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

[Koldo]

unless the seller of car says that it has an engine and it does not, then perhaps I would.
However, if I purchase a vehicle on a whim and then start throwing a fit because it is not what I expected to be, then it is MY fault for not making sure it was what I expect.

Again, you are not helping your argument.

It is a new car.
He didn't mention anything about an engine.

What would you do?

 

[DallasApple]

It is a new car.
He didn't mention anything about an engine.

He would have never been able to use the car for the purpose in which he bought it ever.Tom wanted to have sex and he got sex.

 

[McBell]

It is a new car.
He didn't mention anything about an engine.

What would you do?

If I purchase a vehicle on a whim and then start throwing a fit because it is not what I expected to be, then it is MY fault for not making sure it was what I expect.

 

[DallasApple]

The better analogy would be is you ran out on a whim and bought a car that you assumed was new just by its outside appearance....and you liked the price(it was very low for that model new) and took it..you drove it around for a while and it got you where you needed to go. Then you found out the engine was a rebuild and you would not have bought the car at all had you known it wasn't a new engine.But you aren't mad at yourself at all..only very angry that the person you bought it from should have known you would have never bought a car with a rebuilt engine.

 

[Koldo]

He would have never been able to use the car for the purpose in which he bought it ever.Tom wanted to have sex and he got sex.

What was the purpose he purchased the car for?
I haven't stated it.

Tom wanted sex with a cisgender female.

 

[Koldo]

If I purchase a vehicle on a whim and then start throwing a fit because it is not what I expected to be, then it is MY fault for not making sure it was what I expect.

Strictly your fault?
Seriously?
You let a lot of swindlers off the hook then.

 

[DallasApple]

What was the purpose he purchased the car for?
I haven't stated it.

I'm assuming because you wanted an engine it was to drive it.That's normally why anyone buys a car with an engine.

 

[Koldo]

I'm assuming because you wanted an engine it was to drive it.That's normally why anyone buys a car with an engine.

Indeed. But perhaps it wasn't his case.

 

[DallasApple]

Indeed. But perhaps it wasn't his case.

Well it doesn't even matter.My rebuilt engine is a better analogy than no engine regardless of what you intend to use the car for.

 

[Koldo]

Well it doesn't even matter.My rebuilt engine is a better analogy than no engine regardless of what you intend to use the car for.

My analogy was not meant for the OP topic strictly.
But rather to a post of yours.

The better analogy would be is you ran out on a whim and bought a car that you assumed was new just by its outside appearance....and you liked the price(it was very low for that model new) and took it..you drove it around for a while and it got you where you needed to go. Then you found out the engine was a rebuild and you would not have bought the car at all had you known it wasn't a new engine.But you aren't mad at yourself at all..only very angry that the person you bought it from should have known you would have never bought a car with a rebuilt engine.

If the car had no license plate and was full of plastic bags covering stuff on the inside, it would better fit the situation.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

IMO, she gave the necessary information. She is a woman. She presented and transitioned as a woman into the gender identity she was born with.

I agree that for most people such information is unnecessary, but given a significant number of people DO find it important enough tht it could have impact on their decision - she can reasonably be expected to know it is important to others and thus did not give sufficient information - she should have sounded him out to determine what his position might have been - given I assume she did not want to simply reveal the information, she should have attempted to determine if he was one of those for whom this characteristic (which she had done her best to conceal) is relevant to their decision.

That he was angry and felt misled and lied to. I think that's an overreaction on his part. That he is projecting his phobias onto her and sees her as responsible for his anger.

He is right to feel angry that he was deceived - in part by his reasonable (given transgender population sizes) expectations and in part by her significant and sustained efforts to conceal the truth of her original gender. He is not right to feel angry at her gender or transgender status, but it is entirely appropriate to feel anger at her conduct.

Such is a typical view of a cis-normative society and way of thinking.

Which is a relatively common viewpoint, something she is no doubt aware of and thus can reasonably be expected to recognise that her status as transgendered is important to a significant demographic.

I'm not the only one. I'm following and contributing to the conversation just like everybody else. Want to inject more nuances into the debate? Be my guest.

No, I want to remove them, you are assigning additional assumptions in such a way as to render one side a bigoted hateful little man. There are many reasons that could explain his reaction - and you have chosen in this thread at times to attempt to represent that anyone who would prefer not to sleep with someone who is transgendered is also such.

Preference? Or complete omission? I see complete omission to be indicative of something other than simple preference.

