• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I guess one must assume everyone is irrationally prejudiced against minorities to not be "naive."

No, that's not what I meant; I'm talking about that particular situation where Tom couldn't even discern anything indicating that Shirley was a transgender. Unless there is some sort of obligation on her part to accommodate potential bigotry, then there's no reason to assume she must tell him about being a transgender.

Who is anyone to say transgenders are obligated to accommodate prejudice? :shrug:

Resorting to name calling again?
That's just sad.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Resorting to name calling again?
That's just sad.

Nope. I'm just calling things as I see them. Irrational discrimination against certain people is prejudice/bigotry. If you're offended by that, then I don't know what to tell you.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Nope. I'm just calling things as I see them. Irrational discrimination against certain people is prejudice/bigotry. If you're offended by that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Irrational discrimination?
Selecting people you are going to sleep with using any particular criterion is a form of irrational discrimination? Are they only justified on certain given situations?

Where did you get this notion from? How can you even feel entitled to tell people on what manner they are supposed to pick who they are going to have sex with? If they don't agree with your method they suddenly become bigots.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Because she is not naive.



Do you mean to say you think that would not happen frequently?
We could make a poll about that if that happens to be case.
I doubt it would properly represent our societies but it could be interesting nevertheless. We could even agree on how the OP and title will be written before doing so.



Who are you to say such a thing?
He can say that because Tom was negligent and careless in his actions. A one night stand is a sort of Russian Roulette. Things may not go bad, but they can potentially get ugly and unpleasant. If Tom cannot handle the thought of sleeping with someone he normally wouldn't, then he should probably refrain from one night stands because there are far worse things that can happen than your very fragile ego and insecurities getting the best of you.

Trans folk are a small minority.

Should Tom have assumed any different? Possibly.

Who said anything about 'fault'?
You keep saying poor Tom felt like he slept with a man, even though he slept with someone that as far as he was concerned is a woman. You said Tom was denied his right to now who he is sleeping with, but he forfeited that by only taking a brief moment to get to know a potential partner. If Tom feels he slept with a man, that is his problem for feeling that he was sleeping with a man when he was sleeping with someone who was female enough for him when he stuck his penis in her.

Resorting to name calling again?
That's just sad.
I didn't see any name calling.
 

illykitty

RF's pet cat
Was Tom wrong to suddenly reject Shirley on the basis that she is transgender?

No, I see it just as any other sexual/romantic preferences.

Should Shirley be obligated to tell Tom her birth gender before consent?

It would be better to do so, but obligated is too strong of a word. I just find it dishonest to keep what I find to be an important detail... And it's not like Tom has the responsibility to ask everyone he dates if they are transgendered. Imagine the hassle!

Is it wrong for cisgender individuals to only prefer other cisgender individuals, to the exclusion of transgender people?

No, it's a preference.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Irrational discrimination?
Selecting people you are going to sleep with using any particular criterion is a form of irrational discrimination? Are they only justified on certain given situations?

Where did you get this notion from? How can you even feel entitled to tell people on what manner they are supposed to pick who they are going to have sex with? If they don't agree with your method they suddenly become bigots.
Not realizing things may not turn out as you wanted during a one night stand, and then displacing the blame and guilt by putting it on the one he should have gotten to know better is very irrational, and to completely ignore her as the OP suggest is childish, immature, and may be discrimination.
It's really no different and no less dumb than people who eat a dish, love it, want seconds, and then they hate and want nothing more to do with it because they found out it has an ingredient they don't like.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
He can say that because Tom was negligent and careless in his actions. A one night stand is a sort of Russian Roulette. Things may not go bad, but they can potentially get ugly and unpleasant. If Tom cannot handle the thought of sleeping with someone he normally wouldn't, then he should probably refrain from one night stands because there are far worse things that can happen than your very fragile ego and insecurities getting the best of you.

By the reasoning, if you are not willing to considerably put your life at risk, you should never have one night stands.

If Shirley happened to die that night, would you say : "Oh well, she took her chances. If she didn't want that to happen she shouldn't have one night stands." ?

I didn't see any name calling.

You should read his post once again then.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Irrational discrimination?
Selecting people you are going to sleep with using any particular criterion is a form of irrational discrimination? Are you they only justified on certain given situations?

And apparently the criterion didn't matter to him or affect the experience in any way until after he had sex and even enjoyed it. It was only when he found out that she was a transgender that he freaked out.

That seems to me like freaking out about a concept more than anything else.

Where did you get this notion from? How can you even feel entitled to tell people on what manner they are supposed to pick who they are going to have sex with? If they don't agree with your method they suddenly become bigots.

I don't think that's an accurate representation of my argument. I'm saying that it's irrational of Tom to act like that after having sex, enjoying it, and not noticing that Shirley is a transgender.

