quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
If you were going to have sex with someone would you feel you had a right to know about their gender history?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
If you were going to have sex with someone would you feel you had a right to know about their gender history?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
In the sense that I'd also want to know their surname and middle name, a great deal about their past and family life, then yes.

If you don't know those things, you're probably shagging around which isn't something I think's really on.

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely one can tell, anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, you've either done a top level security background check or you are a tart? No middle ground then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely one can tell, anyway?

---

Surely? How?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely one can tell, anyway?

---

Surely? How?

---

Like the deep voice and broad back. That's what I reckon anyway.

---

My wife is 4 inches taller and wider than me, and regularly gets addressed as Mr. Feet on the telephone. Try again.
 

---

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
If you (think you) can tell anyway, why bother asking?

If you can't tell, why worry? Unless, as Marvin said, you are considering having children together.
 

---

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
An absolute right? No. Something that you should generally be able to expect? I think this is a question which it is pretty much impossible to answer, because it depends very much on your own feelings about how close you need to be before you get into bed with someone. A person's gender history is (or can be) a very personal, private thing that they are emotionally vulnerable about. If you're waiting for marriage before going to bed with someone, or even waiting a few months, or waiting to be in love, you might well feel that this level of information about each other is something that needs to be shared. In the same way that you might find it weird that your spouse never mentioned that sibling who died, or that experience that changed the course of their entire life. It's that kind of level of disclosure. Or it can be. And even then, you don't have a "right" to know these things, although it is the usual course of a relationship to share personal stuff when you become emotionally close.

But for a one night stand without that kind of emotional commitment? Hell no.
 

---

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
"Have sex with" ???

Do you mean what the younger generation call being a "friend with benefits" or are you talking about a relationship.

If the former, then for any friendship to reach that stage you should know their "gender history" - if there is one?

If a relationship then you should know - but equally whatever the situation shouldn't matter.

Since you pose the question it rather implies that you know, or think you know, the answer in any case, hm?

Or is it that you're planning on "taking a flyer with a trannie" so you can brag about it on twitter???...

[ 10. April 2013, 17:03: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
In the sense that I'd also want to know their surname and middle name, a great deal about their past and family life, then yes.

If you don't know those things, you're probably shagging around which isn't something I think's really on.

Thurible

---

So, you've either done a top level security background check or you are a tart? No middle ground then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
If you were going to have sex with someone would you feel you had a right to know about their gender history?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
"Have sex with" ???

Do you mean what the younger generation call being a "friend with benefits" or are you talking about a relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely one can tell, anyway?

---

Surely? How?

---

Like the deep voice and broad back. That's what I reckon anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
A friend had large ugly scar on her chest from heart surgery. She asked me when to tell the guy she was dating (an ex boyfriend of mine, nice guy not my type, I coached her on how to attract him). My answer was, before you get engaged but after he's in love with you. Same answer for other history you think too intimate for casual conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
From the trans woman's point of view, she is a woman. Not an anything-hyphen-woman, just a woman. From a legal point of view, as Jade points out, she is a woman. But, as we see, this view is not held by everyone in society. From AO's point of view, she is a man who has had some plastic surgery. As we're talking about relationships, the fact that she identifies as a woman isn't enough - her partner or potential partner also has to identify her as a woman. So if our trans woman gets involved with someone with AO's viewpoint, sooner or later her Y chromosome is going to come to light, and there's going to be anger and disgust and rejection, which isn't going to be much fun for anyone.

---

quote:

---

The only thing I would see a bit differently is that a "trans woman" sees herself as a "woman", full stop. Not quite, unless that "trans woman" has also suffered profound amnesia. Life history and memories thereof usually remain. The "trans woman" has not always been a "woman" and will be aware of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The only thing I would see a bit differently is that a "trans woman" sees herself as a "woman", full stop. Not quite, unless that "trans woman" has also suffered profound amnesia. Life history and memories thereof usually remain. The "trans woman" has not always been a "woman" and will be aware of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Interested in the use of the word "cis" as a contrast to "trans". The only time I've heard this used in chemistry.

Links: Cis - trans isomerism

Is this actually a usage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Interested in the use of the word "cis" as a contrast to "trans". The only time I've heard this used in chemistry.

Links: Cis - trans isomerism

Is this actually a usage?

---

yes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

Back to the topic, the issue of casual sex is part of this topic, and without that being addressed, the 'right to know' about gender history is incomplete. I hold fully that some discussion is not only reasonable but actually required before sexual activity. And not only discussion, but some understanding between the people involved, of the nature of their relationship, and ensuring that the nature of it is shared. Reasons: risk of exploitation, risks harm to one or both parties, and the consideration that casual sex by nature is harmful psychologically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, you've either done a top level security background check or you are a tart? No middle ground then?

---

The middle ground is talking to them. On a number of occasions.

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Interested in the use of the word "cis" as a contrast to "trans". The only time I've heard this used in chemistry.

Links: Cis - trans isomerism

Is this actually a usage?

---

yes

---

It's a label that has been invented by the trans community (plus fellow travellers) to put everyone else in a box. It's not a label that has been created and owned by people to whom it applies; it's a power grab by people who want to gain control of the terms of reference by choosing my name. I'm not cis-anything: I reject anyone else's attempt to tell me that this is a box and I'm in it. Next you'll be telling me that I'm anti-choice, anti-life, heathen, god-botherer or any other term that gets forced on me from outside.

Edit: See here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
We are the default. Conversely, I am a gay woman, and therefore in the minority - most people are heterosexual. Recognising that fact does not diminish my identity - I don't have to label everyone else 'notgay'.

---

quote:

---

George Spigot: If you were going to have sex with someone would you feel you had a right to know about their gender history?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Interested in the use of the word "cis" as a contrast to "trans". The only time I've heard this used in chemistry.

Links: Cis - trans isomerism

Is this actually a usage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
-----------
Many, especially older generations, see sex within marriage v wonton promiscuity. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Perhaps a better question would be, if you were not told, would you feel betrayed, or let down, or as if you were not (sufficiently) trusted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
We are the default. Conversely, I am a gay woman, and therefore in the minority - most people are heterosexual. Recognising that fact does not diminish my identity - I don't have to label everyone else 'notgay'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cosmic dance:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
-----------
Many, especially older generations, see sex within marriage v wonton promiscuity.

---

The things you can do with Chinese food!! [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:

I really do not understand people who assume that LGBT people are promiscuous bedhoppers. It is my experience that they are more faithful to their partner than a serially married couple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

I submit the following exhibit for the jury:
Nicole Maines speech

You really want to maintain that she's a boy who's been "tarted up"? Really?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
"Have sex with" ???

Do you mean what the younger generation call being a "friend with benefits" or are you talking about a relationship.

If the former, then for any friendship to reach that stage you should know their "gender history" - if there is one?

If a relationship then you should know - but equally whatever the situation shouldn't matter.

Since you pose the question it rather implies that you know, or think you know, the answer in any case, hm?

Or is it that you're planning on "taking a flyer with a trannie" so you can brag about it on twitter???...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Not according to the trans people I know, IngoB. They would say they'd always had that gender, but they had not always had bodies to match.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
What makes it relevant to this post is the fact that the charge was sex by fraud. Might this set a legal president making the situation posed in my OP illegal? A lot of people are currently worried that it will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Minor correction; Wilson is 25 now. At the time of the first offence (2008) he was 19/20, claiming to be 17/18. At the time of the second offence (2010) he was 22, claiming to be 17.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
What makes it relevant to this post is the fact that the charge was sex by fraud. Might this set a legal president making the situation posed in my OP illegal? A lot of people are currently worried that it will.

---

The facts in the Wilson case are rather different from those posed in your post. Wilson, who is biologically a woman but identifies as male, is 25 or 26 years old, but pretended to be a 16 or 17-year-old boy in order to engage in relationships with 15-year-old girls. In the course of the sexual act itself, he used a sex toy, passing it off as the penis he doesn't have. One can imagine the degree of deliberate concealment needed to prevent the girl from noticing.

This is a rather different set of facts from the mere "not disclosing gender history" that you posed earlier.

For a trans man to say that he is a man is not a lie, except perhaps a little by omission. So far as I can tell, Wilson has not undergone any kind of gender reassignment, and still possesses a female birth certificate, meaning that even the assertion of his manhood might technically be a lie, but that's a fine point that isn't I think worth pursuing. Pretending to have a penis that you don't have is, I think, rather more germane.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

Because of the media interest in this case a lot of people are talking about the specific scenario I posted.

But yes. The case is different and that's why I didn't want to link to it in my OP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely one can tell, anyway?

---

quote:

---

Leaving aside my own thoughts regarding sex change operations, if withholding the truth about ones past is the only way such a person feels they can get a bit then I would suggest the problem is with them, not anyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
With regards to the OP, I'm wondering exactly how you'd classify 'gender history' for those who don't fit in (that adorably quaint) concept of binary gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Minor correction; Wilson is 25 now. At the time of the first offence (2008) he was 19/20, claiming to be 17/18. At the time of the second offence (2010) he was 22, claiming to be 17.

---

Thanks, NEQ - I had the ages jumbled. I don't think the age thing is relevant to the question of guilt, although his being younger might well call for a more lenient sentence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

I submit the following exhibit for the jury:
Nicole Maines speech

You really want to maintain that she's a boy who's been "tarted up"? Really?

---

Well, yeah. I would suggest that such people are very confused and that an operation is not the answer but psychological help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pommie Mick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

I submit the following exhibit for the jury:
Nicole Maines speech

You really want to maintain that she's a boy who's been "tarted up"? Really?

---

Well, yeah. I would suggest that such people are very confused and that an operation is not the answer but psychological help.

---

Absolutely. At 14, do you really think he's old enough to clearly define his identity in such a conclusive and, unusual way? Heaps of kids still want to be astronauts at that age...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Interested in the use of the word "cis" as a contrast to "trans". The only time I've heard this used in chemistry.