Yeah, I completely omit sleeping with people who wear adult diapers because they want people to baby them (other than for medical reasons for example). Its a preference, a strongly held one - I would prefer not to have sex at all than to have sex with someone wearing an adult diaper as a sign that they want to be pampered and waited on hand and foot or as some sort of parent relationship replacement etc.

So again we are back to full disclosure.
Simply because unless he tells her what is relevant to his decision, she would need reveal it all....

No, we can - and DO - have provision, in every area of our lives that we can expect a reasonable person to be able to identify a certain set of things that are relevant to a particular decision. This is encoded in most western countries laws (in particular with regards to contract law) - included within our law system because it is a part of social contract.

The idea that if a reasonable person could expect that ____ might effect your decision (and if they are party to that decision) has a responsibility to ensure that you are either aware of ____ or have sufficient reason to suspect it might be the case so as to confirm it. Particularly if that person has taken great efforts to conceal ______ as being the case.

Seems to me your whole argument stems upon the highly subjective word "reasonable"....

Yeah, it does. So does most of society rest upon that word, since it is fundamental to how society functions in terms of norm development and social contract.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I agree that for most people such information is unnecessary, but given a significant number of people DO find it important enough tht it could have impact on their decision - she can reasonably be expected to know it is important to others and thus did not give sufficient information - she should have sounded him out to determine what his position might have been - given I assume she did not want to simply reveal the information, she should have attempted to determine if he was one of those for whom this characteristic (which she had done her best to conceal) is relevant to their decision.

That's the difference between how you and I see this. You see this as her disguising or concealing her former identity. I see it as that was a former identity that is no longer in existance. She is a female, as far as she is concerned, and as far as what the thread has determined to be scientifically.

He is right to feel angry that he was deceived - in part by his reasonable (given transgender population sizes) expectations and in part by her significant and sustained efforts to conceal the truth of her original gender. He is not right to feel angry at her gender or transgender status, but it is entirely appropriate to feel anger at her conduct.

Again, no. They had a great time. He had no idea, until somebody told him afterward that he had a great time with a transgendered female. And again, I do not see this as concealing a truth of an assigned gender. This is a transformation to where she is revealing the female who was always there.

Which is a relatively common viewpoint, something she is no doubt aware of and thus can reasonably be expected to recognise that her status as transgendered is important to a significant demographic.

Another difference....I find heteronormative or cisnormative to be problematic. Not reasonable. I disagree that it is reasonable, simply typical. But just because it is typical does not mean that it is healthy or reasonable.

No, I want to remove them, you are assigning additional assumptions in such a way as to render one side a bigoted hateful little man. There are many reasons that could explain his reaction - and you have chosen in this thread at times to attempt to represent that anyone who would prefer not to sleep with someone who is transgendered is also such.

Again....I am saying complete omission to be more than a preference. There is more there that isn't being mentioned. I also think the anger and feelings of being misled come from a position of ignorance.

Yeah, I completely omit sleeping with people who wear adult diapers because they want people to baby them (other than for medical reasons for example). Its a preference, a strongly held one - I would prefer not to have sex at all than to have sex with someone wearing an adult diaper as a sign that they want to be pampered and waited on hand and foot or as some sort of parent relationship replacement etc.

Don't compare fetishes with gender identity. They're not the same thing.

No, we can - and DO - have provision, in every area of our lives that we can expect a reasonable person to be able to identify a certain set of things that are relevant to a particular decision. This is encoded in most western countries laws (in particular with regards to contract law) - included within our law system because it is a part of social contract.

At one time it was provisionary to beat one's wife, and considered normal and reasonable.

The idea that if a reasonable person could expect that ____ might effect your decision (and if they are party to that decision) has a responsibility to ensure that you are either aware of ____ or have sufficient reason to suspect it might be the case so as to confirm it. Particularly if that person has taken great efforts to conceal ______ as being the case.

Yeah, it does. So does most of society rest upon that word, since it is fundamental to how society functions in terms of norm development and social contract.

Should I assume you think cis-normative societies are reasonable and healthy?

 

[illykitty]

Should I assume you think cis-normative societies are reasonable and healthy?

On a social level, no. Equality is something I want to see too. They should have every rights other people have.

Sexually, everyone is free to do what they want. I personally value freedom of choosing sexual partners without being called names. If someone isn't turned on by a transsexual, they're not nessesairly bigoted or phobic.

I don't see why you make such a fuss about people not wanting to sleep with everyone. Is a straight person a homophobe and bigot if they don't want to have sex with the same gender? :sarcastic

 

[MysticSang'ha]

On a social level, no. Equality is something I want to see too. They should have every rights other people have.

Sexually, everyone is free to do what they want. I personally value freedom of choosing sexual partners without being called names. If someone isn't turned on by a transsexual, they're not nessesairly bigoted or phobic.

Not necessarily. But if they freak out upon discovering they DID, that's another story. I also see complete omission as something more than a simple preference.

I don't see why you make such a fuss about people not wanting to sleep with everyone. Is a straight person a homophobe and bigot if they don't want to have sex with the same gender? :sarcastic

That's what you get from my posts? Wow. I expected better from you, illykitty. I have been very specific about my criticisms of Tom's reaction and of the reactions of the supporters of his anger.

Orientation is not a preference. Neither is gender identity. A straight person is not a bigot for not wanting to sleep with a person of the same sex, but a straight person IS a homophobic bigot if they freak out because a person of the same gender is attracted to them or coming on to them.

I make a fuss over people thinking that it's okay to deny transgendered people the right to enjoy a sex life. Or that it's okay to expect transgendered people to expect that hardly anybody wants to have sex with them. Absolutely I will make a fuss over that. To translate that into me suggesting everybody should sleep with everybody is more than inaccurate. It's shockingly crude.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What if the reason is ..I personally prefer not to have sex with a woman who's vagina was made out of a penis.Rather than it being about an "imaginary penis" but her penis(and scrotum) has been made to look like and function as a vagina/clitoris and labia and that is a mental turn off.There is no ignorance involved its fully understood.

All the penis, scrotum, and testicles are all the vagina, labia, and ovaries masculined and pushed outwards. Function and structure are really the only differences. And in the case of transwomen, surgical results more-or-less look more-or-less any other woman's vagina, and there are even many gynecologist that cannot tell the difference.

The next time you buy a car make sure it comes with all the parts inside.
The seller has no reason to assume you want one with all of them, because not all people do.

The one time I did buy a car, about nine years ago, I did check it inside-and-out, listened to the engine, test drove it, and made sure there was nothing to reasonably expect before I even considered buying. I doubt I skip an examination when the time comes to get a new car.

The better analogy would be is you ran out on a whim and bought a car that you assumed was new just by its outside appearance....and you liked the price(it was very low for that model new) and took it..you drove it around for a while and it got you where you needed to go. Then you found out the engine was a rebuild and you would not have bought the car at all had you known it wasn't a new engine.But you aren't mad at yourself at all..only very angry that the person you bought it from should have known you would have never bought a car with a rebuilt engine.

Except a rebuilt engine is a rebuilt engine, and Shirley is still Shirley, the only thing that changed was Tom's opinion of her. And because there is no real definition of man and woman, male and female, that will equally apply to all and fit every category without deeply hurting and offending people who have otherwise always been considered their gender and as-far-as-they-know their sex, then the only reason Tom had a problem is because he no longer saw Shirley as a woman. The only reason Tom was upset about is because of his own insecurities and problems. He believes Shirley isn't a woman, which isn't true because Shirley lives as, is treated as, and apparently passes very well as female. He believes it's his right to know and he feels violated, but any definition of what is and what isn't a woman is arbitrary and about as accurate as trying to categorize people into race. Sure some women look and and different, and may have some things very different about them than others, but they are all still women.

I agree that for most people such information is unnecessary, but given a significant number of people DO find it important enough tht it could have impact on their decision - she can reasonably be expected to know it is important to others and thus did not give sufficient information - she should have sounded him out to determine what his position might have been - given I assume she did not want to simply reveal the information, she should have attempted to determine if he was one of those for whom this characteristic (which she had done her best to conceal) is relevant to their decision.

So? Some people have a problem even sharing air with transsexuals. Obviously that one is clearly and more obviously hateful, but why should "I'm not sleeping with her because she isn't a real woman" be acceptable when he has probably slept with other women who will fail to fit into any other given definition he can use. A girl with AIS? Maybe. A woman with unusually high testosterone? Perhaps. An intersexed woman assigned female at birth? It can happen. A woman who can't conceive? That too may have happened.
The only problem I see is that society largely does not see transwomen as women (many say they do, but even racist people can point out their "friends of color").

He is right to feel angry that he was deceived - in part by his reasonable (given transgender population sizes) expectations and in part by her significant and sustained efforts to conceal the truth of her original gender. He is not right to feel angry at her gender or transgender status, but it is entirely appropriate to feel anger at her conduct.

He had sex with someone he didn't know. Why should he be angry at anyone other than himself? If you play with a snake and get bit, do you get angry at the snake?

Which is a relatively common viewpoint, something she is no doubt aware of and thus can reasonably be expected to recognise that her status as transgendered is important to a significant demographic.

Other than for survival, why should I care if people may-or-may-not have a problem with my gender? And if I am expected to yield when it comes to sex, then what else should I have to yield on because someone may have a problem? Many parents have demanded their child's transsexual teacher be removed. Because they have a concern should there demands be granted? Some people are concerned about transsexuals using the restroom they identify with. Some people are even concerned about transsexuals using dressing rooms of the sex they identify as (Alot of times I do my shopping based on company policy to save myself the hassle).
To put in better perspective, Tom's little hissy-fit is nothing more than one of the million ways society does not accept transwomen as women. And always because someone has a concern that we have über-cooties, we are expected to admit we are not women because someone's feelings got hurt.

No, I want to remove them, you are assigning additional assumptions in such a way as to render one side a bigoted hateful little man. There are many reasons that could explain his reaction - and you have chosen in this thread at times to attempt to represent that anyone who would prefer not to sleep with someone who is transgendered is also such.

And the reason is because Tom saw Shirley as a woman, and then blatantly refused to see her as a woman once he learned of her past.

Yeah, I completely omit sleeping with people who wear adult diapers because they want people to baby them (other than for medical reasons for example). Its a preference, a strongly held one - I would prefer not to have sex at all than to have sex with someone wearing an adult diaper as a sign that they want to be pampered and waited on hand and foot or as some sort of parent relationship replacement etc.

That is a valid reason though that does not revolve around subjective opinion.


Another comparable issue, is that because a few are Biblical literalist and overly zealous about it, and because many people have an issue with those sort of people, should I go about mentioning it to others, even though I no longer act like it, except for knew me then no one would guess that part of my past, and for the most part I really don't think about it unless it comes up in conversation because I have not identified as a Baptist/Christian for about a decade now.

 

[DallasApple]

I also see complete omission as something more than a simple preference.

I don't.I simply have omitted ever sleeping with my same sex.That is "simply' a preference.(and yes I tried it first).I am not a bigot or a homophobe because I have omitted having sex with my same sex.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I don't.I simply have omitted ever sleeping with my same sex.That is "simply' a preference.(and yes I tried it first).I am not a bigot or a homophobe because I have omitted having sex with my same sex.

It's more than a preference. It's an orientation.

If I have sex with a lesbian woman who wanted to have sex with me, we are acting within our orientation.

But if a lesbian woman freaks out because later on she discovers I'm bisexual, that's not a preference. If she tells me that I should have told her that I'm not "really" a lesbian, I would call her out for being biphobic.

You are not acting out of a preference. You are acting with your orientation if you are straight and only sleep with men. This is entirely different than gender identity.

 

[illykitty]

That's what you get from my posts? Wow. I expected better from you, illykitty.

I make a fuss over people thinking that it's okay to deny transgendered people the right to enjoy a sex life. Or that it's okay to expect transgendered people to expect that hardly anybody wants to have sex with them. Absolutely I will make a fuss over that. To translate that into me suggesting everybody should sleep with everybody is more than inaccurate. It's shockingly crude.

You made it sound as if someone who doesn't want to have sex with trangendered people are bigoted and phobic. That's what I got from your posts. I'm so sorry I didn't reach your expectations.

I don't oppose trangendered to have an enjoyable sex life (I don't think anyone did), but you can't force people to desire them. That's not how it works. I expect plenty of people would desire them if there was no stigma. But also there are some that wouldn't and from the impression of your posts it doesn't seem like you would accept that.

 

[DallasApple]

All the penis, scrotum, and testicles are all the vagina, labia, and ovaries masculined and pushed outwards. Function and structure are really the only differences. And in the case of transwomen, surgical results more-or-less look more-or-less any other woman's vagina, and there are even many gynecologist that cannot tell the difference.

You can phrase it however you want.If its all the same ..trans would never change their penis and scrotum into a vagina clitoris and labia if it was female to begin with.Having said that its none of my business if that's how you view female anatomy as anatomy never masculinized and just never pushed outward..I would be a male never fully formed I suppose.An incomplete male.Or is what you are saying is all men are females that just "pushed forward" to physically be males..???

 

[DallasApple]

You are not acting out of a preference.

Yes you are .Your are acting out of your preference beyond just physical bits.If I had sex with a man and I enjoyed it..then later I found out he was my biological father and freaked out..am I a bigot?