And I think this dovetails with the point I was raising earlier: if Tom has certain criteria for his sex partners that include details about their medical history, then having one-night stands probably isn't the best route to ensure he always has his way.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
And apparently the criterion didn't matter to him or affect the experience in any way until after he had sex and even enjoyed it. It was only when he found out that she was a transgender that he freaked out.

That seems to me like freaking out about a concept more than anything else.

He believed his criterion was met. :rolleyes:


I don't think that's an accurate representation of my argument. I'm saying that it's irrational of Tom to act like that after having sex, enjoying it, and not noticing that Shirley is a transgender.

What do you mean by 'acting like that'?
How does 'acting like that' in any way justifies what she did ( or rather, what she did not do ) ?


And I think this dovetails with the point I was raising earlier: if Tom has certain criteria for his sex partners that include details about their medical history, then having one-night stands probably isn't the best way to ensure he always has his way.

You get to determine what criteria he is supposed to have, right?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Not really a different question, but a different perspective on it: Why should Tom not have to take responsibility for his actions? If the possibility of catching a disease doesn't stop him, if the thought of getting a woman pregnant does not balk him (or is non-existent in his mind), then realistically there shouldn't be much he shouldn't be prepared for. She may be a stalker, or a serial killer, but that is even less likely than the scenario of the OP.
And of course if you are going to have one night stands and go home with people you really don't know (or bring them home with you), you really do actually kinda have to be prepared and ready for anything. And if you cannot accept that things may happen if you have them that you aren't going to like, then you shouldn't be having them. And the possibility of sleeping with someone who can be anyone or anything is something you have to be willing to accept if you're only going to spend a few hours getting to know someone.
Not to examine Shirley's situation. It probably was in her head wondering if she should tell him, or she may have been having fun and wasn't thinking about it because she is a woman and after so many years of pain and suffering and struggling and fighting to be who she is she is being fully accepted is waaay above cloud 9. But it is also basic psychology that if people learn about something they probably wont like early on, they will ignore the good and things they like. But if they hear the bad later on, they will have had time to focus more on what they like, and are far more likely to overlook, dismiss, or excuse the bad. And when you are a woman who was born a man, telling on the first date gives us pretty much zero chance. It's our past anyways and a first date is much more about the now. But depending on how things go, and thing continue, it does have to come out, but the biggest question isn't if you tell someone, it's when. The second date may still be too early, things may just be starting by the third, but going to a fourth and you really start pushing it on what people consider waiting too long.
So in all reality, they were both using poor judgement (him with his insecurities, her with taking a huge risk), and simply put Tom is in the wrong for feeling angry, violated, and so on because things didn't work out for him. Life doesn't always work out as planned, you can't always get what you want, and it seems to me Tom is immature and has not accepted that things cannot always go his way.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
He believed his criterion was met. :rolleyes:

Then what significant difference is there between when his criterion is met and when it isn't? It sounds like it's so minor that even he didn't notice when it wasn't met.

What do you mean by 'acting like that'?
How does 'acting like that' in any way justifies what she did ( or rather, what she did not do ) ?

I think you have things the other way around. It seems to me that what she didn't do (or say) doesn't justify what he did, i.e., freaking out about being "deceived" and "misled," as you put it—both of which imply a ton of self-entitlement on his part.

You get to determine what criteria he is supposed to have, right?

Not really. He can have any criteria he wants as long as he doesn't throw a fit because they weren't met during the one-night stand he had with a person he apparently just met that night.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
By the reasoning, if you are not willing to considerably put your life at risk, you should never have one night stands.
Considering there are some non-treatable and deadly STI's, yes, one should literally be willing to consider their life potentially at risk over a one-night stand. Due to pregnancy, they should know damn well that their life can be significantly altered. Sex isn't just sex, it comes with alot of responsibilities, and one of those responsibilities is being able to handle and deal with any potential consequences.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Considering there are some non-treatable and deadly STI's, yes, one should literally be willing to consider their life potentially at risk over a one-night stand. Due to pregnancy, they should know damn well that their life can be significantly altered. Sex isn't just sex, it comes with alot of responsibilities, and one of those responsibilities is being able to handle and deal with any potential consequences.

I would like to read your reply to the rest of that post.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Then what significant difference is there between when his criterion is met and when it isn't? It sounds like it's so minor that even he didn't notice when it wasn't met.

The difference is that in one case he was mislead.
In the other, he wouldn't have been.

I think you have things the other way around. It seems to me that what she didn't do (or say) doesn't justify what he did, i.e., freaking out about being "deceived" and "misled," as you put it—both of which imply a ton of self-entitlement on his part.

Now you made read your other post again:

"I'm saying that it's irrational of Tom to act like that after having sex, enjoying it, and not noticing that Shirley is a transgender."

That's not JUST what you are saying. You are ALSO saying it is not wrong for Shirley to omit she is a trans woman. That she would only have to tell Tom if there was an obligation to accomodate for bigotry.

She would have been wrong whether Tom reacted as a bigot or not. His reaction can not be used to justify her act.

Not really. He can have any criteria he wants as long as he doesn't throw a fit because they weren't met during the one-night stand he had with a person he apparently just met that night.

He has all the right to be upset his criteria were not met though.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Not realizing things may not turn out as you wanted during a one night stand, and then displacing the blame and guilt by putting it on the one he should have gotten to know better is very irrational, and to completely ignore her as the OP suggest is childish, immature, and may be discrimination.
It's really no different and no less dumb than people who eat a dish, love it, want seconds, and then they hate and want nothing more to do with it because they found out it has an ingredient they don't like.

Oh, it may be?
Not: "It IS discrimination.'' ?
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
In other words, transfolk need to know their place. Is that correct?
Not once given my opinion on transfolk throughout the whole discussion.

After all this debate and you are still clinging to the notion that Shirley is a man? How do you respond to the resources linked by Penumbra and Falvlun? Are you telling Shadow Wolf she doesn't know her own gender, and is in denial about who she really is?
See above.

There is a chance she'll be rejected...based on popular opinion about transgender people? And Shirley needs to act accordingly that she is not a "real" woman?

In other words, if that is correct, Shirley once again needs to know her place.
See above.


Here's the thing though, Breathe, there are decades of research to back up what Penumbra has been saying all along. At the moment, it seems as if you only want people to feel that Tom is justified in his anger and hostility. I get that Tom is angry, but to suggest that Shirley did anything wrong for being who she is and engaging in the same activity that Tom engaged in is quite a stretch in ethics.
I'm saying Tom is angry for a fairly understandable reason: he felt deceived because this was not mentioned. If given the foreknowledge, he may or may not have continued, but he probably feels his pride was shot, especially from finding out from a friend. Perhaps he now feels as though he has slept with a man.

(And I mentioned nothing about Shirley being in the wrong.)

Maybe it's not a big deal to you, and maybe it's not even a big deal to me, but it may be to Tom.

Whether you or I agree with Tom is irrelevant.

This is why I feel Tom is overreacting and would do well to learn more about transgendered people to realize he didn't sleep with a freak, he didn't sleep with a guy, and he didn't do anything wrong by enjoying himself. And if he has friends who are giving him a hard time about it, he can enlighten them about the reality of transgendered people too.
But that is your opinion. Toms may not be the case.
Tom may consider her to still be male. Even if you say "no, she isn't", that still may not be Tom's view.

Your views are not necessarily Tom's, and you or I have no right to impose our own sexual norms or preferences on someone else.

You're seeing it as an issue about transfolk, I'm seeing it as an issue of lack of choice through deception by omission that could have easily been avoided and potentially saved both individuals a lot of embarrassment.




Oh, and as an added side-note about the veiled attacks on me being a transphobe, I'm not. My best friend growing up's sister is a transwoman and I grew up around her both before AND after her life from male to female. (For additional reference, this is in addition his homosexual brother and mixed-race niece and nephew.)

As you're mentioning names, so will I: if you remember Gaura Priya who was a member here, I actually encouraged her to resume going for her life as a woman.

So let's cut out the malicious attitude about me being some kind of transphobic bigot, shall we? Or am I just wasting my time on RF?
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Oh, it may be?
Not: "It IS discrimination.'' ?
Well, the description of the OP does suggest it is, or it could be a childish tantrum, and because people do have there reasons we actually don't know. But because we do know he is very insecure about himself, it's most likely to be he is a bigot or an overgrown kid who shouldn't be having one-night stands.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
The difference is that in one case he was mislead.
In the other, he wouldn't have been.

Why is she obligated to mention something that wouldn't affect the experience either way? It's like saying, "Well, this won't make any difference whatsoever, but just in case it may offend you to have this one-night stand with me..."

I don't think it's reasonable to expect to have that much entitlement in a one-night stand where practically no other details are discussed between the two people who have sex with each other.

Now you made read your other post again:

"I'm saying that it's irrational of Tom to act like that after having sex, enjoying it, and not noticing that Shirley is a transgender."

That's not JUST what you are saying. You are ALSO saying it is not wrong for Shirley to omit she is a trans woman. That she would only have to tell Tom if there was an obligation to accomodate for bigotry.

She would have been wrong whether Tom reacted as a bigot or not. His reaction can not be used to justify her act.

Yes: His reaction is unacceptable because it inherently implies she was wrong not to tell him, which I don't think she was. Saying that she had an obligation to do so reeks of self-entitlement from Tom.

He has all the right to be upset his criteria were not met though.

Sure, so long as he doesn't blame others or throw a tantrum at them because his criteria weren't met.
 

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
I would not call refusing to approach her...especially considering he is not obligated to "throwing a childish tantrum".It might have been the best/most responsible thing to do considering how he felt about it .
 
Top