Links: Cis - trans isomerism

Is this actually a usage?

---

yes

---

It's a label that has been invented by the trans community (plus fellow travellers) to put everyone else in a box. It's not a label that has been created and owned by people to whom it applies; it's a power grab by people who want to gain control of the terms of reference by choosing my name. I'm not cis-anything: I reject anyone else's attempt to tell me that this is a box and I'm in it. Next you'll be telling me that I'm anti-choice, anti-life, heathen, god-botherer or any other term that gets forced on me from outside.

Edit: See here

---

Except that cis simply means 'not trans' and is about as offensive as heterosexual. The only reason cisgender people object to being described as such is because it means they're no longer recognised as being the 'default'. I am happily and openly cisgender, there is absolutely no reason for me object to that anymore than I should object to being called a brunette. I am not trans, therefore I am cis. Simple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Leaving aside my own thoughts regarding sex change operations, if withholding the truth about ones past is the only way such a person feels they can get a bit then I would suggest the problem is with them, not anyone else.

---

I would suggest it's far more likely that they consider it to be personal/private information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Clonk:

A question for the people who do not like the term 'cis' - do you also object to being called neurotypical (assuming you are)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Clonk:

A question for the people who do not like the term 'cis' - do you also object to being called neurotypical (assuming you are)?

---

Outside the context of discussing ASC?

Thurible

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Minor correction; Wilson is 25 now. At the time of the first offence (2008) he was 19/20, claiming to be 17/18. At the time of the second offence (2010) he was 22, claiming to be 17.

---

Thanks, NEQ - I had the ages jumbled. I don't think the age thing is relevant to the question of guilt, although his being younger might well call for a more lenient sentence.

---

Surely, the ages are relevant as this would be an adult having sex with a child ? A crime regardless of gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Surely, the ages are relevant as this would be an adult having sex with a child ? A crime regardless of gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Clonk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thurible:
Outside the context of discussing ASC?

Thurible

---

Yes. I think there are definite parallels between that and this, so it would be good to know why they are different or if they're perceived similarly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely one can tell, anyway?

---

Surely? How?

---

Like the deep voice and broad back. That's what I reckon anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Hm. There is a theological and philosophical approach which suggests that gender has an ontological aspect-

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I know precisely two people who are trans women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Agreed. 'Cis' is fine as a term of art within the trans community or in gender journals, but it's a bit silly otherwise. Similarly, "hearing" is not in any sense part of my identity, but I might use it to refer to myself in a Deaf context. "Able-bodied" is only used by contrast to "disabled" - able-bodied people don't think of that as part of their identity either.

If you want to identify with a label, it's only really useful if that label distinguishes you, and people like you, from everyone else. A label which is shared by 99.9% of the population or more isn't useful.

I'm not a trainspotter either, but the only time I'd identify as "not a trainspotter" would be if a trainspotter society was meeting in my local pub.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Similarly its no fundamental part of my conscious sense of my identity that I am male or that I am white, and barely one that I am British or English. But that doesn't mean I should object when others think of me in those ways. Search online for "marked/unmarked".

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, I was under the understanding that trans* people wishing to do some reassignment stuff in the reverse direction is much less common than assumed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Oh it was a malicious trolling attempt anyway. My bad for answering you as if you were particiapting in a conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
From my point of view, you can add "neurotypical" to the long laundry list of "normal" descriptors that I think are silly when used outside their specialized field, yes. If we spend out time listing all the unusual things that I am not, we'll be here all day. It's rather more efficient to just list the things about me that are uncommon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

Oh it was a malicious trolling attempt anyway. My bad for answering you as if you were particiapting in a conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I can't think of a reason to object to it other than "I want to make it clear that trans people are not as good as me - I am normal and they are not."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

Oh it was a malicious trolling attempt anyway. My bad for answering you as if you were particiapting in a conversation.

---

Ah! Ad hominem. Care to actually address the comment, which is actually quite serious because this is how most people would view people who have had sex change operations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I can't think of a reason to object to it other than "I want to make it clear that trans people are not as good as me - I am normal and they are not."

---

Well for a start, there is a position within feminism that would want to move beyond gender roles. This an idealogical position that sees gender as limiting the individual - and therefore social labelling that confirms or strengthens gender roles is seen as undesirable.

I think that one of the reasons that people within some feminist traditions have been hostile to transpeople in the past, and some still are, is because they see many ftm transpeople as promoting stereotypical images of femininity. Many high profile transwomen project a kind of hyperfemininity - e.g. Grayson Perry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

Oh it was a malicious trolling attempt anyway. My bad for answering you as if you were particiapting in a conversation.

---

Ah! Ad hominem. Care to actually address the comment, which is actually quite serious because this is how most people would view people who have had sex change operations?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

Oh it was a malicious trolling attempt anyway. My bad for answering you as if you were particiapting in a conversation.

---

Ah! Ad hominem. Care to actually address the comment, which is actually quite serious because this is how most people would view people who have had sex change operations?

---

Imagine you had a one night stand with a transwoman - but only found out later that she was born a man. What would be your concerns at this point ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

I submit the following exhibit for the jury:
Nicole Maines speech

You really want to maintain that she's a boy who's been "tarted up"? Really?

---

Well, yeah. I would suggest that such people are very confused ...psychological help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

Oh it was a malicious trolling attempt anyway. My bad for answering you as if you were particiapting in a conversation.

---

Ah! Ad hominem. Care to actually address the comment, which is actually quite serious because this is how most people would view people who have had sex change operations?

---

Really? Have you run a survey?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

I submit the following exhibit for the jury:
Nicole Maines speech

You really want to maintain that she's a boy who's been "tarted up"? Really?

---

Well, yeah. I would suggest that such people are very confused ...psychological help.

---

Yeah, they used to say that about gays too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

Oh it was a malicious trolling attempt anyway. My bad for answering you as if you were particiapting in a conversation.

---

Ah! Ad hominem. Care to actually address the comment, which is actually quite serious because this is how most people would view people who have had sex change operations?

---

Really? Have you run a survey?

---

Have you? In quite case I go by my knowledge of people I know, most of whom are average people. It's what's commonly known as an educated guess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

Oh it was a malicious trolling attempt anyway. My bad for answering you as if you were particiapting in a conversation.

---

Ah! Ad hominem. Care to actually address the comment, which is actually quite serious because this is how most people would view people who have had sex change operations?

---

Imagine you had a one night stand with a transwoman - but only found out later that she was born a man. What would be your concerns at this point ?

---

Ha! I don't have a casual view of sex therefore I don't go in for one night stands. As I said in my reply to George Spigot above such, I guess, reap what they sow. But to the answer the hypothetical situation I'd probably spend the next week in the shower.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

I submit the following exhibit for the jury:
Nicole Maines speech

You really want to maintain that she's a boy who's been "tarted up"? Really?

---

Well, yeah. I would suggest that such people are very confused ...psychological help.

---

Yeah, they used to say that about gays too.

---

Yes, I know. I would also suggest that such things problems are spiritual in nature. In other words the answer to the problem is a spiritual one not a surgical one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
And that is the part I find odd - you found the person sexually attractive and assuming the sex was satisfactory at the time - why would finding out afterwards effect you ?

I can understand why it might put you off in the first place, but why would it leave you feeling unclean afterwards ? What would you be trying to remove by showering ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

I submit the following exhibit for the jury:
Nicole Maines speech

You really want to maintain that she's a boy who's been "tarted up"? Really?

---

Well, yeah. I would suggest that such people are very confused ...psychological help.

---

Yeah, they used to say that about gays too.

---

Yes, I know. I would also suggest that such things problems are spiritual in nature. In other words the answer to the problem is a spiritual one not a surgical one.

---

Amazingly, I identified your position here as "mediaeval" before you confirmed it with this posting.

---

quote:

---

Doublethink: Imagine you had a one night stand with a transwoman - but only found out later that she was born a man. What would be your concerns at this point ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Doublethink: Imagine you had a one night stand with a transwoman - but only found out later that she was born a man. What would be your concerns at this point ?

---

I've had casual sex sometimes, and to me it is based on some kind of mutual agreement.

If I'd put it into words, it would go something like this: "I'm here, you're here, and there's obviously a sort of tension going on between us. We're sexually compatible and we would both enjoy it. We've made clear to eachother that we have no expectations beyond that, and if there's any kind of emotional fall-out each of us will take the responsibility to deal with that individually. And we'll use a rubber of course."

To me, this kind of (half-implicit, half-explicit) agreement makes sure that we don't treat eachother as an object. Treating someone as an object involves not caring about their opinion. But when we've both agreed to this, at least there is some form of mutual respect between us. Sex like this isn't as good as sex with someone you really love of course, but it isn't that bad. And it can be a good substitute if the latter isn't available at the moment.

If a transgender person person would hide their sex/gender history (I'm not sure which word would apply in this case), then at least one part of this agreement would be based on a lie, since I am not sexually compatible with a transgender person.

Oh, I have no doubt that the mechanical part would work, but as a straight male I have a deep revulsion to the idea of having sex with another man, and this extends to having sex with a trans. It's a deep, biological thing.

To make myself very clear: I don't have a revulsion against trans people, just to the idea of having sex with them. This distinction is important. I can see a male-to-female trans person as a woman, but not as someone I could be sexually compatible with.

I'm sure that this feeling is shared by many straight men, so to me a transgender couldn't just assume that I would be okay with having sex with her. To me, not making this explicit would definitely be a form of betrayal.

---

quote:

---

Doublethink: Sexual attraction - as in the physiological response - is based on pheromones and bodyshape (+ maybe smell).

---

quote:

---

Doublethink: What is your revulsion to male/male sex a revulsion to exactly ?

---

If I were in the situation you described, where I had casual sex with a woman who later reveiled to me that she was a trans, I could say without exagerration that I would literally vomit my guts out. I would feel deeply betrayed and indeed very angry.

