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

[MysticSang'ha]

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

Oh the irony. LOL

A large percentage of the population regards her differently than other people. So different, in fact, that the assertion is that she ought to know better than to assume that people see her as normal as the rest of the population. So different, in fact, that she should be obligated to give this so-called vital piece of information so that the vast majority of people won't feel duped by what they thought was a cis-gendered person.

You don't call that a person who sees Shirley as someone who must see herself as a sexual deviant? Someone not as "normal" as everybody else? You yourself have mentioned repeatedly that it doesn't matter what the science says about gender determination....YOU called a CAIS female not a female.

I also have been told that I'm calling somebody a bigot because a straight person doesn't want to sleep with a member of the same sex. I have never said that, nor implied it. I have repeatedly stated my opinion about Tom's reaction regarding the OP. 'Tis a shame that even though I directed dozens of pages toward Tom's phobia and bigotry, that folks would like to think I'm directing an insult at them personally.

So forgive me if I have to laugh at your accusation about distortion. I find it hilarious. I was having a pretty rough day so far, but this gave me the belly laugh I need. Thanks!!

 

[Poeticus]

I was having a pretty rough day so far.

I would have comforted you. But, you got your kids and your hubby.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

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?

Ahh I see what you are referring to now. No I am not saying because a large number of people think X therefore it is so. What I am saying is that because a large number of people think X therefore some person can reasonably be suspected of being one of those individuals who believe X. My reference to population size and reasonableness is about the prevalence rather than robustness.

It is prevalence which is important in terms of her having reasonable basis to suspect that it might be relevant to a partner; it is also the LACK of prevalence which makes assuming that she is not transgendered a reasonable assumption. Prevalance - that is also why I mentioned (in my first post I believe) that factors such as where they met might be important in terms of establishing the demographics of the particular population segments involved. For example were this to have occurred in a more conservative area of the city one could draw reasonable assumptions that the preferences would be more conservative with regards to cis-gender, on the other hand were it to have occurred in an extremely liberal demographic area and in particular in a area of the city known for its acceptance and embracing of diversity, then it would be reasonable to assume a more inclusive set of likely preferences. Or depending on who introduced them eg if their friend was a rather flamboyant queen, or they had several gay friends etc, then one can reasonably assume them to have less likelihood of having a cis-normative perspective and related sexual preferences.

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.

Her transgender status isnt deviant in the slightest IMO.

However for the purposes of this discussion I have assumed that she is a 'reasonable person', as such, she should be able to recognise as you have done in an earlier post - that a not insignificant number of people are cis-normative with regards to their sexual preferences. Therefore, as a reasonable person, she should be able to recognise that to these individuals her transgender status is a relevant factor for consideration in developing their informed consent. By withholding information she has sufficient reason to recognise as being pertinent she has acted to limit his informed consent. Now of itself I might consider this troubling but not so problematic, were it not for the fact that in becoming transgender she has acted to conceal evidence of her former life in order to be reborn into her new life, this concealing of as many vestiges as possible seems to compound the act of withholding information because it detracts from his capacity to gather information that would indicate that making an inquiry as to her transgender status might be warranted (given his preferences) - i.e. her efforts to do away with the person she used to be has resulted in doing her best to minimise his chances of recognising that his preferences may apply in this case.

This deceit is the deviance, not her gender but her actions to limit his informed consent.





BTW as a side note for those inclined to suggest Tom should have checked his potential partners: What would be your reaction to being asked by a potential partner if you were transgendered?

 

[DallasApple]

It is prevalence which is important in terms of her having reasonable basis to suspect that it might be relevant to a partner; it is also the LACK of prevalence which makes assuming that she is not transgendered a reasonable assumption.

I think that's called "logic".

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ahh I see what you are referring to now. No I am not saying because a large number of people think X therefore it is so. What I am saying is that because a large number of people think X therefore some person can reasonably be suspected of being one of those individuals who believe X. My reference to population size and reasonableness is about the prevalence rather than robustness.

