Didn’t say it had to be at a rally - how am I supposed to know what my potential partners get up to in their spare time?
I can assure you, I move in circles where I would expect none of my friends to have a problem with a TS (or at least not to be so gauche as to say anything if they did) - so clearly my expectations are not yours.
Like I care.
South Africa. You may have heard about it.
I fail to see why your implied threat is a motivator for what’s ethical. What’s prudent, yes - if I valued my skin and I were TS, I’d sure as shit make sure I only slept with people who were either OK with it or else would be unlikely to find out afterwards. But that’s fear of violence, not fear of being unethical. Why does the fear of adverse reaction suddenly make this case unethical? Absent that, surely the reaction is entirely within and upon the offended person’s head?
I agree. Likewise for heterosexuals, and pretty much everyone else (MrDibble’s foolishness about pedophiles notwithstanding). No one, IOW, should be constrained to having sex except with the gender to which they are attracted. Cool.
Transsexuals are not a gender to which I am attracted. Therefore…
Two answers - first, sexual preferences that do not one any harm are not subject to being overruled by anyone else. Second, factors other than those immediately apparent can be, and are, part of what makes a given gender sexually attractive or otherwise.
“I would never have slept with her if I knew she was pathologically jealous and clingy/married/was born with a penis/etc.”
This has been covered. Transsexualism is quite rare, not wanting to have sex with transsexuals is not particularly rare, and transsexualism by its definition involves quite extensive efforts to present as if a MtF TS was a member of a gender to which they very likely do not belong - the gender of women who were born with a penis, and with whom most men would want to have sex ceteris paribus.
You suggested earlier that it was unreasonable to assume not wanting to have sex with transsexuals implies that one is denying their gender and asked for an explanation for this assumption. I have provided my reasoning–if you don’t wish to explore alternative explanations, then please regard that question as a rhetorical question.
I would not ask a gay man to justify why he would refuse oral sex from a woman because women don’t belong to the category to which gay men profess to be attracted. The reason I would question a straight man who refuses to have sex with a transsexual woman is because he is attracted to women and by rejecting women who are transsexuals whom he would be entirely attracted to otherwise on the sole basis of their transsexuality indicates that on some level he does not accept them as members of the category “women”.
Whether the rejection occurs at a gut level is not of importance, in my opinion. Many people have an aversion to homosexuals at a gut level. That does not make it justifiable, nor does it make it natural, despite occurring involuntarily.
You state in your post that transsexuals are not a gender to which you are attracted, indicating that you regard transsexuals as really belonging to their assigned gender or to some sort of third gender. However, this conflicts with your earlier stipulation that transsexuals were real members of their presented gender. If you don’t accept that transsexuals can be real men and women, then that is our point of disagreement.
No, it is (as previously mentioned) just word games. If you now have, or have ever had, a penis, I do not wish to have sex with you, for that reason alone.
It doesn’t contradict anything I have said. You can call yourself whatever you like. If you want to insist you are a real woman, fine. I don’t want to have sex with real women who have ever had a penis.
You are trying to impose your categories on me. Won’t fly.
You want to play whatever games you like? Not my problem. You want to have your cock turned inside out - no foreskin off my nose.
Once you start insisting that I have to want to have sex with you - not gonna happen. You want to do whatever you want with someone who has given his/her fully informed consent, go ahead. But if you withhold relevant information - and the fact that you have XY chromosomes is relevant information to a substantial majority of the populace - then you do not have fully informed consent.
De gustibus non est disputandum. If you could argue people out ofd their sexual preferences, there wouldn’t be any gay people. Or transsexuals, for that matter.
You stated earlier in post #293 that you were willing to stipulate for purposes of discussion that transsexuals are real women. I erroneously assumed this meant you would accept that an individual living as a woman who was born with a penis could be categorically identical in all other respects to an individual living as a woman who was born with a vagina.
In that case, I rephrase my previous post. If you don’t accept that individuals living as women who were born with penises could be categorically identical in all other respects to individuals living as women who were born with vaginas, then that is our point of disagreement. (If I am mistaken and you do accept that, then I reiterate my point that it is bigoted to discriminate between partners on that basis alone.)
I am not attempting to “argue you out of your sexual preferences,” only that such preferences are arbitrary and based in prejudice, and for that reason transsexual people should not be ethically obligated to reveal their history before having sex.
I mentioned more than once that I do not wish to have sex with anyone who was born with a penis, whether that person wishes to be called a real woman or not.
As I pointed out to MrDibble, this doesn’t really mean anything. If it is bigoted to refuse to have sex with someone because they don’t fit your preferences, then it is bigoted for gay men to refuse to have sex with women. If it is OK to slap a pejorative label on one preference, even though that preference does no harm, then it is equally OK to do the same for all others.
Bullshit - the bigotry lies in why you decide someone doesn’t fit your preference, not simply in having a preference.
The bigotry, quite simply, lies in denial of the reality of transexuality’s existence at all, which is what I’m seeing in this thread. So no, it’s the same as denying homosexuality exists, not the same as forcing gays to like the poon.
Ignoring the insulting tone of “fake vagina”, I imagine, given what I’ve read, that a neovagina tastes no different from a congenital one, assuming we’re talking a state of the art vag. Nowadays a lot of the glandular & vascular material from the penis & scrotum is retained, and under the influence of female hormones, will secrete vaginal fluids, but not always enough to skip the lube, I hear. Still, many congenital vaginas suffer the same problem
Some claim better than eggnog, but that’s hyperbole. Nothing tastes better than eggnog.
When the AMA considers denial of Tiger Man’s tigerness as discrimination, as it does with gender identity disorder, your snark will be valid.
This does indeed dismiss all ethics and condone all cruelty - which is the foundation of his position. To him, it’s okay to cruelly trick people because it’s okay to be cruel. (Which apparently releives him of the burden of worrying about how irrational it is to expect men to interrogate their prospective partners about every possibly rare issue that may possibly exist.)
Your position is somewhat more nuanced, and thus less ridiculous. You posit that it’s okay to be cruel to some people - if they’re “bigots”. More specifically, if the “bigot” is not doing somethign cruel or oppressive as a result of their bigotry, it’s okay to oppress them. (Because being picky about your sex partners isn’t a cruel or oppressive act.)
What is, then? You seem to assert it’s a strawman to define bigotry as having a preference for one type of person over another. But if it’s not having a preference and acting on it regarding your self, and it’s not forcing others to comply with your preference in matters relating to you, what is it? Having a preference at all? (No wait, that’s a “strawman” too.)
So, then, vegetarians are bigots, then? Against meats?
What IS your definition? If you don’t like mine, and all.
So gays are bigots then for preferring people of their own sex, just because they’re their own sex? And straights are bigots for preferring people of the opposite sex, just because they’re the opposite sex?
Is the only way not to be a bigot to be willing to have sex with anyone or anything, be it man, woman, animal, vegetable, or mineral?
And who cares what point it’s detectable. I can easily imagine a person being mistaken for the opposite gender prior to their clothes being removed. If a straight man mistakes a man for a woman, and thinks ‘her’ attractive until he realizes that ‘she’ is a ‘he’, is that man a bigot? (Assuming he wasn’t a bigot already just for having the preference.)
The latter was an attempt to make some sense of your arbitrary assignation of the ‘bigot’ label. Don’t blame me of your position is difficult to make sense of.
And let’s keep in mind that what you’re “disrespecting” is their right to choose not to have sex with a person. It’s very difficult for me to see a rational reason to punish them for that act - even if it is motivated by bigotry.
You could also do this by sending a different person to marry a person under guise of white veil. Because those damned bigots are refusing to marry other people, just because those helpless people don’t happen to be the one person they love. And who wants to respect that kind of bigotry?
Or you could give someone a hamburger when they order a soyburger, because those vegetarian bigots are excluding meat for no other reason than because the meat is meat.
Or I guess you could rob them by taking their money and not giving them anything, because those anti-meat bigots asked for a non-meat product. Or kill them by giving them poisoned soy, similarly justified because you don’t respect the non-meat bigotry they’re showing.
I expect you’ll announce again that I’m strawmanning your position, but frankly I can’t tell what your position is. Not until you provide a concrete definition of ‘bigot’ and ‘bogotry’ that somehow does not contradict any part of your apparent position.
Again, you are simply trying to tell someone else whether or not his sexual preferences are valid. Unless you can point to some specific harm that a preference does, then you don’t get to do that.
Then you are seeing things that aren’t there.
These two posts alone made the entire rest of the thread worthwhile.
No, it doesn’t. You seem to lack reading comprehension. That quote does not say all ethics is dismissable. It doesn’t even come close to saying that.
Bigotry (as any fool with a dictionary could find out) is a strongly-held irrational or uninformed prejudice.
Like the uninformed opinions of transwomen (and especially their vaginas) displayed by some posters in this thread.
No, ultimately, I’m disrespecting their right to have their investigative work done for them, just because they’re in the majority.
And their “right” to be a bigot. I could give a stuff what they do after that, as long as they’re comfortable with having their bigoted behaviour called what it is.
You may think you’re just being snarky here, but actually - a person who doesn’t lift the veil before getting married is a fool, just like a person who expects everything to be exactly as it appears, and gets upset when reality doesn’t conform to his blinkered view of the world.
[/QUOTE]
Like I said, you don’t have to be doing any harm to be called a bigot.
But let me play devil’s advocate here:
If the man is psychologically harmed by sleeping with a TS, as some here have alleged, then is not the psychological harm to the TS possibly just as great, since by rejecting her on discovery, the guy is overiding her choice to act be a woman? So someone’s getting harmed either way.
Not that I buy the “psychological harm” bit for the guy, of course.
I’m sorry, I must have been misled by all the (scare quotes)“real woman” and “fake vaginas” flying around.
Hey baby, you look really hot tonight, but let’s hold off. I need to wait for the lab results to make sure you don’t have an uncommon karyotype. Also, any luck getting those baby pictures from your mom? I just wanna make sure you didn’t used to have a penis. Nothing against people with penises, or people with Klinefelters, Turners, or triple x syndrome, but I just can’t get it up for people without the right kind of DNA and history of physical attributes.
What? What did I say baby? Come back, the results will be in within two weeks. I was kidding about going dutch on the lab bill. Aw baby, don’t be like that!
Generally speaking, I’d say yes, a TG person, even post-op, should share their history before intimate relations. The reason is precisely because we assume so many things about each other based on appearance. My sympathies are with them because they bear so many burdens because of accidents of biology already, but it is the impersonal realities of their situation which drive these ethical considerations. This is further complicated by the very real possiblity of a violent reaction to the revelation.
Still, I believe the ethical thing to do is shoulder this unlucky burden and be as open and forthright at the beginning as possible. A post-op TG may present as fully female, and have a functional vagina, but those are only the tip of the iceberg. Intimate relations form bonds between individuals due to neurochemistry and social constructs. These typically have more long-lasting and far-reaching ramifications than a one night stand. The only person who knows the facts about how their unusual biological situation is the TG and thus they should bring it up and ensure informed consent exists.
Informed consent can’t be given without being informed.
There is no legal requirement that informed consent be obtained in any sexual encounter, by either (or any!) partner. this is not a medical procedure or experiment.
If you know of an ethics system which says so, well, ok, but please tell us what it is. Then demonstrate that all of us are bound by it.
Otherwise, maybe “ethics” doesn’t mean what you think it does, “informed consent” certainly doesn’t.