a great deal might depend on all the factors, not just the initial sexual attraction, that were contributing to the development. The one thing I'm convinced about is that the development of trust requires this kind of risk taking disclosure early on. It's just wrong to assume everything would be OK because you think it should be OK.

--------------------
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
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I wouldn't call you superficial. Let's remember that reproduction is the basis, origin and primary function of all this sex stuff - the reason we like the idea of having sex with people is that it will give us kids and thus propagate our genes and allow our race to survive.

But it does not work this way. First, a lot of people have sex because it feels good. That is reason enough for many people.
Straight people actually find attractive and marry infertile partners. And then have sex with them!
Gay people have sex and I am fairly certain most do not expect children as a result. Though, I do admit I haven't asked everyone.
Much of what we see as attractive in another has nothing to do with reproduction.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is this a typical feature of heterosexual orientation? I think it probably is.

ISTM, one would likely find the same attitude amoungst gay men and women as well. And most would likely feel it OK with the feeling this way.

I will admit I am likely the odd one out here.

--------------------
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      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... It's just wrong to assume everything would be OK because you think it should be OK.

Well put.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Is this a typical feature of heterosexual orientation? I think it probably is.

ISTM, one would likely find the same attitude amoungst gay men and women as well. And most would likely feel it OK with the feeling this way.

I will admit I am likely the odd one out here.

I find this post thought-provoking as well. This stuff is complicated.

I had persistent dreams of being a father when I was growing up. It seems that a part of my sexual instincts got wedded early on to a conscious desire to have children. I'm not sure to what extent that's the genes or the memes at work! In practice, that doesn't really matter. When I was young, the instinct to mate and the desire to procreate were wedded together.

And of course I learned some very important social and rational lessons about the desire to procreate; personal responsibility came into to play. But I grew up knowing that I wanted to have children, knowing there was an element of "lottery" in that. I might fall in love with someone who either couldn't or didn't want to have children. It was an issue we talked about before we got married. We both wanted children, hoped we'd be able to have them, agreed we'd adopt if we could not. It was part of the growing trust. For both of us there was a strong desire to bring children into the world who would come from us. Adoption was a fall-back position we felt we could embrace willingly if we had to.

lilbuddah, I think that's an example of the way thinking and instincts factor in together as part of a growing relationship. Had either of us discovered in advance that we could not have children with one another, I believe we would still have married but it would have been a very big test for both of us. I don't think either of us really wanted to know in advance!

I think procreation factors into heterosexual orientation on both instinctive and learned levels and it seems likely to be "in play" during any developing relationship. I'm not sure how that works in same sex-relationships.

The normal argument is that instinct works on the "immediate" level i.e. before thought kicks in. But I think that for human beings the dynamic interplay between thought and instinct, particularly over sexual desire, makes it very difficult to sort out exactly what is going on!

I've appreciated the arguments about rejection very much. A rejection following signs of initial mutual attraction simply because of the trans-factor would be very hard to bear. But there it is. Procreation issues may factor into that.

If the combo of instinct and thought means that desire has been lost, for whatever reason, then it has. One would need to be honest about that, rather than pretend otherwise. The disasters which result from relationships based on pretense or lying about the attractions we feel provide a key lesson for all of us.

[ 17. April 2013, 07:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
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
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
[qb]I wouldn't call you superficial. Let's remember that reproduction is the basis, origin and primary function of all this sex stuff - the reason we like the idea of having sex with people is that it will give us kids and thus propagate our genes and allow our race to survive.

But it does not work this way. First, a lot of people have sex because it feels good. That is reason enough for many people.
Straight people actually find attractive and marry infertile partners. And then have sex with them!
Gay people have sex and I am fairly certain most do not expect children as a result.

I didn't say that every sexual act was conducted with the express intention to produce kids, I said that " reproduction is the basis, origin and primary function of all this sex stuff". There would be no sex if we reproduced asexually, and all the edge cases in the world can't get round the fact that sex is fundamentally a reproductive act.

That doesn't mean that people never have sex with infertile people. It does mean that if you find that your potential life partner is infertile, you can legitimately have a very deep think about your future together (and yes, I have been in a situation like this ... and it's a long story.) This still isn't quite the same case as is sex with a transgender person though, because as IngoB said upthread, one person has quantitatively less fertility, one has a qualitatively different type of fertility.

This all relates back to what I said upthread: we are physical beings. Fundamentally, sex is a physical act that, however we actually use it, is designed to physically make babies. A person can think themselves into the opposite gender however much they want, they live in that role and that's all fine. However, when you come to have sex with them, it becomes relevant and important that are still the same biological sex as they always have been.

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you, Barnabas.