I do believe it is an evolutionary thing. Within evolution, sexuality has never been restricted to pheromones, it has always been coupled to 'higher' psychology as well. I really think that this revulsion is in my genes.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Well,I grant you that disgust is one of the most powerful emotions and you know your own psyche best. I still find it odd that it could be engaged so powerfully in retrospect.

[ETA it is as if you are described the emotional response to rape without the initial trauma really.]

[ 11. April 2013, 15:38: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 

---

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
In your genes, or in your head? Not having a go, at all - I have no idea how I'd react, and I'm unlikely ever to find out* - I'm just curious, because to me this seems like a psychological/cultural conditioning issue, rather than something genetical hardwired.

As in, to provoke that strong a reaction then presumably you identify as strongly heterosexual, find the idea of homosexual sex deeply icky, and would feel you'd been misled into having homosexual sex. This despite the fact that actually you wouldn't - you'd have had sex with someone who views themselves as female, acts female, and physically 'presents' as female, and whom you considered and interacted with as a female.

I can understand a "Hrm, weird" factor; I can even understand there being a bit of a psychological ick factor for some people ahead of the game. But I can't quite get where the ick factor comes in after the event if there was no cause for pause in the lead up and during. All you've done is demonstrate that the other person is indeed a woman, not a fella.

Unless you're especially hung up on the old joke about the wedding night confession "I used to be a hooker"


*I have trans friends, but I also have a wife and a traditional take on monogamy being a good thing, particularly when you promised it to the other person.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't really understand why if you were not off-put at the time, you would be revolted later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

Many high profile transwomen project a kind of hyperfemininity - e.g. Grayson Perry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by birdie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

Many high profile transwomen project a kind of hyperfemininity - e.g. Grayson Perry.

---

This is just me checking I'm using the right terms - because I've always understood 'trans' to refer to people who identify with a gender other than assigned to them at birth. My understanding of Grayson Perry would be that he identifies as male, but enjoys cross-dressing. That doesn't fit my understanding of the 'trans' label but it is very likely that my understanding is deficient!

Is Grayson Perry trans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Interested in the use of the word "cis" as a contrast to "trans". The only time I've heard this used in chemistry.

Links: Cis - trans isomerism

Is this actually a usage?

---

yes

---

It's a label that has been invented by the trans community (plus fellow travellers) to put everyone else in a box. It's not a label that has been created and owned by people to whom it applies; it's a power grab by people who want to gain control of the terms of reference by choosing my name. I'm not cis-anything: I reject anyone else's attempt to tell me that this is a box and I'm in it. Next you'll be telling me that I'm anti-choice, anti-life, heathen, god-botherer or any other term that gets forced on me from outside.

Edit: See here

---

Except that cis simply means 'not trans' and is about as offensive as heterosexual. The only reason cisgender people object to being described as such is because it means they're no longer recognised as being the 'default'. I am happily and openly cisgender, there is absolutely no reason for me object to that anymore than I should object to being called a brunette. I am not trans, therefore I am cis. Simple.

---

So first you claimed the right to label me without my consent, now you're psychoanalyzing me over the internet. How is that not offensive?

---

quote:

---

If somebody is agreeing to have sex with you, you have an obligation at the very least to let them know which sex you are which is where the fraud comes in.

---

quote:

---

Snags: In your genes, or in your head?

---

quote:

---

Snags: This despite the fact that actually you wouldn't - you'd have had sex with someone who views themselves as female, acts female, and physically 'presents' as female, and whom you considered and interacted with as a female.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well,I grant you that disgust is one of the most powerful emotions and you know your own psyche best. I still find it odd that it could be engaged so powerfully in retrospect. [ETA it is as if you are described the emotional response to rape without the initial trauma really.]

---

quote:

---

IngoB: A somewhat comparable scenario is perhaps if a twin steals a night of sex from the spouse of the other twin by pretending to be their married partner. Again, the spouse may well enjoy that sex, but I would still consider this to be something at least vaguely related to rape. It is getting sex against the will of the partner, even though the resistance to the sexual contact will only arise in retrospect and not at the time when it happens.

---

quote:

---

I know about ten. And one less than I knew last months because she killed herself at Easter. And at least some of her depression and despair was down to continual rejection from family and former friends.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by birdie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

Many high profile transwomen project a kind of hyperfemininity - e.g. Grayson Perry.

---

This is just me checking I'm using the right terms - because I've always understood 'trans' to refer to people who identify with a gender other than assigned to them at birth. My understanding of Grayson Perry would be that he identifies as male, but enjoys cross-dressing. That doesn't fit my understanding of the 'trans' label but it is very likely that my understanding is deficient!

Is Grayson Perry trans?

---

Yeah, Grayson Perry is a transvestite, not transgender.

---

quote:

---

no prophet: I get what LeRoc is saying. I grew in the era where homosexuality was illegal and a criminal offence.

---

quote:

---

no prophet: In what years did sexual liberalisation occur in Holland?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

no prophet: In what years did sexual liberalisation occur in Holland?

---

I had to look it up, but homosexuality ceased to be illegal in 1811 in all countries that were then occupied by France, including Holland. However, I guess it was still a taboo in many circles until the sixties. When I was young (in the seventies) it was quite normal to talk about it.

---

Wow. You Dutch are progressive! Have visited Holland 4 times and we remarked on politeness as well as openness. You have a lengthy start. Though Dutch seem to like tea in glasses without handles.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

no prophet: Though Dutch seem to like tea in glasses without handles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

no prophet: In what years did sexual liberalisation occur in Holland?

---

I had to look it up, but homosexuality ceased to be illegal in 1811 in all countries that were then occupied by France, including Holland. However, I guess it was still a taboo in many circles until the sixties. When I was young (in the seventies) it was quite normal to talk about it.

---

Wow. You Dutch are progressive! Have visited Holland 4 times and we remarked on politeness as well as openness. You have a lengthy start. Though Dutch seem to like tea in glasses without handles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by birdie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

Many high profile transwomen project a kind of hyperfemininity - e.g. Grayson Perry.

---

This is just me checking I'm using the right terms - because I've always understood 'trans' to refer to people who identify with a gender other than assigned to them at birth. My understanding of Grayson Perry would be that he identifies as male, but enjoys cross-dressing. That doesn't fit my understanding of the 'trans' label but it is very likely that my understanding is deficient!

Is Grayson Perry trans?

---

Yeah, Grayson Perry is a transvestite, not transgender.

---

Oops, yes - sorry - in my defense that I am off work sick so brain slightly fried. I still think my assertion is valid, in that some strands of feminism struggle with transgender issues because it privileges gender. In terms of where we are at as a society, this piece is quite interesting. Sadly, I think does support Ad Orientem's view that many people have little understanding or tolerance for transpeople.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That's political correctness nonsense. If a geezer's had bits chopped off and others added (a sex-change operation) then he's still a geezer even if he's been tarted up to look like a bird.

---

I submit the following exhibit for the jury:
Nicole Maines speech

You really want to maintain that she's a boy who's been "tarted up"? Really?

---

Well, yeah. I would suggest that such people are very confused and that an operation is not the answer but psychological help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
It's a label that has been invented by the trans community (plus fellow travellers) to put everyone else in a box. It's not a label that has been created and owned by people to whom it applies;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
It's a label that has been invented by the trans community (plus fellow travellers) to put everyone else in a box. It's not a label that has been created and owned by people to whom it applies;

---

You mean like "trans"? (link to an explanation of the implicit cissexism of invisibilising cis folks as a nameless norm)[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Let me know another term and I'll happily use it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am also very uncomfortable with the idea that it makes a difference if the woman you've (general you) slept with was assigned male at birth. They've always been a woman, they just haven't always had the externals that society designates as 'female'. It's an external difference, that's it.

---

quote:

---

If you object to having sex with a transwoman because of the external differences,

---

quote:

---

Also noting that transwomen elicit the strongest reactions - what about transmen? Transwomen arouse disgust because our society teaches that being a woman is shameful.

---

quote:

---

Leorning Cniht: You have heard posters on this thread say that they view a trans woman as a a man who has had surgery

---

quote:

---

no prophet: I wonder what other aspects of sexual experience posters think might be well discussed before having sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Transwomen arouse disgust because our society teaches that being a woman is shameful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Transwomen arouse disgust because our society teaches that being a woman is shameful.

---

I would disagree that this is what causes disgust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Leorning Cniht: You have heard posters on this thread say that they view a trans woman as a a man who has had surgery

---

I agree with the rest of your post, but in my case it would be more correct to say: "I see a trans woman as a woman, but not as a woman I could be sexually compatible with."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You have heard posters on this thread say that they view a trans woman as a a man who has had surgery, and the point about relationships is that it is not sufficient for a trans woman to view herself as a woman - it is necessary for her partner to do so as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
if you meet someone and are attracted to them, to the point where you are able to have and enjoy sex with them (let's say, within the context of marriage, to avoid mixing the issue of casual sex into it) then what kind of information could possible retroactively change that? Would that mean that you would have 'always been sexually incompatible' with them, 1984-style?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Transwomen arouse disgust because our society teaches that being a woman is shameful.

---

I would disagree that this is what causes disgust.

---

Quite so. If I were disgusted by having sex with trans women because I'd feel that women are shameful, then logically I would be disgusted by having sex with a woman as well. I can assure you that this is not the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
What makes transwomen disgusting in our society is the same thing that makes homosexual men disgusting (more disgusting than Lesbians): a man—one in the privileged caste—voluntarily assumes (or is seen to assume) the role of a woman—one in the a subordinate caste.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Transwomen arouse disgust because our society teaches that being a woman is shameful.

---

I would disagree that this is what causes disgust. ISTM it is more that they are seen, by some, as gay men who have had surgery. So a straight man might feel he was truly encountering a gay man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
How? Many transwomen are lesbians and are attracted to women. Gender identity and sexual orientation are not related.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You have heard posters on this thread say that they view a trans woman as a a man who has had surgery, and the point about relationships is that it is not sufficient for a trans woman to view herself as a woman - it is necessary for her partner to do so as well.

---

I should add that there is a difference between accepting a trans woman as female socially (legal identity, use of female pronouns, toilets etc.), and accepting her as fully female in the context of a potential sexual partner.

I meant to post this much earlier, but life intervened.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
if you meet someone and are attracted to them, to the point where you are able to have and enjoy sex with them (let's say, within the context of marriage, to avoid mixing the issue of casual sex into it) then what kind of information could possible retroactively change that? Would that mean that you would have 'always been sexually incompatible' with them, 1984-style?

---

Taking marriage out of the equation, I and others suggested the case of a woman who thought she was having sex with her husband/boyfriend, but then found out it was the boyfriend's brother.

With marriage, there are occasional cases of people discovering that the person they married is a half-sibling. The knowledge that you have been having regular enjoyable sex with your brother/sister sometimes causes the kind of retroactive revulsion that we're talking about here. (If you're not raised with a sibling, you are more likely than average to be sexually attracted to him/her.)

In the case of a spouse who reveals that he/she is trans after your marriage, the fact that he/she has been lying in all those conversations about children is the thing that most obviously springs to mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
How? Many transwomen are lesbians and are attracted to women. Gender identity and sexual orientation are not related.

---

In the context of a trans woman having sex with a man, she's probably not a lesbian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Transwomen arouse disgust because our society teaches that being a woman is shameful.

---

I would disagree that this is what causes disgust.

---

Quite so. If I were disgusted by having sex with trans women because I'd feel that women are shameful, then logically I would be disgusted by having sex with a woman as well. I can assure you that this is not the case.

---

Not so fast, LeRoc. Your attitudes toward having sex with women is not the point. What is pertinent is society's attitude toward men who wish to be women, or who wish, in this flawed point of view, to function sexually as women. That is, to be penetrated.

What makes transwomen disgusting in our society is the same thing that makes homosexual men disgusting (more disgusting than Lesbians): a man—one in the privileged caste—voluntarily assumes (or is seen to assume) the role of a woman—one in the a subordinate caste.

Part of the societal confusion is that "the sexual act equals penetrating a vagina with a penis":

--I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
--Yeah, Bill. You got a blow job.

Of course, sex is so much more than penetration, penises and vaginas, but being penetrated in the mouth, anus, or vagina does not make one inferior to the one "doing" the penetrating.

---

(for this and the comment below)
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I take the second half to be a commonplace, that animus toward one class of sexual minority, homosexuals, is motivated by a deep-seated, societal male misogyny. I'm asserting that the animus toward a similar class, transwomen, has a similar etiology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I was speaking generally about transwomen eliciting disgust in society, not just transwomen who have sex with men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Do you not see the transphobia in not accepting a transwoman as fully female regarding sexual partners? Feel free to not have sex with transwomen, but they are either fully women entirely or they are not - and they are fully women.

---

quote:

---

Do black women stop being black if someone isn't attracted to black women?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And the problem is that not everyone accepts that as truth. You have heard posters on this thread say that they view a trans woman as a a man who has had surgery, and the point about relationships is that it is not sufficient for a trans woman to view herself as a woman - it is necessary for her partner to do so as well.

"They have always been a woman" is the way that trans women see themselves, but that doesn't make it objectively true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The only difference between the two is the ontological truth of the person's gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm puzzled as to why transphobia is Purgatory material and homophobia is Dead Horses material?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Do you not see the transphobia in not accepting a transwoman as fully female regarding sexual partners? Feel free to not have sex with transwomen, but they are either fully women entirely or they are not - and they are fully women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Doubleposting to add - I am pretty certain that sexual attraction would not survive if the person was living as a woman but had not physically transitioned. I also don't think that is within my control.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think behind it is the principle that a person's physical make up at birth does not determine the matter.

---

quote:

---

Option 2: This person is a man, but with a psychological disorder that makes him think he is a woman. Doctors know that we are reasonably good at re-sculpting bodies, but astonishingly bad at re-sculpting psyches, so recommend that the best path for the happiness and mental health of this man is for him to live life as a woman, and have his body transformed to resemble the female norm.

Options 1 and 2 are indistinguishable. All the people involved have the same thoughts and feelings, and all the same actions are taken. The only difference between the two is the ontological truth of the person's gender.

Now, you might think option 2 doesn't exist. You might think there's no such thing as a "true" gender independent of how the person feels. You might be right - but equally you might not. The options are indistinguishable, remember - there is no way for us to tell them apart. Choosing between them is a matter of philosophy (or possibly theology).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Our sex is not in the slightest for our choosing, it remains as it has been till our death and if Christianity is right then also beyond in the afterlife (because Christianity insists on bodily resurrection).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Clearly you believe that Option 2 exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Sexual attraction - as in the physiological response - is based on pheromones and bodyshape (+ maybe smell).
[...]
(And in so far as it is evolutionarily driven, it should be driven by physical cues - there is just no way that evolutionary pressure can have changed to respond to recent medico-surgical interventions in the very short window of time available.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
... I'm not a materialist who thinks that our personalities are fully determined by the motions of molecules inside our heads.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

no prophet: In what years did sexual liberalisation occur in Holland?

---

I had to look it up, but homosexuality ceased to be illegal in 1811 in all countries that were then occupied by France, including Holland. [...].

---

Wow. You Dutch are progressive!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... My wife and I met an old friend recently who told us the story of her elder daughter's marriage. The daughter had married and had had children by a man who after several years told her that he had always believed inside that he was a woman. She was devastated by the news, but supported him as he went through the long gender reassignment processes and, eventually, had the necessary surgery. Somewhere along the line (I'm not sure where) there was an amicable divorce so that her ex-husband could marry a man she had fallen in love with. They remained friends and had helped the children together in coming to terms with what had happened.

The latest twist in the tale had occurred recently. He ex-husband has told her that she has become very unhappy in her second marriage and had realised that the underlying reason was that she was actually a lesbian.

I'd never heard anything like that before. We asked our friend how her daughter felt about this latest turn of events. "Absolutely devastated again. She really loved him (her) and I think she still does; she'd really believed that gender reassignment was the best course for him (her) to help him live with the truth about himself (herself). Now she doesn't know what to think." She smiled sadly as she came to terms with the pronoun confusion. "She's not the only one".

Her and me both. Except perhaps to say that it is reasonable to conclude that her daughter's ex-husband is in some way psychologically disordered. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Clearly you believe that Option 2 exists.

---

No. This is not a matter of "belief". What I have pointed our are objective biological realities that cannot be reasonably denied. Of course, everybody is free to declare that they do not care about these facts; and if they appropriately limit their behaviour, they indeed will not come in conflict with these facts. To make that explicit, if one chooses to have sex without the aim of procreation, then one can indeed largely ignore the biological realities of sex determination. However, it does not follow that one can declare these facts irrelevant in general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
From a scientific point of view, it depends a lot on how you view the role of brain formation - as to whether someone can be female or male on the inside whilst not conforming to that chromosomally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
In the same way that doctors can now declare you dead when your lungs still breathe and your heart still beats. As a culture we have chosen to privilege the state of the brain over the state of the body - and in secular life we basically assume the mind arises entirely from the structure, connections and operations of the brain. In talking about the state of the brain - we can still be observing a physical entity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
IngoB - if we could show that all chromosally normal women who *do not* identify as male, and all chromosally male transwomen - had a specific difference in brain structure or connection. So reliable that you could double blind brain scan a group and not distinguish the women and the transwomen - would this change your view ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In short, is the brain more important than the bits? And if the bits should be more important than the brain, why should that be the case?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
At most you could say that you are proposing a different scientific standard for assigning the labels "male" / "female", a standard which can on occasion give results at odds with the chromosomal one. This however would not as such invalidate the chromosomal standard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In short, is the brain more important than the bits? And if the bits should be more important than the brain, why should that be the case?

---

That is not the question. The question is whether the brain is more important than reality. And the answer is: no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In short, is the brain more important than the bits? And if the bits should be more important than the brain, why should that be the case?

---

That is not the question. The question is whether the brain is more important than reality. And the answer is: no.

The "bits" are important because they generally provide a very good indicator of the underlying gametic reality. But this reality does not simply go away if you chop off the bits. And as I've pointed out above, it is simply factually incorrect to claim that any "trans sex" medical treatment has ever happened. Nobody has ever turned a man into a woman, or vice versa. Maybe one day the wonders of gene therapy will get us there, but as of now it simply has not happened. And we do not need advanced gene technology to determine that either. "Trans women" cannot bear children, "trans men" cannot father children. If you could manage to convey all these weird concepts to them, even stone age people could determine those facts by hitting the sack. (For the nitpickers: the confound of infertility would mean quite a lot of hitting the sack in order to statistically separate "sometimes" from "never". But that is not a principle objection to my point, just a practical and potentially enjoyable difficulty.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
But historically, 'male' and 'female' have not usually been defined by chromosomes for the simple reason that people didn't know chromosomes existed. 'Male' was defined by having male sexual characteristics, e.g. a penis. Insisting that it actually means 'having XY chromosomes' is a redefinition of the word. Now, of course, the suggestion that someone can have female characteristics and 'really' be male, because they feel mentally male, is also a redefinition of the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Trans women mother their children. Trans men father their children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Trans men who have a uterus and ovaries have given birth to children - but they are still the child's father.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
If someone in the 19th century wanted to move themselves physically from one sex to the other, to match their felt gender, it did not matter because there was no mechanism to do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I think between the lines of some of this discussion is the issue of whether we should exercise the possible choices or restrain ourselves because of some moral principle. At least that is what I get from IngoB ff. above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Regarding the possibility of children, this hasn't stopped others from being with trans partners. So why is your position right and theirs not? There is adoption and surrogacy, people have plenty of ways of getting around fertility issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:

In a religious context, I tend to wonder at how many will, faced with a conflict between material and psychical data, immediately assume the former to be reliable and the individual to be "confused" or deluded, even when they haven't materialist inclinations otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Trans women mother their children. Trans men father their children.

---

In the sense of providing care to children

---

quote:

---

not in the sense of generating them

---

Where do you think they came from then? Who else "generated" them? As LC notes, this doesn't differ whether you accept "Option" 1 or 2: a trans man can bear a child who is the fruit of his ovaries (cf. Thomas Beaty), and a trans woman can have a child "sired" by another woman.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
IngoB is a Roman Catholic, their default position is that marriage has to have the possibility of procreation (all sorts of issues with that as people get older but anyway).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am interested to know what the position is on gender and marriage rights is according to the RC church - or even just IngoB's position - for some of these people. An XX male for example ? Or someone with more than two sex chromosomes. I appreciate these conditions are relatively rare (though the conservative definition would still give 900,000 people affected in the UK) - but I think such cases serve to test the logic and meaning of some theological / cultural rules.

---

A conservative definition would be 0.1-0.2% prevalence, thus 60-120k people affected in the UK. I do not know that official teaching exists on this point. But if you want my (vaguely Thomist) thoughts...

Every human being is strictly either male or female, because that's what God creates humans as (and we can read so in scripture). This happens through God imposing the essential human form onto the matter of the zygote. Properly this would be called "infusion of the soul", but unfortunately that now evokes Cartesian images of some ghost-like entity mysteriously brought in contact with the body, which is not at all what the Aristotelian/Thomist tradition has in mind. Anyway, what I'm saying is that this "soul" (for the want of a better word) has a specific sex, either male or female, nothing else.

However, the essential form imposed on the matter of a fallen world can end up being defective. The imprint can go wrong in many, many ways, leading to all sorts of problems for the developing human: from simple death to various survivable malformations. One of the possible problems is that the biological machinery of sex is corrupted, which again can happen in a variety of ways. That leads to the "intersex" conditions.

Now, perhaps it is still possible for us to identify a so affected individual as either male or female, by some objective criteria. That is to say, maybe we can make an accurate determination what God intended to create this person as (male or female), even though this is not as obvious as usual. Perhaps however it isn't possible. But that we cannot identify the "Divinely given sex" does not mean that it does not exist. It merely means that we cannot find a means of knowing it from observing the developmental outcome.

If we can make such a determination, and if the person is capable of sex "ordered to procreation" (which does not mean "fertile") in accordance with their so determined sex - possibly after medical help including surgery - then I see no good reason why such a person should not be able to marry.

If we cannot make such a determination, then it gets really tricky. If the person has nevertheless already undergone medical treatment that leads to one specific sexuality (and the ability to perform appropriate sex acts "ordered to procreation"), then I think charity requires that we assume that they are of this sex and allow their marriage.

But what if this medical procedure has not yet been carried out, and it would be for all intents and purposes a random choice? Should we then do it in order to resolve the ambiguity? That's where I am out of my depth, I'm not sure where the fine line between charity and hubris lies there. I note however that the Lord did have this to say on the topic of sexual continence: "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, ... He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." (Matt 19:12) So, hmm.

I have no real idea what percentage of intersex people would fall into the categories I've outlined. I'd hope few would be of the kind where I do not know what is right or wrong, but perhaps many are. However, this much is true in general: in case of doubt the RCC always suggests to stay sexually continent. So I would expect that for at least some intersex people that would be the RC advice given.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I may have had a maths fail - I was trying to calculate 0.018% of 50 million so I multiplied 50,000,000 by 0.018 and it gave me 900,000

(I got the 0.018% figure from wiki:

quote:

---

According to Leonard Sax the prevalence of intersex "restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female" is about 0.018%.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yes, that was how I saw it re IngoB. But it is probably also worth adding that IngoB's position does look like an instance of scientific realism as well as consistent with Catholic dogma. That phrase underlying gametic reality works well for his argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Where do you think they came from then?

---

The biological mother of a "trans woman's" child is whoever carried that child in her womb and gave birth to it. The biological father of a "trans man's" child is whoever squirted out the semen that impregnated the "trans man" with this child. What is this, Sex Ed 101?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I may have had a maths fail - I was trying to calculate 0.018% of 50 million so I multiplied 50,000,000 by 0.018 and it gave me 900,000

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Every human being is strictly either male or female, because that's what God creates humans as (and we can read so in scripture).

---

quote:

---

Originally suggested by IngoB:
.
Every human being is strictly either male or female, because that's what God creates humans as (and we can read so in scripture). This happens through God imposing the essential human form onto the matter of the zygote. Properly this would be called "infusion of the soul", but unfortunately that now evokes Cartesian images of some ghost-like entity mysteriously brought in contact with the body, which is not at all what the Aristotelian/Thomist tradition has in mind. Anyway, what I'm saying is that this "soul" (for the want of a better word) has a specific sex, either male or female, nothing else.

---

And that's a lovely example of why physicists and mathematicians and so on ought not to meddle in biology
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Every human being is strictly either male or female, because that's what God creates humans as (and we can read so in scripture).

---

I know little about intersex but I want t learn more.

From the little what i do know, it is simply not true that 'Every human being is strictly either male or female'

God clearly creates considerable diversity and it we human beings who wish to label people according to sex - as did the biblical writers.

---

quote:

---

What, then, of Numbers 5:3? The phrase which tends translated as “male and female”, and which is taken to imply that the division between male and female is an all-inclusive and immutable dichotomy rather than a continuum, reads (mi-zakhar ve-’ad neqevah), “from male to female”, in the original Hebrew. The form “from A to B” which is used here, however, surely suggests a continuum of some sort – precisely the kind of continuum which Biblical fundamentalists allege to be unscriptural. The form itself points to the logical possibility that there are “in-betweens”. It is thus clear that examination of the original Hebrew has again revealed that it is not the best verse to use if one wants a proof-text to “demonstrate” that physical intersexuality is an offence against the divine order of creation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Where do you think they came from then?

---

The biological mother of a "trans woman's" child is whoever carried that child in her womb and gave birth to it. The biological father of a "trans man's" child is whoever squirted out the semen that impregnated the "trans man" with this child. What is this, Sex Ed 101?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Every human being is strictly either male or female, because that's what God creates humans as (and we can read so in scripture).

---

I know little about intersex but I want t learn more.

From the little what i do know, it is simply not true that 'Every human being is strictly either male or female'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I find Leorning Cniht's assertion that "no objective measurement" can be made about sex as radically absurd as asserting that "no objective measurement" can be made about whether it is raining or not.

---

That's not quite what I said. Of course I can objectively measure whether you have a penis (although it would get us arrested in public ), and with a little more effort I could objectively determine your chromosomal makeup.

Intersex people are off the table for this discussion, so XY = born with male equipment and XX = born with female equipment.

Let's start with the assumption that a psyche - a soul, if you like - has a definite sex, independent of the body. Yes, I know, it's Cartesian dualism, but work with it for the moment, OK.

Option 1, the transgender view, is that a trans woman is born with a female soul, but a male body (XY, penis etc.), and then has surgery on that body to make it look female.

Option 2 is that a trans woman is born with a male soul and male body, but is mentally disordered and
has surgery on that body to make it look female.

There is no objective method of determining the sex of the soul in this framework, so you can't distinguish between 1 and 2. You can examine the body's genitals and chromosomal content, but those are the same in each option.

As I understand your position, you're saying that the dualist view is wrong, so that, by construction, the sex of the soul in our model always matches the chromosomal content. In other words, we're always in Option 2, and Option 1 doesn't exist. And that is the thing which is a point of philosophy or theology.

Jade, I think, would subscribe to option 1 and claim that option 2 doesn't exist, which means that you keep arguing past each other, because your frames of reference don't match.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
And that's a lovely example of why physicists and mathematicians and so on ought not to meddle in biology

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
and there is lots more on Gen 1:27 here as well

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
Apparently. What do you call that carrying/squirting if not "generation"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LQ:
No indeed. IngoB is making the unwarranted jump from "Male and female he created them" to "Either male or female he created each of them."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Let's start with the assumption that a psyche - a soul, if you like - has a definite sex, independent of the body. Yes, I know, it's Cartesian dualism, but work with it for the moment, OK. ... There is no objective method of determining the sex of the soul in this framework, so you can't distinguish between 1 and 2. You can examine the body's genitals and chromosomal content, but those are the same in each option.

---

You start with a false premise that I have rejected explicitly, arrive at a false conclusion from it, and then tell me that I must follow your logic?

A soul is not some ghostly entity with some independent sexuality. A soul is the substantial form of the body. If we see someone who presents all the primary and secondary male characteristics, then that simply is direct and copious evidence that the substantial form of the body, its soul, is male. It is simply absurd to look at a clearly male form and say "That looks very male, I wonder whether it has male or female form?" WTF?! Intersex people present a problem precisely because the evidence before our eyes of their sexual form is unclear. More than biology - namely theology - is required to claim definite sex then. I do not expect everybody to buy this theology. I've provided it on request, and I'm prepared to defend its compatibility with the observed biological facts. That's all.

But if we now get back to our typical "trans person" case, then it is generally not so that the sexual form of their body was in doubt. Presumably there are some intersex trans people, although I'm not sure what that even means. But typically we are talking here about a case where there was one sexual form of the body first, and then - according to largely superficial appearances! - another sexual form of the body. And yes, I can tell. You can tell. Everybody can tell. By objective measurement, if need be. Chopping off, or attaching, "bits" tends to be rather noticeable.
 

---

Posted by loggats (# 17643) on :
 
Interesting discussion and very topical for me because here in Malta there's movement towards the resolution of a landmark case amending the Marriage Act. Malta's marriage act exists/existed in the shadow of Canon law, so it's quite momentous.

I'm not sure where I stand on this whole issue. Are we supposed to think of gender as an entirely personal construct? I was told by a lecturer that the RCC has no official documents on this issue per se, but he'd read one that defaults to the tried and tested "it's disordered" response.

I've read a few participants in this thread who argue ontological origins for sexuality. Could we talk about the presence of femaleness and maleness in every soul, where one predominates but the other also exists? Perhaps fallen nature sometimes gets in the way of ideally expressing true sexual identity in the flesh, but if the resurrected body will perfectly mirror the soul (which is innately sexual), that body will ultimately express eternally what it couldn't in time.

[ 12. April 2013, 21:10: Message edited by: loggats ]
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I know trans people for whom there is no hint that they are trans unless they were to undergo a medical examination. So no, one can't just 'tell' by appearances.
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
There are parts of the bible that some say speak of there being neither male nor female in christ. I've heard that interpreted to mean that those resurrected in christ will neither be male nor female but I guess that's just one interpretation.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
You start with a false premise that I have rejected explicitly, arrive at a false conclusion from it, and then tell me that I must follow your logic?

---

quote:

---

A soul is not some ghostly entity with some independent sexuality.

---

quote:

---

LQ: Someone raised this upthread and I'm sorry I can't remember who know, but it was a good question: if you meet someone and are attracted to them, to the point where you are able to have and enjoy sex with them (let's say, within the context of marriage, to avoid mixing the issue of casual sex into it) then what kind of information could possible retroactively change that?

---

quote:

---

The Silent Acolyte: What makes transwomen disgusting in our society is the same thing that makes homosexual men disgusting (more disgusting than Lesbians): a man—one in the privileged caste—voluntarily assumes (or is seen to assume) the role of a woman—one in the a subordinate caste.

---

quote:

---

Jade Constable: Do you not see the transphobia in not accepting a transwoman as fully female regarding sexual partners?

---

quote:

---

Jade Constable: Feel free to not have sex with transwomen, but they are either fully women entirely or they are not - and they are fully women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

The problem is that the way trans people describe themselves (male person trapped in female body etc.) is explicitly dualist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
People have already given numerous examples on this thread how it is possible to like something and then retroactively 'unlike' it in view of new information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The transphobia is not in you not being sexually attracted to transwomen, it's not seeing them as fully female.

What makes a body male or female? Is a cisgender woman who has a very muscular, masculine body not fully female either? Many cisgender women lack female reproductive organs - what about them?

Bodies are important but not because of the labels we give them, which to be honest are fairly arbitrary. A transwoman's body is a female body, because she is a woman. We are not defined by our bodies.

---

quote:

---

A soul is not some ghostly entity with some independent sexuality. A soul is the substantial form of the body

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The transphobia is not in you not being sexually attracted to transwomen, it's not seeing them as fully female.

What makes a body male or female? Is a cisgender woman who has a very muscular, masculine body not fully female either? Many cisgender women lack female reproductive organs - what about them?

Bodies are important but not because of the labels we give them, which to be honest are fairly arbitrary. A transwoman's body is a female body, because she is a woman. We are not defined by our bodies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
... Your claim that people have a moral obligation to be attracted to transgender people they would have found attractive if they had been cisgender seems a bit more problematic. Given that sexual attraction is such a subjective thing that it can be disrupted by something as trivial as one's taste in movies (A friend of mine told me she met this guy and thought he was really hot and she was all ready to sleep with him--and then he mentioned he liked Lethal Weapon IV), I can't quite see that anyone has a duty to feel attracted to anyone else, regardless of the reason. They turn you on, or they don't. ...

---

quote:

---

Ditto
I'm not sure how I'd feel if I learned that someone I was attracted to was trans. But if I found out after the fact that they had concealed such a major aspect of their history from me, I'd consider that unforgivable dishonesty (whether of commission or omission), and it would certainly be the end of the relationship. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The problem is that the way trans people describe themselves (male person trapped in female body etc.) is explicitly dualist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And I maintain that there is no objective measurement that can distinguish between Thomism and dualism, say. There are theological arguments and philosophical arguments that get you to one place or the other, but nothing that one could call objective proof.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The transphobia is not in you not being sexually attracted to transwomen, it's not seeing them as fully female.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
What makes a body male or female? Is a cisgender woman who has a very muscular, masculine body not fully female either? Many cisgender women lack female reproductive organs - what about them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Bodies are important but not because of the labels we give them, which to be honest are fairly arbitrary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
A transwoman's body is a female body, because she is a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
We are not defined by our bodies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, how do we ascertain the qualities of the soul? The existence and properties of the soul is a faith position with no more, and quite possibly less, evidence than multiple genders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
You both insist that people are either male or female with no ambiguity allowed. It's just that he thinks chromosomes are determinative, while you think it's something more subjective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
So what of the post surgery transgender woman? In some ways she is in a similar state, ie female body but male XY cells. But would those who would find it very difficult if they found that the person they had had sex with was transgendered be less likely to be bothered by finding out someone had gonadal dysgenesis? I suspect the answer is yes but maybe those of you with strong feelings on this could confirm this or not?

If yes then I imagine that the problem is quite specifically that the person has had a male form body at some point in the past and that knowledge provokes a deep seated reaction in someone who is strongly heterosexually orientated, regardless of their respect and acceptance of the transgendered female in their social identity as a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Next time a prospective trans person walks into a doctor's office, they will get to hear "You want to change your sexuality? OK, consider it done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Do you not see the transphobia in not accepting a transwoman as fully female regarding sexual partners?

---

quote:

---

LQ: You might be disgusted with yourself for discovering your enjoyment of human flesh, but does that mean it never happened?

---

quote:

---

Jade Constable: The transphobia is not in you not being sexually attracted to transwomen, it's not seeing them as fully female.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
and there is lots more on Gen 1:27 here as well

---

That link is broken for me. Best I can tell from the various Hebrew interlinears out there, Gen 1:27 simply says "created male and-female". I'm not sure why anybody would bother with Numbers 5:3 in the first place, but the mysteries of such proof-texting are largely lost on me. I would actually bet some money though that the interpretation of Num 5:3 that you have quoted is rubbish, simply because the Jews back then were not generally known for their political correctness and sensitivity on gender issues.

---

quote:

---

The verse states, in the original Hebrew:

(va-yivra’ ’elohim ’et ha-adam be-tzalmo, be-tzelem ’elohim bara’ ’oto, zakhar u-neqevah bara’ ’otam) ‘and God created the man in his image, in the image of God he created him [ (’oto), masculine singular, matching the gender of the noun (’adam) ], male and female he created them [ (’otam), masculine plural this time, which can also be used for sets of nouns which include masculine and feminine nouns]. The shift from (’oto – singular) to (’otam – plural) with reference to (ha-’adam “the man”) is odd, and it seemed clear to the Rabbis that it begged explanation. It is against this background that the following tradition is found:

Rabbi Yirmiyah [Jeremiah] ben ’El’azar said: When the Holy One Blessed be He created the primal man [i.e. “the primal Adam”], he created him an androgyne, and it is therefore said: “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).8
.....Far from being seen as the result and mark of sin, the original hermaphroditism of our species was viewed by these philosophers as a mark of perfection which was subsequently lost, perhaps in consequence of sin. There is also a gloss on Genesis 1:27 attributed to a Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahman, again in Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 8,11 which suggests on the basis of the syntactic ambiguity that the primal Adam was created Janus-faced – presumably male on one side and female on the other – and that the two halves were subsequently severed. The story of the formation of Eve from “Adam’s rib” does not tell against this, because the word (tsela‘), translated here as “rib”, is used elsewhere to refer to a section, wing (as in “the west wing of the building”) or half of a structure. It should be noted that this construal of these verses depends on the literal sense of the verses: they draw directly upon the lexical sense of the Hebrew words which are used in the passage.

The gloss about the original hermaphroditism of the primal “Adam” suggests that fundamentalists ought perhaps to consider it a grave sin against revelation to view intersexuality as “unnatural” or as “the consequence of Adam’s sin” for, as the gloss suggests, hermaphroditism predated Adam’s sin. It would seem to follow that it is the birth of people who are not hermaphrodites which might be “the consequence of Adam’s sin”. Hermaphroditism should perhaps be seen as a reminder of the “original innocence” and perfection before sin distorted it. Many scriptural fundamentalists read scripture very selectively, treating all-too-fallible translations as infallible, belittling the original text of scripture in practice, and ignoring implications of particular passages which, unpalatable though they might be from their point of view, can nevertheless legitimately be teased out of the original texts.
...... Bereshit Rabbah, 8. The tradition that the primal Adam was created two-sided is also found in Talmudic passages: see b Berakhot 61a and b ’Eruvin 18a. Although the Talmudic forms of the tradition do not explicitly note that the pre-divided primal Adam was an androgyne, this is implicit. Those familiar with the dialogues of Plato will recognise the similarity between this Rabbinical tradition and the aetiological myth, which Plato attributes to Aristophanes, in the Symposium 189e - 191a.

---

quote:

---

IngoB: It is quite clear that LeRoc has a trans phobia of a specific kind. He viscerally fears having sex with a trans woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
A transwoman will still have chromosomes XY, and be male, and not at all fully female. This is apart from the whole range of other matters noted above. For me, it would be having sex with a male...

---

quote:

---

marsupial.: I don't share that gut feeling.

---

quote:

---

So, I think that even in the literal sense of 'fear', the word 'phobia' doesn't apply to me.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: The literal sense of phobia does not apply to homophobia or transphobia as they are generally used.

---

That's why I included the word 'even' in my sentence
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
And, I would posit that anyone feeling revulsion, nausea, etc. after learning their partner was a transperson, is trans/homo phobic.*
Unless one vomits at all betrayals.

This is not to imply hate, but there is something there that is less than completely accepting.


*in the applied sense, not the "mummy, I'm afraid," sense.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

lilBuddha: And, I would posit that anyone feeling revulsion, nausea, etc. after learning their partner was a transperson, is trans/homo phobic.*
Unless one vomits at all betrayals.

---

quote:

---

Until a better word is developed, will people please get over it?

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: But this was not meant as an insult.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snags:

Saying to someone who's explicitly and as far as one can tell sincerely stated "I'm on [your] side in all regards, I just don't want to fuck [you]" that they're transphobic is a bit counter-productive.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: We need better words.
Racist is an example.
Take these two statements.
"I really fancy people of (x) race. They are sexy."
"All (x) race should be annihilated."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

lilBuddha: But this was not meant as an insult.

---

Well, you said yourself that you're not using 'phobia' in a literal sense here. So, clearly you are making a moral judgement. While I don't have a problem with that, the history of the word 'homophobic' and its usage does strongly imply a judgement of the person as a whole, and I very much reject this judgement.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: Hate is not part of the basic definition.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: There are a lot of people who, for various reasons, for whom I find no sexual attraction. Few of them cause unease by nature of what they are. When I find myself feeling so, I attempt to look to the causes. I would like to be as egalitarian as possible. (I fail miserably, BTW)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, I would posit that anyone feeling revulsion, nausea, etc. after learning their partner was a transperson, is trans/homo phobic.*

---

quote:

---

Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.

---

quote:

---

Leorning Cniht: Because to me, a straight man finding sex with a man revolting is no more homophobic than someone who doesn't like Brussels sprouts is brassicaphobic.

---

Or belgophobic
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

lilBuddha: Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The transphobia is not in you not being sexually attracted to transwomen, it's not seeing them as fully female.

What makes a body male or female? Is a cisgender woman who has a very muscular, masculine body not fully female either? Many cisgender women lack female reproductive organs - what about them?

Bodies are important but not because of the labels we give them, which to be honest are fairly arbitrary. A transwoman's body is a female body, because she is a woman. We are not defined by our bodies.

---

The most striking thing about this, it seems to me, is that you and IngoB are in total agreement on one point: gender is absolutely binary. You both insist that people are either male or female with no ambiguity allowed. It's just that he thinks chromosomes are determinative, while you think it's something more subjective. (FWIW, I think the whole rigidly binary gender construct is itself oppressive, and I know trans people who feel the same way--but that may be another discussion).

Your claim that people have a moral obligation to be attracted to transgender people they would have found attractive if they had been cisgender seems a bit more problematic. Given that sexual attraction is such a subjective thing that it can be disrupted by something as trivial as one's taste in movies (A friend of mine told me she met this guy and thought he was really hot and she was all ready to sleep with him--and then he mentioned he liked Lethal Weapon IV), I can't quite see that anyone has a duty to feel attracted to anyone else, regardless of the reason. They turn you on, or they don't.

I'm not sure how I'd feel if I learned that someone I was attracted to was trans. But if I found out after the fact that they had concealed such a major aspect of their history from me, I'd consider that unforgivable dishonesty (whether of commission or omission), and it would certainly be the end of the relationship. Your claim that it doesn't matter because gender is a fixed ontological state that is unaffected by trivia such as surgical procedures strikes me as a thin, self-serving rationalization.

---

quote:

---

Jade Constable: It's denying the femaleness of a woman's body just because she's trans that's transphobic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The transphobia is not in you not being sexually attracted to transwomen, it's not seeing them as fully female.

What makes a body male or female? Is a cisgender woman who has a very muscular, masculine body not fully female either? Many cisgender women lack female reproductive organs - what about them?

Bodies are important but not because of the labels we give them, which to be honest are fairly arbitrary. A transwoman's body is a female body, because she is a woman. We are not defined by our bodies.

---

If this is so...

Growing up, I always wanted to be Japanese (the physical type, not the citizenship). I thought the skin color and the eye shape and the bone structure lovely. Today, with the help of surgery and some skin treatments, I could be remade in that image, very convincingly. Assuming I didn't wind up with Michael Jackson style problems.

But ... would I in fact be Asian, then? What if I spoke only Japanese, ate only that food, converted to Shinto, out-cultured those born to it...

My genes would still be mongrel European / American Indian. And any child I bore would make that fact very clear by reverting to type.

Would I be Asian? Or a wannabee?

It concerns me, because I did in fact marry into a different Asian culture and have made the decision NOT to attempt to "go native" because it smacks of cultural appropriation. I will never be Vietnamese, and nothing I could do will change that. I was not born of a Vietnamese mother.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Jade Constable: It's denying the femaleness of a woman's body just because she's trans that's transphobic.

---

No, I deny the femaleness of a trans woman's body because it isn't female.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, I would posit that anyone feeling revulsion, nausea, etc. after learning their partner was a transperson, is trans/homo phobic.*

---

Do you agree that a straight man can feel revulsion over the thought of sex with another man without being homophobic? Or a gay man over the thought of sex with a woman without being heterophobic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Jade Constable: It's denying the femaleness of a woman's body just because she's trans that's transphobic.

---

No, I deny the femaleness of a trans woman's body because it isn't female.

---

But why isn't it female? It's a body occupied by a woman, it is female. My body is female because I am a woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

Just for the record, I don't feel superior in any way to trans people.

---

quote:

---

Jade Constable: It's a body occupied by a woman, it is female. My body is female because I am a woman.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: The food analogy is problematic. The taste of eggs, boiled, baked, fried, etc. makes me gag. The concept of eggs does not.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: BTW, My impression of you is that you are a decent person, even a good one. Not that you need my approbation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
But physically, there are still many aspects of her body that are male in the sex sense. It is these aspects that prevent me from wanting to have sex with her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
IngoB, using animal metaphors to describe groups of people is almost always experienced by those people (and their friends and supporters) as extremely offensive. Please don't do it, there are better ways of making your argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm going to pull you up on this. A trans person is looking to change their body's appearance. They are not looking to change their sexuality - the nature of the people they are attracted to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
We need better words.
Racist is an example.
Take these two statements.
"I really fancy people of (x) race. They are sexy."
"All (x) race should be annihilated."
Both are racist, but the first is very nearly benign. Many would argue that the first is not racist at all. ...

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: It is the revulsion that makes me wonder why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I would hope, though, that most of us of whatever age, object to other people telling us what we ought to feel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

The food analogy is problematic. The taste of eggs, boiled, baked, fried, etc. makes me gag. The concept of eggs does not.

---

quote:

---

loggats: Is it irrational to feel this way? Because if it is there'd be some kind of duty to "get over it".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

loggats: Is it irrational to feel this way? Because if it is there'd be some kind of duty to "get over it".

---

Why? I have plenty of irratonal feelings. In fact, I would say that all of my emotions are at least in part irrational. That's almost the definition of 'emotion'.

---

quote:

---

loggats: But admitting that you feel an irrational revulsion towards somebody (based upon their identity) seems like it would need addressing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Jade Constable: It's denying the femaleness of a woman's body just because she's trans that's transphobic.

---

No, I deny the femaleness of a trans woman's body because it isn't female.

---

But why isn't it female? It's a body occupied by a woman, it is female. My body is female because I am a woman.

---

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".

---

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.

---

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. ...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

What sort of right? Legal?

---

quote:

---

Leglly? Just sex? Not really.

Marriage? Yes, I'd say so.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

loggats: I guess it's like saying you're not attracted to black/Jewish/disabled women.

---

quote:

---

loggats: Still think that classifying transwomen as somehow fundamentally "men" is problematic though.

---

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?

---

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]

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

loggats: So it's objectively true that no transwoman is a woman, in any sense other than cosmetic?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

loggats: I can't bring myself to call a transwoman's self-perception of being a woman an illusion.

---

quote:

---

loggats: Which is, you've implied, subordinate to a genetic reality she has no control over.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: But gender is an illusion, isn't it? Well, OK, a mental construct.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

loggats: So female gender and male sex "co-exist" in the one person? That's quite confusing.

---

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.

---

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

---

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"?

---

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.

---

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 ]
 

---

Posted by John Allman (# 15050) on :
 
@ 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

---

quote:

---

loggats: And that's ultimately futile because nothing can transform her chromosomes.

---

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 ?

---

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.

---

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).

---

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?

---

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.

---

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)?

---

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)?

---

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)?

---

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.

---

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."

---

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!

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... It's just wrong to assume everything would be OK because you think it should be OK.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

They suggest that negative social attitudes towards lesbian women having children have resulted in some choosing alternate goals in life.

---

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.

---

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!

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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;

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
When I felt randy as a 20 year old, I wasn't thinking of babies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Having said that, studies have shown that certain 'types' are more desirable than others. Colonialisation and globalisation have created a certain worldwide 'standard' of beauty that many aspire to, consciously or otherwise. Transgendered people are influenced by such standards as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Having said that, studies have shown that certain 'types' are more desirable than others. Colonialisation and globalisation have created a certain worldwide 'standard' of beauty that many aspire to, consciously or otherwise. Transgendered people are influenced by such standards as well.

---

But the current "standard of beauty" in the United States, at least, is a level of thinness that is associated with low or entirely suppressed ovulation, and hence exactly contrary to reproductive desirability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And yet, as far as we foreigners are concerned, most Americans have a far more comfortable relationship with chubbiness than is found in many other countries. Maybe the extreme thinness is a class thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And yet, as far as we foreigners are concerned, most Americans have a far more comfortable relationship with chubbiness than is found in many other countries. Maybe the extreme thinness is a class thing?

---

No, I'm pretty sure its something invented and perpetuated by the fashion industry rather than a class thing.

Making an argument based on the sorts of figures fashion models have is rather silly imo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And yet, as far as we foreigners are concerned, most Americans have a far more comfortable relationship with chubbiness than is found in many other countries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
So, kissing isn't just an acting out of infantile hunger gratification, it's a return to the most intimate way of learning-- and when we kiss, what we get is a little snapshot of the emotional/ sexual character of the person-their rhythms, their preferences, comfort level, initiative, fun- quotient...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
life is too short to deal with people who can't deal with you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I am in favor of transgendered folk being open about their situation to partners--indeed, to everyone-- as soon as comfortably possible, only because life is too short to deal with people who can't deal with you. And pray God you will run into people who aren't into all the algebraic rules of attraction above, but are open to letting their libido surprise them.

---

 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As is procreation being the only relevant driver of attraction.

---

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: only because life is too short to deal with people who can't deal with you.

---

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: Anyway, to the OP- I am in favor of transgendered folk being open about their situation to partners--indeed, to everyone-- as soon as comfortably possible, only because life is too short to deal with people who can't deal with you. And pray God you will run into people who aren't into all the algebraic rules of attraction above, but are open to letting their libido surprise them.

---

quote:

---

Barnabas62: LeRoc

The real issue is that if you fancy them before you discover they are transgendered, and don't afterwards, what's caused your change of heart?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And then there's the other dimension about which frankly I know nothing; the social politics and manners of casual sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But FFS, none of this is rational, in any case, is it?

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: Nobody does. Which is another practical reason why casual sex is not necessarily a great idea.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: But, I believe B62 was speaking of social politics. And those can be vary convoluted and not everyone is using the same rulebook.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
But the current "standard of beauty" in the United States, at least, is a level of thinness that is associated with low or entirely suppressed ovulation, and hence exactly contrary to reproductive desirability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I did not read Kelly's post as everyone should be open to anything. Only the hope for the transgendered be able to find partners who are open and they should not waste time chasing those who are not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: only because life is too short to deal with people who can't deal with you.

---

Not wanting to have sex with someone = not being able to deal with someone?

---

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: Sexually. Yes. Why waste the time? I mean, we are discussing a transgendered person looking for a sexual partner, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: only because life is too short to deal with people who can't deal with you.

---

Not wanting to have sex with someone = not being able to deal with someone?

---

Sexually. Yes. Why waste the time? I mean, we are discussing a transgendered person looking for a sexual partner, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

Suppose there is a middle-aged lady working at the counter of the coffeeshop where you come sometimes for breakfast. She doesn't have a very high IQ, but she's quite sympathetic and always greets you when you come in. She spends most of her free time watching TV, and sometimes she repeats the latest headlines of Fox News to you. She has a bit of limp and sometimes she coughs a bit because of smoking, but otherwise she is reasonably healthy.

---

(This may be the optimum time in my life to answer this question... )

Based on the above-- and adding none of the sensory cues I specifically mentioned above-- which would be a certain level of physical attraction[I personally prefer-- erm-- unique attractiveness over ideal], eye contact, timbre of voice, etc.-- the only thing that would theoretically put me off would be the IQ (somewhat) and the Fox news (BIGTIME.)The limp and the age would not. The smoking wouldn't either (I actually kind of like how smokers taste.)The gender-- well, I have experienced a few untested libido-surprises, let's say.

If the middle sentence was more like "She watches Mythbusters and The Daily Show and knows everything there is to know about brine shrimp", and there were indeed some crazy sparks flying, I would at least give it some solid thought.

Otherwise, full disclosure works both ways, and me saying,"You know, I sense a connection but I have traditionally stuck with men" is just as important as someone saying "I am trans." I could just as easily say, "There are crazy sparks flying but I can't deal with the Fox News thing, at all." Nobody of any persuasion likes to get the "let's be friends" talk, but sometimes you have to give it.

[ 19. April 2013, 18:14: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

lilBuddha: But, I believe B62 was speaking of social politics. And those can be vary convoluted and not everyone is using the same rulebook.

---

I don't know very well what 'social politics' means in this context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

(Advice not to pursue the unattracted seems eminently sensible, but no longer pursuing isn't the same thing as no longer feeling attracted.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

lilBuddha: But, I believe B62 was speaking of social politics. And those can be vary convoluted and not everyone is using the same rulebook.

---

I don't know very well what 'social politics' means in this context.

---

Well, attempting to explain my understanding, casual sex isn't always truly casual. In theory, casual sex is simply that. In practice, not every participant views it so. There can be expectations, jealousies. There is reaction of one's social circles, etc. In short, unless it is a one time, not see again type of experience, it is a relationship of some sort.

---

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: the only thing that would theoretically put me off would be the IQ (somewhat) and the Fox news (BIGTIME.)

---

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: Otherwise, full disclosure works both ways, and me saying,"You know, I sense a connection but I have traditionally stuck with men" is just as important as someone saying "I am trans." I could just as easily say, "There are crazy sparks flying but I can't deal with the Fox News thing, at all." Nobody of any persuasion likes to get the "let's be friends" talk, but sometimes you have to give it.

---

quote:

---

lilBuddha: Well, attempting to explain my understanding, casual sex isn't always truly casual. In theory, casual sex is simply that. In practice, not every participant views it so. There can be expectations, jealousies. There is reaction of one's social circles, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: the only thing that would theoretically put me off would be the IQ (somewhat) and the Fox news (BIGTIME.)

---

(When I was composing this paragraph, I was deperately looking for things that would turn you off, based on the little things I might know about you from your posting on the Ship. I had already finished this paragraph and was going to hit 'Add reply' when I had the brilliant thought: put in Fox News! I'm glad I didn't miss with this one.)

---

Good call.

.. but there were quite a few thing you thought might matter that didn't, right?

I will also add (and please take this in only the academic way in which we were discussing the matter) when it hit me that you were carefully thinking about what might or might not put me off, my interest level really sparked-- in a way that might provoke me to hand over my phone number, in real life. Somebody showing that much insight into me? Wow!

[ 19. April 2013, 18:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: .. but there were quite a few thing you thought might matter that didn't, right?

---

I admit that I had put some money on the smoking thing. I'm actually a bit disappointed that that didn't get through.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 


( )
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
LeRoc,

Where Kelly lives, about the only thing that would work is the Fox News type of slur.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Zaftig, baby. I ain't nothing but zaftig.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

Suppose there is a middle-aged lady working at the counter of the coffeeshop where you come sometimes for breakfast. She doesn't have a very high IQ, but she's quite sympathetic and always greets you when you come in. She spends most of her free time watching TV, and sometimes she repeats the latest headlines of Fox News to you. She has a bit of limp and sometimes she coughs a bit because of smoking, but otherwise she is reasonably healthy.

---

OK, first off-- she's a waitress. My grandma was a waitress, as were a few of my cousins and my stepsis. I will tend to have friendly feelings toward a waitress. They will have to work at proving to me they are an asshole, if they are.

She is friendly and sympathetic-- full disclosure: I come from a not- very- nurturing background, so someone of either gender who exhibits nurturing qualities will make me fall at their feet-- not necessarily in a sexual way, but it would definitely loosen me up. I might even forget the Fox thing and become passionately attracted to her as potential friend material, which is nothing to sniff at. If there was a "spark",and the above, I might stupidily ignore the Fox thing. Which is why we need to not let the libido fully reign in these things.

The one thing that kind of jumps out at me is the limp-- why the hell would I fault someone for a limp? Shit happens, people develop limps. I guess I can see it making a difference to some folk but it just wouldn't, for me.

I use myself as a case study to point out another area that fosters attraction-- a person's psychosexual background. For good or ill.

Back to my "algebra" snark-- this is Purg so if I am going to snark, I better unpack it, so sorry for that-- I guess I was looking at some of the biology based arguments as kind of like this

A= 8/d+ 76(r) -xyz/54 * f

And what I was seeing was "let d equal visual fertility cues and z equal gender definition cues."

...
...

And... what about all those other letters?

And IMO, if you intergrate the possiblilty of a person having a transcendant soul, you get a lot more letters. That entails really listening to your own soul above all else, because that, if you will, is where God speaks to you.

And God may just like surprises. Just to shake folk up.

To use my current favorite metaphor, why look at the world with the visual spectrum of a cocker spaniel when you can look at the world with a visual spectrum of a mantis shrimp? (Yes, this is hyperbole. But you know what I mean.)

[ 19. April 2013, 21:17: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Zaftig, baby. I ain't nothing but zaftig.

---

What does zaftig mean please? Is it a real word that isn't used round here, or a made up one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Zaftig, baby. I ain't nothing but zaftig.

---

What does zaftig mean please? Is it a real word that isn't used round here, or a made up one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Zaftig, baby. I ain't nothing but zaftig.

---

What does zaftig mean please? Is it a real word that isn't used round here, or a made up one?

---

If only there were some easy way to find out...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Zaftig, baby. I ain't nothing but zaftig.

---

What does zaftig mean please? Is it a real word that isn't used round here, or a made up one?

---

If only there were some easy way to find out...

---

I love this Dave W - how did you do it? Could you google it for me?
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
{google tangent}

Boogie and others, it's easy. Here's the link address Dave used

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=zaftig

lmgtfy stands for "let me google that for you" and you just add the word you want after the /?q=

[ 20. April 2013, 09:27: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
Or, even more simply:

• Go to lmgtfy.com
• Type text into the mock-Google search box
• Hit one of the mock-Google buttons ("Google Search" or "I'm Feeling Lucky"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Can we go back a few steps to a question which has yet to be answered. Several of us have made it clear that we consider transwomen as still male from the point of view of jumping into bed. How would a lesbian consider them, and how would a gay man consider a transman.

---

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: And God may just like surprises. Just to shake folk up.

---

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: Well, part of the idea behind a "surprise" is "doesn't happen often, right?

---

Let's just say that there are people in this world with whom I would be really surprised if I were ever attracted to them
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Thank you Orfeo . You see it as preference for a gender rather than the person's sex - is that right? For me, and for several others above, the question of sex comes into it as well.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :