If it turned out your partner was transsexual...
Noop wrote:
Tuttle wrote:
And someone who's been raped doesn't want to associate with the past. But the fact that someone has been raped, or that someone has gone through transitioning, is still relevant to who they are now.
So therefore you have a right to know about it...?
Yes, but that isn't so much why.
This is:
buryuntime wrote:
someone neglecting to tell me something like that would indicate lack of intimacy or closeness.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
I fear I lack the ability to express my thoughts.
Quote:
If you lock me in a room without any other people I'm still female.
I did like this idea however, except I disagree. If you are locked in a room on your own, you are not male or female, just a person. With no reference point gender disappears completely. You are not female until a male steps into that room with you.
Male/masculine and female/feminine varies throughout time and culture what I am trying to say is that what defines men will always be what women want (consciously or not) in their men and vice versa.
@Noop you are missing the point of that story, gay men want people to accept them as they are, transwomen want people to accept them as something they are not.
Quote:
So we should have a heterocentric patriarchal society again?
We're going to end up back in one one way or another.
lilypadfad wrote:
I fear I lack the ability to express my thoughts.
I did like this idea however, except I disagree. If you are locked in a room on your own, you are not male or female, just a person. With no reference point gender disappears completely. You are not female until a male steps into that room with you.
Quote:
If you lock me in a room without any other people I'm still female.
I did like this idea however, except I disagree. If you are locked in a room on your own, you are not male or female, just a person. With no reference point gender disappears completely. You are not female until a male steps into that room with you.
My gender is how I identify, not how you view me. I don't suddenly become male when I'm sitting in a room on my own, on irc, and have people assuming that I'm male because I'm using traditionally male thought patterns.
Quote:
Male/masculine and female/feminine varies throughout time and culture what I am trying to say is that what defines men will always be what women want (consciously or not) in their men and vice versa.
o.O Lets go through a few issues with this.
1. Lesbians exist.
2. People who are attracted to one gender are not necessarily attracted to both.
3. People are attracted to individuals, not genders, and not gender stereotypes.
4. Not all women have the same things they are attracted to.
5. Even ignoring transpeople there are genderqueers, and then people like me who identify as female but not feminine.
I think according to this, because I'm female, this means males are defined by being competent, understanding, having specific traits I have, and being true to themselves. Because I'm a woman and those are traits I want in a man. Also, men cook, because I enjoy being cooked for. Or am I not a woman because I don't have the stereotypical criteria when choosing a partner? But then if its going to stereotypes, then being male is defined by having money?
Quote:
@Noop you are missing the point of that story, gay men want people to accept them as they are, transwomen want people to accept them as something they are not.
No, you're missing Noop's point. In the past gay men were viewed as not really gay. Now you are viewing transwomen as not really women. Also that gender identity is defined based off of how someone identifies themselves.
Quote:
Quote:
So we should have a heterocentric patriarchal society again?
We're going to end up back in one one way or another.
So none of the non-heterocentric patriarchal societies that have existed throughout the world and history matter? That's not something intrinsic to societies. There have been quite a few matriarchal societies just for one thing non-heterocentric and patriarchal.
That's what your culture says is normal. Your culture isn't the only one in existence. And your culture isn't necessarily how everything will end up.
Quote:
[1] (This is bound to be disputed) My masculinity and maleness is defined largely by my interactions with women - being desired by them and (oh the burdens of masculinity!) being useful to them. So my (perhaps flawed) projection is that a woman's femininity and femaleness would be defined by her interactions with men and importantly being desired by them.
So, as per your definition, even though I have XX chromosomes and a female body, I'm not really "female."
Quote:
[2] (Lets assume) For whatever reason the majority of straight men cannot feel desire for a transwoman knowing their biological history.
[3] (This one isn't nice and a bit of a headscratcher) The main reason a transwoman is not a woman is because most straight men do not accept them as such.