--------------------
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
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dinghy Sailor,

Yes, the biological purpose of sex is procreation. However, attraction/desire for sex =/= desire for procreation. Choice of partner might be affected by differing views, but that is not the reaction being discussed here by most.

Barnabas62

I think the desire for procreation is a much more complicated issue than most credit.

This study and this study*, seem to indicate sexual minorities do not desire children at the same rate as heterosexuals, though there is less disparity amoungst women. However, society's attitudes towards sexual minorities having children may well factor into this.
from the first link:
quote:
They suggest that negative social attitudes towards lesbian women having children have resulted in some choosing alternate goals in life.
Our brains may be powerful computers, but our programming is quite chaotic.

*Not entirely certain whether it is two studies or one.

--------------------
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
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dinghy Sailor,

Yes, the biological purpose of sex is procreation. However, attraction/desire for sex =/= desire for procreation. Choice of partner might be affected by differing views, but that is not the reaction being discussed here by most.

Yes it is, because the two are inextricably linked and one will therefore impact on the other. The discovery that Jane used to be John (or vice versa) is a turn-off to more people than just those who want to make babies right now, because the libido is a product of the desire to procreate. If it didn't serve a useful purpose, sex wouldn't be nice.

The Bloodhound Gang got this one right.

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38

 - Posted      Profile for Honest Ron Bacardi   Email Honest Ron Bacardi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dinghy Sailor/Li'l Buddha - are you not in danger of some talking at cross purposes here? I can't disagree with the role of sex in the species, but how that pans out for each of us individually varies. In a sense you are both right, but arguing in a different context.

--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic

Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dinghy Sailor

Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507

 - Posted      Profile for Dinghy Sailor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On this thread, various people have been arguing that it's somehow wrong or irrational not to like someone as much as a sexual partner if you discover that they're trans, even if you intellectually like them as a person. quetzalcoatl responded:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That seems a bit over-scrupulous to me. It's OK to like pretty girls (or blokes). I mean, that looks are important, and I don't buy this idea that it's what's inside that counts. Yes, it does, but so does the outside. Maybe I am just superficial!

I was agreeing with him. However nice someone may be 'on the inside', it's perfectly legitimate to not be attracted to them because of their physical aspects - and them being trans is the extreme case of that. This is because however much you intellectualise it, your liking for a person is basically a product of* your highly evolved desire to find a suitable mate with which to sire children, just as your ancestors have been doing for millions of years. What's on the inside counts, but what's on the outside counts too.


*NB I said "a product of": I did not completely equate the two desires. Anyone who pipes up about infertile people is guilty of not having read this bit.

[ 17. April 2013, 16:53: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]

--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A product of, perhaps, but less directed by than many would credit. Or at least much more plastic.
BTW, I am in no way arguing "legitimate" v. illegitimate.
Just discussing the cerebral mechanisms.
If Playboy printed "These women cannot bear children" on the covers of their magazines, would men then actually read the articles? Methinks not.

--------------------
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
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually, my reply wasn't about trans people, but about someone saying that they felt they ought to like the 'person inside', and ignore the outside. But OK, it fits.

It all seems so riddled with guilt, it's absurd. I can't control who I'm attracted to, and I certainly don't intend to beat myself up because I don't fancy X or Y.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If Playboy printed "These women cannot bear children" on the covers of their magazines, would men then actually read the articles? Methinks not.

Based on what?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017

 - Posted      Profile for Taliesin   Email Taliesin   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
because it's tedious, presumably. (answering mousethief)

How weird is this??

It's about truth, isn't it? If I wear fake boobs and a wig, and then when it comes down to it, my prospective partner didn't realise I was wearing fake boobs and a wig, he/she may feel cheated on some level. There are stories of woman who only realised their husband was a woman after they died, although not this century, admittedly - and you're always going to feel sad they didn't trust you with the truth.

As we get less obsessed about assuming we know a person's gender identity - and feeling stupid if we call someone 'him' or 'her' and get it wrong, and as we learn to ask, rather than assume, any lies of omission (on the basis that there was never a good time to bring it up) will become more rare.

People are human. Some are more attached to gender identity than others. Frankly, there is more important stuff than this going on, like poverty and lack of education and famine and war and climate crap and lack of accessible medical care and abuse.

Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The thing is, there are loads of potential reasons that one might find someone attractive at first, then find out something that makes them unattractive afterwards. I find this idea that we should be able to control that very strange.

I fancied her, but then I found out she's slept with my dad. I fancied her, but then found out she was my long-lost twin sister. I fancied her, but then found out she's my best friend's ex and she treated him like crap. I fancied her, but then smelt her breath. I fancied her, but then we started talking, and she was really irritating. I fancied her, but then I saw her tattoos. I fancied her, but then I found out she used to be a man.

