I don’t consider you qualified to judge what’s contradictory and ridiculous. Not in this thread, anyway.
Well, in normal reality, transgendered people are aware that when a person asks “Are you a man”, they don’t mean, “Are you not in the exclusive case of women who are genetically, overtly and obviously XX and always have been”. Because they’re not stupid or terminally socially unaware. So the potential for confusion here is really mostly nonexistent.
I will add that I, personally, think that if you look like a man, have the visible, functional parts of a man, were raised as a man, and if all the prior facts have been true all your life, I personally would define you as a man. The genetics only make a difference if they’ve pushed you out of a usual physical, social or societal group at some point.
But that’s just me. Assuming you give a crap about people other then yourself and their preferences and desires about things, if you are in a category where your status as a man is disputed under some reasonable definitions, you should probably make sure you’re not leading anybody to do something they don’t want to do unawares.
So it’s important to stay on topic when I am (staying on topic and) pointing out the concentrated idiocy in your arguments, but it’s okay to delve into personal matters when it might give you a chance to imply uncomplimentary things about me. Is that how it works?
I was trying to get someone to say “yes, non-transsexual transgendered people don’t need to resort to deception to get dates and don’t face the same stigma as transsexuals.”
Then you can ask yourself why transsexuals face a greater stigma than other transsexuals or homosexuals do. Personally, I think it’s largely because of their reputation for resorting to deception to get dates, tricking their partners into assuming that someone who is physically a surgically altered male is actually a natural-born female. So why defend and encourage this behaviour?
What does being homosexual have to do with it? That is orthogonal to being transsexual.
Are you suggesting that homosexuals resort, as a group, to deception to get dates? And that you are going to tar transsexuals with the same brush just because you can?
Yeah but you are afraid of at least some people becuase of their theoretical existance to the point of running away, and you may not have ever met a homosexual in your estimation, and you are agoraphobic (which you haven’t defined for us, but since you seem willing to allow responsibility to lay with the other party, I will say my assumption is it means you suffer sever anxiety at leaving the house and so do so much less than others do).
So yeah ok, you judge me. Just know that is the grain of salt your judgment is going to be taken with.
See above.
What do you know about normal reality?
Do you even know, what your own chromosomes are, and if so, how did you come to that knowledge?
Do you know that of every “man” that you ever see? Do you really?
OK, but for you, you have explained that point is when you are romancing someone, and no longer are interested. Would you make a girl prove she is XX if you decide you don’t like her looks anymore?
No, the personal questions are meant to find a possible explanation for your bizarre words.
And no you are not on topic - the OP is a yes or no question about ethical obligations. If you say yes, then show the ethical code that is in place in order to persuade.
What you might be trying to say is that you wish it was true, so you can sleep well not taking responsibility of your own romantic interactions with your fellow human beings.
But since neither you nor anyone else has even deigned to show the ethical code that would prove the case easily, we can only conclude you are offering wishes and assumptions.
Which is fine, you are entitled to wishes and assumptions, but be aware they only prove the counter point to what you want to prove wrt the OP.
And if that is what you mean by being on topic, by proving the case I am presenting, well, thanks for the help, I am glad you decided to make the same case as me.
But that’s just daft. I’m not altering the definition. I’m stating cold, hard biological fact.
It probably doesn’t help that we’re all posting from an external perspective - so far no-one who’s posted has said they’re transgendered. Yes, I have a lot of friends who are transexual, and a lot more who are genderqueer in some way, but I’m not myself.
That procedes from the assumption that transexuals have a reputation for resorting to deception to get dates. I had no idea such a reputation existed.
not_alice, does any of your prior post to me have any relation at all to the topic at hand? Any on topic questions you wish to ask? Anything of substance at all that you actually wish me to address?
I’m aware that I’ve made you mad. I don’t much care. Have you anything relevent to ask or discuss?
How is the definition of the word “man” a cold, hard biological fact? I don’t recall seeing the letters M,A,N printed on my anatomy anywhere.
The simple fact is, if you’re trying to argue from assertion that your particular definition is correct, you’re going to be hard pressed to impress anybody. The best you can do is engage in a battle of dictionaries or something…but that doesn’t always work out in your favor.
I apologize in advance for the line-by-line quoting. It’s normally really annoying, and I’ll try not to do it again if it’s annoying in this case, too.
Whether you chose the condition or not is immaterial: it’s a fact of your identity.
Precisely because they needn’t suspect that their partners would care. If the majority of folks seeking one-night stands would care about divorce, then they ought to disclose.
Again, immaterial. It’s not up to you to judge the validity of someone else’s desires: they’re independent agents, and their desires should be respected unless there’s an overpowering reason to do otherwise.
If it turned out that a significant number, most likely a majority, of people would feel very upset if they found out they’d slept with a biracial person, then yes, it’s up to her to disclose. I simply don’t think that’s the case. Same thing with intersexed individuals of a certain stripe (that’s a poor analogy because “intersexed” is such a huge spectrum).
Again, you’re focusing on irrelevant parts of the criteria. If someone tried to sell an emerald that they’d dyed blue to convince someone else it were a sapphire, they’d be acting unethically. It’s not about damage, it’s about voluntary agreements by consenting parties, and the need for both parties to be reasonably informed, and the need for both parties to disclose what they believe the other party will consider relevant information.
It certainly does: if they believe that the only way Bob will sleep with them is to keep Bob from finding out that they’re transgendered, then they’re committing fraud and behaving unethically.
Absolutely she did, although the fraud wasn’t as bad as it would’ve been if she’d gone to bed with the guy, because the guy probably wouldn’t feel as upset.
No: as I said, it’s unlikely that the majority of guys would react nearly as strongly to this as they would to transgendered dating.
There’s terms for people that have a particular gender as their sexual preference. THere’s not really a term for people that have a particular ethnicity as their sexual preference. The former is nearly always more important to people than the latter.
The difference here is that it’s perfectly legitimate to have a preference for a particular gender when it comes to sex. It’s not legitimate in renting, business transactions, job applications, etc. In those cases, to the extent that the fact is relevant to someone, it’s unethical for them to act on that relevancy. In the case of sexual preference, it’s perfectly fine to act upon it. It’s unethical to prevent someone from acting on it.
Piffle. There’s not a rule of reality that states that all humans must fall into the arbitrarily defined categories called “man” and “woman”.
The reality is, that most humans are either XX females or XY males. There are, however some people who are neither XX females or XY males. And there are some people who physically qualify as XX females or XY males, but mentally categorize themselves as the other gender. (And there are probably further exceptions and unusual states besides.)
This inverted bell spectrum which is the reality doesn’t dictate squate about how people have to (or should) define the terms “man” or “woman”.
Those with a clue will of course note that I am arguing that definitions quite legitimately vary - though we can be pretty sure that most definitions of “man” will include the XY males who think they’re males, and most definitions of “woman” will include the XX females who think they’re females. In the reality I and most other people occupy, anyway. As far as I can tell the old definition of these terms is based mostly on the visually detectable physiology (what with genetic testing not happening much back then - nor reassignment surgery much, either).
As I’m not arguing a tenuous position that may or may not require the assumption that nobody can ever define genders, this isn’t really a problem for me. I presume that everybody who is aware that they are not a vanilla home-grown garden-variety XX or XY is highly sensitive to the distinctions between genders, and the ways in which the terms for them are commonly applied to or rescinded from the ‘exceptional’ groups - and so when somebody asks them “are you a man”, ignorance of what is probably meant by the question is not an excuse if they decide to answer in a way that gets them what they want, at the probable expense of what the other person wants.
You can resort to clever-to-you attacks, but it doesn’t make your argument any less fallacious. Especially if you admit only those who understand it already will ever understand it.
Sure but it is those outside of that group that are going to send you running because they didn’t tell you. Now who is not tracking the topic?
Might want to buy a good dictionary from after, say 1990 or so. I studied under one of the pioneers in the field before that even, and the difference was already well known by then in academia, if not in the general public.
Right - you told us long ago, anyone you have romanced to the point of kissing (not that you ever have done even that it seems) who later has parts that squick you out, it is their fault that you are squicked, not yours, or not anything worth assigning fault for at all, the last of which would be more in line with my position.
So now you can’t define these people, but even if you were ever nice and showed them every sign of being romantically interested, you expect them to jump up and identify themselves to you as a homophobe in a stateful of homophobic bigots by your own description.
And you expect this is the better option for them how?
You would be wrong in that assumption then.
If you ever met people like that, or even read their memoirs and discussions and web sites, you would learn what a ridiculous statement that is.
In fact, I invite you to attend this year’s San Francisco Folsom Street Fair with me. I will make sure you get introduced to people of various people of all chromosomal combinations who identify themselves as a man.
Maybe if you are lucky, some of them will show you some scars and tell you stories of violence for doing just that to people who troll internet sites making the same self-serving arguments you are making.
Then, if you want to run, I will gladly point you north towards Idaho.
The great thing about fallacies is that if you pretend they’re there but don’t mention what they are, nobody can refute your claim that they exist!
And of course we are talking about the general public, and the way members of the general public use the term, so…yeah.
Like pretty much everything you say, this has been answered before. There are other ways to probe for homophobia than to carry a sign saying “I’m a homo/transgen/other! Beat me up!”
I really shouldn’t have to point that out even once. Much less repeatedly.
Those with a shred of a clue, and two nanograms of reading comprehension, will of course note that the issue in question isn’t whether they call themselves men. It’s whether they’re aware that there’s a reasonable chance that other people would call them men - or even, not-women.
I maintain that transsexuals, or at least the vast majority of them, are probably not so stupid and clueless as to be unable to comprehend the distinction.
Transgendered people aren’t always particularly well accepted even in the gay and lesbian community, so I’d suspect it’s considerably more difficult for many of them to get a date than it is for someone who’s homosexual.
Yeah, and which choice do you think makes MTF transsexuals acceptable to a greater number of romantic partners? Assuming full disclosure on the part of the transwoman, I’m fairly certain that more straight men would be turned off by “I consider myself a woman, but I have a penis” than “I consider myself a woman, and I had genital reassignment surgery and no longer have a penis. I have a vagina now.” There are definitely some who are into the former, but the latter would make dating easier in general.
*I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I haven’t said anything about the validity of anyone’s preferences, and I don’t think that’s even a coherent use of the word “valid”. What would an invalid preference be? In the passage you were referring to I was discussing how appropriate a particular analogy was and explaining why I considered it an apples and oranges comparison.
*I never said that it did. People who don’t want to have sex with transgendered people should feel no obligation to do so. They don’t need to provide any justification for that.
*I agree that this would be an ideal situation, but in the real world people do not have an ethical duty to tell you everything you might ever want to know before you’ve ever asked them. It would be nice if they did, but it’s foolish to expect it if you have no special relationship with them. A lot of sexual encounters would never happen if people would provide information like “Just so you know, I’m lousy in bed” upfront, but I haven’t seen anyone suggest that it’s an ethical duty to warn others of such facts.
It would be considerate of me to do so, but other people’s dietary choices are their responsibility. If the question is “should I” then I’d agree that it would be better if I did. A good hostess would try to avoid any confusion about what was being served. But if the question is “have I behaved unethically if I do not do this” then my answer is no. If my guests haven’t told me that they’re vegetarians then it is not my ethical duty to assume that they are. I said above that if this thread’s title were “Should transgendered people reveal their history before having sex?” then my answer would be yes. But there’s a difference between things that are good to do and things that one is obligated to do.
I’m a “halfitarian” (don’t eat red meat, do eat white) myself, so I am sympathetic to people with dietary restrictions. I have occasionally been unpleasantly surprised to find red meat in dishes I thought would be free of such ingredients. (Turns out minestrone soup is sometimes made with bacon!) But if I came on here complaining about how I’d been to a dinner party where bean soup was served and the hostess had the nerve to make it with meat broth without warning me, I don’t think I’d get much sympathy. I strongly suspect that almost everyone would say that the hostess could serve whatever she liked, that it was my responsibility to tell her about any dietary restrictions I might have, and that if I cared so much about what was in the soup then I should have asked before I ate it.
Well, since you could not read all the way through, you’d have been much better off not posting.
This is particularly true regarding your attempts at practicing long range psychoanalysis based on message board posts and your insistence on raising the topic of another poster, when that topic has been closed with prejudice, as a way to bolster your self-aggrandizing claims for insight.
(Hint: if threads have been closed and further threads have been deleted, a rational person would conclude that the topic is not appropriate to the board.) The problem is not that you lack time, but that you are out of line even raising the issue again.
Knock it off.
= = =
begbert2, I will also note that posting from the perspective of one’s own issues tends to invite the sort of amateur analysis that you have encountered, here. Stick to a discussion of the issues and leave your own life outside this forum.
Since the moderator asked, I will leave the reader to conclude the fallaciousness of whatever follows from you (or me or anyone else).
Back to my answer of the OP, which no one has seen fit to answer - where is the ethical code to which you think these folks are obligated? I’ve never seen it, and if it is exists, I will be happy to review the section that applies and change my opinion.
Please provide a cite to a specific section of a specific ethical code that applies.
If there is none, then of course the answer to the OP is NO, even if others are willing to contort themselves to convince us it is yes.
He used ‘XY’ as a definition of male. It IS a fact that not all men are XY.
That’s … well … are you going to folow that up by denying that gravity is what causes things to fall to Earth? Denying that the Pope is Catholic? Denying that this is an internet post?