[3] (This one isn't nice and a bit of a headscratcher) The main reason a transwoman is not a woman is because most straight men do not accept them as such.
The majority of heterosexual men could decide that the sun is made of cheddar cheese, but it wouldn't make it a fact. Furthermore, by your definition, a transwoman becomes a woman in the presence of a heterosexual male who desires her as a woman, but suddenly becomes a man in the presence of a heterosexual male who doesn't desire her as a woman.
"Reality" is that a Y chromosome exists. How we choose to define it and what significance it plays in our culture is fluid and up for interpretation. Your opinion on "gender" is just yet one more opinion existing amid thousands of other opinions and you have thus far not presented any reason why I should elevate your view of "gender" as a more valid interpretation. So far, this is just more debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Personally, I reserve the right to define myself.
Quote:
I did like this idea however, except I disagree. If you are locked in a room on your own, you are not male or female, just a person. With no reference point gender disappears completely. You are not female until a male steps into that room with you.
Unless the person who steps into the room is a lesbian. Or a gay male. Or a bisexual. Or another transgendered person. You have yet to provide a reason why the sexual desires of heterosexual males should be the primary driver of what defines "reality."
Again, I reserve the right to define myself as a conscious being who is capable of forming an opinion about who and what I am. The opinions of others as to who and what I am will always be of secondary importance.
Quote:
This means surgical gender reassignment does not change ones gender and is therefore an exercise in futility.
Only if one cares about being sexually desired by the majority. And, really, not even then.
Quote:
Gay man coming out: "Hello world! I was born different! I AM GAY! Accept me as I am!
World: "ok"
-----Intermission-----
Transwoman: "Hello world! I was born different! I am a transwoman! Accept me as a woman!"
Skeptical male: "hold on you're not really a w-"
Transwoman: "You shut up!"
World: "ok"
-----Intermission-----
Transwoman: "Hello world! I was born different! I am a transwoman! Accept me as a woman!"
Skeptical male: "hold on you're not really a w-"
Transwoman: "You shut up!"
In other words, you've chosen to ignore a large tract of history.
Quote:
Male/masculine and female/feminine varies throughout time and culture what I am trying to say is that what defines men will always be what women want (consciously or not) in their men and vice versa.
Evidence, please.
Quote:
@Noop you are missing the point of that story, gay men want people to accept them as they are, transwomen want people to accept them as something they are not.
You have yet to demonstrate that transwoman aren't really women.
Quote:
We're going to end up back in one one way or another.
Why?
_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
-XFG (no longer a moderator)
rlb wrote:
How would you feel if someone said to you that they could never enter into a relationship with you because they were repelled by the idea of you having A.S.? That would hurt, right? Prejudice is prejudice whichever way you look at it.
Seriously? IF?! I've been unable to have romantic relationships all my life because I have A.S. That's just the way it is. It would be rude for a woman to say she was repelled "by the idea" of my having A.S., but no more rude than it is than when they make nasty comments about it when they think I can't hear them. Whether they say it out loud or not, I know perfectly well that 95%+ of my potential "someones" could never enter into a relationship with me because I have A.S.
As for whether it hurts, people don't want to have sex with other people for all sorts of reasons, sometimes sensible but often arbitrary and stupid, any of which can hurt. Part of being an adult is not getting bent out of shape about that.
As for the rest of this, what I hear is a lot of trans people saying they have a right to lie to non-trans people because (list of excuses about how it's tough to be trans), and that non-trans people (if "people" is actually the right word since you really don't seem to regard us as such) have no right to make informed decisions about our sexual partners.
BasilB wrote:
what I hear is a lot of trans people saying they have a right to lie to non-trans people because (list of excuses about how it's tough to be trans), and that non-trans people (if "people" is actually the right word since you really don't seem to regard us as such) have no right to make informed decisions about our sexual partners.
If you read through my earlier posts you will see that I say that I do not in any way condone lying to a potential partner about a gender history. I think it's important, although I understand those who choose not to reveal it.