It is prevalence which is important in terms of her having reasonable basis to suspect that it might be relevant to a partner; it is also the LACK of prevalence which makes assuming that she is not transgendered a reasonable assumption. Prevalance - that is also why I mentioned (in my first post I believe) that factors such as where they met might be important in terms of establishing the demographics of the particular population segments involved. For example were this to have occurred in a more conservative area of the city one could draw reasonable assumptions that the preferences would be more conservative with regards to cis-gender, on the other hand were it to have occurred in an extremely liberal demographic area and in particular in a area of the city known for its acceptance and embracing of diversity, then it would be reasonable to assume a more inclusive set of likely preferences. Or depending on who introduced them eg if their friend was a rather flamboyant queen, or they had several gay friends etc, then one can reasonably assume them to have less likelihood of having a cis-normative perspective and related sexual preferences.

Her transgender status isnt deviant in the slightest IMO.

However for the purposes of this discussion I have assumed that she is a 'reasonable person', as such, she should be able to recognise as you have done in an earlier post - that a not insignificant number of people are cis-normative with regards to their sexual preferences. Therefore, as a reasonable person, she should be able to recognise that to these individuals her transgender status is a relevant factor for consideration in developing their informed consent. By withholding information she has sufficient reason to recognise as being pertinent she has acted to limit his informed consent. Now of itself I might consider this troubling but not so problematic, were it not for the fact that in becoming transgender she has acted to conceal evidence of her former life in order to be reborn into her new life, this concealing of as many vestiges as possible seems to compound the act of withholding information because it detracts from his capacity to gather information that would indicate that making an inquiry as to her transgender status might be warranted (given his preferences) - i.e. her efforts to do away with the person she used to be has resulted in doing her best to minimise his chances of recognising that his preferences may apply in this case.

As much as I see where you're coming from, ethically I don't think it's the right thing to do just because the populace lives in a cis-normative society.

This deceit is the deviance, not her gender but her actions to limit his informed consent.

You call it deceitful. I call it living her life. You call it a significant detail based on how popular cis-normative perspectives are. I call it a mark of an unhealthy society.

BTW as a side note for those inclined to suggest Tom should have checked his potential partners: What would be your reaction to being asked by a potential partner if you were transgendered?

"Nope."

Realize you're talking to a polyamorous bisexual woman who also has a BDSM fetish and is in an open marriage.

 

[DallasApple]

Her transgender status isnt deviant in the slightest IMO.

I don't think so at all either.And I think some of the terminology used to attach what someone considers a trans female soley based on not wanting to have sex with them offensive. Definately presumptuous..

I asked my 23 year old son today the question.If you knew that a woman was "transexual" and I gave him the details including fully medically resigned having the surgery to have the penis turned into a functional vagina .(which he already knows about but i wanted to be clear ).If he would enter into a sexual relationship with her.He didn't answer immediately he thought for a second or two and said "probably not".I asked him why.He had trouble putting words to it but in a nutshell it ended up him saying "the same reason I would not be interested in having a 4 some".He said the same reason I wouldn't be interested in role playing.

I said O.K..do you realize to some that makes you an irrational transphobic bigot that doesn't even see transexuals as people at all? He said "how a am I a bigot"?I said I don't know but apparently you are.AND you must consider trans sexuals as deviants too because you wouldn't agree to sex with them.He said well then that makes me a bigot that I am not attracted to red heads..(see its preference BUT an "in knowledge of) .

My "experiment' with a young open minded male who is NOT "bigoted" against trans sexuals his reason was sexual "preference".Same as he is not attracted to red heads.He admitted it was in the mind.But despite that didn't feel like it was any more bigoted than not being attracted to red heads.I think he does not consider trans females as "real females"

He said a "bigot" is different than sexual preference.But he also mentioned the "psychological" aspects of being with a trans sexaul as to the process they went through to "transform" into a female.

So I told my 23 year old son..that would give the shirt off his back to someone in need.Who respects all people...who is intelligent and himself suffers depression ...badly actually ..that he is a bigot who hates trans sexuals who by his words is saying they need to know what their place is..he doesn't even consider they are human beings at all and he has a phobia who thinks trans sexuals are freaks ..because HE would not have sex with a trans sexual(actually I posed it as a relationship including sex) ..

 

[Poeticus]

I asked my 23 year old son today the question.If you knew that a woman was "transexual" and I gave him the details including fully medically resigned having the surgery to have the penis turned into a functional vagina .(which he already knows about but i wanted to be clear ).If he would enter into a sexual relationship with her.He didn't answer immediately he thought for a second or two and said "probably not".I asked him why.He had trouble putting words to it but in a nutshell it ended up him saying "the same reason I would not be interested in having a 4 some".He said the same reason I wouldn't be interested in role playing.

1. Go to a psychiatrist. Ask for an evaluation.
2. Go to a certified physician. Ask for an evaluation.
3. Go to a psychologist. Ask for an evaluation.
4. Go to a therapist. Ask for an evaluation.

If they say that you are not transphobic and that you are not a bigot, you won't even have to post in this thread anymore. You won't have to worry at all. You will have professional evaluations along with professional opinions that will ensure you on whether it is bigoted or not and whether it is transphobic or not. That will put this matter to rest, on whether you are transphobic or not and whether you are bigoted or not. I don't see how better it can get than this.

 

[Koldo]

Oh the irony. LOL

A large percentage of the population regards her differently than other people. So different, in fact, that the assertion is that she ought to know better than to assume that people see her as normal as the rest of the population. So different, in fact, that she should be obligated to give this so-called vital piece of information so that the vast majority of people won't feel duped by what they thought was a cis-gendered person.

She is normal. What is not normal about her?

You don't call that a person who sees Shirley as someone who must see herself as a sexual deviant? Someone not as "normal" as everybody else? You yourself have mentioned repeatedly that it doesn't matter what the science says about gender determination....YOU called a CAIS female not a female.

Shirley isn't a sexual deviant.
It is not that i don't care about what science says about gender determination. Actually, truth to be told, the CAIS part was never about gender.

I also have been told that I'm calling somebody a bigot because a straight person doesn't want to sleep with a member of the same sex. I have never said that, nor implied it. I have repeatedly stated my opinion about Tom's reaction regarding the OP. 'Tis a shame that even though I directed dozens of pages toward Tom's phobia and bigotry, that folks would like to think I'm directing an insult at them personally.

You haven't said that indeed.

So forgive me if I have to laugh at your accusation about distortion. I find it hilarious. I was having a pretty rough day so far, but this gave me the belly laugh I need. Thanks!!

You did distort what he said though. :sarcastic

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I don't think so at all either.And I think some of the terminology used to attach what someone considers a trans female soley based on not wanting to have sex with them offensive. Definately presumptuous..

I asked my 23 year old son today the question.If you knew that a woman was "transexual" and I gave him the details including fully medically resigned having the surgery to have the penis turned into a functional vagina .(which he already knows about but i wanted to be clear ).If he would enter into a sexual relationship with her.He didn't answer immediately he thought for a second or two and said "probably not".I asked him why.He had trouble putting words to it but in a nutshell it ended up him saying "the same reason I would not be interested in having a 4 some".He said the same reason I wouldn't be interested in role playing.

I said O.K..do you realize to some that makes you an irrational transphobic bigot that doesn't even see transexuals as people at all? He said "how a am I a bigot"?I said I don't know but apparently you are.AND you must consider trans sexuals as deviants too because you wouldn't agree to sex with them.He said well then that makes me a bigot that I am not attracted to red heads..(see its preference BUT an "in knowledge of) .

My "experiment' with a young open minded male who is NOT "bigoted" against trans sexuals his reason was sexual "preference".Same as he is not attracted to red heads.He admitted it was in the mind.But despite that didn't feel like it was any more bigoted than not being attracted to red heads.I think he does not consider trans females as "real females"

He said a "bigot" is different than sexual preference.But he also mentioned the "psychological" aspects of being with a trans sexaul as to the process they went through to "transform" into a female.

So I told my 23 year old son..that would give the shirt off his back to someone in need.Who respects all people...who is intelligent and himself suffers depression ...badly actually ..that he is a bigot who hates trans sexuals who by his words is saying they need to know what their place is..he doesn't even consider they are human beings at all and he has a phobia who thinks trans sexuals are freaks ..because HE would not have sex with a trans sexual(actually I posed it as a relationship including sex) ..

Conflate all you want, Dallas. Instead of actually engaging in conversation with me and asking me to clarify my position if you think I'm just going around calling everybody a bigot, go ahead and ask around to people you know. i can do the same and have informal surveys with people I know, who my daughter knows who are transgendered, and ask their opinions too about you and your statements.

I have stated repeatedly about Tom's anger and overreaction. I also have stated we live in a cis-normative society. We still live in a patriarchal and heteronormative society as well. There's biphobia and homophobia that still exists, and whether you think you see it or not, transphobia does exist.

You went through a long series of posts to try to defend the notion that a lot of guys don't want to have sex with a transgendered person. You went through how things just can't be shoved down your or anybody else's throats. You made it clear that it takes a while for change to occur. You brought up faulty analogies about a child being afraid of monsters, engaged in car analogies, and then decided to really stretch it by mistakenly equating orientation with a preference, and that I'm suggesting you're a bigot for not wanting to sleep with another woman if you're straight. It's a gross misrepresentation of my position, to which I have repeatedly corrected and explained.

My position has been consistent. I have addressed the OP and Tom's reaction and his anger. I argue that he is coming from a position of ignorance and phobia. If you think I'm insulting you or anybody else, screaming bigot (which I haven't in this thread), saying you're a bigot and she's a bigot and he's a bigot and everyone should just want to have sex with everybody.....then you're sorely mistaken.

Having a phobia doesn't make one a bad person.

Being ignorant of transgenderism doesn't make one a bad person.

A position of bigotry doesn't make one an evil person.

However....all this can be either exacerbated from defensiveness, or reversed through education.

Now, the likelihood of somebody being unknowing of cis-normative perspectives is what is being brought up here. Not that Dallas is just so bad and horrible. Not that people are just so closed minded to want to sleep with Shadow Wolf or anybody like her. I think if somebody is going to freak out and blame Shirley for not telling him she's transgendered, there's more to the story than a simple preference.

So, like I said earlier. You know better than anybody else how difficult it is as a woman living in a society with patriarchal hangovers. Put yourself in a transgendered shoes for a minute. Do you think you should have just as many rights and freedoms for sex and romance and one night stands as anybody else? Or do you think you as a transgendered person should watch what you say, and tip toe around somebody else's phobias? Especially on a one night stand?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

She is normal. What is not normal about her?

I think she's normal. I think she should have just as much freedom as Tom to engage in one night stands as he is. Tom didn't disclose that he would freak out over a transgendered sexual encounter. She should have to disclose that she's a transgendered woman.

Shirley isn't a sexual deviant.
It is not that i don't care about what science says about gender determination. Actually, truth to be told, the CAIS part was never about gender.

You said she wasn't a female.

You haven't said that indeed.

Correct.

You did distort what he said though. :sarcastic

Still looking to see how. But go on wit yo bad self.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Looks like this thread has been going in circles as it has for a while now, so I'll try to summarize my position and explain why I think that Tom is completely unjustified in acting the way he did.

• I think the argument that Shirley has an obligation to mention a detail about her medical history on a one-night stand when the other person didn't ask is rooted in the assumption that she should accommodate unjustified discrimination. As far as Tom is concerned, she's a woman: he doesn't notice anything suggesting otherwise, has sex with her, enjoys it, and isn't able to know that she's a transgender. But because he finds out about it later, the mere idea of her being a transgender freaks him out and he suddenly becomes "misled," "deceived," and "lied to"—not because being unaware of that detail harmed him or affected the experience in any way, but because he's apparently just grossed out by having sex with a transgendered person. That seems like being afraid of a concept rather than any actual, tangible consequence of a one-night stand with a transgender.

• If Tom got upset and freaked out because he believes he slept with a man, then there has to be a reason(s) for his thinking so. What makes him think Shirley is a man? And are whatever assumptions that make him think so correct or not? If not, then his fear is due to ignorance and subsequently results in bigotry and discrimination against transgendered people. Blaming Shirley for not revealing a medical detail instead of pointing out such ignorance on his part shows a clear anti-transgender bias, in my opinion.

• Finally, if Tom has standards for his sex partners that require him to know about their medical history, then why is he having one-night stands to begin with? It doesn't seem reasonable for him to expect that his standards are going to be met on one-night stands without even asking the person he's about to sleep with to make sure they meet said standards. Tom probably doesn't want to sleep with someone who has an STD, but he's running that risk when he has casual sex with someone he has just met at a party. If he doesn't mind putting himself at such a risk, then surely he should be able to handle something like finding out that the person he slept with is a transgender. But freaking out about the latter as if he was certain everything would perfectly go his way when he decided to have sex with a stranger just seems inconsistent and indicative of either bigotry or ignorance... or both.

At this point I believe I've explained my position as clearly as I can, so I don't think I can add much that I haven't already stated in previous posts.

 

[McBell]

Looks like this thread has been going in circles as it has for a while now, so I'll try to summarize my position and explain why I think that Tom is completely unjustified in acting the way he did..

Um...
You believe that Tom is "unjustified" in no longer approaching Shirley?

Later on, Tom learns through a mutual friend, John, that Shirley is in fact a transgender woman, and was assigned male gender at birth. After that, Tom is angry, and refuses to approach Shirley. He claims he feels "violated" and was was “deceived”, and it was “unethical”, because if he’d known she was trans, he would not have consented to intercourse.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Um...
You believe that Tom is "unjustified" in no longer approaching Shirley?

If I understand the OP correctly, "refusing to approach [Shirley]" refers to not having a relationship with her beyond the one-night stand. In that case, no, I wouldn't call personal preferences for long-term relationships "unjustified," as there are many possible factors that could be involved in said preferences that don't necessarily imply anything negative about the person.

 

[DallasApple]

1. Go to a psychiatrist. Ask for an evaluation.
2. Go to a certified physician. Ask for an evaluation.
3. Go to a psychologist. Ask for an evaluation.
4. Go to a therapist. Ask for an evaluation.

If they say that you are not transphobic and that you are not a bigot, you won't even have to post in this thread anymore. You won't have to worry at all. You will have professional evaluations along with professional opinions that will ensure you on whether it is bigoted or not and whether it is transphobic or not. That will put this matter to rest, on whether you are transphobic or not and whether you are bigoted or not. I don't see how better it can get than this.

They would probably tell me to stop going on forums and asking my kids if they would have sex with a transexual.

 

[Poeticus]

They would probably tell me to stop going on forums and asking my kids if they would have sex with a transexual.

To be honest, I believe they would actually say that you are not a transphobe...

 

[McBell]

If I understand the OP correctly, "refusing to approach [Shirley]" refers to not having a relationship with her beyond the one-night stand. In that case, no, I wouldn't call personal preferences for long-term relationships "unjustified," as there are many possible factors that could be involved in said preferences that don't necessarily imply anything negative about the person.

My confusion is with your saying his "actions" were unjustified and then presenting a list that addresses his feelings...

 

[DallasApple]

. Do you think you should have just as many rights and freedoms for sex and romance and one night stands as anybody else?

No Heather...because I do not believe having sex with someone one night stand or other wise is a 'right" to begin with.Its a priveledge.

 

[McBell]

No Heather...because I do not believe having sex with someone one night stand or other wise is a 'right" to begin with.Its a priveledge.

So you do not have the right to have sex?

 

[DallasApple]

To be honest, I believe they would actually say that you are not a transphobe...

Oh well..if I am at least transphobe and bigot doesn't mean Im a bad person.It may only mean I'm an ignorant retard.And I have ignorant retarted kids.

I guess me and my children are very very very nice bigots.Might even risk our lives to save a transexaul because that isnt in the equation of saving lives..life is life..BUT our bigotry shows that we prefer not to have sex with a transexual because we are stupid ignorant bigot tards who don't consider trans people, just deviants.

 

[Debater Slayer]

My confusion is with your saying his "actions" were unjustified and then presenting a list that addresses his feelings...

I think his actions mostly stem from his feelings, hence my addressing both together.