For some people, any or all of those (and many more) reasons might, or might not be a turn off. We're all complicated people and although it can be difficult to understand the reasons why, our emotional reaction isn't something we can control.

And, if I may refine LeRoc's position (which I've agreed with as I've read this thread), when he says that if he found out someone he was previously attracted to was trans, he'd be turned off, it should go without saying, but that's hypothetical. Which means that he doesn't know for sure that would be his emotional reaction if it actually happens, he just knows himself well enough that he's pretty certain that it would be that. I'm the same. But, at the same time as acknowledging that, I'd expect that if he or I were actually in that situation, and were surprised to find out that it wasn't a turn-off, we wouldn't fight or condemn that emotion either, because it's not a moral judgement on someone, it's just not the expected emotional reaction. Should that ever happen, I'd just think "oh, I thought that would turn me off - how strange, it doesn't", and get on with life. And that's why I think the suggestions that one is rejecting a trans person as a woman are off the mark. It's just acknowledging that you have a fairly decent grip on knowing what you find attractive or not. Same goes for race - I generally find women from certain races or nationalities more attractive than others. I'd expect I'm not alone in that. That doesn't mean that I reject women from other races, or that I'm racist, just that, on an animal level, I know what I generally find attractive.

I've long believed that our emotional reactions are morally neutral. We cannot control them, they are like gauges on a vehicle. We can, however, control our will - our response to those emotions, and our subsequent actions.

In terms of gender, it seems like one side of the argument boils down to "your gender is whatever your chromosomes say", and the other boils down to "your gender is whatever you say it is". May I suggest that gender is much more difficult to pin down than either of those, that there are a number of factors that determine our gender - our chromosomes, our self-identity, but also, what bits we have, what hormones are running through us, how long we have self-identified as a certain gender, and what percentage of our life that is. For most people, the answers to the above yield a pretty certain answer. For others, it's more difficult. That doesn't mean that they're 50% male 50% female (or any other proportion). Just that, it's not so straightforward a question to answer as it would be for other people. And it's that muddier water that results in the emotional reaction that someone like LeRoc or I have.

(Edit spelling)

[ 17. April 2013, 22:29: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If Playboy printed "These women cannot bear children" on the covers of their magazines, would men then actually read the articles? Methinks not.

Based on what?
Based upon the reasoning that men's attraction to the women within have little to do with the possibility of procreation.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

I've long believed that our emotional reactions are morally neutral. We cannot control them, they are like gauges on a vehicle. We can, however, control our will - our response to those emotions, and our subsequent actions.

We do not directly control our emotional responses, but they can be based on things we do control. So, therefore, not inherently morally neutral.
Again, I am making no moral judgements here so far.

--------------------
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
argona
Shipmate
# 14037

 - Posted      Profile for argona   Email argona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If it bothers you, you can get clues this way. Not conclusive evidence BTW, but it could give a whole new meaning to hand-holding.

Haha, according to finger-length, not to mention other gender tests that were much in vogue a few years back, I have a female-type brain. Despite which, I've always been quite happy with my phenotype. These things are complex.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The thing is, there are loads of potential reasons that one might find someone attractive at first, then find out something that makes them unattractive afterwards. I find this idea that we should be able to control that very strange.

Everybody who didn't stay together with their first boyfriend or girlfriend agrees with you.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We do not directly control our emotional responses, but they can be based on things we do control. So, therefore, not inherently morally neutral.
Again, I am making no moral judgements here so far.

Maybe it's just semantics, but I still think it's those actions that are morally questionable - the emotions that might come as a consequence have no moral quality whatsoever. If I forget to fill my car up, it's that action that was dumb. The petrol gauge telling me the tank's empty tells me what I did was dumb, but has no moral status itself. And emotions are much more complex than that crude example anyhow. There are so many factors that affect our emotions, that it's often not easy to ascertain what might have caused them in the first place. But that's one reason why they're useful - they can provoke us into figuring out what's going on behind our actions, attitudes, motives & judgments.

So, given that we can change our actions and attitudes to subsequently change our emotional reaction in terms of who we find attractive, and assuming that we want to, how would one go about doing that for this particular example? I'd guess that the success rate of someone changing what they inherently find attractive isn't that high (although the stop-being-gay Christian camps might argue with that). So, how would someone who is turned off by the idea of a partner being transgender change themselves so it's no longer the case?