I also fully accept everyone's right to sleep with whomsoever they wish
The issue that this is about is whether, or not, it is right that a non-trans person who has entered into a relationship (at some level) with a trans-person should automatically reject them when their gender history is disclosed.
_________________
"May the bridges I burn light the way" ~ Anon
"Be happy for this moment. This moment is your life." ~ Omar Khayyám
"I mean, yes, we're sinking. But the music is exceptional." ~ Anon (1912)
Very well. I retract my attempt to logically define gender. Couple of things:
Quote:
Quote:
Male/masculine and female/feminine varies throughout time and culture what I am trying to say is that what defines men will always be what women want (consciously or not) in their men and vice versa.
Evidence, please.
I would have thought it would be intuitive, how about the recent (thankfully dying) metrosexual fad for men? They didn't start preening themselves because they luuuuv getting waxed, they believed (through the medium of television and magazines) that that is what women now wanted in their men.
Quote:
You have yet to demonstrate that transwoman aren't really women.
Quote:
Personally, I reserve the right to define myself.
Likewise you have yet to demonstrate that transwomen are women. Also my very first argument in this thread was that saying you are something does not make it so. "I'm the king of England" - Am I now the king of England? will her subjects recognise me as such? According to you, yes... kneel before me! In real life I might find half a dozen "subjects" who would bow down before me chanting "Hail King lilypadfad". That still doesn't make me the king.
I know I was arguing ad populum - but in this case there may be something to it.
Quote:
Quote:
We're going to end up back in one one way or another.
Why?
In a nutshell western society is paying the price for liberalism and a crappy economic system. The events of the last few years are only the tip of the iceberg. It's unstable and can't go on as it is. A few people think we're going to see _complete_ collapse due to the economic crisis (think Mad Max) - lawlessness ultimately means patriarchy of the worst kind. A few people think Islam is going to take over the culturally weakened western societies in a hundred years or so - even the most moderate muslims societies are heavily patriarchal (yet 2/3rds of white converts are women - little insight into women for ya), but at least there are some protections for women bound in law, unlike the first scenario.
I read a blogpost recently detailing the Argentinian collapse a decade ago link here I think this is more likely, at least at first. Our money problems are gonna bite us in the ass before anything else (although looking at the recent London riots suggests that the other issues will be following soon after).
lilypadfad wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Male/masculine and female/feminine varies throughout time and culture what I am trying to say is that what defines men will always be what women want (consciously or not) in their men and vice versa.
Evidence, please.
I would have thought it would be intuitive, how about the recent (thankfully dying) metrosexual fad for men? They didn't start preening themselves because they luuuuv getting waxed, they believed (through the medium of television and magazines) that that is what women now wanted in their men.
For one, you haven't considered the people who actually have no romantic interest in the opposite gender or perhaps even any romantic interest at all, and yet still dress in a particular way. Some fashions are based on established societal fashion 'rules' (Women have long hair and men's is short, women wear skirts and men wear trousers etc.), but I doubt that it is entirely or even mostly based around impressing the opposite gender.
Quote:
Quote:
You have yet to demonstrate that transwoman aren't really women.
Quote:
Personally, I reserve the right to define myself.
Likewise you have yet to demonstrate that transwomen are women. Also my very first argument in this thread was that saying you are something does not make it so. "I'm the king of England" - Am I now the king of England? will her subjects recognise me as such? According to you, yes... kneel before me! In real life I might find half a dozen "subjects" who would bow down before me chanting "Hail King lilypadfad". That still doesn't make me the king.
I know I was arguing ad populum - but in this case there may be something to it.
A person can either be King of a country or not. There is little to no ambiguity. If the reigning monarch - who is also your parent - dies and you are the eldest son, chances are, you will be King. Gender and sex in humans is different, however.
Most of the time, women are born XX, men are born XY, they both have sexual interest in each other and have babies. As we all know, this is not true for everyone. There are gay men and gay women, people that aren't interested in sex, people that don't want romantic relationships, masculine women, feminine men, intersex people, transsexuals and so on.
When the doctor says 'it's a boy' or 'it's a girl' when a person is born, it is only based on the assumption that male genitalia = boy and female genitalia = girl. The fact that a person with ambiguous genitalia can also have 'M' or 'F' put on their birth certificate says something about the legitimacy of labelling someone a 'boy' or a 'girl' at birth.
The fact of the matter is, there are a significant group of people who feel so disconnected from their birth sex that they have to have surgery to have different sex characteristics. A transman for example would feel the same as a cisman, with the added difficulty of having the wrong body for it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We're going to end up back in one one way or another.
Why?
In a nutshell western society is paying the price for liberalism and a crappy economic system. The events of the last few years are only the tip of the iceberg. It's unstable and can't go on as it is. A few people think we're going to see _complete_ collapse due to the economic crisis (think Mad Max) - lawlessness ultimately means patriarchy of the worst kind. A few people think Islam is going to take over the culturally weakened western societies in a hundred years or so - even the most moderate muslims societies are heavily patriarchal (yet 2/3rds of white converts are women - little insight into women for ya), but at least there are some protections for women bound in law, unlike the first scenario.
I read a blogpost recently detailing the Argentinian collapse a decade ago link here I think this is more likely, at least at first. Our money problems are gonna bite us in the ass before anything else (although looking at the recent London riots suggests that the other issues will be following soon after).
The London Riots was not some sort of uprising like Libya. It was a bunch of underclass youths who decided to go and smash up a few places and rob a few shops because the opportunity was there. I would also argue that the state of the West as it is now is better than it was before in many ways. Society has changed massively since the 50s, for example, where women were not very well respected and were pretty much doomed to a life of housewivery, racism and homophobia was rife, transsexuals were nearly unheard of, there was rationing in the UK and the economy was still recovering after WWII. The quality of life for most people was also nowhere near as high as it is now.
The impact of Islam is a different debate altogether and is not something I know an awful lot about. What I do know about it is not very pleasant, however.
lilypadfad wrote:
I know I was arguing ad populum ...
I think "ad populum" arguments don't work when it comes to gender. Gender is something that is physically present in the form of either presence or absence of Y chromosome. At some point in history, everyone were thinking the earth is flat. This didn't make the Earth flat. Likewise, whether or not most people view you as a man or a woman, won't change your gender. Your argument that manhood is defined by being able to attract females is also flawed. For one thing, it would imply that aspie males are not really males since females are not attracted to them.
At the same time, the point of view that an individual has the main say regarding his or her own gender is, also flawed. Ironically, while "each person defining their own gender" is "opposite" to "society defining gender for them", BOTH views are false for the same reason. Namely, you attribute objective reality to "somebody's" point of view, whether "somebody" happens to be "most people", or "minority of people", or "one individual". If society thinks that the earth is round and individual decides the earth is flat, you can't say "he is so brave by disagreeing with society, lets honor him and say the Earth is flat". The Earth is still round. Even though "most people" are "often" wrong, this time they happened to be right.
Bottom line: gender is something that is objectively out there. THAT is why transsexuals are wrong when they claim they completely changed their gender. They didn't. And it has NOTHING to do with "society's views". Rather it has a lot more to do with the fact that, apart from Y chromosome, their head shape, scull, and so forth, are all characteristic of a male. This will be true regardless of what EITHER society OR they themselves have to say. By making it look like that it is "all about society", you are basically shooting down your own argument by making it look silly; I suggest you stick with more sound ways of defending your position since your conclusion happened to be true.
Roman wrote:
Bottom line: gender is something that is objectively out there. THAT is why transsexuals are wrong when they claim they completely changed their gender. They didn't. And it has NOTHING to do with "society's views". Rather it has a lot more to do with the fact that, apart from Y chromosome, their head shape, scull, and so forth, are all characteristic of a male. This will be true regardless of what EITHER society OR they themselves have to say.
guessing gender according to head shape is only accurate 83 to 86% percent of the time. so cranial shape is not an accurate indicator of gender - in fact there is quite a cushion of ambiguity built into that. there are some men walking around with female shaped skulls and vice versa.
http://www.fyiliving.com/research/skull ... fy-gender/
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
hyperlexian wrote:
Roman wrote:
Bottom line: gender is something that is objectively out there. THAT is why transsexuals are wrong when they claim they completely changed their gender. They didn't. And it has NOTHING to do with "society's views". Rather it has a lot more to do with the fact that, apart from Y chromosome, their head shape, scull, and so forth, are all characteristic of a male. This will be true regardless of what EITHER society OR they themselves have to say.
guessing gender according to head shape is only accurate 83 to 86% percent of the time. so cranial shape is not an accurate indicator of gender - in fact there is quite a cushion of ambiguity built into that. there are some men walking around with female shaped skulls and vice versa.
http://www.fyiliving.com/research/skull ... fy-gender/
Head shape is just an example. The thing is that there is probably a hundrid or a thousand different gender characteristics and you can't possibly touch all of them in the surgery. So, yes, there are femalesic with male-like head shape, and there are femalesic that are infertile, but they still are female according to the rest of the things on the list. For example, an infertile female still has ovaries, while mtf trans does not.
Roman wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Roman wrote:
Bottom line: gender is something that is objectively out there. THAT is why transsexuals are wrong when they claim they completely changed their gender. They didn't. And it has NOTHING to do with "society's views". Rather it has a lot more to do with the fact that, apart from Y chromosome, their head shape, scull, and so forth, are all characteristic of a male. This will be true regardless of what EITHER society OR they themselves have to say.
guessing gender according to head shape is only accurate 83 to 86% percent of the time. so cranial shape is not an accurate indicator of gender - in fact there is quite a cushion of ambiguity built into that. there are some men walking around with female shaped skulls and vice versa.
http://www.fyiliving.com/research/skull ... fy-gender/
Head shape is just an example. The thing is that there is probably a hundrid or a thousand different gender characteristics and you can't possibly touch all of them in the surgery. So, yes, there are femalesic with male-like head shape, and there are femalesic that are infertile, but they still are female according to the rest of the things on the list. For example, an infertile female still has ovaries, while mtf trans does not.
considering that none of the other characteristics are used in deciding whether a person is male or female, only the actual genitalia, then it's irrelevant.
we could go through those characteristics one by one and see if any others are in fact shared by all members of a gender. until we do, it is probably safe to assume that there will always be exceptions. we cannot use any of those characteristics as determinants of gender unless they are 100% universal... otherswise they are only likely indicators, which is no more reliable than long hair on females and short hair on males, for example.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
hyperlexian wrote:
Roman wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Roman wrote:
Bottom line: gender is something that is objectively out there. THAT is why transsexuals are wrong when they claim they completely changed their gender. They didn't. And it has NOTHING to do with "society's views". Rather it has a lot more to do with the fact that, apart from Y chromosome, their head shape, scull, and so forth, are all characteristic of a male. This will be true regardless of what EITHER society OR they themselves have to say.
guessing gender according to head shape is only accurate 83 to 86% percent of the time. so cranial shape is not an accurate indicator of gender - in fact there is quite a cushion of ambiguity built into that. there are some men walking around with female shaped skulls and vice versa.
http://www.fyiliving.com/research/skull ... fy-gender/
Head shape is just an example. The thing is that there is probably a hundrid or a thousand different gender characteristics and you can't possibly touch all of them in the surgery. So, yes, there are femalesic with male-like head shape, and there are femalesic that are infertile, but they still are female according to the rest of the things on the list. For example, an infertile female still has ovaries, while mtf trans does not.
considering that none of the other characteristics are used in deciding whether a person is male or female, only the actual genitalia, then it's irrelevant.
we could go through those characteristics one by one and see if any others are in fact shared by all members of a gender. until we do, it is probably safe to assume that there will always be exceptions. we cannot use any of those characteristics as determinants of gender unless they are 100% universal... otherswise they are only likely indicators, which is no more reliable than long hair on females and short hair on males, for example.
We can't use any ONE characteristic, but we can use statistics. In fact, most of these characteristics TAKEN ON THEIR OWN are very poorly reliable. But their STATISTICS is far more reliable. If there are thousands of these characteristics, any male is guaranteed to be male according to well over 50% of them, while any woman is guaranteed to be female according to well over 50% of them.
As far as genitalia, the fact remains that mtf still has a penis. They simply twisted penis into a shape of vagina. If I twist my hand in a form of an ear, it will still be a hand.
Roman wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Roman wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Roman wrote:
Bottom line: gender is something that is objectively out there. THAT is why transsexuals are wrong when they claim they completely changed their gender. They didn't. And it has NOTHING to do with "society's views". Rather it has a lot more to do with the fact that, apart from Y chromosome, their head shape, scull, and so forth, are all characteristic of a male. This will be true regardless of what EITHER society OR they themselves have to say.
guessing gender according to head shape is only accurate 83 to 86% percent of the time. so cranial shape is not an accurate indicator of gender - in fact there is quite a cushion of ambiguity built into that. there are some men walking around with female shaped skulls and vice versa.
http://www.fyiliving.com/research/skull ... fy-gender/
Head shape is just an example. The thing is that there is probably a hundrid or a thousand different gender characteristics and you can't possibly touch all of them in the surgery. So, yes, there are femalesic with male-like head shape, and there are femalesic that are infertile, but they still are female according to the rest of the things on the list. For example, an infertile female still has ovaries, while mtf trans does not.
considering that none of the other characteristics are used in deciding whether a person is male or female, only the actual genitalia, then it's irrelevant.
we could go through those characteristics one by one and see if any others are in fact shared by all members of a gender. until we do, it is probably safe to assume that there will always be exceptions. we cannot use any of those characteristics as determinants of gender unless they are 100% universal... otherswise they are only likely indicators, which is no more reliable than long hair on females and short hair on males, for example.
We can't use any ONE characteristic, but we can use statistics. In fact, most of these characteristics TAKEN ON THEIR OWN are very poorly reliable. But their STATISTICS is far more reliable. If there are thousands of these characteristics, any male is guaranteed to be male according to well over 50% of them, while any woman is guaranteed to be female according to well over 50% of them.
As far as genitalia, the fact remains that mtf still has a penis. They simply twisted penis into a shape of vagina. If I twist my hand in a form of an ear, it will still be a hand.
but that is not how gender is determined. doctors don't examine all of those indicators to determine which percentage a person has before deciding on their gender. so that is not a valid assertion, and there is no way to tell if a person has more or less than 50% of those characteristics.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
Roman wrote:
Bottom line: gender is something that is objectively out there. THAT is why transsexuals are wrong when they claim they completely changed their gender. They didn't. And it has NOTHING to do with "society's views". Rather it has a lot more to do with the fact that, apart from Y chromosome, their head shape, scull, and so forth, are all characteristic of a male. This will be true regardless of what EITHER society OR they themselves have to say. By making it look like that it is "all about society", you are basically shooting down your own argument by making it look silly; I suggest you stick with more sound ways of defending your position since your conclusion happened to be true.
You're confusing sex and gender again.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
April Balascio Turned in Her Serial Killer Father |
17 Dec 2024, 2:38 am |
Partner needs space, i'm trying as best I can |
25 Sep 2024, 12:36 pm |
Are you still close to your former partner(s)? |
03 Nov 2024, 5:54 pm |
How to understand my non-autistic partner? |
08 Nov 2024, 12:30 pm |