Is it wrong if you want to know a partners or potential partner's biological/original gender?

[Penumbra]

The fact? Now your view is a fact?

Please read the actual sentence, Koldo.

"You don't like the fact that I'm referring to the way..."

It's a fact that I'm referring to him as having a phobia, yes.

That he was mislead is only relevant if it was reasonable for him to make the assumption he made, and if it was reasonable for her to know that many men would be unwilling to have sex with her if they knew she was a trans woman. I have already stated this reasoning long ago.

And she might not have had sex with him if she knew he had a major hang-up with trans people. But I wouldn't say he mislead her.

She didn't lie. I think if a person asks something, a sex partner shouldn't lie. The fact that people think she should be expected to tell him is evidence of a very homophobic/transphobic culture. He's not expected to take care of his own hang-ups, or ask about his own issues, but rather, because of numbers in his favor (supposedly), she's expected to bring up aspects of her chromosomal or medical history that do not affect their night of casual sex. If he doesn't think she's a real woman, that's his opinion- she's not the one that has to put an asterisk or a qualifier on her status as a woman for him.

On what standards are you passing this judgment that it is disproportionate? I think you might be putting yourself too much into the situation and ignoring that different people are... well... different.

And hey, maybe if a person would freak out if she accidentally had sex with someone who is 1/4th Asian without her knowing, and consider herself violated and deceived, we can't really call that disproportionate....

That's not racist, that's just different.

Did this hypothetical person who broke into your house deliberately cause fear on you?

No, but he put himself into a situation that, if caught, can cause rational fear of death, injury, theft, and rape, and that therefore can result in actual injury in response to that rational fear. He's in the house, unexpected, and shouldn't be there.

I hope you're not going to tell me you support the gay panic defense. :sarcastic

 

[Koldo]

Please read the actual sentence, Koldo.

"You don't like the fact that I'm referring to the way..."

It's a fact that I'm referring to him as having a phobia, yes.

Oh, that's true. I stand corrected.

And she might not have had sex with him if she knew he had a major hang-up with trans people. But I wouldn't say he mislead her.

Because he did not.

She didn't lie. I think if a person asks something, a sex partner shouldn't lie. The fact that people think she should be expected to tell him is evidence of a very homophobic/transphobic culture. He's not expected to take care of his own hang-ups, or ask about his own issues, but rather, because of numbers in his favor (supposedly), she's expected to bring up aspects of her chromosomal or medical history that do not affect their night of casual sex. If he doesn't think she's a real woman, that's his opinion- she's not the one that has to put an asterisk or a qualifier on her status as a woman for him.

It is not the she lied. It is that she omitted.
The fact that people think she should be expected to tell him is evidence of a culture where many men won't have sex with trans women. That is all.

This issue does affect his consent to having sex with her.

And hey, maybe if a person would freak out if she accidentally had sex with someone who is 1/4th Asian without her knowing, and consider herself violated and deceived, we can't really call that disproportionate....

That's not racist, that's just different.

She could be racist, or not.

No, but he put himself into a situation that, if caught, can cause rational fear of death, injury, theft, and rape, and that therefore can result in actual injury in response to that rational fear. He's in the house, unexpected, and shouldn't be there.

In other words, it is possible to do something wrong without causing harm to others, correct?

I hope you're not going to tell me you support the gay panic defense. :sarcastic

No.

 

[Penumbra]

Because he did not.

Why not? He omitted.

It is not the she lied. It is that she omitted.
The fact that people think she should be expected to tell him is evidence of a culture where many men won't have sex with trans women. That is all.

So in a white racist society where a lot of men won't have sex with a black person, a woman who is 1/4th black, should disclose her ethnic status before having casual sex when mutual attraction is involved?

Not just wise for her safety, or wise for other reasons, but to the point where she'd be ethically in the wrong if she doesn't actively disclose her ancestry to a casual sex partner in a racist society, because he might feel violated and deceived if she doesn't.

This issue does affect his consent to having sex with her.

She could be racist, or not.

What else would we call it?

In other words, it is possible to do something wrong without causing harm to others, correct?

Koldo, I've already stated many times that it depends on how you define harm. There is physical harm (beating someone up, sleeping with them while being HIV positive and not telling them, etc), and then there is rational emotional harm (like bullying someone, lying about someone, etc).

But people are not responsible, imo, for causing irrational and disproportionate emotional harm simply by being who they are, or simply by doing non-harmful actions. I'm not responsible if I'm politely debating a Christian about religion, and she emotionally freaks out because of a point I made. If someone ends up feeling really bad due to reading a post you made in the problem of evil thread, that's not your harm. I can't blame other people if I cry myself to sleep tonight if someone criticizes my political party. A person with black ancestry is not responsible for causing emotional harm to a racist white man if she sleeps with him and he later finds out he slept with someone of black ancestry. Or Asian. Or whatever. Just by being herself, she doesn't harm him, and he wasn't violated or mislead.

 

[Flankerl]

The OP did say that Tom only found out from a friend; he didn't derive it from the event itself.

So because Tom is too stupid to distinguish an artificial "vagina" from a real one its all ok.
And no they still cant make them look like the real ones.

They might have had vaginal intercourse. It doesn't specify what kind of intercourse they had.

There's more to a person than what hole is being used. If a man has anal sex with someone who is actually a man, then that man has testosterone in him and all the effects that come from it.

That wasnt the point but whatever.

It's not just "a doctor".

In that other thread, Falvlun quoted a good source for the thread, the World Health Organization:
Females with XY and males with XX...

Plus there's the fact that women with CAIS (XY chromosomes) are assigned female by doctors practically everywhere, even when they know about the chromosome situation.

You know when you've been into science for half of your life its incredibly funny when you read sentences that have "Research suggests" in them.

Its sciencetalk for "well we cant prove it BUT...".

Research suggests,What makes her not a woman?

Apart from everything? Everything else. You know there is a reason it has to be explained that he/she is transgender. Its not because he/she is like everyone else.

It depends, why not?

So from what i can read you seem to be cis-phobic. Its obviously not true huh?

There i already used the "word" cis. Now i feel dirty.

 

[Breathe]

If it's a dealbreaker to him, and enough to make him freak out even if he founds out later, then yeah, I'd say that's his responsibility.

But the chance of actually meeting and hooking up with a trans is still quite low.

Let's propose, for the sake of discussion, that I'm not going to sleep with any Asian people. In fact if I found out I did sleep with one, I'm going to be horrified about it. [...]

Tom, rather than being physically turned off by Shirley before they even make it to casual intercourse, or simply choosing not to have any more sexual interaction with Shirley after learning about her past, is responding disproportionally with statements of violation and deception.

I don't think this works in the same way.

Shirley used to be, anatomically, a guy.
You can't 'used to be' Asian.

 

[Koldo]

Why not? He omitted.

You have yet to establish he has a phobia in the first place.

So in a white racist society where a lot of men won't have sex with a black person, a woman who is 1/4th black, should disclose her ethnic status before having casual sex when mutual attraction is involved?

Not just wise for her safety, or wise for other reasons, but to the point where she'd be ethically in the wrong if she doesn't actively disclose her ancestry to a casual sex partner in a racist society, because he might feel violated and deceived if she doesn't.

She shouldn't have casual sex in a white racist society.
Why would she sleep with racists that could threaten her life?

What else would we call it?

There are no words for that.

Koldo, I've already stated many times that it depends on how you define harm. There is physical harm (beating someone up, sleeping with them while being HIV positive and not telling them, etc), and then there is rational emotional harm (like bullying someone, lying about someone, etc).

But people are not responsible, imo, for causing irrational and disproportionate emotional harm simply by being who they are, or simply by doing non-harmful actions. I'm not responsible if I'm politely debating a Christian about religion, and she emotionally freaks out because of a point I made. If someone ends up feeling really bad due to reading a post you made in the problem of evil thread, that's not your harm. I can't blame other people if I cry myself to sleep tonight if someone criticizes my political party. A person with black ancestry is not responsible for causing emotional harm to a racist white man if she sleeps with him and he later finds out he slept with someone of black ancestry. Or Asian. Or whatever. Just by being herself, she doesn't harm him, and he wasn't violated or mislead.

I am using harm in the same manner you used it when you said it is not wrong for her to omit she is a trans woman because she caused no harm to him. I am trying to point out that something can be wrong even if it causes no harm.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

One wonders why Tom is so upset in finding out his one night stand was not what he wanted her to be...

Exactly.

It's a one night stand. Two people had sex. They both enjoyed it. Now Tom is freaked out about Shirley. Oh the tragedy that his sensitivities are violated. Not his body. He wasn't attacked. He's just freaked out.

I love how this thread shows how in a bigoted society people expect the out group to have more responsibility in a sexual situation than the in group. That Shirley ought to be more considerate for the bigotry and act accordingly. In other words, Shirley needs to know her place. Now, that is the real tragedy.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I just think that it would be nice for her to tell him. I don't think it's an obligation. But idk, even if it is a one night stand its just nice to know what you're getting into.

People do have their biases and what not. Maybe Tom would have still be okay with it if he had been told?

 

[Penumbra]

So because Tom is too stupid to distinguish an artificial "vagina" from a real one its all ok.
And no they still cant make them look like the real ones.

Have you checked?

Apparently it's a big enough topic where people do discuss the ethics of disclosing or not disclosing. I've seen articles where people married a transsexual person without knowing.

That wasnt the point but whatever.

You know when you've been into science for half of your life its incredibly funny when you read sentences that have "Research suggests" in them.

Its sciencetalk for "well we cant prove it BUT...".

Seems to me you want to define it how you want to define it, regardless of sources to the contrary. The World Health Organization just has an "agenda", and so do doctors all around the world that assign women with CAIS to be females.

Apart from everything? Everything else. You know there is a reason it has to be explained that he/she is transgender. Its not because he/she is like everyone else.

What's everything else?

So from what i can read you seem to be cis-phobic. Its obviously not true huh?

There i already used the "word" cis. Now i feel dirty.

Then I think you used the word in the thread before I did. I don't think I've used it until now.

I'm cis phobic in what way? Phobic to myself, my boyfriend, most of my friends, and most people I meet? What irrational or disproportionate fear do I have of myself and others?

Speaking of phobias, why would that make you feel dirty? Do you feel dirty using the word heterosexual?

 

[Penumbra]

But the chance of actually meeting and hooking up with a trans is still quite low.

I don't think this works in the same way.

Shirley used to be, anatomically, a guy.
You can't 'used to be' Asian.

I don't think you have addressed the point.

In that example, would I have been phobic about Asians, racist? Or no?

You previously said that not being attracted to someone who is white, latino, black, or whatever, doesn't make a person racist. And not being attracted to a trans person doesn't make them a transphobe. I agree. If they're not attracted, they're not attracted.

But that's not Tom in this example. He was attracted, all the way up to having intercourse, but now, due to invisible information he learned later, is not only no longer attracted, but feels deceived and violated, and feels entitled that she should have explained her medical history or chromosomal status to him, as though her being a woman is a deception.

There's a difference between me saying, "I dunno, I just don't tend to find myself attracted to Asian men." and saying, "Omg that guy was part Asian? I slept with him?! What the heck! How could I not have known?!"

I think the trick that allows history to keep repeating itself is that people don't recognize when they're treating someone else as having a lesser status.

 

[Penumbra]

You have yet to establish he has a phobia in the first place.

What else would you call such a disproportionate reaction about invisible information like that? I've yet to see someone establish a rational reason for such revulsion.

She shouldn't have casual sex in a white racist society.
Why would she sleep with racists that could threaten her life?

That doesn't answer my question.

I was very clear about my question:

"Not just wise for her safety, or wise for other reasons, but to the point where she'd be ethically in the wrong if she doesn't actively disclose her ancestry to a casual sex partner in a racist society, because he might feel violated and deceived if she doesn't."

I specifically want to see if you'll say she was ethically in the wrong, for not disclosing partial black ancestry to a white man in a white racist society.

There are no words for that.

I am using harm in the same manner you used it when you said it is not wrong for her to omit she is a trans woman because she caused no harm to him. I am trying to point out that something can be wrong even if it causes no harm.

But it's not working because your example compared to the OP's example is the difference between rational fear and irrational fear.

Coming home and finding an unexpected intruder there is a rational fear, because people can die from it. Finding out you had sex with someone who's medical history or chromosome status was not what you expected, but that you were attracted to and caused no harm to you by being herself, is not comparable to breaking into someone's house.

 

[Breathe]

I don't think you have addressed the point.

Because I don't think the point logically follows. Transgender and race are more difficult to compare.

But that's not Tom in this example. He was attracted, all the way up to having intercourse, but now, due to invisible information he learned later, is not only no longer attracted, but feels deceived and violated, and feels entitled that she should have explained her medical history or chromosomal status to him, as though her being a woman is a deception.

But some men want to date or even hook up with a transgender person.

Regardless of how we feel on the issue, there are more than some men who see a distinction between "cis" women and transwomen. To Tom, he slept with someone who was born a man -- and is still, chromosomally, no different.

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

So, I just visited the website Dear Cis People, and let me tell you: those guys write as if they are fighting to survive. I never knew non-cis people are in such a dire situation. Is that true? Or, were the emotions just a little hyped up?

And, what is the true difference between cis-female and trans-female? Is it that one can bear children and the other can't? Or is it just a naturally-born, non-transgendered woman or girl whose psychological gender identity is socially female also while the trans-female is not?

Regardless of how we feel on the issue, there are more than some men who see a distinction between "cis" women and transwomen.

Well, the difference is that one female is cis and one female is trans. That's a pretty big distinction, correct?

 

[Penumbra]

Because I don't think the point logically follows. Transgender and race are more difficult to compare.

But some men want to date or even hook up with a transgender person.

Regardless of how we feel on the issue, there are more than some men who see a distinction between "cis" women and transwomen.

And seeing them attempt to describe that distinction is entertaining.

But, I don't think race and transgender are particularly difficult to compare in this case. I think it's an example of how history repeats itself by trying to insist it's not the same as before. If someone is freaking out over an invisible aspect of someone that did not apparently impact their night in any significant way, to the point where he would feel violated and deceived about it, what else can we call it besides a phobic reaction?

Again, it's different than choosing not to sleep with someone due to how they look, or choosing not to sleep with someone due to how they act.

It's different than choosing not to sleep with someone even though they have no problem with how they look or act, but rather an invisible thing about them (getting into phobic area at that point, imo, but still polite).

In this case, it's sleeping with someone he apparently had no issue with until he later found out something about her chromosomes and medical history, and then rather than simply choosing to not sleep with her again, had a disproportionate reaction about violation and deception.

To Tom, he slept with someone who was born a man -- and is still, chromosomally, no different.

And the chromosomes impact their night how?

 

[Poeticus]

In this case, it's sleeping with someone he apparently had no issue with until he later found out something about her chromosomes and medical history, and then rather than simply choosing to not sleep with her again, had a disproportionate reaction about violation and deception.

Namaste,

Did Tom break any laws or regulations in doing so? I grant the notion that it was impolite of him to "freak out" - he could have just asked up front if whether she was a cis-female or not (which would have been awkward because it would be like asking: hey hunny bunny, you sexy n cute n all 'dat stuff ya feel me? but um, u real rite? u ain't a transformer rite?), but did he do something that was devastating overall or a crime against humanity? This whole debate makes me feel as if people think Tom is guilty of committing a Holocaust because he freaked out.

 

[Penumbra]

Namaste,

Did Tom break any laws or regulations in doing so? I grant the notion that it was impolite of him to "freak out" - he could have just asked up front if whether she was a cis-female or not (which would have been awkward because it would be like asking: hey hunny bunny, you sexy n cute n all 'dat stuff ya feel me? but um, u real rite? u ain't a transformer rite?), but did he do something that was devastating overall or a crime against humanity? This whole debate makes me feel as if Tom is guilty of committing a Holocaust.

I think Tom's only issue was acting with entitlement.

He felt deceived and violated by her, simply because she was being herself. He apparently doesn't consider it his responsibility to check to see if his issues are present in a casual sex partner, but rather expects people to come forth with information about themselves which is not impacting what they're doing, and not harmful to him. He expects her to put a disclaimer or qualifier on her womanhood, for him.

I wouldn't care anything about Tom if not for the fact that in this example, he's considering Shirley to have acted unethically.

 

[Poeticus]

He expects her to put a disclaimer or qualifier on her womanhood, for him.

Let's say that it is safe to assume that the majority of cis-males in the world prefer cis-women, therefore: should trans-women notify cis-males that they are not cis-women?

 

[Flankerl]

Speaking of phobias, why would that make you feel dirty? Do you feel dirty using the word heterosexual?

Iam not cis nor cis scum. And no i wont check my cis privilege.

I detest the term in itself.



Discussing this topic with you wont lead anywhere. Lets leave it at that.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Let's say that it is safe to assume that the majority of cis-males in the world prefer cis-women, therefore: should trans-women notify cis-males that they are not cis-women?

Prefer cis-females, or want nothing to do with trans-females? There's a difference.

 

[Poeticus]

Prefer cis-females, or want nothing to do with trans-females? There's a difference.

When you say that they "want nothing to do" with trans-females, do you mean in a similar tone as to how Hitler wanted nothing to do with Jews?