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

[DallasApple]

Oh and remember I enjoyed the sex..no one was hurt physically in fact we got it on big time and loved it..the only thing left ???? Is PSYCHOLOGICAL...So I must be phobic?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.

No, I have repeated myself many many times in this thread. You conflated my posts to fit a strawman fallacy.

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.

Bingo. You can't force people to desire anybody, but you can point out ignorance when it occurs.

But also there are some that wouldn't and from the impression of your posts it doesn't seem like you would accept that.

I have said this repeatedly:

If Tom was going to freak out as much as he would have, then it was up to him to make sure he never slept with a transgendered person.

Now...where did I say that everybody should want to sleep with everybody?

I have stated my opinion about Tom's reactions. And I have argued against the supporting stances concerning Tom's anger. I also argue that we live in a cis-normative society. One that assumes that transgendered people don't really exist, or wish they wouldn't exist in the bedroom.

So, I have to ask this then....since my posts about bigotry has been examined thoroughly now....what would you suggest is a good example of transphobia and bigotry when it comes to one night stands? If you think Tom's reaction isn't transphobic or rooted in bigotry...what would qualify?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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?

I beg to differ. My orientation is not a preference. Your orientation is not a simple preference. You don't just "prefer" who you are attracted to. My attraction to men and women is not the same as my preference for dark-haired people and masculine hands.

And, gender identity is not comparable to incest. Bad analogy.

 

[DallasApple]

O.K I am a homophobe BIGOT...because I choose off the bat to never have sex with a female again.I have a severe PHOBIA that I have ruled out ALL an any females as sexual partners..JUST because they are female..

So Im a homophobe bigot..that's fine ..not every one has to like me.And if it makes them feel better I would never have sex with them to call me a hater (which is what a bigot is) fine call me that.The thing is I don hate women.I love them.So I guess their loss if they want to smear me.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

O.K I am a homophobe BIGOT...because I choose off the bat to never have sex with a female again.I have a severe PHOBIA that I have ruled out ALL an any females as sexual partners..JUST because they are female..

So Im a homophobe bigot..that's fine ..not every one has to like me.And if it makes them feel better I would never have sex with them to call me a hater (which is what a bigot is) fine call me that.The thing is I don hate women.I love them.So I guess their loss if they want to smear me.

Very funny.

If you identify as a straight woman and who sleeps with men, you are not acting out of a preference. You are acting within your orientation as a straight woman. That isn't homophobia. That is not bigotry. But orientation =/= preference.

Orientation is also not the same thing as gender identity.

 

[illykitty]

So, I have to ask this then....since my posts about bigotry has been examined thoroughly now....what would you suggest is a good example of transphobia and bigotry when it comes to one night stands? If you think Tom's reaction isn't transphobic or rooted in bigotry...what would qualify?

If Tom was to deny her rights, say mean/hateful things, become violent and/or make fun of her that would be clear. So far, the only reaction is anger, nothing else.

To me, if anything, sounds like he's angry at himself for having a one night with someone he knew nothing about... And he's projecting that anger on Shirley because he doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions.

That's how I see it.

 

[McBell]

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

Tell you what, you go ahead and go with what you wanted me to say instead of what I did say.
Seems to be the only leg you have to stand on.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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..???

No, I'm saying it's all pretty much the same, only different functions and structures. Male and female genitalia both come from the same tissue. And when a male functions, the stuff is moved outwards. That's just how it is. It could also be spun that a man is an over-done female.

 

[Leftimies]

You do know the difference between sex and gender, right?

So are women, who are XY and born women, who were also born without a uterus not female?


I am well aware of that. However, this is about a one-night stand that didn't Tom ended up not liking after the fact. I am also well aware interracial relationships used to have pretty much the same attitude, but today it's becoming more and more common as fewer and fewer people care about it. Now had you had a relationship with someone outside of your race a few decades ago, chances were pretty good that other than you and your partner, not too many people were going to look upon it highly.


I agree with Tom was foolish, however I do not see one-night stands as shallow, it's just if you are going to have them you have to be ready for just about anything.

Ugh, you have to pardon me with that. The Finnish word 'sukupuoli' refers to both mental and physical. It messes my english definition up every now and then.




All in all, I see both parties as guilty for their miserable fates. Tom should've been more careful, and Shirley should've told. Because Tom wasn't careful, he got laid with someone he (for whatever reason) did not want. Because Shirley decided it was a brilliant idea to withdraw crucial information from a random dude, she got yelled at.

Both have weird idea of ethics: Tom got what he want, laid with a girl he found attractive, yet he gets hindsight rage. Shirley hid information from Tom to get what she wanted, a very selfish act - she should carry responsibility for it too.

Both did wrong. Both paid the price. Karma at works. What should've happened - in an ideal case - is that they went to two or three dates to eliminate certain risks. Shirley could've gotten a better picture of Tom and the other way around. If Tom turned out to be nice and liberal guy, she'd tell him and things would be OK. If Tom turned out to be less-than-nice, narrow minded guy, she'd tell him that things would not work out and stop it right there.

And no one felt betrayed or insulted. Now this is how adults handle things in civilized world. Not in bed after first date.

 

[Koldo]

Tell you what, you go ahead and go with what you wanted me to say instead of what I did say.
Seems to be the only leg you have to stand on.

...What?
It is your fault after all, isn't it?
Or, is it not?

 

[Koldo]

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.

I would do that with an used car too.
I don't need to do that with a brand new car though.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If Tom was to deny her rights, say mean/hateful things, become violent and/or make fun of her that would be clear. So far, the only reaction is anger, nothing else.

I disagree that if Tom kept his anger to himself that a phobia ceases to exist.

To me, if anything, sounds like he's angry at himself for having a one night with someone he knew nothing about... And he's projecting that anger on Shirley because he doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions.

That's how I see it.

Well, we agree on one thing.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

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.

I worded it deliberately, she has taken great efforts to reinvent herself, to be reborn. And in doing so she has done her best to disguise traces of what she once was. From her perspective perhaps 'the old her no longer exists' but it is something that is relevant to him and while she cannot be expected to know what is relevant to HIM, she can be expected to know that it is a relevant factor for a significant proportion of potential partners.

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.

And concealing the man that once was there, and of whom vestiges still lingers to an extent (at least genetically as well as in terms of her reproductive potential etc)

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.

This recognises that it is at least relatively common correct? That means that we can have a reasonable expectation that she is aware that this is something of importance to a large number of people. Thus she is withholding information she has good reason to believe might be pertinent.

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.

Yes, he was ignorant of the fact that she was transgendered, then he became aware of it and was angry about being misled in part because of his own preconceptions and assumptions and in part because she has intentionally looked to conceal evidence that she was born male and he would have good reason to believe that she was aware that a large proportion of people would find transgender to be a relevant factor that might affect their informed consent for sexual relations.

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

I never did - gender identity was not being compared - what I noted was that one person has a preference to have sex with people who are transgender, one who has a preference to NOT have sex with people who are transgender.

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

So get back to me when the government legislates or the judiciary rules that a person can NOT (edit I initially forgot the not lol) have a preference not to have sex with a transgender individual (as occurred to stop spousal abuse), as a result of shifting social norms. At the moment as you yourself noted, it is not uncommon for people to not desire to have sex with transgender indivudals, she can reasonably be expected to realise this and therefore know that it is a relevant peice of information.

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

TBH I do not know what you mean

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 sentence structure leaves me a little unclear what you are attempting to state, but basically yes he might have slept with such individuals in the past, he might be willing to have sex with them in the future or he might have a preference not to. I really do not know where you are going with this.

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").

I agree, a significant problem both for those people individually, their family and friends as well as indicative of limitations of current acceptance (and even merely tolerance) in society.

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?

I agree that casual sex is dangerous and in all honesty stupid; on the other hand, she has intentionally acted so as to limit his informed consent in an area she has sufficient reason to be aware is relevant to the decision whether or not to have sex to a relatively sizeable portion of society. There is no point getting angry with the snake, but there is good reason to get angry with the person who told you it was actually a well crafted sculpture - taking it out and demonstrating that it did not move and after when you touched it you were bitten.

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).

If you wish to engage with them in such a way that requires their informed consent - such as sex or some sort of contract which in some way relates to cis-gender etc (it is relatively difficult to suggest out of hand the scenarios that might apply but sex is certainly one), then you can be expected to act in such a way as to ensure that they are provided with sufficient opportunity to be informed in their development of consent. I fail to see how teaching might be such an area (unless perhaps it was with regards to some very specific areas, such as coaching pregnant ladies about what they could expect from labour - i.e. a very very narrow potential range of areas) as for toilets - given that vacating one's bowels is not exactly an interperasonal event that might require informed consent I simply do not see how it is relevant nor would it seem (at least as far as I can determine) reasonable for her to assume it might be.

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.

Tom's hissy fit is a preference not to have sex with transgender females, perhaps you have sexual preferences, perhaps you would prefer not to have sex with younger men, or older women, or people who smell, or people who cry in bed or... not everything is about transgender women being 'less'.

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

Actually, all we are told is that he didnt want to have sex with her again and that he did not approach her we are not told why, you have assumed it is because he is bigotted. It could be because he is confused over what happened and its implications, it could be because he is embarrassed by some aspect of how he treated her (not with regards to the sex neccessarily but anything about the situation), it could be because he is angry with her not for being transgendered but because she denied him the ability to give informed consent. Or, it could be that he is a bigot.

 

[McBell]

...What?
It is your fault after all, isn't it?
Or, is it not?

you're moving the goal posts around so much that even you have lost track...

 

[Koldo]

you're moving the goal posts around so much that even you have lost track...

What was the first goal post?
Entertain me.

 

[Poeticus]

The OP is nowhere to be seen. Especially not on this thread anymore.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I worded it deliberately, she has taken great efforts to reinvent herself, to be reborn. And in doing so she has done her best to disguise traces of what she once was. From her perspective perhaps 'the old her no longer exists' but it is something that is relevant to him and while she cannot be expected to know what is relevant to HIM, she can be expected to know that it is a relevant factor for a significant proportion of potential partners.

And concealing the man that once was there, and of whom vestiges still lingers to an extent (at least genetically as well as in terms of her reproductive potential etc)

This recognises that it is at least relatively common correct? That means that we can have a reasonable expectation that she is aware that this is something of importance to a large number of people. Thus she is withholding information she has good reason to believe might be pertinent.

Yes, he was ignorant of the fact that she was transgendered, then he became aware of it and was angry about being misled in part because of his own preconceptions and assumptions and in part because she has intentionally looked to conceal evidence that she was born male and he would have good reason to believe that she was aware that a large proportion of people would find transgender to be a relevant factor that might affect their informed consent for sexual relations.

I never did - gender identity was not being compared - what I noted was that one person has a preference to have sex with people who are transgender, one who has a preference to NOT have sex with people who are transgender.

So get back to me when the government legislates or the judiciary rules that a person can NOT (edit I initially forgot the not lol) have a preference not to have sex with a transgender individual (as occurred to stop spousal abuse), as a result of shifting social norms. At the moment as you yourself noted, it is not uncommon for people to not desire to have sex with transgender indivudals, she can reasonably be expected to realise this and therefore know that it is a relevant peice of information.

You keep injecting terms like "reasonable" "large proportion of the population". This is where you and I look to part ways. I don't see appeal to popularity or numbers as being a rational position to take. Just because a lot of people might see it a certain way doesn't make it right.

We ARE in the ethics and morals debate forum...are we not?

TBH I do not know what you mean

I bolded all of your carefully worded statements to show what you have repeated. And what I read from your carefully worded statements is that Shirley needs to know her place in a society that sees her as a deviant. And that according to your carefully worded statements...she shoulda act accordingly that she is a deviant and must carry the burden of responsibility for sexual encounters based on transphobia.

I asked you if - according to your bolded statements that I find evidence you agree that we live in a cis-normative society - that our society is healthy according to such standards.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The OP is nowhere to be seen. Especially not on this thread anymore.

Yeah. It's turned into a "Hey! Don't call me a big-monster-meanie-bigot! That's not fair and it's not nice!!!" kind of thread.

I commend you for the pillow fight. That was much more fun.

 

[Poeticus]

I commend you for the pillow fight. That was much more fun.

 

[Koldo]

And that according to your carefully worded statements...she shoulda act accordingly that she is a deviant and must carry the burden of responsibility for sexual encounters based on transphobia.

It is odd how you distort what he said. :sarcastic