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think voluntarism (the idea that I can control feelings and thoughts) is negated by the idea of the unconscious, the idea that those feelings and thoughts have a source beyond ego. OK, you can argue against the idea of the unconscious, as for example, Sartre did, but in practical terms, it does seem difficult to actually control one's inner life. Or those people who try to do this, end up knotted up more than a laptop lead. Hence, as already stated by others, what is at issue is what one does with feelings and thoughts.

I remember in this context, an interview I read with a Zen teacher who was asked if all the decades of meditation has shrunk his shadow (the dark side of inner life), and he replied, no, no, shadow now huge.

[ 18. April 2013, 08:54: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Isn't the idea behind Cognitive Behaviour Therapy that by effort one can change feelings?

However, I suspect, like the light bulb, you must really want to change. There's a profound difference between you wanting to change, and somebody else telling you that's what they think you ought to want to do.

This statement may enrage some Shipmates, but there are also sufficiently few trans people around that for most of us, there are other more boring qualities of personality that are of higher priority to work on. And particularly if we are already united with a life partner in a committed inter-personal relationship postulated on us fancying them and not fancying anyone else.

[ 18. April 2013, 09:42: Message edited by: Enoch ]

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If Playboy printed "These women cannot bear children" on the covers of their magazines, would men then actually read the articles? Methinks not.

Based on what?
Based upon the reasoning that men's attraction to the women within have little to do with the possibility of procreation.
If Playboy were to announce "This issue features all 'trans women'", then I reckon they would see a considerable reduction in sales. And of course, the women actually on show in Playboy are in an age range that's basically optimal for procreation. If they were to show much older models, then they would lose sales again, though probably less than with '"trans women". (And if they were to show models much younger than that age, society would come down on them like a ton of bricks.)

The point here is that sexual desirability is normally ordered to procreation. That does not at all mean that everybody who desires sex desires or expects to procreate. Rather obviously this is not the case, as the good sales of contraceptives or sex past menopause show. It means that the sort of thing we typically desire sexually in the natural run of things would typically result in offspring and/or in improved survival odds of offspring (pair-bonding by sex, even in old age, is not actually at odds with this statement).

Sexual desire is not a precision tool for achieving procreation. Neither is it impervious to disturbances of biological or social kind. But to deny that procreation is what sexual desire is ultimately about is to deny the fucking obvious.

--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear

Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's that word 'about' which is an equivocation. When I felt randy as a 20 year old, I wasn't thinking of babies. Sure, you can argue that sex is connected with babies, but that doesn't mean that sex is always about babies.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can argue that sex is connected with babies, but that doesn't mean that sex is always about babies.

It could be said that evolution has made human reproduction a prority by ensuring that humans often have an urge to mate even when they don't want children; the imperative is to optimise the creation of babies, planned or unplanned, who'll be looked after in any case, since mothers usually want to protect their offspring.

Infertile couples pair up all the time, because we are more than the sum of animal impulses. But the agony pages of magazines suggest that even women who don't particularly want children fear that sterilisation or infertility will make them less attractive to men. And we're all aware of the stereotypical male who finds his menopausal wife less attractive than the fertile young women he sees around him, even though he may appear to be indifferent to the idea of actually fathering more babies. His subconscious is telling him something different!

Animal instinct isn't politically correct. But if we're 'nothing but mammals' (as the song goes), what other option do we have?

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It could be said that evolution has made human reproduction a prority by ensuring that humans often have an urge to mate even when they don't want children;

Or you could say God made sex fun because we have to do it anyway, and he wants us to be happy.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If Playboy were to announce "This issue features all 'trans women'", then I reckon they would see a considerable reduction in sales. And of course, the women actually on show in Playboy are in an age range that's basically optimal for procreation. If they were to show much older models, then they would lose sales again, though probably less than with '"trans women". (And if they were to show models much younger than that age, society would come down on them like a ton of bricks.)

The point here is that sexual desirability is normally ordered to procreation.

Ummm, I'm not sure how to break this to you, but the kinds of sex acts usually associated with the purchase of Playboy aren't "ordered to procreation".

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
When I felt randy as a 20 year old, I wasn't thinking of babies.

Neither are the birds and the bees thinking about babies when they have it off. Nature is cunning that way.

Think of it as evolution in action.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But this perpetuates the equivocation as to what sex is 'about'. Some people are arguing that sex is really 'about' procreation, since evolution has ordered it that way. But does this mean that my own feelings about sex are irrelevant?

This strikes me as a weird kind of pseudo-determinism, which actually erases present experience, in favour of some background causation.

This is like saying that the mind is created in the brain, therefore it is all neurons.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A person's preference for, or against, red-haired people. Tell me how that is about procreation.
Or preferring blondes? Or..... You get the picture. Many things which have nothing to do with procreation get engines running.

--------------------
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools