Wait, I thought we were talking about a fully transitioned TS here - someone with a (constructed) vagina - the “(or had)” part of the OP. Sure, make it an untransitioned TS and the numbers change, I agree.
Wait so now you are willing to use made up statistics as the basis for your own made up statistics and use them all to reach a conclusion?
Say it ain’t so Joe!
The function of a debate is to discuss differing viewpoints. The fact that you can’t grasp the simplest of ethics concepts is exasperating to me but that is a function of debate.
As has been pointed out before, there is no logic into engaging in a sexual encounter that will end badly for both parties (on an emotional level). I seriously doubt it’s possible to pass off a fake vagina as the real thing so what it comes down to is the ethics of a TG engaging in sex for personal physical pleasure at the expense of the negative emotional response of both parties.
It is not ethical to deliberately harm another person emotionally.
No, not stats, I’m just saying that I do understand that more men will be refuse a relationship with a TS with a penis than one without. I was just clarifying my parameters and his so we were all on the same page, more or less. Doesn’t matter to me - it’s a small concession that doesn’t really play into the argument as a whole, IMO. The numbers are immaterial, anyway, I agree with you there.
This is just not true, as has been said before. Sometimes, a person might feel that the sex, itself, is worth the possible bad ending.
And you base this on your experience with “fake” vaginas (could we perhaps stick to using the relatively bias-free “neovagina”?)?
No?
Then how would you know? They do wonderful things with plastic surgery nowadays. My understanding is that artificial lube is all that is required, and hey, I’ve read news stories of guys sleeping with transvestites who were totally suckered, so I don’t give the average male much credit in the vajayjay recognition department.
You keep stating this as though it were axiomatic, but it’s not.
I for one am willing to try and grasp it if you and your chorts here would actually debate instead of offereing “WAG” and mde up statistics while refusing to point to this “ethics code” you claim we are all bound by.
My “WAG” is that you are referring to the Bible but know better than to say so here.
There is no “logic” to any sexual encounters.
To the extent our sexual behavior is constrained, it is because of our socialization and possibly bit not necessarily by our awareness to and acceptance of social norms.
No one is obligated to do anything or not do anything by reasons of ethics in the sexual realm.
[QUOTE]
I seriously doubt it’s possible to pass off a fake vagina as the real thing so what it comes down to is the ethics of a TG engaging in sex for personal physical pleasure at the expense of the negative emotional response of both parties.
[/QUOTE
Says you. If that’s how you want to behave, fine.
No one else is obligated by ethics to behave that way, even if it in regards to a sexual encounter with you, even if that encounter is mutually consensual up until some point.
Why do you keep repeating that as though it is true when you fail each time to present a shred of evidence, depsite libraries full of ethics books, that such an ethical system has ever existed in the history of the world, let along in the present time and situation?
Why should anyone believe your argument?
I know - but let me let you in on a secret - the rhetorical debating technique is to get you to concede a trivial point and then seize on it as evidence that if they should loud enough or make up enough shit or repeat the same shit over and over enough, or offer enough implausible situations, they will seize on your concession that their line of reasoning is correct, and that you are the one being obstinate and offering fallacies not them.
You’ll see 
Best to take the high road all the time in such cases IMHO.
I guess that means in their view, arguing fallaciously is plenty ethical, but flirting with someone who flirts back is not.
I go away for a few days, and when I come back, the true basis of the debate becomes clear.
The debate is clearly “is it ethical to deceive people and take an extreme risk of making them do something they really, really, don’t want to do, which they will regret doing, for no better reason than personal sexual gratification?”
There doesn’t appear to be real debate about the fact this is the issue at hand.
There are (theoretically) three groups of people here (actually two), regarding this question:
-
The people who point out that there are lots of different ethical systems (including, one supposes, ones they invent on the spot to support their point), and since there is not 100% agreement between all possible ethical systems on this question, that no ethics apply to anybody and they can do anything they want up to raping and pillaging and it’s a-okay.
-
The people who point out that there are lots of different ethical systems (including, one supposes, ones they invent on the spot to support their point), and since there is not 100% agreement between all possible ethical systems on this question, that the act in question is not ethical - because you can always find some system that says it isn’t. (Nobody is making this point, as far as I can tell, but it is precisely as valid as point 1, as it uses precisely the same logic; it merely negates the statement in question first.)
-
The people who point out that the only ethical systems that would condone the act in question are dingbat contrived ones, and that the way most people use the word “ethical”, there’s no way in hell deceiving people for sex is “ethical”.
I think the reason nobody is arguing for position 2 is because it destroys the meaning of the word “ethical”, but it does it in a manner that doesn’t condone or support selfish and evil acts. And why bother destroying the meaning of the word if you can’t support your evilness and selfishness by doing so?
Um… where else would an ethical system come from? And don’t most ethical systems involve judging the actions of others? Isn’t that pretty much what they’re for?
I have yet to see anyone making this argument.
My ethical stance on the OP is simple - it’s OK to deceive a person by silence for sexual gratification when the matter on which you’re deceiving them is one in which they are a bigot. This stems from my sincere belief that treating a TS as anything other than their preferred gender is bigotry, and my ethical stance that bigots don’t deserve any respect or consideration (in the matter of their area of bigotry).
Neither of which are made up on the spot, all attempts at snark to the contrary.
Ha! To be honest, I’m not sure what we’re talking about either. The OP does say has or had a penis, so I was talking about the former. I suppose it’s like Shodan was saying – the word “transgendered” can be very tricky!
not_alice, after seeing you in this thread, I can’t possibly imagine that anything beneficial would come out of seriously interacting with you. Your pop psychoanalysis of me just reinforces that. I mean, you think I don’t want to have anything to do with someone else’s penis because I’m insecure? Isn’t that just a different way of saying, “What’s the matter, fraid you might like it?” Tell me, Dr. Freud, since I’m not particularly attracted to blondes, is that another insecurity? A hair color inferiority complex?
It’s quite explictly not_alice’s argument.
Regarding your ethical position, I’d like to point out that you’re categorizing people who have personal preferences in the same slot as people who wish to force other people to abide by those preferences. The former may be staunch supporters for homosexual and transsexual rights, in areas other than their own pants. In my personal lexicon, only the latter are bigots - the former are just people who have preferences. Sexual preferences being no less valid than preferring one flavor of food over another.
Regardless, so in your ethical system you dehumanize bigots (and people with preferences), eh? Fair enough. Can you rob them? Kill them? And if not, why (under your ethical system), are you not able to do so, seeing as they’re already stripped of respect or consideration?
If so, you could cite a post for me?
I’ve said nothing about forcing people to abide by anything, that’s not the defining characteristic of bigotry.
Well, you don’t get to have me use your personal lexicon. Someone who doesn’t like blacks and does nothing about it is still a bigot.
I’d say sexual preferences are more highly charged than simple food preferences - more akin to vegetarianism.
But how much of a sexual preference thing can it be, if the thing that is the no-no is not discoverable by the offendee upfront? This gives the lie to any comparisons to “liking blondes” or the like. Clearly, the guy* does* want to fuck the TS when he thinks the TS is not a TS. So the only difference (assuming a full transition here) is that the TS is a TS. That’s bigotry, not sexual preference…
No, I don’t “dehumanize” the former, just don’t grant them respect in certain areas. And the latter is your straw man.
Can I rob them or kill them by only not granting them respect of their bigoted views? You know, the bit you left out of my quote? I can’t see how.
I suppose I could defraud a racist who would sell me something cheaper because he thinks I’m white when I’m only high yellow, say,and that might count as “robbery”, but I’m having a hard time thinking of any other examples.
Are women with these traits really supposed to guess that they’ll be dealbreakers for you and stay away from you altogether? If it’s so very important to you that you never wind up in any kind of romantic or sexual situation with such a person then you should be asking questions up front. If you are unwilling to do that then you’ll just have to live with the risk of maybe starting a relationship with a woman who you later learn does believe the moon landing was faked or whatever. I don’t see why that would be such a big deal, you could just break up with her and move on. But it’s ridiculous to expect that all the people you wouldn’t like anyway are just going to automatically recuse themselves without your ever having to say a word about it.
I was feeling a lot more charitable until you compared failure to disclose one’s personal history to rape or near rape.
People have sex all the time without knowing the details of their partners’ histories. It’s Friday night, so I’m sure that in my very town and all across the USA within the next few hours thousands and thousands of people are going to have sex with people they’ve only recently met and don’t know very much about. A lot of these sexual encounters would not occur if everyone was totally upfront about potentially off-putting personal information, but that’s not the moral equivalent of rape or of impersonating another person’s spouse. It’s just casual sex. People who are uncomfortable with this are free to ask questions of their partners first, limit themselves to sex only within fairly well established relationships, or just do like I do and sit at home on Friday nights playing on the Internet.
*Then it seems like an equally compelling argument could be made that the ethical thing for transgendered people to do is NEVER reveal that they are in fact transgendered, as this knowledge is only going to upset others.
I can only guess at how difficult it must be for transgendered people to balance their desire to be open and honest about themselves with being able to lead a safe and fairly ordinary life. I don’t think there are a lot of easy answers available for them, at least not in today’s society. If it’s true that hardly anyone would ever want to have sex with a transgendered person then “an ethical duty to reveal their history before having sex” basically means “an ethical duty to never have sex”. That’s a pretty high standard to hold someone to just because they are different from others in a way that is harmless but unpopular.
I think it would be wonderful if transgendered people were safe to be upfront with their histories, but in the world that we actually live in then the decision to tell or not tell cannot be an easy one for them. Aside from plain old romantic/sexual rejection, the transgendered are also at a high risk of being targeted for discrimination, harassment, and violence. Considering the price that they may have to pay for being open, I don’t feel I can condemn those who choose to keep their pasts a secret from everyone.
Out of curiosity I did a little searching on Google to see if there were any sites by/for transgendered people that discussing the ethics of sex and dating. I found a couple of personal essays on a site called Transsexual Road Map. These are just two people on the Internet so I wouldn’t take their opinions as reflective of all transwomen, but I’ll link to them here in case anyone else is interested in what they had to say:
MrDibble, this is an interesting difference between us, I guess: I grant people latitude in the realm of sexual preference that I don’t grant in other realms. Someone who prefers male to female employees, or female over male tenants, is a bigot, and I don’t grant them any respect. Someone who prefers black over white coworkers, or white over black business partners, isn’t something I’ll grant any respect to. But if you like female sexual partners, or white sexual partners, I have no problem with that. Your preference in sexuality has pretty much absolute latitude AFAICT.
That includes a preference for people born with male genitalia, or born with female genitalia. That’s not a preference that deserves respect in the world of high finance, tenancy, or HR. It is a preference that deserves respect in the world of getting jiggy.
Pretty much every preference (limited to consenting adults) deserves preference within the world of getting jiggy.
Do you agree that this is a key difference?
(not alice, if it amuses you to keep addressing questions to me, by all means, knock yourself out; you’ve still not apologized for your offensive behavior earlier, so the only value you’ll get out of your questions is self-amusement).
:rolleyes: If you’re determined to find ways to twist what I write, there’s not a fuck of a lot I can do about that except wish you godspeed.
As does the law: theocratic hellholes excluded, you have an absolute right to refuse to have sex with anyone for any reason.
Look, you’re the one who chose to make the analogy. I don’t need to twist your words at all to make them sound negative. In post #215 you compared transgendered people who are not open about their histories to a literary situation you described as “repellent, one step (if that) removed from raping her” and committed by a character you called a pretty horrible person.
Rereading #215 I guess there might be some room to argue that you were actually just comparing the costume party hypothetical to the Three Musketeers scenario but NOT to transgendered people who don’t disclose their pasts…but in #226 you remove any possible doubt. You state that you were in fact comparing such transgendered people to the character from The Three Musketeers – the same one who you called a horrible person who performed a repellent act that was either rape or very close to it.
You chose to amend your marriage analogy but not that one, which was far more offensive. If you didn’t really mean what you wrote then you’re free to say so, we’ve probably all posted things that didn’t accurately reflect our thoughts, but don’t try pretend this is some weird unfair interpretation I’ve come up with. Anyone can look back at those two posts and see exactly what you said.
Godspeed.
:sigh: Once more into the breech, dear friends.
No, women who believe that dinosaurs and cavemen coexisted are not supposed to guess that they’re not my type. I have to ask – the onus is on me, because it’s an unusual turnoff. But for women who used to have a penis, the onus is on them to share because it is a very common turnoff.
I feel like I’ve been clear about the difference and we’re just not communicating well with each other, so I’m gonna go ahead and bow out rather than waste anymore time. No hard feelings.