Roman wrote:
Noop wrote:
Roman wrote:
I would break up. Even if it looks like a woman it would still feel like I am "with a man"; so being straight that would be unbearable. I guess it goes both ways whether it be man turned into woman or woman turned into man. I guess I simply can't stand the idea that I am "dating a man", so I want to steer clear of any situations that could be construed as such.
The only 'manly' thing about a MtF would be their chromosomes to be honest...
Well if you define gender based on chromosomes, then this would be quite a huge thing and you can't refer to it as "only".
Now you can't make a convincing case that chromosomes are not the right way of defining gender. After all, this would require you to come up with some other definition of gender. And that other definition can logically be dismissed as insignificant in the same way as you are dismissing chromosomes as such.
I guess the point is that if someone is transexual, it is "controversial" whether it is a man or a woman. And I would rather not deal with this controversy. I don't like the idea that the person whom I date can be "construed to be a man" in any way what so ever.
Ever heard of the saying 'If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck'? Gender is provably not based on chromosomes. Birth sex is, however. But when you 'swap' the primary & secondary sex characteristics using surgery & hormones, who's to say they're not their 'new' sex?
For example, if you remove a tumour from a person, it is true that they once that tumour, but it is now gone. It would be silly to say they have the tumour when they no longer do, surely?
Also, it's best to not call people of ambiguous gender 'it', as it often comes across as describing them as not human, like an object. Transgender & transsexual people should also be referred to using the pronouns they identify with (usually either 'he' or 'she') to avoid any offense.